Andrew Winger
From:Andrew Winger
To:Planning Commission
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] N. Kemp Street Project
Date:Monday, August 24, 2026 1:09:36 PM
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
I am writing regarding the proposed 90-unit residential development at 1041, 1057, and 1071
N. Kemp Street, specifically the applicant's requested Density Bonus Law waiver reducing the
City's required recreation-leisure area from 18,000 square feet to 12,558 square feet.
I recognize that the applicant's commitment to provide five very-low-income units qualifies
the project for benefits under California's Density Bonus Law. My concern is: Has the
applicant actually demonstrated that Anaheim's recreation-leisure standard would physically
preclude construction of the project, as required for a waiver under Government Code Section
65915(e)?
The requested reduction is substantial. Anaheim's standard requires 200 square feet of
recreation-leisure area per unit, or 18,000 square feet for 90 units. The applicant proposes only
12,558 square feet, a deficit of 5,442 square feet, or approximately 30 percent of the City's
requirement.
Attachment No. 4 states:
“Meeting the required recreation and leisure area would physically preclude the
project from achieving the permitted density.”
However, the attachment appears to provide very little factual analysis demonstrating how this
conclusion was reached.
The applicant explains that there are “inherent site constraints” and that portions of a proposed
paseo cannot satisfy the 20-foot minimum dimension because the area consists of a five-foot
setback and 15 feet of additional open space. This may establish that the current site plan does
not comply with the City's standard, but that is not necessarily the same as demonstrating that
compliance would physically preclude construction of the development.
Government Code Section 65915(e) establishes the physical-preclusion standard for a waiver.
The fact that Density Bonus Law does not place a numerical limit on waivers should not mean
that every requested waiver is automatic. The requested waiver must still satisfy the statutory
standard.
I therefore respectfully request that the Planning Commission ask staff and the applicant to
address the following questions before approving the waiver:
1. What evidence demonstrates that providing the full 18,000 square feet of required
recreation-leisure area would physically preclude construction of the 90-unit project?
Specifically, what units, buildings, or other project components could not be constructed
if the City standard were applied?
2. Why is a reduction all the way to 12,558 square feet necessary? If some reduction is
required, has the applicant demonstrated why a smaller waiver would still physically
preclude the project, including compliance with the 20-foot dimensional requirement?
3. How was the 12,558-square-foot figure calculated? Please identify which private and
common open-space areas—including patios, balconies, paseos, and recreation areas—
were included or excluded and why.
4. The property is designated for up to 182 homes, while the applicant proposes only 90
and is not using its Density Bonus increase. Why does compliance with the City's
recreation requirement physically preclude this 90-unit project on a site allowing
substantially greater residential density?
There is also an apparent inconsistency in Attachment No. 4 that should be corrected. In one
portion of the attachment, the applicant states that providing five percent very-low-income
units allows a 25 percent density bonus. Elsewhere, the applicant correctly refers to an
allowable 20 percent density bonus. Government Code Section 65915(f) provides a 20 percent
bonus at five percent very-low-income units; a 25 percent bonus corresponds to seven percent
very-low-income units. While this may simply be a drafting error, the document relied upon to
establish the project's Density Bonus entitlements should accurately state the applicable law.
I am not asking the Commission to deny a waiver simply because I would prefer the City's
normal recreation standard. State Density Bonus Law plainly limits the City's discretion when
its requirements physically preclude a qualifying housing development.
However, the phrase “physically preclude” should have meaning.
The applicant should not satisfy that requirement merely by repeating the statutory language
after presenting a site plan that does not comply. There should be evidence demonstrating the
relationship between the development standard and the claimed physical inability to construct
the project.
This matters because the requested waiver would reduce an amenity intended for the residents
of all 90 homes by approximately 30 percent. If State law requires Anaheim to approve that
reduction, then the City should approve it. But the record should first demonstrate why State
law requires it.
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission obtain clear answers to these questions
before approving the recreation-leisure waiver.
Thank you for your consideration.
Andrew Winger
Resident, Anaheim, CA