Loading...
MIN 10 17 2016_Item 4_Nick_sfOCTOBER 17, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 10-17-2016 Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. 4 MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2013-00575 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18046 (DEV2013-00028A) Location: 2726 West Lincoln Avenue Request: The applicant proposes the following entitlements: (i) a Planning Commission determination of conformance with the Density Bonus Code to construct a 35-unit condominium complex with affordable units and Tier 2 incentives; and, (ii) a tentative tract map to establish a 1-lot, 35 unit attached condominium subdivision. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) Categorical Exemption. Resolution No. PC2016-086 A motion was made by Commissioner Henninger, seconded by Commissioner Carbajal to approve the project per staff’s recommendations in the staff report. The motion failed to carry. VOTE: 2-4 Commissioners Henninger and Lieberman voted yes. Commissioners Caldwell, Carbajal, Dalati and Seymour voted no. Commissioner Bostwick was absent. -------------------------------------- A second motion was made by Commissioner Seymour, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell to deny the project. The motion to deny the project was approved. VOTE: 4-2 Commissioners Caldwell, Carbajal, Dalati and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners Henninger and Lieberman voted no. Commissioner Bostwick was absent. Project Planner: Nick Taylor njtaylor@anaheim.net Nick Taylor, Associate Planner explained this is a request to construct a new 35 unit, attached townhome development with 10% of the units being sold at an affordable cost to moderate income households. He described the properties surrounding the proposed development. He stated the property is currently occupied by four single-family residential units and the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing homes and construct two three-story condominium buildings, including ground level two-car tandem garages with two-story units above. Access to the development would be provided by a driveway along Lincoln Avenue. A total of 70 garage parking spaces are proposed with no guest parking. He explained the design of the project buildings. The project will provide 7,105 square feet of common landscape area which is in compliance with the minimum 7000 square feet required by code. The state density bonus law requires that cities provide certain incentives to developers for affordable housing projects that meet defined levels of affordability. Certain incentives are guaranteed and include OCTOBER 17, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 10-17-2016 Page 2 of 6 increases an allowable density and reductions in parking requirements. Developers must also be afforded the opportunity to apply for other development incentives, the number of which is dependent upon the amount of affordable units provided and their level of affordability. The Anaheim Municipal Code Implements the state requirements and provides applicants with a menu of tiered incentives that offer two levels of city review, based on the type of incentives requested and the level of affordability proposed. Incentives may be approved by the Planning Director and do not require review by Planning Commission. The city's tier 2 incentives are beyond those mandated by state law and include any other reduction in regulatory requirements proposed by the applicant or by the city that will result in identifiable or actual cost reductions or avoidance. Unlike tier 1 incentives, tier 2 incentives require review by the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting tier 2 density bonus incentives as follows: reduced front building and landscape setbacks, reduced east interior and landscape setback, reduced west landscape setback, reduced south building and landscape setback from a single-family residential zone. The density bonus ordinance allows a reduced number of parking spaces or two per unit with no additional guest parking required. The applicant has proposed two tandem garage spaces per unit and staff has concerns with the lack of on-site guest parking. However, the project is in compliance with the state density bonus law, therefore, the city cannot require the applicant to provide additional guest parking. The city is required to grant the requested incentives unless it makes proper findings. The project is consistent with the density bonus ordinance requirements to grant the requested incentives. The applicant's financial analysis, which is on file with the city, demonstrates that the requested incentives are necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. The analysis was reviewed by one of the city's on-call financial consultants who has provided a memo which is in the staff report. The requested incentives were warranted and they recommend that the city approve the requested incentives. The applicant also proposes a one lot subdivision with 35 condominium units with the proposed density of 30 units per acre, which is less than the 36 unit per acre maximum allowable under the land-use designation. Staff recommends that the Commission determined that the requested development incentives are in conformance with the density bonus ordinance. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed tentative tract map. He added staff received one email of opposition to the project. Commissioner Lieberman asked she asked if they are under any obligation to allow tandem parking. Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney, advised that their code reflects state law, so the parking can be tandem and is appropriate in this context. David See, Principal Planner, advised the multiple family zone was amended about a year ago and does allow tandem parking and under state law, they have to allow it. He clarified that wherever there are affordable units they had to allow it. Commissioner Lieberman stated her opinion does not matter, then asked if the unit gets sold is it earmarked for the city to receive some of the profits and asked how the city keeps track of that. OCTOBER 17, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 10-17-2016 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Reynolds stated it's a complicated formula, but the city would share in the equity of the increase. Initially there will be an agreement with the developer, then as each of the units are sold there will be a lien or agreement placed in each individual unit. The equity sharing only applies to the first household that purchases the unit. Commissioner Lieberman stated once these units get sold to the second owner, there will be substandard parking, so the formula no longer applies, and the city is stuck. Mr. Reynolds stated this is a state law requirement. Ms. Lieberman then asked how it gets put in place where the affordability component is perpetual. Mr. Reynolds stated it is the responsibility of the Housing Authority. Commissioner Seymour stated he isn't all that knowledgeable about the affordable housing rules and regulations, but he is surprised that there are only four units that are affordable; however, the incentives go across the whole property which doesn't seem logical. He believes there is potential for physical harm, that comes through parking, because there is no question that this is going to impact businesses and residences. It will create physical harm for them relative to their ability to operate and as well as traffic in this area. He asked the attorney to respond to that because it doesn't make sense to him. It seems to be a manipulation of the law to build such poor housing on this odd shaped lot and he does not wish to see this in the city. Mr. Reynolds responded that there are very few reasons why they can deny the density bonus project and it really gets down to public health and safety. Commissioner Seymour pointed out there are three words public health, public safety and physical harm and Mr. Reynolds stated that is an appropriate argument to make and if the Planning Commission can make that finding then he believes the project could be redesigned or denied. Commissioner Seymour said he was good with the last part. Chairman Caldwell said he isn't holding the developer wrong, is not immoral for doing it, it is just taking advantage of the laws that have been provided, but the city ends up with a bad project forever. This project is over-dense and under-parked and he doesn't like it. Commissioner Seymour stated there's another point of physical harm because this project is right next to some very high-power lines and some people believe that creates physical harm. Chairman Caldwell opened the public hearing. Alexis Gevorgian, with AMG and Associates, the applicant. He explained they been working on this project for approximately three years with the city staff and it has been substantially redesigned from when they first started. They equivocally want to comply with state law. The finding that the Commission is making is not within that scope, it is whether or not there are specific health and safety issues and he provided a couple of examples. As for the parking, they are actually over parked, the amount of parking required under this zone is 1.5 and they OCTOBER 17, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 10-17-2016 Page 4 of 6 have two stalls per unit. He stated they wanted to make this project 100% affordable, but they got a lot of pushback from the community as well as staff, so they made it 10% affordable. They also had extensive discussions about the regulatory agreements and they believe that they've done everything in good faith and is within the spirit of the law and complies with the law. There is nothing that they are doing in their project that rises to the standard where it would preclude them from using the density bonus law and in three years, nobody from staff has ever made a comment nor it has ever been in any of the communications they've had. They actually wanted to make it a rental project, but staff didn't want it, so they made it a for sale project. A lot of hard work has been done getting this project to where it is today and he hopes the Commission approves the project. Chairman Caldwell stated he would have a lot less issues if it was 35 affordable because that does prove that the density factor is great, but 10% is next to nothing. Alexis Gevorgian advised they have developed almost 10,000 affordable housing units in California, they've never done one with the 90% market rate, and they are only doing it because there was a lot of pushback. If you come in with too much affordable, people complain; if you don't do enough you get this issue; they just want to develop a nice project, they are helping the city meet its RHNA numbers, they are contributing to the community, they are fully complying and have more parking than the code requires. Chairman Caldwell asked if anyone wanted to speak on this item, seeing none he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lieberman asked staff to clarify the parking requirement and David See responded that there are two spaces per unit for the for-sale units. The applicant's referral of the 1.5 per unit is for rental housing. Commissioner Dalati stated this project is right under the power lines and asked if staff can comment as to whether or not they are harmful. Jonathan Borrego, Planning Services Manager, stated staff has heard this comment before, but there seems to be differences of opinion in terms of the health impacts associated with power lines. There are multiple housing tracts and developments adjacent to power lines in the city, so this site isn't necessarily out of the ordinary. The project is not directly under the lines; it is adjacent to them. Commissioner Dalati asked if they could do a study on this and Jonathan Borrego responded, in his opinion, there could never be a conclusive study done on that topic. Commissioner Seymour stated he has some knowledge of this but most studies are indeterminate otherwise Southern California Edison would be looking at billions of dollars in liability. There is a magnetic field that is created, but there is no study saying is it an absolute health issue. OCTOBER 17, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 10-17-2016 Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Henninger stated the way he reads the staff report is that they can only deny the project if they find specific findings about health and safety on the things that the applicant is requesting incentives for. For example, they have to find that reduced setbacks are a health and safety issue. Mr. Reynolds stated you have to look at the project itself, and whether or not there is a specific adverse impact on public health and safety. For example, you could ask if there would be any health and safety to the visitors if they don't have a place to park. Commissioner Henninger stated he used to work for an affordable housing developer and he does not believe that is how the law has been interpreted. It is very narrowly defined on what they can say is a health and safety issue. It has to be on the incentives that they are requesting not on what is already codified in the law. Mr. Reynolds stated if you focused on the parking you would have to ask where would the visitor parking be and is there a public health and safety issue involved with visitors parking off- site. Commissioner Henninger stated they cannot make the decision on the parking, it is what it is and that cannot be a basis of the Commissioner's decision. Mr. Reynolds stated that is true, but if you can identify a public health and safety issue then they could deny the project. Commissioner Carbajal stated what concerns him the most about this project is if there is an emergency in the rear of this property, you can't get an ambulance or fire truck into this site if there are vehicles out there. Mr. See advised staff worked closely with the Fire Department and the Sanitation Division of Public Works, and they were both fine with the driveway. The Fire Department requires a minimum of 24 feet and that is why a turnaround is provided from the center of the property. Mr. Borrego agreed the point was well taken and if people are forced to park in the driveway, and a delivery truck or repair man need to go to the property, there will be no place to park on- site. It could also be problematic for emergency vehicles, but unfortunately the law does not provide for that and it is disturbing. Chairman Caldwell stated it is a lousy project and will vote no on it even though he does not have a right to. He doesn't like the project and he doesn't want his name on it, it is a bad long- term project. Mr. Borrego advised he doesn't recall any discussion in which staff talked down the level of affordability on this project as stated by the applicant. If there were such discussions, he would like to know about it because he was never part of those discussions. If it was 100%, affordable staff would be happy with it. OCTOBER 17, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 10-17-2016 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Seymour stated he feels the same and thinks he has a right to vote no on this project because he does see potential physical harm and, he will vote no as well. Commissioner Henninger made a motion to approve staff's recommendation, Commissioner Carbajal seconded the motion. Commissioners Caldwell, Carbajal, Dalati and Seymour voted no. Commissioners Henninger and Lieberman voted yes. Commissioner Bostwick was absent. THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY Commissioner Seymour made a motion to deny the project based on the term physical harm relative to safety because no emergency vehicle can get in if that driveway is blocked. He also sees physical harm to the outlying neighborhood, relative to parking and pedestrians because there is no guest parking and they would have to park someplace else and walked to it. He believes these reasons give him the right to deny this project. Mr. Borrego advised, for the record, that there is no public parking on Lincoln Avenue and the nearest public parking is directly across Lincoln Avenue on a public street. If someone came to visit the site, they would have to park on that public street and cross Lincoln Avenue at a non- signalized intersection to get back to the development. Commissioner Seymour asked him to add that to his statement. Chairman Caldwell seconded the motion to deny the project. MOTION CARRIED Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the motion to deny the project passed with four yes votes. Commissioners Caldwell, Carbajal, Dalati and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners Henninger and Lieberman voted no. Commissioner Bostwick was absent. OPPOSITION: A piece of written correspondence was received in opposition. DISCUSSION TIME: 37 minutes (6:23 to 7:00 p.m.)