Item 23 - Density Bonus Agreement No. 2023-01: 4th and Grand (1212 E. Fourth Street)

Home Browse Search

In light of the letter where its written that a concession may be sought not only to modify a zoning code requirement where: "First the applicable zoning classification is simply "multi -family dwellings" (i.e., not "MixedUse"). Second, the ground floor commercial requirement is subordinate in function to the primary zoning classification of "Multi -Family Dwellings," relating primarily to the location of the commercial floor area"." This does not correctly describe the subject projects zoning classification, where as, in review of the City of Santa Anas Zones Established & Uses document (April 28 2022) and stated in the attached letter, the project location is zoned as Transit Zoning Code (TZC) and Corridor (CDR) Zone, which defines CDR as: "This zone is applied to properties fronting existing commercial corridors and provides standards to improve pedestrian -orientation in a transit -supportive, mixed use area. Mixed -use flex block and live -work building types are at or near the sidewalk, and accommodate street level retail, service, and office uses, with office and residential above...." Therefore, the project is zoned as CDR, meaning the project needs to comply to is zoning requirements and include first floor commercial. Altering the zoning of this corner is not consistent with the adjacent zoning and use of the adjacent and surrounding properties of the area. These properties are for mixed -use and live -work spaces making the primary function of such developments first floor commercial and upper story dwellings subordinate to the first floor commercial use. Using the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to modify zoning away from commercial local need is an overreach. The SDBL directive of "shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units" does not mean to increase housing by altering exiting zoning, reduce local jobs, reduce local businesses, and reduce local resources for residents in the local and regional area. This zoning is also in place to protect the resources available to the greater regional area due to its proximity of local and regional transit as part of the TZC zone. Noting that the "the cost of adding an additional story to the building to meet the ground floor commercial requirement and providing 16 units is presumably economically infeasible" would not be sufficient justification since the property location per code is only allotted 12 units per is size allotment and any allowed units using an incentive to grant is just that, an incentive. An reduction in an incentive should not be justification enough to replace a zoning standard and itself be the reason for first floor commercial exceptions. The applicant will be granted the additional 4 units per the SDBL which it is entitled, however it is up to the applicant to incorporate the incentive or not. The applicant has demonstrated that they can incorporate 2 of the 4 SDBL incentive units while adhering to the first floor mixed use zoning requirements meaning that there is no need for an additional floor nor is it infeasible as the letter states. I did read that this project is either determined or seeking Environmental Categorically Exempt (CE) CEQA determination. If this is the case, I believe that any consideration in an exception to local zoning would violate CE/CE determination and require a revalidation and trigger an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Determination (IS/MND) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Where local community members would have the opportunity to comment and review. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me.