HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - PUBLIC COMMENTS_UrangaUnison Real Estate Group
November 4, 2020
Via Email
Planning Commissioners
ecomments@santa-ana.org
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: City of Santa Ana, General Plan Update – Comments
Esteemed Commissioners,
I write you on behalf of our partnership which owns 1212 E. 4th Street, a vacant property in Santa Ana
that we hope to develop someday soon.
My personal background is Planning and Development including a fair amount of entitlement work in
many jurisdictions throughout Southern California. I currently offer Development Services to my clients
through IMG Construction Management, including acquisition due diligence, underwriting, cost
estimates, etc. I was also the chair of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel (TAP)
program for many years.
In short, I hope that I can offer my experience, unique perspective, and be helpful as you aim to update
the General Plan, a significant undertaking. Below are my comments and questions for your
consideration.
Conflicts with Disposition of Properties and Surplus Land Act
The City is in the process of disposing of several properties, including the one next to ours at the corner
of 4th and Grand. It is referred to as the “C7” property. Our partnership has been in a holding pattern,
waiting for the City process to unfold so that we may finally offer to purchase it. Please note that there
are several other properties to our south that are also going through the surplus lands act process.
The proposed General Plan update reduces the intensity of both our property and those that are being
processed through the Surplus Land Act for disposition. The City has had a lengthy and somewhat
painful history with the disposition of those properties. It has been ongoing for many years. Reducing
the density and FAR now will only further complicate things and reduce their sale value for the City.
Mobility Element
Widening
In Figure M-1, 4th Street along our frontage is proposed to be designated as a Divided Collector (Green),
with a typically ROW of 84’ and 64’ curb to curb.
Unison Real Estate Group, LLC
Unfortunately, the existing ROW is only 80’ and ~55’ from curb to curb. I support the creation of
pedestrian opportunity zones including wider sidewalks, bike lanes, more landscape opportunities in the
parkway, etc. but widening is not advisable. Here is why:
· 4th street is a constrained built environment, and it is highly unlikely that all of the properties
will redevelop, dedicate right of way and provide the necessary width that this element
envisions.
· The widening seems to afford a raised median which represents maintenance cost for the City.
· SB743 (aka the Vehicle Miles Traveled bill) and modern good planning principals discourage
more pavement.
· Lastly, the Transit Zoning Code includes minimum lot depths which will be compromised by
widening.
I highly discourage widening. It will only burden small infill projects, which the city should encourage.
Widening is costly but offers minimal benefit.
Bike Lanes
Figure M-2 implies that only the north side of the street is planned for a Class III Bike Route / Boulevard
but if sharrows are proposed, which don’t require widening, then it seems that the bike lanes should be
on both sides of the street (east and west). Please clarify.
Land Use Element
A significant portion of Focus Area 2 – Grand and 17th, relates to a
soon to be proposed redevelopment of the old Church site which is
the east side of Grand (DC-2 Area) but this falls short of recognizing
the larger opportunity to develop both sides of Grand in a cohesive
way. Again, the City is in the process of selling its properties (west
side of Grand), so why not set forth a plan for this major street that
provides for a cohesive look and feel. I recommend that the land
use designations proposed for the east of Grand match the west
side of Grand. In addition, this will add value to the city properties.
Page 14 of the Land Use Element speaks to measuring Residential
Density and NonResidential Intensity (FAR) but does not provide
clarity for mixed use projects. Table LA-3 indicates maximums as
FAR OR Density. Page 23 under UN-20 also shows “OR”. It is not
clear if one standard “OR” the other should apply.
I support the approach with footnote 2. Many of these properties
which are proposed to be updated are also contained within the
Transit Zoning Code (TZC) which has very detailed development
standards. Putting more development standards into the General
Plan only creates conflicts and inconsistencies and also reduces the
ability to use concessions or waivers that otherwise encourage
development.
The TZC allows for a maximum of 40 DU/AC for our property
(assuming Flex Block) but the proposed General Plan update would
reduce that to 20 DU /AC via the UN-20 designation. It is incredibly
Unison Real Estate Group, LLC
challenging to redevelop small infill sites. Downzoning our property and others like it will only hamper
our ability to invest in Santa Ana.
Thank you once again for your consideration in these matters.
Sincerely,
Oscar Uranga, PMP
On Behalf of Unison Real Estate Group, LLC
Principal
IMG Construction Management
19782 McArthur Blvd, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Oscar@IMG-CM.com
949-933-4103 Cell
CC:
Eric Zuziak AIA, LEED AP, NCARB
Brett Isaacman, JD
Jerry C. Guevara