JUNE 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
ITEM NO. 1
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2021 -00188,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021 -06121
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19177
Location: 1442 North Dale Avenue
Request: The applicant requests approval for an
18-unit, two -story, single -family attached
residential development with 10- percent of the
units affordable to moderate income buyers, with
an affordable housing development incentive, and
a density bonus. The request includes the
following land use entitlements: i) a conditional
use permit for a single -family attached residential
development with modified development
standards; and ii) a tentative tract map to
establish a 1- lot, 18- unit condominium
subdivision.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether a Class 32
(Infill Development) categorical exemption is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this
request under the California Environmental
Quality Act.
MOTION: White/Meeks
Approved continuance to a
date certain of July 6, 2022.
VOTE: 6-0
Chairperson Meeks,
Chairperson Pro-Tempore
Vadodaria and
Commissioners Heywood,
Kring,
Perez and White voted to
continue item. Motion
carried.
Project Planner:
Nick Taylor
[email protected]
Item 1 Audio
Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated June 6, 2022, and a visual presentation. The request is for a conditional use permit and Tentative Tract Map to construct an 18-unit townhome project with modified development standards.
Motion by Commissioner White to continue the item for 30-days to allow neighbors more time to gather more information.
Niki Wetzel, Deputy Director, explained that the public hearing has not been opened but the Planning Commission could continue the item if Commissioner White’s motion is seconded.
Chair Meeks seconded the motion but stated that she would like to allow for discussion and to verify that the developer is amenable to a continuance.
JUNE 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Senior Planner Taylor explained that from staff’s perspective, the project is not on a specific timeline from staff; however, he recommended inquiring with the developer regarding the proposed continuance.
Chris Segesman, Bonanni Development, stated that he has been working with city staff over eight months to make sure that all development standards are met. He noted he reached out to the Meredith Gill, Parkdale Homeowner’s Association (HOA) property manager and attended an HOA meeting to explain the project and answer questions.
Mr. Segesman stated that he would prefer to move forward with the process, but was open to a continuance.
Commissioner Perez recommended hearing the item and then making a decision to continue if the item if that is the Commission’s preference. Commissioner Vadodaria concurred and supports continuing the item.
Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney, noted that the motion is for a continuance to a date certain of July 6, 2022. She explained that the Commission could amend motion to open the public hearing to hear from the applicant and the public, with the understanding that the item will be continued for 30 days.
Commissioner Heywood recommended hearing from the community as to what they hope to accomplish with a 30-day continuance.
Commissioner Meeks withdrew her second and the motion failed. She directed staff to move forward with the presentation.
Senior Planner Taylor stated that the property is currently developed with a single-family home and accessory structures. The property is surrounded by the Parkdale townhome community on three sides. The property is located in the Transition zone and designated for Low Medium density residential land uses by the General Plan. The applicant proposes to construct an 18-unit townhome project using the RM-3 zone development standards. The project would be accessed from Dale Avenue on Pepper Tree Drive via an existing access easement through the Parkdale Community as shown. The northerly access easement would not be used for the proposed project.
Senior Planner Taylor explained the exterior design finishes and noted that with the exception of the entry driveway along Peppertree Drive, the entire project site would be enclosed by a six-foot tall, tan, concrete masonry wall along the western, southern, and eastern boundaries, and six-foot tall vinyl fencing along the northern boundary. He noted that the project would include a recreation-leisure area through a combination of common areas and private patios.
JUNE 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the property would be subject to the RM-3 zone development standards, which is the implementing zone for the Low Medium General Plan designation, and would not require a zone change.
Senior Planner Taylor explained that the applicant requests to modify the minimum required building-to building setbacks to 24-feet and to modify the minimum required landscape setback along a portion of the west property line, providing 3’-3” where 5-feet would be required.
He noted that the City Council has adopted a policy emphasizing the importance of affordable housing, and the applicant has proposed a 10-percent affordable housing project with two units affordable to moderate income buyers. Accordingly, the applicant has executed a Memorandum of Understanding with City staff, and the project would be conditioned to require the applicant to enter into a Density Bonus Housing Agreement with the City. Accordingly, state law provides for a 5% density bonus and one Tier One incentive for a 10-foot interior setback.
State law and the City’s Housing Incentives Ordinance allow reduced parking ratios for qualifying developments. 36 parking spaces are required for this affordable development and the project would provide five more spaces than required.
A tentative tract map is proposed to create a 1-lot condominium subdivision for the 18 “airspace” condominium units. All common areas, including driveways, recreational areas, paseos and sidewalks would be owned and maintained by the homeowner’s association. The proposed density of 19.4 dwelling units per acre is permitted under the proposed Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation with a 5% density bonus. In addition, the project does not conflict with easements acquired by the public and complies with all subdivision requirements.
In order to ensure adequate sound attenuation due to proximity to the freeway, staff is recommending the added condition as follows: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the developer shall provide a noise level analysis demonstrating compliance with the applicable municipal code noise levels.
Senior Planner Taylor explained the applicant’s community outreach efforts and referenced the summary provided by the applicant.
He explained that Staff has considered the proposed project and believes that it is designed in a manner that will provide a quality living environment for its future residents and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. In addition, the proposed project meets the goals of the General Plan to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs, and will provide two affordable housing units. He noted that Staff recommends approval of the proposed request.
JUNE 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Chair Meeks referenced the projects topography and asked if there would be an issue with the developer building a sound attenuation wall that could meet the City’s municipal code. Curtis Zacuto, EcoTierra Consulting, responded that he is not a noise specialist but from a CEQA perspective, he analyzed the projects impacts upon the environment, not the environments impact upon the project. Senior Planner Taylor clarified that there are interior noise levels in line with the uniform building code that the Developer would have to meet.
Chair Meeks opened the public hearing.
Chris Segesman, Bonanni Development, thanked Senior Planner Taylor for all his work on this project. He noted that the focus has always been on how to fit the project into this existing community and that is why there will only be two story townhome units instead of three story. Mr. Segeman discussed the outreach efforts provided and explained that based on input from the Parkdale Community; a block wall will be constructed and extra landscaping buffers and a four-way stop sign on Peppertree Drive will be installed. He stated he was available for questions.
Commissioner Kring noted that the Parkdale community is concerned about parking and future property owners not parking in their garages. She asked if there was a plan for oversized vehicles. Mr. Segesman noted parking and oversized vehicles will be addressed within the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He noted that there will be five additional parking spaces available.
Senior Planner Taylor noted that Condition 34 requires the incorporation into the CC&Rs that residents shall park in garages.
Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill asked if speakers at this meeting would be given another opportunity to speak at the continued hearing. Chair Meeks responded affirmatively.
Kelly Brogdan was concerned about noticing requirements, parking, believed the easement was abandoned, and disagreed with the plans for this development.
Dave Snowdon was concerned about the outreach efforts provided, parking, and an increase in Parkdale HOA dues for parking enforcement. He requested an 8-foot block wall, the removal of the abandoned septic tank and properly sealing the water well.
Christina Russo was concerned about parking. She requested that the Peppertree Drive alley not be turned into a two-way access point, installation of a four-way stop sign, installation of an 8-foot block wall, keeping all utility lines separate, and review of the trash collection.
JUNE 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Gregory Bird was concerned about parking and the project’s limited open space. He requested separate utility lines and that a penalty be enforced if future residents are not parking in their garages.
Ashish Modh was concerned about parking, the easement, traffic, and an increase in HOA fees for security and maintenance of the street.
Meredith Gill was concerned about parking and loitering at the vacant house. She stated that it will be a financial hardship for the HOA due to parking enforcement, patrolling common areas (greenbelt area, pool), new signs for parking and trespassing, and for the street easement maintenance. She also noted that the construction noise and dust will be an issue.
Ben Rosehart was concerned about parking, density, and entrance accessibilities. He recommended a second entrance be considered at the other easement location.
Ruben Meneses was concerned about additional traffic, parking, loitering, and littering.
Mina Mikhail was concerned about density, parking, easement maintenance, and trash overflow to their development because the new development will only have individual trash bins. He recommended an 8-foot wall.
Lilly Perez was concerned about density, parking, traffic, and stated the construction will be a nuisance.
Chairperson Meeks closed public comments for this meeting.
Chair Meeks asked if the sewer and water utilities would be connecting to private utilities.
Cesar Morales, Associate Engineer, clarified the Developer has easement and access rights to connect to the private utilities. He noted that there is a water line that is maintained and owned by the City of Buena Park. The Parkdale Townhomes are serviced by the City of Buena Park for sewer and water and the new development would also be serviced by the City of Buena Park.
Chair Meeks asked if the sewer easement specif ies that it is for a single -family home.
Associate Engineer Morales clarified that the easement only references access, ingress, utilities, sewer and the storm drain.
Chair Meeks asked if the capacity of the sewer line would be adequate for the new development. Associate Engineer Morales responded that the City of Buena Park provided a Water and Sewer “ Will Serve ” letter indicating that there is sufficient capacity.
JUNE 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Chair Meeks directed staff to confirm the capacity of the private sewer line.
Chair Meeks asked if the installation of a four-way stop sign is a condition of approval.
Rafael Cobian, City Traffic Engineer, responded affirmatively and referenced Condition
10. Chair Meeks encouraged the existing Parkdale Townhome residents to reconsider the 8-foot block wall request because they are typically not an attractive look for a neighborhood.
Chair Meeks asked staff to explain the project’s density and parking requirements.
Deputy Director Wetzel explained that the project provides for affordable housing and it exceeds the code requirement s for parking by five spaces. She stated that the site is located in the Transition “T” zone, and complies with L ow Medium Density Residential land use General Plan designation.
Commissioner Heywood asked if this project was currently zoned Low Medium Density Residential.
Deputy Director Wetzel responded that the General Plan designates the subject property for Low Medium Density land uses, and the property would be subject to the RM-3 Multiple -Family Residential zone development standards, which is the implementing zone for the Low Medium Density General Plan designation, and would not require a zoning reclassification.
Commissioner Heywood asked if the affordable housing units have an impact on the required number of parking spaces. Senior Planner Taylor responded affirmatively and noted that the City’s H ousing Incentive Ordinance allows for reduced parking ratios if a development is providing a minimum of 10% of the units for moderate- income households.
Commissioner Heywood asked if the project was going to be a gated community. Senior Planner Taylor responded that it is not.
Commissioner Heywood asked if the development is going to have an Electric Vehicle (EV) parking space or if an EV charging station was going to be installed. Senior Planner Taylor responded that the California Bui lding Code requires that the infrastructure for an EV space be provided, but he was not sure if the equipment had to be installed.
Commissioner Heywood asked if it was the intent of the developer to install an EV charging station. Mr. Segesman responded inaudibly.
JUNE 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Heywood referenced the aerial map and asked if the streets in the Parkdale Community were private or public and asked who maintains those streets.
Meredith Gill, Parkdale Community Homeowner’ Association Property Manager, responded that the streets are private and are maintained by the Parkdale Community HOA.
Commissioner Heywood asked if there is an agreement between the developer and Parkdale Community for a sharing street maintenance costs . Mr. Segesman responded that there is an easement for egress/ingress from Peppertree Drive and the alley by the 91 freeway . He noted that the current single- family residence has used the alley entrance but the proposed project will not because it does not meet the required width for emergency vehicles and could become a safety hazard for Parkdale Community residents backing out of their garages in the alley.
Commissioner Heywood asked if the Parkdale Community has an EV charging station.
Ms. Gill responded no and clarified that all townhomes are individually metered and it would be the responsibility of the individual homeowners to install an EV charging station.
Commissioner Heywood asked if the developer would have to come back to the Planning Commission to amend egress/ingress to the development through the alley by 91 freeway if the project is approved.
Senior Planner Taylor responded that it would be a significant change and a new application would have to be submitted for review and approval.
Commissioner Heywood was in support of a continuance.
Commissioner Kring asked if there would be a maintenance easement fee incurred by the project.
Mr. Segesman that the two homeowner associations would have to work that out because the new development will only have 1 8 units , and Parkdale Community has 160 units.
Commissioner Kring asked how Parkdale Community residents could be assured that new residents will park in their garages and that garages will now be turned into accessory dwelling units.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that the intent of C ondition 34 is that residents park vehicles in their garages. She clarified that t here is nothing that Staff can craft to JUNE 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
stop the State of California from changing accessory dwelling unit requirements.
However, staff can require a provision in the CC&Rs requiring residents to park vehicles in their garages. The CC&Rs are a private agreement between the HOA and future residents to which they will privately contractually commit themselves to not using garages as an accessory dwelling unit but to using it for parking. Additionally, there is a provision requiring that CC&Rs be reviewed and approved by Planning, Public Works and the City Attorney’s Office . There is also a provision requiring that proposed amendments to the CC&Rs be submitted for review prior to the amendment being valid.
Commissioner White asked how trash pick-up is anticipated for the project. Senior Planner Taylor responded that each unit would have individual bins . He noted a staging plan was approved by Public Works.
Commissioner White asked what the moderate income limits are for the affordable units for a family of three or four.
Senior Planner Taylor deferred to the Housing and Community Development Department.
Andy Nogal, Deputy Director, responded that the income limits for a family of three is $96,000 and $107,000 for a family of four.
Commissioner Perez asked if the single-family home was built before the Peppertree Community.
Senior Planner Taylor responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Perez asked if the original access for the single -family home was through the alley (north access).
Senior Planner Taylor responded that the existing s ingle-family home preexisted the Parkdale Community and access has been through t he alley. He clarified that t he property was subdivided for development of the Parkdale C ommunity and at that time, the access easements were provided to maintain access to the site (at the northerly alley and Peppertree Drive).
Commissioner Perez asked how the Parkdale Community HOA and proposed project HOA would address maintenance of the easement.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that this is a land use decision and the Planning Commission is only reviewing conformance of the project with the Zoning, General Plan and the City standards. She recommended against the Planning Commission getting into the private financing of private property.
JUNE 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Heywood asked where the four -way stop would be located. Senior Planner Taylor referenced the aerial map and pointed at the proposed location.
Chair Meeks stated that in a perfect world both Homeowner Associations would work together to come up with reasonable terms.
Commissioner White moved, seconded by Chair Meeks, to continue the Public Hearing to a date certain of July 6, 2022. Motion carried 6-0.
OPPOSITION: 10 persons spoke in opposition to the subject request.
IN GENERAL: 0 persons spoke in favor of the subject request.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour 26 minutes (5:09 p.m. to 6:35 p.m.)