Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, August 12, 2026. Please join me for the salute to the flag. Ready? Begin. Roll call, please.

Yes, sir. Commissioner Vu?

Here.

Commissioner Brothers is excused. Commissioner Escona? Here. Commissioner James? Here. Vice Chair Huebner? Here. Chair Langer? Here. We have a quorum, sir. Thank you.

All right. I'll make an announcement about supplemental communications. Anyone wishing to speak during public comments must fill out and submit a blue speaker card. The Planning Commission can take no action on this date unless the item is agendized. Anyone wishing to speak on items not on tonight's agenda may do so during public comments. Speakers on items scheduled for public hearing or non-public hearing items will be invited to speak when those items are heard. Also note that it is customary for commissioners to visit applicant sites. Unless any commissioner has further disclosure statements at this time, it may be stated that no contact was made during the visit with the applicant, their agent, or neighbors of the proposed project. Are there any public comments? Sorry, for non-agenda items. All right move if we have our next we have our consent calendar could I get a motion I'm sorry Mr. Hunter is this regarding sound abatement for Is it related to a project or is it separate?

Okay.

Okay. We'll come back to that.

Yes. Yeah.

Okay. We have our consent calendar, the planning commission meeting minutes for July 8th, 2026. Can I get a motion? Move to approve.

I second it.

Okay. I've got a motion from Vice Chair Huebner and a second from Commissioner Ahn. Could I get a roll call, please?

Do we just do a yay and nay? So all in favor?

Yes.

Yes. Opposed? I will abstain. Abstain. Motion passes 4-0 and 1 a step. Abstention.

Okay, moving on to item number two, our public hearing on 16800 Magnolia mixed-use project development agreement with Holland Partner Group has submitted a request for development agreement for the mixed-use development that was approved by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2025 through Precise Plan 580. The proposed development agreement is between the City of Fountain Valley and Magnolia 1 owner LLC and HPG Magnolia 2 LLC for the development of the Magnolia mixed-use project. I will now turn this over to staff and open the public hearing now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Holland Partner Group has submitted a request for a development agreement for the mixed-use development that was approved by the Planning Commission on June 11th of 2025 through precise plan number 580. The project is fully entitled, and the proposed development agreement is a post-entitlement implementation tool to vest development rights, provide regulatory certainty, and establish agreed upon obligations between the city and the owner. The central feature of the development agreement is the establishment of a 10-year term, which provides the owner with a defined period to implement the project while preserving the city's long-term discretion. The development agreement notes that the project will be developed in two phases, along with each phase's own affordable housing agreement. The development agreement includes an important safeguard requiring that no permits for phase two will be issued unless a affordable housing agreement has been approved, executed, and recorded. From a fiscal perspective, the development agreement includes a negotiated fire protection payment totaling $750,000 allocated between two phases of development as required by condition number 153 of the approved precise plan. And that 750,000 is divided proportionately by the number of units in each building. So the north building, which is their phase one, has 339 units, so that's why the payment for that, the fire protection payment for that portion of the project is a little higher than the south building. the development agreement also includes standard provisions related to periodic reviews transfers and indemnification The development agreement is also consistent with the Housing Accountability Act as it does not reduce the number of residential units alter density or improves or impose new constraints that would conflict with the approved project and Overall, the development agreement implements previously approved entitlements while protecting the city's regulatory authority. So with that, staff recommends planning commission adopt alternative number one, adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve a development agreement for this project. That concludes staff's report.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff?

I have a question. How is the $750,000 number determined? Is it based on units, a certain price per unit, or negotiated between the city and the developer?

It was a negotiated amount between our fire department and the developer. And it basically looked at the cost of servicing the area and the needs of the community based on the new development

A follow-up question to that. So my understanding is there's maybe not applicable at the time, but there are now use fees that would be similar to, like, so if a new development cropped up, it would pay?

Yes, we're in the process of adopting formal fire impact fees. Had those been in place, then we wouldn't have needed this at the time. but those will take effect though they'll be heard for second hearing at the city council next tuesday and then take effect 30 days after if they're adopted and so for future developments we wouldn't need this as a method to collect those fees but in this case because there were no adopted fees at the time this is the mechanism to do that

And do you have a rough idea of how the, if the fees are adopted as proposed, how those fees for this project would compare to the $750,000 that are in the agreement?

Yes, I believe we'd be in a similar or better situation than the fees that were.

So the development agreement puts us in a better situation, or if the fees would?

this case i think the um this works out in the city's favor um but at the same time it gives some rights to the to the developer thank you another question so that's 750 is that available before the the issuing of the phase one or

So, 387,000 would be due before CFO phase one, and then 363 before phase two.

another question is like this is 10 year ramps for between phase one phase two so how about if we have it's a 750 000 in counting on inflation any fee increase anything i don't believe so it's a it's a flat fee Or have we put those things into accounting, into the factor after negotiate for the $750,000?

I think the $750,000 would cover. I think the city's in the negotiated fee, if it were to come tomorrow or five years down the road, I think the $750,000 would cover the city's expectations for what would be needed for that area.

OK. Can you go into a little bit more detail about the affordable housing component? Because I heard something about needing to get either a waiver or something approved between the phase one and the phase two related to the affordable housing. Could you expand on that, please?

There's an affordable housing. So the way we're structuring this, we're going to do an affordable housing agreement for each tower. We're working on that right now with the developers team and our attorneys. Hopefully that goes to city council soon, but that would be just for the north tower. And then there will be a separate affordable housing agreement that's developed very similar to the first one. That'll be for the south or the phase two portion of the project. It sets income limits, has maintenance responsibility, a bunch of information. It's a very long document. But those two in itself just go to the city council for review.

And the reason we're doing it that way is because they're separate properties with separate buildings, and so theoretically they're being developed as one project.

Yeah, but it's two parcels.

Right, and so one could be sold off and we wouldn't want, we'd like a separate document for each one.

Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Just for comparison, across the street, they had a development agreement, correct? Do they have one?

Not that I'm aware of. No? I don't believe so.

So there was no fire protection, nothing over there?

Okay.

So we appreciate this developer working with the city and negotiating with us on this because we believe they're needed to protect their residents in the area.

Thank you, staff. Do we have any requests to speak on this item?

Yes, sir. We have two. First is David Franklin. You'll have three minutes to speak. Our screen's not working, so I will let you know when your three minutes are up.

Sure.

Thank you, Planning Commission, for having me. My name is Dr. David Franklin. I've been a resident of Fountain Valley since 1975. I had to move homes because my father became ill, and we needed to buy another home that had a downstairs dwelling for my father. When we moved in in 2000, our lot was organized in kind of a different fashion. It's an old farm lot off of Magnolia and Talbert, right behind the Sprout Center. And my house lined up against a cul-de-sac. So my backyard faces laterally to the house behind me that has a side yard. And then I have another two sides on the back of me. On the sides of me, excuse me. So approximately about a year ago, I guess the person behind my home decided to sell their home. There was no for sale sign, no... There was no information going out regarding that the home had been sold. They bulldozed it and then put up a huge 5,000 square foot home that's now behind my home with a 30 foot wall in the back of my yard. I have pictures. I just kind of show you how the house is organized. Would I be able to bring this up to the committee? So I understand the privacy of, I understand the independence of us having our own piece of land, what we can do with it. The problem is, is that I have now three windows that look directly in my backyard with the pool that's back there. I have young women going back and forth in the backyard because my kids are teenagers. I am now concerned that my two side homes, the way the ordinance is set up, is that I can be surrounded by three 30 foot walls. surrounding my piece of property in my backyard. And when I had purchased my $1.1 million home, in no way did I imagine I needed to take a look at the ordinances in case someone had sold the house behind me to go ahead and do that without any type of of explanation of the process or any type of sharing this information with the neighbors as to how that might impact them. And now I'm in this spot where I have a house that's overlooking my home, not only in my backyard, but now into my family room, the way that they have the windows set up. So I have no privacy whatsoever in my house that I bought six years ago. If I knew that this was gonna happen, I would have never ever bought that piece of property. But the way that ordinances are set up and not sharing any type of information with the neighbors that this is going to happen I had no choice but to go ahead and right now live in this piece of property which I'm gonna try and try and sell eventually because it's just this is not what I expected later years in my life and for my family, so I'm coming to the planning commission and seeing at least of finding ways to work around with my other neighbors on the side of me so that I'm not completely encapsulated by three 30 foot walls that are looking straight in my backyard. Now, I also understand that other neighbors, my yard is a little bit separate, but there's also homes off of Buttonwood next to Kindercare in the back area. Okay.

Yeah.

And I apologize, Chair, I didn't realize that was not regarding the item before.

Yeah, so just let me clarify. So we're doing a public hearing on this particular project. We should have asked you up during the time for items that are not agendized. All right. That's okay. I'll just give you a second. So what I suggest you do is if you can maybe hang around, give your information to Omar. I'm sure the city staff can help you with your questions.

Yeah, Omar and I have been in contact with each other, and he suggested I come to the Planning Commission. So when they said to bring up the blue cards, I brought up my blue cards, so I apologize.

Yeah, that's our mistake, but thank you for your comment.

So then do I follow up with Omar?

Yeah, I think that's the best thing to do. Okay. Do we have any comments on this item? Thank you, sir. Bill Hunter?

I guess a little introduction is appropriate. I was moved into Fountain Valley in 1978. I've been a volunteer policeman now for 13 years with RSVP. And my interest in the property, this property we're talking about, is that I live across the freeway from it on the other side. And since the new bridges went in, the noise that's been generated by those new bridges is really surprising. because they're taller and they shoot the noise right over the top of the sound walls. And if you wanted to really concentrate or find that spot where that works, it's Maple Street and Daisy. There's a bridge on Magnolia, bridge on Bouchard, and they're like this and they both bounce the noise right down onto Daisy. And maple, if you wanted to see that for yourself. Anyway, my concern is this seven-story building is probably going to do a whole lot more than those bridges did. And I thought maybe there was going to be somebody here with a handout that would show what this building is going to look like or this project is going to look like. Is there anything that demonstrates what this place looks like?

So you go ahead and finish your comments. And then if you have questions, we can try to address them afterwards.

I'm just concerned about noise abatement, you know, because they're going to be bouncing all of that freeway noise right off the walls of this thing. In other words, is this thing this way? Is it parallel to the freeway? Is it end ways to the freeway? How much noise is going to bounce off of those into my neighborhood? That's my concern. Do you have any other comments for us? Do I have a comment?

Yeah. So when we do the public comment, we don't get to have a dialogue. We listen to you, and then we're going to have our discussion. But if you're done speaking, then we might be able to address that.

Yes. Well, that's all my concern. I'm just wondering if there has been any consideration paid to sound abatement. In other words, the construction of the building, I'm sure, people that build those things know which way the sound's coming from and which way it's going. And if they deflect it or position the building on the property in a certain way, they might be able to deflect that sound to where it doesn't. It's not as offensive as it could be. So that was my, I wanted to find out if anything was being done in that area.

Okay. So we're, we're really not prepared to answer those kinds of questions for you tonight. Two things I can tell you. Thank you for your comment. If you go on the city's website and you look at the planning commission materials from, I think it was June 11th of last year, 2025. check me on that june 11. all yeah somebody can factor yeah thank you thank you our june 11 2025 planning commission meeting there's a thousand pages of plans and okay title searches and all sorts of information about this project if you have specific questions about what sound studies were done some of that might be in there if not you can reach out to the city city staff and they'll tell you what they're able to tell you but we had a we had a hearing on that date and we that was when the permit for this project was approved and today we're just considering this development agreement which is a follow-on to that but if you can find those resources there's a lot of

Okay, do you recall it was there an issue with that?

If you don't matter if you don't mind I'll just give you my card we can follow you can follow up with me Either email me or call me and we can follow up and I'll direct you to that information. Okay?

Okay, so just a echo to chair Langer I did raise the question about the sound next to the freeway, and I think the developer, they did have the answer for me during that meeting.

They did address that? They did.

Yeah, just please go back to the video from last year, and there's a track back there. I raised that question about the noise.

The video is there. The materials are there. You can check it out. Yeah.

And I believe there's also a website that describes this project and that shows the renderings of the buildings alongside the elevations of the blueprints. So you can see how it's oriented on the property.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Do we have any other requests for public comment?

No, sir. Lisa, anything online?

Nothing on Zoom. All right. With that, I will close the public hearing. Any discussion? Thoughts from the commissioners?

It's just one follow-up, but either Timo or the developer, engineer. So I think last year, I have a question about the non-standard mandatory design exception possibly can be triggered by Caltrans 12 because you convert into a traffic intersection the signal line. have Caltrain have a review, the design plan, the new proposal traffic intersection, and do they have any comment on anything?

So we can have our public works engineering department follow up with you regarding that. We weren't prepared for that. It's not part of this discussion, but we can have them follow up on that.

Yeah, because this one also, they have something mentioned about convert the traffic, or they can reverse into a non-signalized intersection, too. So I just want to follow up on that.

Any thoughts from the other commissioners? All right. Well, I'll just say good job to city staff for getting in the $750,000 to offset the cost of fire protection. I'm sure every bit helps. So thank you for that. And with that, I will entertain a motion.

Move the item.

I'll second.

Great. I've got a motion from... Vice chair Huebner and a second from commissioner Ascona. A little call roll call vote, please. Yes, sir. Commissioner Vu. Yes.

Commissioner Ascona. Yes. Commissioner James. Yes. Vice chair Huebner.

Yes.

Chair Langer. Yes. Motion passes five zero.

Thank you very much. Moving along, do we have any new business?

No, sir.

Any unfinished business? No, sir. Comments from staff?

Yes, sir. So on September 1st, we are planning to have a joint city council planning commission study session. That's a normal city council meeting date. We haven't set the time yet, but I'm guessing it'll be around five o'clock. The topic for discussion will be we've been preparing a little Saigon study area, like design guidelines, with two other cities, Garden Grove and Santa Ana. And so the consultant working on that that's preparing the design guidelines is providing a presentation to each city before they come back to us with something for adoption. And so to give the planning commission and city council, both who will have to review and approve the guidelines, a chance to ask questions and kind of go over the document. So we'd like to do that as a joint meeting between the two groups.

And we'll get a proper agenda for this, correct? Yes.

I'm just giving you a, since it's not a normal hearing date for you, it will, it'll have a hearing agenda, but it's not one of your normal hearing dates. I just want to let you know.

Do we do that here? Yes. all good we'll figure out the seating it'll be yeah it'll be tight but we'll figure it out great looking forward to that any comments from commissioners all right with that I will adjourn to the next regular planning commission meeting scheduled for September 9th 2026. thank you all and good night