JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
ITEM NO. 1 (Continued from June 6, 2022)
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 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 to find the project
Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32
(Infill Development)
Resolution No. PC2022-
068
Resolution No. PC2022-
069
MOTION: Perez, Kring
Approved with added
conditions of approval to: (i)
Require that the TTM depict
location of the easements for
ingress/egress, vehicular
access, sewer, public utilities,
and incidental purposes
described in the easement
legal rights as depicted on the
encumbrance map, and
include provisions ensuring
the perpetual maintenance of
those easements; (ii) Require
compliance with South Coast
AQMD rules to minimize
construction emissions of dust
particulates; and (iii) Require
owner/developer to repave
portions of private roadway
within the Parkdale HOA
community that are used
during construction activity.
VOTE: 6-1
Chairperson Meeks and
Commissioners Vadodaria,
Kring, Perez, Heywood
and Mouawad voted yes.
Commissioner White voted
no.
Project Planner:
Nick Taylor
[email protected]
Chairperson Meeks, prior to opening the public hearing, asked the Commission if they had any disclosures to make.
Commissioner Heywood stated he received an email and written communication from a resident. Chair Meeks, and Commissioners Perez, Kring and Heywood stated they had each received a phone call from a resident today. Commissioner White stated he met JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
with a resident and the HOA for Item 1, as well as numerous communications from Kelly Brogdan.
Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated July 6, 2022, and a visual presentation. The request is for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to construct an 18-unit townhome project with modified development standards. This item was presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 6, 2022. The Chair opened the public hearing and received testimony from the project applicant and members of the public.
The proposed project meets the density permitted within the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation, with the application of a five percent density bonus allowed per State Law. The designation permits a maximum of up to 18 units per acre.
The proposed project would provide 10 percent of the units as moderate-income households. Based on the proposed level of affordability, an additional 2 dwelling units (or 19.4 dwelling units per acre) are allowed.
The applicant has prepared a noise study demonstrating compliance with Code standards related to development within close proximity to a highway. Average outdoor noise would be 63 decibels where up to 65 decibels would be allowed for outdoor common areas. Interior noise levels would be reduced to less than the permitted 45 decibels with the incorporation of insulated windows as required by the California Building Code (CBC).
The perimeter wall was discussed, Code allows up to an 8-foot tall wall, although a wall is not required when separating multiple-family residential zones. Staff supports any height of wall 8-feet or less in compliance with Code. A 6-foot wall was originally proposed. The applicant has had recent discussions with the surrounding Homeowner’s Association (HOA) regarding the wall and more information may be available from those parties.
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. The City does not have the authority to require additional parking spaces; however, staff has recommended a condition of approval requiring residents to use designated parking spaces only for the parking of vehicles. Further, the applicant has revised the CUP Justification Letter to include language for the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to address parking rules.
The applicant has provided a sewer study to Public Works demonstrating that there would be adequate capacity to serve the new development within the private sewer mainline. The applicant has also provided written confirmation from the City of Buena Park that there is capacity within the public sewer mainline serving this development.
The project has been designed to include trash bins that will be stored in the garages of the units and serviced by a truck that can circulate within the community. There would JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
also be a designated area for bulky item pickup. Public Works Streets & Sanitation staff have approved the proposal.
At the prior hearing, the City Attorney opined that the Planning Commission should not weigh-in on private financing related to private parties. The applicant intends to engage in additional discussions with the Parkdale HOA regarding this matter to find an agreeable solution between the two parties. The applicant has provided an updated letter regarding outreach efforts that have occurred since the first public hearing.
In regards to the Housing Accountability Act: should the Planning Commission decide to deny the project or require development at lesser density, it must make written findings pursuant to the text shown on screen, citing a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions, as prescribed by State Law in the Housing Accountability Act.
Staff’s recommendation remains the same in regards to 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. Staff recommends approval of the proposed request.
Commissioner White noted how near the project is to the freeway, approximately 500 feet from the edge of the freeway. He noted that Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) made recommendations not to build residential in that close a proximity, and if residences were built to require substantial upgrade in ventilation.
Commissioner White asked Senior Planner Taylor if these were included in the project.
Senior Planner Taylor responded that a noise analysis had been prepared since the prior hearing, it is included as an attachment to the staff report, and it identified that it would be within the City’s municipal code requirement regarding proximity to a highway and it would meet those thresholds.
Commissioner White stated he was not concerned with noise but with air quality and issues like that. Senior Planner Taylor responded that the project is subject to California Building Code and complies with ventilation openings and HVAC requirements. There is nothing additional identified in the City’s municipal code other than the project plan check required by State building code requirements.
Commissioner White asked to confirm that there was nothing added to meet SCAG recommendations. Senior planner Taylor stated he was unaware of SCAG recommendations.
Niki Wetzel, Deputy Director, stated that the City does not have regulations relating to air quality exposure for residences in proximity to freeways. As to whether or not there JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
are enhanced filtration systems or anything of that nature, the applicant would have to answer.
Commissioner Perez asked if public notice letters were sent to any residents of Buena Park, since the property is essentially across the street from the city of Buena Park.
Senior Planner Taylor responded that the public hearing notice was distributed to all residents within a 500-foot radius. Scott Koehm, Principal Planner, confirmed that the public hearing notices were sent to residents in Buena Park and notices were extended beyond city boundaries.
Chair Meeks opened the public hearing.
Chris Segesman, Bonanni Development, introduced himself and Civil Engineer Dave Bacon, Marcus Padilla, and Lead Architect Eric Scott. Mr. Segesman began a visual presentation and summary of the project.
Mr. Segesman stated that their number one concern was community outreach. He approached some residents and contacted Meredith Gill, Property Manager of Parkdale HOA, to discuss the project. The developer has held several community meetings; three meetings on site, three zoom meetings, and on January 24 – 25 had continued e-mail correspondence with Ms. Gill and asked if the residents had any further questions. Ms.
Gill attended regular Parkdale HOA Board meetings and stated to Mr. Segesman that they had no further questions.
Mr. Segesman stated the developer has been transparent with the community, they have answered any questions and provided documentation. At the last Planning Commission meeting on June 6, the Commission asked Bonanni Development staff to reach out to the Parkdale Community. A zoom meeting was held on June 29.
Approximately 12 people attended, 3 from Bonanni Development and the rest from the Parkdale community. The meeting started at 6pm and lasted approximately 1 hour. The most important topics that continue to come up are parking, the block wall and the easement maintenance agreement.
The parking issue has been addressed with additional verbiage in the CC&R’s. In regards to the block wall, Bonanni supports anything 8 feet or less. The Commission discussion tonight will determine if it will be a 3, 6 or 8-foot wall.
Regarding the easement maintenance agreement, the developer is committed to future discussions to find a reasonable and agreeable solution with the Parkdale HOA regarding the sewer and the ingress/egress.
The parking requirements added to the CC&Rs include requiring garages be used for parking only, and are subject to quarterly inspections by the HOA. In addition, there is added verbiage prohibiting large vehicles such as trailers and trucks, and a 48-hour parking limit on the five extra spaces.
JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
In October of 2021, the Parcel B and C easement legal rights were provided to the Parkdale HOA and their lawyer, which states: An easement for ingress, egress, vehicular access, sewer, and public utilities and for incidental purposes over a portion of the west half, etc. An encumbrance map, put together by Civil Engineer Dave Bacon, was also provided to the Parkdale HOA.
When the Parkdale Community was constructed and sold, and when Westfield Development bought the existing community from the owner of the current property, they did install a sewer lateral. It was always intended for Parcel A to be a part of the sewer system of the Parkdale Community, which also lends itself to the easement rights that were in place when the surrounding property was sold. The applicant is proposing not to tap into this existing lateral. The current owner decided to maintain the septic system in place, and did not tap into the existing sewer lateral. The applicant is proposing only to tap into it down the stream, where the ingress/egress is to the development with the same sewer line that has a lateral going to the new development.
Lastly, the developer has provided three options to the Parkdale HOA for the block wall:
the first being a three foot block wall along Peppertree Drive, which will lend itself well to the existing development. After the first meeting, the Parkdale community requested a 6-foot block wall. At the most recent meeting, some members of the Parkdale community requested an 8-foot block wall.
There is currently one existing stop sign on Peppertree Drive, the applicant is requesting three additional stop signs be put in. This is for safety reasons and vehicle access for both the new and existing residents.
Some project highlights: this project conforms to the general plan zoning at 18 dwelling units per acre, same as the surrounding community. The intent of the developer has always been to design a community that will fit into the surrounding community. The developer has chosen to go with two-story townhomes, instead of three-story, to conform to the general plan. The project exceeds the required parking by five spaces.
This project brings new additional housing for Anaheim residents, including two affordable units adding to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers.
Although the developer cannot resolve current issues the Parkdale community has, that were approved a long time ago before parking standards were in place, they can make sure the new community is managed and regulated through the CC&Rs and HOA. The developer has also done extensive community outreach for the last year.
Jack Bailey, resident of Parkdale, was concerned about easement maintenance. Mr.
Bailey asked the Commission to hold off on approval of this project until there is a written agreement between the Parkdale community and the new community to ensure that the new community will cover their portion of any future repair costs. He stated that once Commission approval is given and construction begins, the Parkdale community will have no leverage to force the developer to pay their portion of repair costs for roads, pavements, etc.
JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Gregory Bird, resident of Parkdale, was concerned that after project approval is obtained, Parkdale residents will not have any leverage to reach an agreement with the applicant regarding easement maintenance. He was in support of a sub-homeowners association.
Lauren Bird, resident of Parkdale, asked the Commission to consider the current residents and help this not become an antagonistic environment, as it is currently set out to be. Mrs. Bird asked the Commission to consider the proposal to make the new association a sub-association of Parkdale, or having solutions in writing before the project is approved.
Laura Wilson, resident of Parkdale, was concerned about easement maintenance and increased sewer usage because she has experienced a sewer issues.
Meredith Gill, Property Manager for Parkdale Townhomes, read from her e-mail to the Commission on July 6, 2022. The email referenced the developer’s public outreach efforts, including the Parkdale Community’s requests for a flow meter test, a written maintenance agreement for the shared easement, and the need for an 8-foot perimeter wall as to completely separate the two properties as a clear understanding they are not shared communities.
Chair Meeks closed the Public Hearing.
Chair Meeks stated that the developer has a legal right to develop the property and there is state law that governs the amount of parking that shall be provided for the type of development proposed. Regarding the maintenance of the easement, she noted that it is within the Planning Commission’s purview to condition that the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) outline a maintenance plan for the utilities and street.
Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that there are two records of easement for ingress and egress. She explained that the Planning Commission could impose a condition that prior to recordation of the Tract Map, easements must provide for maintenance of the road. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill cautioned the Planning Commission regarding adopting a condition requiring third parties to agree to a specific share of the maintenance. She explained that if the parties could not agree, they can pursue a declaration from the court as to how that is apportioned between the two interests at hand.
Chair Meeks recommended a condition to impose a maintenance obligation on the easements and utilities that are being utilized for the new development.
Commissioner Perez asked if the sewer line would be included in the maintenance plan.
JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill explained that the easements affect ingress, egress, vehicular access, sewer, and public utilities.
Commissioner Vadodaria noted there will be increased traffic, and asked how much of a maintenance impact that would have on the street.
Rafael Cobian, City Traffic Engineer, explained that it is hard to quantify what the impact would be to the roadway.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill reiterated that the maintenance impact of this development is a private matter between the easement holder and the estate.
Commissioner White believed that the concerns of the Parkdale Community could have been addressed had the developer looked into forming a subassociation. He was concerned about the projects proximity to the freeway and was not in support of the project.
Commissioner Heywood stated that the project will have an impact on current residents in terms of quality of life, specifically during the construction process. He asked if there is a Municipal Code requiring the developer to mitigate dust during construction.
Scott Koehm, Principal Planner, explained that this project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 32 – In-Fill Development.
However, the project is subject to South Coast Air Quality Management District mitigation measures.
Commissioner Heywood asked if the developer would be opening a sales office and asked how traffic would be mitigated for that.
Chris Segesman, Bonanni Development, stated that he does not anticipate having a model home complex for this project or opening a sales office because that is not part of Bonanni Development’s business plan moving forward. He noted that most of their developments are selling out before the projects are complete and due to Covid-19, all sales have become virtual. Mr. Segesman stated that if a model home complex were necessary, the five parking spaces onsite would be utilized and measures would be taken for parking along Dale Avenue.
Commissioner Heywood asked if the easement road could be repaved after the project is complete as a good faith gesture.
Mr. Segesman responded affirmatively, and stated that it is his intent is to work with the Parkdale Community to figure out a share program for the easements.
Commissioner Heywood recommended adding a condition that the developer will repave the easement road upon project completion, and that a plan be provided should they decide to have sales on site.
JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that the Planning Commission’s ability to condition a project is limited by the impact of a development. She stated that a condition requiring the developer to mitigate the construction impact by returning it to the existing condition is acceptable.
Niki Wetzel, Deputy Director, stated that would be a reasonable condition, and noted that the developer was agreeable.
Commissioner Kring stated that the Parkdale Community would like an 8-foot perimeter wall, and asked Mr. Segesman if he was agreeable to an 8-foot perimeter wall.
Mr. Segesman stated that he was agreeable to a 3, 6, or 8-foot perimeter wall, but would prefer a 6-foot wall.
Commissioner Kring stated that she would prefer a 6-foot because she likes open space and would not like to feel enclosed.
Commissioner Kring asked what the price point would be. Mr. Segesman responded that the marketing for the project has not been prepared, but guessing from today’s market, the price point will have a six in front of it.
Commissioner Kring recommended a sub-homeowners association, and asked the developer to work with the Parkdale Community Homeowners Association.
Mr. Segesman stated that a property management company has not been selected for the project, and suggested that perhaps Meredith Gill could run both homeowners associations.
Commissioner Perez moved, seconded by Commissioner Kring, to approve the request with the following added conditions of approval:
• 6-foot perimeter wall;
• Require that the TTM depict location of the easements for ingress/egress, vehicular access, sewer, public utilities, and incidental purposes described in the easement legal rights as depicted on the encumbrance map, and include provisions ensuring the perpetual maintenance of those easements; • Require compliance with South Coast AQMD rules to minimize construction emissions of dust particulates; and
• Require owner/developer to repave portions of private roadway within the Parkdale HOA community that are used during construction activity.
Chair Meeks believed that an 8-foot perimeter wall will cause graffiti and light problems, and would not be visually attractive for the neighborhood. She stated she would rather see a 3-foot perimeter wall, but would support a 6-foot wall.
JULY 6, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Deputy Director Wetzel clarified that a 6-foot perimeter wall is currently depicted on the plans, and there is no need to include a condition of approval related to a 6-foot wall.
Motion carried 6-1, Commissioner White opposed.
OPPOSITION: Five persons spoke expressing opposition to the subject request.
Two pieces of written correspondence were received in opposition to the subject request.
IN SUPPORT: One piece of written correspondence was received in favor of the subject request.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (5:53 to 6:53 p.m.)