200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 9, 2022
FROM: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-06121
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19177 RELATING TO A
TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT AT 1442 NORTH DALE
AVENUE
ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 29
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by Motion, deny an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a conditional use permit (CUP) and tentative tract map (TTM) for an 18-unit townhome development; and, by Resolution, approve a CUP and TTM, thereby approving the project.
DISCUSSION:
On June 6, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and continued the item to the July 6, 2022 Commission meeting. On July 6, 2022, the Commission, on a 6-1 vote, approved a request from Chris Segesman, representing Bonanni Development (the “Applicant”), to permit an 18-unit townhome development. Five people spoke and one piece of correspondence was received in opposition to the project. One piece of correspondence was received in favor of the project. A copy of the June 6 and July 6, 2022 Planning Commission staff reports, the draft meeting minutes, and written public comments received by the Planning Commission are included as Attachments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 to this report.
On July 13, 2022, the Parkdale Town home Owners Association (THOA) manager, Meridith Gill (the “Appellant”), filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. The appeal request is included as Attachment 10. The applicant submitted a presentation as correspondence, included at Attachment 14.
Project Description: The property is 0.93 acres and surrounded on three sides by the Parkdale THOA. The General Plan designates the property for Low-Medium Density Residential land uses. The applicant proposes to construct an 18-unit townhome development using the RM-3 Multiple-Family Residential zone development standards. The units would be in three, two-story buildings with each unit having an attached two-car garage. There would be three different plan types of two to three Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06121 and Tentative Tract Map No. 19177 August 9, 2022
bedrooms. There would be 41 parking spaces, including 36 garage spaces and five open spaces.
The project would provide over 6,400 square feet of recreation-leisure area, including a passive landscaped community area and private patios. Two of the units would be designated as affordable to moderate income households.
Landscape Plan
The project site is accessed from Dale Avenue by a private street (Pepper Tree Drive) via an existing access easement through the Parkdale THOA as shown on the map below. The existing northerly access easement would not be used for access to the project site.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06121 and Tentative Tract Map No. 19177 August 9, 2022
Existing Site Access Easements
The proposed project meets the density permitted within the existing Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation, with the application of a five% density bonus allowed per California Government Code Section 65915. The proposed project would provide two units (10%) of the 18 units for moderate income households. A detailed analysis of the project is included in the June 6, 2022 Planning Commission report (Attachment 4).
Basis of Appeal: The following is the Appellant’s basis for appeal and staff’s analysis.
1. “Easement agreement and maintenance covenant not submitted in writing by the developer to Parkdale THOA or the City Planning prior to review and approval of plans.
Written commitment of financial and maintenance responsibility of easement with definitive percentage, including water and sewer maintenance is demanded by Parkdale THOA.”
The referenced easements and maintenance covenants are private agreements between the Applicant and Appellant. The Appellant does not want the City to approve the project unless or until maintenance cost allocations are negotiated between the private parties.
The City does not have a role in these negotiations and staff does not believe consideration of the project should be delayed based on the status of private agreements.
The Planning Commission added conditions of approval ensuring maintenance of the existing private easements in perpetuity, and requiring the developer to repair any damage caused to the private roadway from construction activities. The applicant has engaged in discussions with the Parkdale THOA regarding this matter and provided a letter regarding outreach efforts (Attachment 9).
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06121 and Tentative Tract Map No. 19177 August 9, 2022
2. “Parkdale THOA opposes the use of the water and sewer lines the developer wishes to connect to. These are currently used by Parkdale's owners private use only and have been since built. Parkdale THOA requested a flow meter test from the developer and was told by them it was public record. This was not provided to Parkdale THOA and City Planning for review prior to the July 6, 2022 Planning Meeting.” Water: Required water for the proposed project would be provided by the public water system currently located on the Parkdale HOA property and managed by the City of Buena Park. The proposed project would connect to the existing public water system within the existing utilities easement. The City of Buena Park has issued a “will serve” letter to the project applicant indicating the ability to provide water to the proposed project.
Sewer: Public sewer serving the project is provided by the City of Buena Park. The City of Buena Park issued a “will serve” letter for sewer services as well. The public sewer terminates at Dale Avenue and converts to a private sewer system within the Parkdale THOA property. Private sewer lines serving the Parkdale THOA and the subject property are regulated by the California Plumbing Code. Upon request of the Planning Commission at the June 6, 2022 public hearing, the Applicant submitted preliminary information demonstrating adequate capacity to serve the development within the existing private sewer lines. However, final plans documenting compliance with the California Plumbing Code would be required prior to issuance of building permits.
3. “Agreement on the opening and closing of the streets to access utilities on the shared easement was not provided by the developer. Parkdale THOA requests this prior to approval”.
Similar to the discussion in Item 1 above, the City does not have a role in private negotiations relating to private utility easements. Prior to issuance of permits for utility improvements, staff will review plans for compliance with applicable codes. Staff does not believe consideration of the project should be delayed based on the status of private agreements.
4. “Parkdale THOA residents addressed the need for an 6-8 -foot perimeter wall as to completely separate the two properties as a clear understanding they are not shared communities. Parkdale THOA is requesting this to be listed in the developers plans prior to the City's approval.”
Project exhibits show a 6-foot high block wall separating the proposed project site from the Parkdale THOA property. The Planning Commission discussed various wall heights that, if approved, could have resulted in a decrease or increase in the height of the proposed wall. However, after discussion, the proposed 6-foot high block wall, as reflected on the project plans, was approved. Although a wall is not required when Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06121 and Tentative Tract Map No. 19177 August 9, 2022
separating multiple-family residential zones, the Code would allow for up to an 8-foot high wall at the discretion of the City Council.
5. The circumstances that existed at the time of the easement conveyance did not give the implication that future development(s) would create a burden upon Parkdale THOA.
Parkdale homeowners opposed development on the easement.
As discussed above, recorded private easements provide the subject property with vehicular ingress and egress, as well as sewer, water, and electrical utility easements through the Parkdale THOA property. The easements do not appear to identify or restrict the type or intensity of uses on the subject property.
Housing Accountability Act (HAA): Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5:
“When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions, as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.”
Should the City Council decide to deny the project or require development at lesser density, it must make written findings pursuant to the text above, 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.
CEQA Environmental Determination: The Project qualifies for a Class 32 – In-Fill Development Project Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000-21189.57) as set forth in Sections 15332 and 15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). Based on the analysis in the CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Environmental Checklist (Attachment 11), staff recommends that the City Council determine that the project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-06121 and Tentative Tract Map No. 19177 August 9, 2022
categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act and no further environmental review is required.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission carefully considered the proposed project and determined that it is compatible with surrounding land uses, and designed in a manner to provide a quality living environment for its future residents and valuable amenities and resources for the surrounding community. In addition, the proposed project meets the goals of the General Plan to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs, would provide affordable housing in furtherance of the City’s Housing Element, and is consistent with the City Council’s policy identifying affordable housing as a priority. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission approving the project.
IMPACT ON BUDGET:
There is no budgetary impact. The Appellant paid the fee necessary to schedule this appeal request, and the costs associated with this hearing will be incurred by the project applicant.
Respectfully submitted,
Ted White
Planning and Building Director
Attachments:
1. Draft City Council Conditional Use Permit Resolution
2. Draft City Council Tentative Tract Map Resolution
3. Planning Commission Resolutions July 6, 2022
4. June 6, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)
5. July 6, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)
6. June 6, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes
7. July 6, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes
8. Planning Commission Public Correspondence
9. Applicant’s Public Outreach Summary
10. Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision (Meridith Gill)
11. Class 32 Checklist
a. Class 32 Checklist Appendices
12. Density Bonus Memorandum of Understanding
13. Project Plans
14. Applicant’s Presentation