CORRESPONDENCE - 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

GIDEON KRACOV Attorney at Law 801 South Grand Avcnuc 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 629-2071 gk@gidwnlaw.ner Fax: (213) 623-7755 www.gideonlaw.net November 17, 2020 VIA EMAIL: Honorable Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 eComment@santa-ana.org RE: ITEM 75A ON COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 17, 2020; CARIBOU INDUSTRIES MIXED -USE HOTEL/RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (201 W. 3aD STREET); ENV. REVIEW No. 2019-85, DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT APP. No. 2020-01, SITE PLAN REVIEW No. 2020-01, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.2020-02, AND DISPOSITION & DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Dear Mayor Pulido and Councilmembers: On behalf of appellant UNITE HERE Local 11 and its members (collectively "Local 11" or "Commentor"), this Office submits the following comments to the City of Santa Ana (" City'l regarding the proposed development located at 201 West 3rd Street in Santa Ana ("Project'j. Caribou Industries ("Applicant'l proposes to replace the existing City -owned, 3-level parking garage with a mixed -use development containing 171 housing units (with only 19 for low-income residents), a 75-room boutique hotel, 13,419 square feet of commercial space (including retail and food/beverage establishments), and rooftop amenities ancillary to residential and hotel uses. The development would be composed of two buildings: a 16-story, 194-foot-tall mixed -use residential and commercial building and a 10-story, 128-foot tall hotel building. In short, and as confirmed in the expert comments of land use planner Michael Tharp attached as "Exhibit A," the Project violates the Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC" or "Code"), Santa Ana General Plan, and the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA'). The City has erred and abused its discretion in using both parcel lots to calculate lot density at 1.41 acres, but then not including the 75 hotel units on the hotel lot in the density calculation. As a result, the Project is receiving a free hotel and an extra six stories on the mixed -use residential parcel. This is unlawful. There is no basis to conclude that the normal zoning rules "would physicallypreclude construction of the mixed -income protect" or that all of the concessions requested are economically necessary The residential units can be built on the.52-acre hotel parcel and Code -required parking can be located in subterranean parking levels. Thus. the Protect does not need the waiver concessions to go six stories higher on the.89 acre residential parcel. Any hardship is self-imposed. Moreover, the land -use and CEQA findings concerning density and parking do not come to terms with the admission that the hotel (which requires less parking) can be converted to condominiums. As a result, if the hotel is converted, more parking is required and the density bonus calculations are completely skewed to permit far more dwelling units than allowed and less affordable housing than otherwise required.