My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75C
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
12/01/2020
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75C
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2020 4:21:31 PM
Creation date
11/25/2020 3:25:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
12/1/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Jennifer J. Lynch <br />Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP <br />Direct Dial: (714) 371-2516 <br />JLynch@manatt.com <br />December 1, 2020 <br />S ENT V IA E-M AIL\[eComment@santa-ana.org\] <br />Mayor Miguel Pulido <br />Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento <br />Councilmember David Penaloza <br />Councilmember Jose Solorio <br />Councilmember PhilBacerra <br />Councilmember Juan Villegas <br />Councilmember Nelida Mendoza <br />Santa Ana City Council <br />20 Civic Center Plaza <br />Santa Ana, CA 92701 <br />th <br />Re: Agenda Item No. 75C, 4and Mortimer Mixed-Use Development <br />Dear Councilmembers: <br />th <br />I represent Red Oak Investments, LLC, the applicant for the 4and Mortimer Mixed-Use <br />DevelopmentProject(“Project”)beingconsideredthis eveningby the City Council as Agenda <br />Item No. 75C.The Santa Ana Planning Commission considered the Project on October 12, <br />2020, and two comment letters regarding the Project were submitted by theKennedy <br />Commission andSupporters’Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”)just prior to <br />that meeting. In addition, SAFER filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’sProject-related <br />approvals, andalso submitted an additional comment letter on November 3, 2020. As the <br />applicant’s land use counsel, I wanted to respond to several misunderstandings or incorrect <br />statements made in the above. <br />A.Neither the HOO nor the State Density Bonus Law apply to the Project. <br />Both the Kennedy Commission and SAFER misunderstandthescope of the entitlements <br />sought for theproposed Project, and on this basis, incorrectly claim that the City’s Housing <br />Opportunities Ordinance (“HOO”)applies to the Project. The Kennedy Commission comment <br />letter also incorrectly states that the Project is seeking incentives, concessions, higher density, <br />and a General Plan Amendment underCalifornia’s State Density Bonus Law. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.