HomeMy WebLinkAboutZischke, Michael H responseFrom: Zi schke , Mi chae l H. <mzi schke @cox castl e .com>
Se nt: Monday, Jul y 20, 2020 4:41 PM
To: P Cpubl i ccomme nt
Cc: Gary She atz; 'rgarci a@ci tyoforange .com'; Ki m Ki nsl e r
Subje ct: Publ i c Comme nt - Ite m #3.2 - TTM 50-20 and re l ate d acti ons
Attachme nts: 11806193_1.pdf
The attache d l e tte r i s submi tte d on be hal f of Mi l an Capi tal , re spondi ng to the proce dural poi nts contai ne d i n
the l e tte r submi tte d thi s morni ng by Thomas Broz.
Mi ke Zi schke
Mich ael H. Zischke
Cox , Ca s tl e & Ni c hol s on LLP
5 0 Ca l i for ni a Str eet | Sui te 3 2 0 0 | Sa n Fr a nc i s c o, CA 9 4 1 1 1
d irect: 4 1 5 .2 6 2 .5 1 0 9 | ma in : 4 1 5 .2 6 2 .5 1 0 0
mzi s c hke@ c ox c a s tl e.c om | vc a r d | bi o | web s i te
Sel ec ted a s 2 0 2 0 "La wyer of the Yea r " i n Li ti ga ti on - La nd u s e a nd Zoni ng La w by U.S. News & W or l d Repor t- Bes t La wyer s ®
Cox, Ca s tl e & Ni chol s on s el ec ted a s 2020 "La w Fi rm of the Yea r" i n La nd Us e a nd Zoni ng La w by U.S. News & Wor l d Report-
Bes t La wyer s ® "Bes t La w Fi r ms ".
For mor e i nfor ma ti on, vi s i t ou r bl og La y of the La nd
Thi s communica tion i s inte nde d only for the exclus ive us e of the a ddres s ee a nd ma y conta in informati on tha t is pri vileged or confi de ntia l. If you
a re not the a ddre s s ee, or s ome one re s pons ible for delivering this document to the a ddre s s ee, you ma y not rea d, copy or dis tribute it. Any
una uthorized dis s eminati on, di s tribution or copyi ng of this communica tion is s tri ctly prohi bi ted. If you ha ve re ceived this communica tion in
error, plea s e ca ll us promptly a nd s e curel y dis pos e of it. Tha nk you.
Michael H. Zischke
415.262.5109
mzischke@coxcastle.com
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111 -4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262 -5199
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 morning 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 Trails 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 of 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 t he same as the first." This case
File No. 082654
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 a
“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 it”]. 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 Guideline s and case law confirm that the City and
applicant can move forward with additional approvals . CEQA Guideline 15112(b); Kriebel v.
City 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.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Zischke
MHZ
cc: Gary Sheatz, City Attorney
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Milan Capital
Frank Elfend
082654\11806193v1