2022-03-02 City Council Item No. 11.1 Public Comment - Williams Regular MEETING - Additional Meeting MaterialsG. Scott Williams
SWILLIAMS@SCMV.COM
P (619) 685-3151
F (619) 702-6842
750 B STREET, SUITE 2100 | SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 | 619.685.3003 | WWW.SCMV.COM
March 2, 2022
Mayor & City Council
City of Menifee
c/o City Clerk
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
Sent via e-mail
Re: Public Comment on proposed Change of Zone (CZ) PLN21-0408 – ECD Code
Amendment
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I am litigation counsel engaged by Hahn Road Properties, L.P., the owner of 38 acres along the
west side of Haun Road south of Garbani Road. On behalf of my client, I submit this public
comment objecting to the proposed amendment to the City’s Planning and Zoning Code as
unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. I urge the City Council to reject the proposed amendment
and thereby avoid an expensive and time-consuming court battle over the amendment that will
ultimately end in a court’s invalidation of the amendment, which is plainly deficient under State
law.
My client has already submitted correspondence to the City objecting to the proposed
amendment via Ms. Kelly Alhadeff-Black, including correspondence of today’s date. This letter
hereby incorporates the discussion contained in that previous correspondence and will not repeat
it. I have been asked by my client to submit this letter, however, to emphasize to the City that
the proposed amendment will not survive the lawsuit challenging the City’s action that will be
filed should the amendment be approved.
State law and Courts make clear that a City’s zoning code must be consistent with its General
Plan. (See Govt. Code § 65860; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City &
County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 656, 677-78.) It is plain that the proposed
amendment is flatly inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. The General Plan permits
warehousing in the Southern Gateway and McCall Boulevard areas of the City’s Economic
Development Corridor but the proposed amendment will prohibit such use in those areas. This
inconsistency is fatal.
In addition, the City proposes to avoid compliance with CEQA by asserting that the proposed
amendment is not a project under CEQA Guidelines section 15378 and that the common-sense
exemption to CEQA in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) applies. Neither contention is
viable. First, the suggestion that an amendment to a zoning ordinance is not a project because it
11.1
Mayor and Members of City Council
March 2, 2022
Page 2
750 B STREET, SUITE 2100 | SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 | 619.685.3003 | WWW.SCMV.COM
is merely “textual” makes no sense whatsoever. Indeed, any change to a zoning ordinance is
“textual” and case law is replete with successful challenges to zoning amendments on CEQA
grounds. An amendment to a zoning ordinance that prohibits some uses in one area but permits
them in others will most certainly affect the physical environment by shifting development
patterns. That is the case with the proposed amendment. Second, the common-sense exemption
does not apply for the same reasons. The proposed amendment will shift development patterns
within and outside the City. There is no basis whatsoever for the City to contend that the
proposed amendment will not have a physical impact on the environment. Accordingly, the City
must assess the proposed amendment under CEQA. Failure to do so dooms the amendment.
Please do not approved the proposed amendment. It is unlawful and will be shown to be so in
the unfortunate event that you do approve it.
Very truly yours,
G. Scott Williams
Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek
A Law Corporation