OCTOBER 10, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
ITEM NO. 1
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-00123
Location: 1200 – 1320 South Anaheim Boulevard,
200 E. Ball Road, and 1207 S. Claudina Street
Request: The applicant requests approval to
construct a total of 223 residential units and 4,586
square feet of commercial space, with 15-percent of
the units affordable to moderate income buyers, with
an affordable housing development incentive and
density bonus on an approximately 8.3-acre property.
A General Plan Amendment, Reclassification,
Conditional Use Permit, Minor Conditional Use
Permit, and Tentative Tract Map are being requested.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
the Anaheim Ball Mixed Use Project is the appropriate
environmental documentation for this request under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommended City
Council approval of the
project and approved
Resolution Nos. PC2022-
085 and PC2022-086
MOTION: (Meeks/Kring)
VOTE: 6-1
Chairperson Vadodaria,
Chairperson Pro-Tem
Kring, and Commissioners
Meeks, Mouawad, Perez,
and Walker voted yes.
Commissioner White voted
no.
Project Planner:
Ivan Orozco
[email protected]
Ivan Orozco, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 10, 2022, and a visual presentation. He noted that the request is for various land use entitlements to construct a mixed-use development project with 223 residential units and 4,586 square feet of commercial space.
Associate Planner Orozco noted that the applicant originally proposed 15 percent affordability for moderate income buyers, and this was included in the public notice, however, the applicant had since revised the proposal to provide 10 percent affordable units. This change does not affect the project in terms of the parking reduction request, as the housing incentive is the same. The staff report and associated attachments provide the 10 percent affordability and were posted with the correct percentage of affordability.
Associate Planner Orozco provided a description of the required land use entitlements and discretionary actions needed for project approvals and stated that the proposed development agreement meets the requirements to recommend approval to City Council, since it is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with the surrounding uses and regulations of the mixed-used overlay zone. Also, the proposed agreement would serve to provide surety for the developer and includes benefits to the City by providing much needed affordable housing units.
Commissioner Meeks asked if there was an affordable housing agreement or condition in the sale of the property requiring affordable housing. Kevin Clausen, Senior Project Manager, OCTOBER 10, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
clarified that the property has not yet been sold to the developer because the City Council will need to consider a Development and Disposition Agreement for the sale of the property to the developer. He noted that the 10 and 15 percent affordable housing component has been a point of negotiation between the applicant and the City.
Commissioner White asked why the affordable housing component was decreased from 15 percent to 10 percent. Senior Project Manager Clausen deferred the question to the developer.
Commissioner White stated that the property is owned by the City of Anaheim and if the City is negotiating with the developer, more than 10 percent affordable units should be required.
He noted that the City is in need of affordable housing, and shared that the recently approved OC VIBE project will have 15 percent affordable units. Senior Project Manager Clausen clarified that the City is not subsidizing the development in any way and the sale of the property will be a fair market transaction.
Commissioner Mouawad asked if a traffic study was prepared to address the speed of traffic heading east and west on Ball Road. Rafael Cobian, City Traffic Engineer, responded that a full traffic impact analysis was prepared for this development which addresses trips generated by the site. However, speed is not typically addressed in a traffic impact analysis. He stated that when staff reviews a private development, they are looking for capacity issues that a project will generates.
Commissioner Mouawad asked if there will be an indentation or turnout to merge into the project site for eastbound traffic heading down Ball Road. City Traffic Engineer Cobain responded that there would not be an indentation or turnout at that location.
Commissioner Perez asked if the new traffic signal on Anaheim Boulevard will line up with the El Super grocery store access point. City Traffic Engineer Cobian responded that it will line up with the drive aisle on the south side of El Super.
Commissioner Perez asked if the new traffic signal will it be four-way traffic signal. City Engineer Cobian responded affirmatively.
Chair Vadodaria opened the public hearing.
Rob Mitchell, Applicant, stated that his team has been working on this project site for four years, and thanked staff for the amazing job they have done to assistant. He noted his team has been working to bring the vision of the resort zone to the east side of the 5-freeway connecting into downtown and connecting that synergy along Anaheim Boulevard. He noted that his team is trying to build a walkable community that will be able to use public transportation and eventually connect communities through a corridor along Anaheim Boulevard. Mr. Mitchell clarified that the 15 percent affordability component for the project was always talked about, but never agreed upon. He noted the site will be purchased as is. The site has a phase II environmental contamination, the remediation will be over $3 million, and that is why only 10 percent affordability is being proposed.
Commissioner Perez noted that the affordability cycle of the housing units would most likely be 55 years. He asked if someone who purchases an affordable home would be able to sell it at market value before the affordability period ends. Mr. Mitchell responded that in his experience, OCTOBER 10, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
the seller would have to pay the City back the down payment assistance they received and a portion of the equity. He noted that the City will then use those funds to assist additional home buyers.
John Tafoya, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, stated the project is wonderful for the City of Anaheim. He noted that there are over 600 union carpenters that live in Anaheim, that would like to be part of this project. He asked that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council require a local hire component so union members who live in Anaheim can work on this project instead of commuting two or three hours each day. Mr. Tafoya recommended a skilled and trained workforce, giving local apprentices an opportunity to work in their community.
He stated that both components will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney, noted that the City received correspondence from the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters and there were specific claims made regarding greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, ground shaking, and hazardous impacts. The City and the City’s Environmental Consultant have reviewed the letter and believe that with implementation of the mitigation measures in the technical studies, all of those impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that the claims in the letter are very speculative and mentions what could happen or what might happen. She clarified that is not the standard the City is held to for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, there was a suggestion that the City should recirculate the initial study and mitigated negative declaration to address the issues mentioned in the letter. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill did not believe a recirculation would be necessary as this time because there is no new information, changed circumstances, or facts that would warrant a change or a deviation to the findings which staff is recommending the Planning Commission make.
Chair Vadodaria closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Meeks stated that it was great to see a redevelopment project moving forward on that corner. She noted that some of the issues that have been raised are development agreement issues, and not planning and zoning issues. She stated this is a great project.
It was moved by Commissioner Meeks, seconded by Commissioner Kring to recommend approval of the project to the City Council.
Commissioner Perez referenced the landscape plan, and asked if open space areas 12, 14, and 15 would be private to the development. Alan Toffoli, Applicant’s Representative, responded that the entire community is open and will not be a gated community.
Commissioner Mouawad asked if the developer was considering an agreement with the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. Mr. Mitchell responded that he spoke with Mr.
Tafoya and informed him that after the Planning Commission meeting, he would be happy to sit down and discuss how the Southwest Carpenters Union could bid on the project.
Motion carried 6-1 (Commissioner White voted no).