Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence between 1230PM and 530PM July 20, 2020City of Orange Community Development Department Memo To: Chair Simpson and Members of the Planning Commission e Thru: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Directo From: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner F j Date: July 20, 2020 Re: Planning Commission Meeting of July 20, 2020 Staff is forwarding correspondence received from interested parties on the proposed Mabury Tentative Tract Map Project from 12:OOPM to 5:30PM on July 20, 2020. Printed on recycled paper Robert Garcia From: Frank Sun Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 3:58 PM To: Robert Garcia Cc: Gary 5heatz Subject: Mabury Avenue Existing Trail and Easement Hi Robert, In early March MMarch 4`h) I had some email exchange with Mr. Tom Broz regarding the existing trail along Mabury Avenue. At that time, no detailed development information was available, so I informed Mr. Broz that the existing trail will remain because it's located in the City's street right-of-way. The Tentative Tract Map #118163 was presented to the SMART Committee April 1" and as part of the development, a new trail easement would be dedicated to the City and located to the south of the development. Last week, the existing trail easement question was again brought up by Mr. Broz and I provided Mr. Broz with the proposed TTM #18163 and informed Mr. Broz that with the new alignment of the trail, the existing trail along Mabury will no longer be needed and the development has shown a sidewalk along Mabury Ave instead. 5�,ti, P. E. Assistant PW Director/City Engineer Public Works Department t714)744-5529 oCity ud range YIMBY Law 125o Mission 5t San Francisco, CA 94103 hello@vimbylaw.org 7/20�2020 Orange Planning Commission 300 E. Chapman Ave. Orange, CA 92866 PCpubliccomment@city_oforano.org; pcoleman@cityoforange.org; Via Email YIMBY LAW Re: South Side of Mabury Avenue Between Orange Park Boulevard and Cannon Street Tentative Tract Map No. 0050-20, Minor Site Plan Review No. 1o1b-20 Dear Orange Planning Commission, YIMBY Law submits this letter to inform you that the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality's zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. The most relevant section is copied below: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (t) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph {2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximately 15.4-acre site into 22 single-family residential lots on approximately 10.9 acres and open space dedication of approximately 4.5 acres along the Santiago Creek corridor. The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else snake findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Yimby Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, &Ar 1 Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law YIMBY Law,1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 44103 COX CASTLE Cox, Castle8:reet,S ite 200 50 California street, Suite 32U0 � I C H � L 5 C� � son Francisco, California 9411 I -4710 1h P:415.262.5100 F:415.262-5199 Michael H. Zischke 415.262.5109 m zi sc hk e@coxcast le.com File No. 082654 July 20, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Planning Commission City of Orange 300 East Chapman Avenue Orinda CA 92866 Re, TTM No. 0050-20, Minor Site Plan Review No. 1016-20, Environmental Review No. 1871-20 - Response to Legal Points Submitted by Mr. Thomas Broz Honorable Chair and Commissioners: This letter responds to the legal and procedural issues raised in the letter submitted this inorning by Thomas Broz, asking that the Commission's consideration of these matters be continued to a later date. As explained below, the points in Mr. Broz's letter do not provide any basis for continuing the hearing on these matters, and it is entirely appropriate for the Commission to proceed with the hearing this evening. Mr. Broz references the pending referendum of the previously approved Trams at Santiago project, suggesting these actions should be delayed until after the referendum vote. The legal effect of the submission of the referendum per Elections Code section 9241 is to suspend the previously approved general plan amendment, and that is all that it does, it does not freeze all action on the property, and it is not a moratorium. Further, during the pendency of the referendum, the City is free to consider development proposals that are "substantially dissimilar" to the referended action. Lindell v. Town o f'San Anselmo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1099 [when a measure is pending, city may not re -adopt substantially the same measure, but may adopt a different measure]. In Lindell, the court stated that the referendum provisions of the Elections Code do "not tie a legislative body's hands entirely. It does not prevent a legislative body or a city council from adopting any measures involving the same subject matter. In determining whether a subsequently enacted ordinance violates the stay provisions of [the Elections Code], we ask "whether the second legislative enactment is essentially the same as the first." This case Planning Commission, City of Orange July 20, 2020 Page 2 also cited an earlier referendum decision which held that a referendum does not bar approval of "substantially dissimilar" development. Reagan v. City of Sausalito (1962) 210 Cal.App.3d 618. Here, the tentative tract map is an entirely different development than the much larger Trails at Santiago project, and the City and Commission are free to proceed. Mr. Broz asks why the City would accept another project application when there is an approved project for this site. The prior Trails at Santiago approvals are not now in effect, however, based on the submission of the referendum petition. Elections Code 9241 [the plan amendment "shall not become effective until a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance vote in favor of V]. As stated in the resolution before this Commission, if these new applications are approved, the new approval by its own terms will disappear if the voters approve the Trails at Santiago project at the November election. Mr. Broz also references the certified environmental impact report for the project. Notably, the City's ability to use an addendum to the prior EIR is not affected by the referendum, or the pending litigation against the EIR. Unlike a general plan amendment and land use approvals, certification of an EIR is an administrative act not subject to referendum. Also, by statute, an EIR under legal challenge is presumed adequate until a court rules otherwise. Public Resources Code §21167.3. The CEQA Guidelaies and case law confirm that the City and applicant can move forward with additional approvals. CEQA Guideline 15112(b); Kriebel v. Citv Council (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 693, 702. In Kreibel, the court specifically considered the ability of a city to process a subdivision map with litigation pending over the EIR, and the court held that "the city and Nielsen were at liberty to proceed with the processing of the subdivision map" and the approval of the map in that case withstood challenge. We appreciate the Commission's attention to these points. Sincerelv. Michael H. Zischke MHZ cc: Gary Sheatz, City Attorney Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Milan Capital Frank Elfend 682654111806193v1