The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHuntington Center Associates LLC, (Ezralow), Burlington Coat Factory & Montgomery Wards - 2000-10-20 (18)Oct-02-2000 12lbm From-Tuchman i Associates 2133850595 T-505 P_001 F-462 TUCF v jkN, & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 wkMSKAZ BOUL.EVARD 10TH FLOM LOS A:4 iF4. CALIiORNiA goo to !HONE D 3 A$ 6000 - FAX 213.315 0595 b � ;z 4 FAX COVER SHEET C:' n CD FAX TO:- j- f FIRM NAME: FAX NO.: � 1 _ .~ � l� r 1 S-.� 7 FROM: REGARD TO: c u -10 G �-tklL 11k- ID 2�v o OUR FILE NO.. DATE & TIME: NO. OF PAGES (including this page) : SO Per Your Request Per Our Conversation For Your Information _ SPECIAL. COMMENTS Response Requested Response Not Required Please call us upon Receipt THIS FACSINQLE IS INTLVDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON TO WFIOM IT tS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, OR OTHER DATA PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE LNM APPUCABL.Ir LAW- W YOU ARE NOT 11M AIYOREs EE OR THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DELMPI.'�IG THIS TO THE ADDRESSEE. YOU ARE HE MY NO'TWW THAT COPYING OR DISTRIBLrrING THIS TRANSMISSION IS PROKMITM ff YOU HAVE RECEIVER TM FACSMIE IN ERROR• P -WE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATELY AND RETURN IT BY MALL TO THE . PERSON AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. THANK YOU. 1,� C�,`nMUN K}�J\l TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES �d ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90010 PHONE 213.385.8000 - FAX 213.385.0595 October 2, 2000 HAND DELIVERED AND SENT VIA FACSIMELE 714374-1557 City Council City of Huntington Breach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: City Council Meeting on_Tuesday, October 2. 2000 Re Adoption of the Owner Particigation Agreement Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach: This Firm represents Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. ("Burlington") in connection with the above -referenced matter. As you may know, Burlington is a tenant inwhat is commonly known as the "Huntington Center Mall" ("Huntington Center'). Huntington Center is owned by Huntington Center Associates, which is a subsidiary of Ezralow Retail Properties and The Ezralow Company (collectively referred to as "HCA"). On October 2, 2000, the City Council will consider whether to approve the Owner Participation Agreement ("OPN) entered into between the City of Huntington Beach (the"City') and HCA in Connection with the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Burlington objects to the City Council's approval of the OPA on the grounds that the OPA seeks to implement redevelopment pursuant to the Specific Plan, which, as discussed in Burlington's July 5, 2000 objection letter to the City Council, was adopted even though the Specific Plan made substarnive changes to the Redevelopment Plan in direct contravention to the California Health and Safety Code Sections 33450-33458 ("Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements"), the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and established law. In addition, Burlington has collected over 16,000 signatures of Huntington Beach and local area residents objecting to the treatment of Burlington by the City and Ezralow, and demanding that Burlington remain.' These were delivered The petitions have been delivered to the City Council under separate r,nver Oct-02-2000 12:53pm From-iuchman & Accociates 2133850595 T-505 P 002 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2, 2000 City Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 2 to the City on approximately September 28, 2000 and are incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth_ Although the Staff Report states that there has been "Community Clamor" redevelop the M211, evidently, such clamor also encompasses Burlington remaining at the Mall. According to the Redevelopment Agency, however, "clamor" is only what the Staff Report says it is, but the signatures on the petitions speak for themselves. The City Council should take heed of said petitions because many of these very citizens are part of the voting pool that elected the current members of the City Council. The City Council should take note that by approving the OPA, the City Council, in effect, will be selling the City's redevelopment powers and eminent domain powers to the highest bidder. in 1995, when Huntington Center needed tenants, the City and the Redevelopment Agency were cordial and cooperative with Burlington's move to the underperforming mall. But now when Burlington is no longer needed, Burlington is given short shrift. By approving the OPA, the City Council is allowing a private developer to borrow the powerful rights of a CitylAgcncy to line its own pockets. In the alternative, the City Council decision should be continued in order to consider the legal issues raised in this letter. Oct-02-Z000 12:54pm Fro.-Tuchman 3 Accociatac 2133B505B5 F-505 P 003 F-452 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach RE: October 2. 2000 City CQutzcil Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 3 SUMMARY OF CONMENTS AND OF3IECTIONS TF THE CTTY CQXTNCILPIS THE SPECIFIC P......................................... BACKGROUNDFACTS.................................................................... .............................9 BurlingtonLem.................................................................................... 9 Fzralow and HCA Nrchase Huntinglon Ce te.............................................11 Burlington's Negotiations WtcbHCA...............................................................I1 The Agency and HCA Hold Closed DoorMeegiM to Discuss RedeveloRment ...............................................................................12 The Redevelopment genq Gets Involved itLthc Redevelopment of Huntington Center... ...................................... .................. 13 HCA Elects to Raze Burlington's Dcmised Premises.......................................14 Burlingaon Files Lawsuit Against Ezralnw and HCA to Enforce Lease ............ 15 Ci Administrators and Officials Interfere With Burlington's La ........16 The Agency Prepares a Misleading Report Relative I=c EonnMics of Retaining Burlington as a Tenant of Huntinron Center ...................... L THE REDMLOPMENT AGENCY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CALIFORNIA CONMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT.....................................20 A. Overview of the California Communily Redevelopment Act ............... 20 B. Amendment of the Redevelopment Plan..............................................21 C. The Ciand thr, MeMFLailed to Satisfy_. the Redevelopment_ Plan Amendment Reguiremenrs With Respect to the City Coancil's Adoption of Resolutions 2000-68 and 2000-8 .......... ..................... .....22 D. The Redevelop ent Agency Has Failed to Provide Burlington with a Reasonghle Opportunity to ParticilRate in the RedevelopMcnt of Huntinmon Centerr..........................................................................25 Oct-02-2000 12:54p-n From-`uchman i Assaciatec 2133850595 T-505 P 004 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: Octobgr ? 2000 Ci Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 4 U. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S ACTIONS, THE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THE "OWNrER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT" ARE IN WOLATTON OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTORYAND CO WON LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.- .27 A. The Redevelopment Agency's Actions. the Specific Plan_ and the OPA Are in Vio(atk)n of Equal ProteggQ11. Substantive Due Froces and procedural Due Process a5 Guuanteed by the FourIcenth Amendment 4the United States Constitution.........................................................28 B. Burlington Was Given -Inadequate Notice Relative to the Proposed Re§oltjWons and the OP t sat will be Considercd by the City Council onOctober 2 2000...............................................................................29 Noticeis Vague ...........................................................................29 2. The Proposed Resolutions are Vague and Not $Upported By Any Evidence Whatsoever.....................................................31 C. Pre-CondeMation Activities Have Been Undertaken By Ezralgw, the Cily,,and the Redevelopment Agency.............................................33 D. The Redevelopment Agency's Actions Amount to Tortious Conduct Under California's Statutory_ and Decisional Law.................................34 1. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's Contractual Relationship With HCA...... ...............34 2. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfiered With Burlington's Prospective Economic Relationship with HCA.....35 3. City Administrators and Officials Conspired to Induce HCA to Breach its Contractual Relationship With Burlington...............36 IIi. EZRALOW S RESPONSE TO THE RFP CANNOT BE LEGALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT PROPOSES A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT VIOLATES THE CIiY'S GENERAL PUN AND ESTABLISHED LAW........................................................37 A. The Specific Plan_ Is ,'Not in Compliance with the Qenerl! Plan ............ 37 Oct-02-2000 12:54pm From-Tuchman & Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 005 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re. October 2. 2000 City. Council Heating October 2, 2000 Page 5 B. The Specific. Plan Does Not Comply with State Law and Municipal Code Requitcme is for Specific plans...................................................37 C. The Adoption of the Specific Plan 'Will Violate the California Environmental Quality Act; an Enwronmental Im act Report Must Be Prepared...................................................................................39 1. Th-c-City m�t_prepare and certify an EIR for the Proposed Sj2ecificPPlao...............................................................................40 b. Fair Argument Test Requues an EIR..............................41 2_ The Specific Plan Is a Project under CEQA................................43 3. The Cin• and the Redevelopment Agency Must Undertake CEQA Review Before Proceeding with the Adoption of the SpecificPlan...............................................................................43 4. The Elements of Tiering Are Not Met........................................44 5. The City and the Redevelopment Agency Have Unlawfully "Split" the Project for Purposes of Environmental Review ....... 44 6. The Adoptc�xLof the -Specific Plan As Currendy Contemplated Without Environmental Review Would Unlawfully Defer Environmental RevieR ............................. 7. The Adoption of the Specific Plan As Currently Contemplated without Environmental L-%-ievv Will Result in an Unlawful failure to Undertake a Cumulative Analysis of the Project's Environmental Impacts..............................................................48 IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................49 Oct-02-2000 12:54PM Frori-Tuchman i Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 006 F-462 Ciry Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re. October 2. 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page G SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND OBFECTIONS IF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES OPA It should he noted that most of this letter is being written without the benefit of having the Staff Report and the recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency, which the Cleric's Office has advised, was "tied up in legal." As usual, the City waited until Friday 5:00 p.m. to release staff reports and recommendations which will be considered the following Monday, giving affected parties, like Burlington, the barest amount of time to prepare and respond to the actions which will be undertaken. The purpose of this letter is twofold. First, in exercising its governing powers for the City, the City Council needs to be aware of the "behind -the -scenes" plotting that has taken place between FICA, on the one hand, and City and Redevelopment Agency officials in connection with the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Second, the procedures that have been taken thus far in connection with redeveloping Huntington Center are not in compliance with statutory and decisional law. The OPA, Specific Plan, and actions of officials for the City and Redevelopment Agency have been implemented in contravention to established law in order to redevelop Huntington Center in accordance with the wishes of HCA. First, the City Council adopted the Specific Plan on July 5, 2000 even though the Specific Plan was still in the early stages of being prepared. Burlington has yet to be furnished with the final Specific Plan. Why? Because it is not complete. But that begs the question - What did the City Council approve on July 5, 2000? The answer is simple. The City Council approved an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan without following the Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements. The same can be said with the OPA that is before the City Council. The OPA is an agreement, just like any other agreement recognized by lacer. The problem with the OPA agreement is that the City and HCA want to enter into an agreement that interferes with the lease agreement between HCA and Burlington as it pertains to redevelopment of Huntington Center. The OPA provides that a Site Plan shall be prepared for Huntington Center, but nowhere does the OPA mention Burlington being involved in the redevelopment process (even though its lease with HCA specifically calls for HCA to deliver to Burlington conceptual plans of the proposed redevelopment). What the OPA does provide is that the Redevelopment Agency, at the direction of HCA, will implement its condemnation powers to obtain certain parcels of land. Conveniently, the OPA does not mention the specific property to be condemned. In addition, the OPA seeks to redevelop Huntington Center by implementing the Specific Plan, which, as discussed in further detail below, is an unconstitutional and illegal Oct-02-2000 12:55pm From-Tuchnan I Associates 2133950595 T-505 P 007 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re. October 2 2000 Cily Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 7 amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The proposed OPA predetermines condemnation in violation of Burlington's due process rights. At Article 300 section 301, the proposed OPA commits the City on behalf of HCA to "use good faith efforts in acquiring title to the properties within or around the Site, or interest therein, in order to further purposes of the Redevelopment Plan and this Agreement, including without limitation the creation of unified ownership and control of the redeveloped Site in Participant (the "Additional Properties', and to sell such Additional Properties, if any, to the Participant pursuant to the terms of this Agreement_" The Court in development Agency v. Norm's Slauson, 173 Cal. App. 3d 1121, 1127 held that "by the time the Agency actually conducted a hearing to determine the "necessity" for taldng the property in question, it had, by virtue of its contract with the developer and issuance of revenue bonds, irrevocably committed itself to take the property in question, regardless of any evidence that might be presented at that hearing." Pursuant to this OPA and especially section 301, Burlington will be stripped of any possibility of a fair hearing on necessity pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.50 ems. In addition, the proposed OPA in relation to acquisition of "additional parcels" violates California Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.020. Finally, as further discussed below, this letter will apprise the City Council of the legal ramifications and liabilities that the City and Redevelopment Agency will incur as a result of its adoption of the Specific Plan on July 5, 2000 (and re -adoption on August 7, 2000), as well as the legal ramifications and liabilities which the City and Redevelopment Agency will expose themselves to in the event the OPA is approved by the City Council. It is not Burlington's intention to prevent the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Burlington wants to be a part of it. When Burlington first became a tenant of Huntington Center, it was assured by HCA's predecessor -in -interest that Huntington Center would undergo redevelopment with the participation of Burlington. Indeed, Burlington's lease expressly preserved Burlington's tenancy in the event of redevelopment. HCA, however, has all along threatened to use the City's eminent domain powers to condemn Burlington unless it agrees to a rent increase from $3 to $22 per square foot. The OPA is evidence that HCA's threats are soon to become a reality if the City Council puts its stamp of approval on the OPA because the OPA provides that the Redevelopment Agency, at the direction of HCA, will implement its eminent domain powers to condemn parcels of land necessary to the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Moreover, the City Council, by adopting the Specific Plan, will be granting Oct-02-2000 12:55pm Fron-Tuchman & .Associates 2133850505 T-505 P 008 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2, 2000 City Cc)uncif Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 8 the Planning Director unfettered discretion to determine the Site Plan for Huntington Center, without any notice or hearing to interested parties such as Burlington. Moreover, the City Council ratified Clay Silver's June 5, 2000 memorandum which declared the Specific Plan a "city -initiated project" even though Mr. Silver does not take responsibility for drafting such a memorandum. Rather, Jane James, an associate planner, took responsibility for authoring the June 5 memorandum allegedly of her own volition. !Miraculously and coincidently, Burlington's temporary restraining order was pending at the time. Lastly, in adopting the Specific Plan, the City Council (presumably because it was advised by its legal counsel) ignored the fact that the Specific Plan constiniced an illegal amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Redevelopment Law is clear that when amending a Redevelopment Plan certain procedures must be implemented. The City and Redevelopment Agency, however, averted their eyes to the law and failed to comply with Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements. As such, on July 5, 2000 and on August 7, 2000, the City Council adopted the Specific Plan as the new zoning for Huntington Center. The City and Redevelopment Agency may only avert their eyes for so long. These matters will be brought up in a proper legal forum and will be litigated. One thing is clear, however, the City and HCA desperately want Huntington Center approved for redevelopment, and will go to any length to see a new Huntington Center erected. The one thing that the City Council is not considering, although it very well should, is that Burlington will not go away. The actions of the City Council and other officials for the City and Redevelopment Agency will be revisited in a judicial forum. The City Council should not reward HCA and the Redevelopment Agency for their surreptitious backroom negotiations, but rather instruct and direct the Redevelopment Agency to work with Burlington, Montgomery Ward,z and HCA in order to reach common ground as to how each respective tenant, as well as HCA and the citizenry of Huntington Beach, will benefit from the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Burlington joins and concurs with the objections raised by Montgomery Ward in its letter to the City Council. Oct-02-2000 12:55pm Froa-Tuchman & .Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 009 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re. October 2. 2000 City -Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 9 BACKGROUND FACTS The Huntington Center is part of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("Redcvelopment Plan"), which was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City on or about December 16, 1996 by Resolution No. 3343. "Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project," dated August 1996 ("Owner Participation Rules), were adopted as required by California Community Redevelopment Act to govern the participation of property owners in connection with redevelopment under the Redevelopment Plan. This Plan, as adopted, was overbroad and impermissibly vague. Burlington Lease Before Resolution No. 3343 was adopted, on April 28, 1995, Burlington entered into a long-term lease agreement ("Burlington Lease') with MCA Huntington Associates, L.P. ("Former Landlord") whereby Burlington would occupy 133,500 square feet of space as a tenant in a portion of Huntington Center for a term of flurry (30) years_; In addition, Burlington has other property rights pursuant to certain Reciprocal Easement Agreements ("RFA").4 At the time the Burlington Lease was being negotiated, Former landlord advised Burlington that Huntington Center mould undergo redevelopment in the near future, and that the Redevelopment Agency would be involved in the redevelopment because Huntington Center was located within a City designated Redevelopment Project Area. With that in mind, the Burlington Lease was specially drafted to include certain provisions addressing Burlington's rights in the event Landlord elected to redevelop Burlington's demised premises_ In particular, the Burlington Lease provides that Landlord reserves the right at any time during the term of the Burlington Lease to renovate, reconfigure and/or modernize Huntington Center, including Burlington's structure. The lease further states that Burlington shall have the right to approve the conceptual design (the "Design") of the reconfigured Huntington Center in the event Landlord elected to raze Burlington's structure. The following lease provision sets forth the procedures to be followed by both Burlington and Landlord in the event Landlord elects to redevelop Attached as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the Burlington Lease. Attached as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the REA's. Oct-02-2000 12:56pm From-Tuchman t Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 010 F-62 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. ?_000 C � Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 10 Burlington's demised premises: Landlord shall, at its sole cost and expense, prepare and deliver to Tenant a conceptual design (the "Design') for the reconfigured Shopping Center showing the approximate location of the New Premises as well as the location of other buildings and other improvements to be located in the reconfigured Shopping Center. Tenant shall have the right to approve the Design of the reconfigured Shopping Center including the location of the New Premises which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If Tenant shal] not approve the Design, Tenant and Landlord shall use their best efforts to cooperate and agree on all of the modifications necessary to obtain the approval of Tenant to the Design, and Landlord's project architect (the "Center Architect') shall promptly revise the Design to incorporate all such modifications which are mutually acceptable to Landlord and Tenant. In the event Landlord and Burlington (despite their best efforts) are unable to agree upon the Design for the reconfigured Huntington Center including the location of Burlington's structure, Article XV11 of the Burlington Lease provides for arbitration of all "Unresolved issues". The lease states, in pertinent part, that: The Unresolved Issues shall be submitted to final and bindin arbitration as follows: Landlord and Tenant shall each within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Center Architect's Notice designate one person, as hereinafter provided, to represent it as an arbitrator. The arbitrators so appointed by Landlord and Tenant shall within ten (10) days following the aforesaid twenty (20) day period designate one additional person as arbitrator to the end that the total number of arbitrators shall be three (3). The appointment of all arbitrators under this Section shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the other party_ Any person designated as an arbitrator shall be knowledgeable and experienced in the development and design of regional shopping centers, but shall not be in the employment of either Landlord or Tenant, directly, indirectly or as an agent, except in connection with the arbitration then proceeding. The arbitrators shall meet or otherwise confer as deemed necessary by the arbitrators to resolve the Unresolved Oct-02-2000 12:5eve From-Tuchman i Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 011 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: Ocrober 2 2000 Cily Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 11 Issues and a decision of a majority of the arbitrators will be final and binding upon Landlord and Tenant. The decision of the arbitrators shall be in writing and shall be made as promptly as possible after the designation of the third (3'4) arbitrator, but in no event later than thirty (30) days from the date of the designation of the thud (3Y") arbitrator. A copy of the decision of the arbitrators shall be signed by at least two (2) of the arbitrators and given to each parry in the manner provided in Section 2 1. 10 of this lease for the giving of notice. Ezralow and HCA Purchase Huntington Center Prior to August 1999, Huntington Center was owned by Macench Huntington Limited Partnership (".Macerich'). Macerich purchased the Huntington Center tom Former Landlord. On or about August 5, 1999, The Ezralow Company and Ezralow Retail Properties (collectively referred to as "Ezralow") entered into an agreement with Macerich for the purchase of Huntington Center. Prior to closing of that transaction, Ezralow assigned all of its rights and obligations under that purchase agreement to Huntington Center Associates ("HCA'), a subsidiary of Ezralow. After the assignment from Ezralow, HCA proceeded with the purchase transaction, which closed on or about November 16, 1999.5 Ezralow and HCA acquired Huntington Center for the purpose of redeveloping it into a retail and entertainment center pursuant to prospective redevelopment agreements with the Redevelopment Agency. HCA seeks to redevelop Huntington Center with the help of Ezralow, which is in the business of developing commercial real estate. As indicated in the Specific Plan, HCA's redevelopment plan will require the demolition and removal of much of the existing improvements on the site, including Burlington's demised premises. Burlington's Negotiations With HCA In the later part of 1999, Douglas Gray, the President of Ezralow Properties, sent to Burlington a large 100 scale preliminary site plan for the proposed Pursuant to that transaction. HCA purchased all right, title, and interest of Macerich in and to the land on which Huntington Center is built and the improvements located on such land, and HCA was assigned all right, title, and interest of Macerich as landlord under the leases in effect for Huntington Center. One such lease is the Burlington Lease. Oct-02-2000 12:56pm Frori-Tuchman 3 .Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 012 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 12 redevelopment of Huntington Center. The plan proposed Burlington's participation as a tenant in the redeveloped Huntington Center. Oct or about September 23, 1999, Mr Gray, on behalf of Ezralow, contacted Burlington in connection with opening discussions regarding Burlington's interest in participating as a tenant of the redeveloped center. Nir. Gray offered Burlington space within the redeveloped shopping center onN i Burlington leased space at a cost of $22 per square foot, plus taxes, CAIM charges, and insurance. In addition, Mr. Gray's proposal sought to decrease Burlington's space within the redeveloped mall by approximately 50,000 square feet. Notwithstanding Mr. Gray's offer to increase Burlington's rent to $22 per square foot, the Burlington Lease states that Burlington's rent shall remain the same ($3 per square foot) in the event Landlord elects to raze or redevelop Burlington's demised premises. In particular, the Burlington Lease states, in pertinent part, that: The Fixed !Minimum Rent and Common Area Costs for the New Premises shall be the same as the Fixed Minimum Rent and Common Area Costs applicable to the Existing Premises. Ezralow's offer was not acceptable to Burlington due to the proposed rent increase of almost eight time that of the rent provided by the Burlington Lease and the proposed decrease in Burlington's square footage. Accordingly, Burlington rejected Ezralow's offer_ On or about Novcmber 1999, Burlington requested that Ezralow and HCA deliver to Burlington any proposed redevelopment plans concerning the redevelopment of Huntington Center or proposed alterations of Burlington's demised premises. Ezralow and HCA, however, refused to deliver such plans. In addition, HCA refused to consult with Burlington concerning the nature of the plans being submitted by HCA to the Redevelopment Agency. The Agency and HCA Hold Closed Door meetings to Discuss Redevelopment The Redevelopment Agency, HCA, and Ezralow held several closed door meetings relating to HCA's purchase and redevelopment of Huntington Center. One such meeting occurred on or about November 15, 1999, the day before HCA actually took title to Huntington Center. No tangible evidence (e.g., minutes) were kept of said meetings, even though the Brown Act requires that public entities keep a record of any meetings writh third parties relating to the business of the public entity. Mr. Murray Kane, of Kane Ballmer & Berkman, was present at this meeting. Burlington was not invited, nor was it informed at the time that such a meeting was going to take place. It is believed that the City, prior to Ezralow closing escrow, already committed to condemning out Burlington and Montgomery Ward. Oct-02-2000 12:57P3i From-Tuchman d Associates 2133B50595 T-505 P.013 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2, 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 13 In December, 1999, Burlington met with Mr. Gray and other representatives of Ezralow in order to discuss redevelopment of Huntington Center as well as Burlington's location 'within the shopping center. Mr. Gray advised Burlington that if it did not accept Earalow's rent increase from 83 to $22 per square foot, the Redevelopment Agency has assured Ezralow and HCA that Burlington's leasehold interest would be condemned. Mr. Gray further stated that Burlington had no redevelopment rights once the Redevelopment Agency was brought in to condemn Burlington's lease. Simply put, unless Burlington accepted &Walow's extortionate rent increase, the Burlington Lease -- which preserves Burlington's tenancy in the event the shopping center undergoes redevelopment - would be condemned by the Redevelopment Agency. As alleged in Burlington's federal lawsuit against the City and the Redevelopment Agency, Ezralow made such threats after it received assurance from the Redevelopment agency that Burlington's leasehold interest would be condemned. From the time period of December 1999 to the present, Ezralow has cut off all communications with Burlington, and refuses to abide by the provisions set forth in the Burlington Lease. The Redevelopment Alaenu Gets Involved in the Redevelopment of Huntington Center On or about March 3, 2000, the Director of Economic Development for the City of Huntington Beach sent a Request For Proposal ("UP") to all persons or entities that qualified as an owner vAthin Huntington Center. The RFD's requested that said owners submit Statements of Interest and Requests for Development Proposals in connection with entering into a Owner Participation Agreement (`OPA') with a qualified owner.6 Within the time required by the RFP, Burlington submitted to the Redevelopment Agency its Statement of interest and Response to the RFP (`Burlington Response"). HCA also submitted a response to the RFP by a letter from their attorneys, Whitman Breed Abbott & Morgan LLP, by letter dated May 2, 2000 ("HCA Response"), which included as its alleged redevelopment concept the City of Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13, entitled "The Crossings at Huntington Beach" (the "Specific Plan'). Prior to KCA submitting the HCA Response, HCA submitted an application to Section 20OF of the Owner Participation Rules defines "Owner" as "any person, persons, corporation, association, partnership, or other entity holding recorded fee title to or a long-term lease of real property in the Project Area for so long as such Owner hold such title or long-term lease." Oct-02-2000 12=57po From-Tuchman d Associates 2133850595 T-505 P.014 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: Qctoher 2, 2000 City Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 14 the City for the establishment of the new Specific Plan as the zoning for the entire Huntington Center. This application is dated March 31, 2000, but, oddly, acknowledged in the -Official Use Only" box as received by the City on !March 30, 2000 and distributed by the City on March 16, 2000. The City's Planning Commission held study sessions on May 9, 2000 (with no notice, "courtesy" or otherwise to the public) and May 30, 2000 (with only a few days notice to the public) to consider the Specific Plan, and a formal Planning Commission hearing was held on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, which was continued to a special Planning Commission hearing that was held on June 20, 2000. Burlington received written notice -- in which HCA is referenced as the "applicant" for the Specific Plan -- of a Planning Commission hearing for Tuesday, June 13, 2000. However, on June 5, 2000, Ray Silver, City Administrator and Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, unilaterally declared by memorandum dated June 5, 2000, that the City and the Redevelopment Agency were the "applicants" for the Specific Plan because it was a "city -initiated project." This action was without a formal motion and in direct contravention to the City's own Zoning Ordinance. Ray Silver, the supposed author of the June 5 memorandum, testified he was trot the author nor did he know where it came from - other than his in -box Despite the Fact that Burlington has operated its business in Huntington Center since 1995, under one of the proposed Specific Plan exhibits, Burlington's building is excluded from the new Huntington Center. The RFP that was sent to Burlington does not mention the Specific Plan and, rather, requests that any submission in response to the RFP provide for a redevelopment concept for the site which includes a "[d]escription of proposed uses and the arrangement of these uses." Neither the City, nor the Redevelopment Agency, nor HCA ever contacted Burlington in connection with the development of the draft Specific Plan even though HCA is obligated to seek Burlington's approval in connection with any proposed redevelopment or razing of Burlington's demised premises. HCA Elects to Raze Burlington's Demisgd Premises On or about March 20, 2000, HCA submitted to the Redevelopment Agency a Specific Plan 12 which showed that Burlington's demised premises would be razed and that Burlington would no longer be a part of the redeveloped Huntington Center. On or about March 31, 2000, HCA submitted an application with the Planning Commission for the establishment of the new Specific plan as the zoning for the entire Huntington Center. Oct-02-2000 12:56am Fron-Tuchman & .Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 015 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: OCIober 2 2000 Ciry Counril Headg& October 2, 2000 Page 15 Thereafter, and starting on or about April 4, 2000, combined with numerous letters and requests in writing, during April and May, 2000, Burlington undertook to obtain as much information as possible from the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Such information included a request for information as to any meetings, notices, plans submitted, and documentation relating to Huntington Center which the "development Agency was required to produce upon request, as required under the Brown Act. The Redevelopment Agency, however, engaged in a scheme and course of conduct to conceal documents specifically requested by Burlington and failed to disclose scheduled meetings between the Redevelopment Agency and Ezralow in relation to the redevelopment of Huntington Center, including, but not limited to, intentionally not informing Burlington of a Staff Meeting on April 13, 2000, a Planning Commission meeting (or sometimes referred to as Study Sessions) dated May 9, 2000, and a Design Review Board Meeting on June 1, 2000. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency intentionally withheld and continues to withhold documents which were requested by Burlington. Burlington Files Lawsuit Against Ezralow and HCA to EnfoECe Lease On or about May 24, 2000, Burlington filed a lawsuit against HCA and Ezralow in the Superior Court of Orange County -Central Justice Center, for breach of the Burlington Lease. The lawsuit alleged that Ezralow and HCA were in breach of the Burlington Lease when it refused to deliver to Burlington conceptual plans in connection with the redevelopment of Huntington Center, and when it submitted development plans to the Redevelopment Agency without seeking Burlington's approval to said plans. In addition, the complaint sought injunctive relief in order to prevent Ezralow and HCA from submitting plans that have not been approved by Burlington. On June 1, 2000, Burlington gave notice to Ezralow and HCA that Burlington would seek ex parte' relief from the court in order to obtain a temporary restraining order to prevent Ezralow and HCA from submitting development plans and zoning applications relating to the razing of Burlington's demised premises without seeking Burlington's approval to said plans. HCA represented to the Court that it was no longer the applicant for the Specific Plan, but that the Redevelopment Agency and 7 All parties actually appeared on June 2, 2000 with Burlington's papers being served. The matter was put over to the following Wedncsday June 7, 2000 at the request of Ezralow. The judge heard the ex parte on June 7, 2000. Oct-02-2000 12:56pm Frors-Tuchman & Azcaciatec 2133850595 T-505 P 016 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re. Octohar 2, 2000 C;i1y C=cil Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 16 the City were the new applicants. The judge requested that the Agency provide a supplemental declaration stating that it was the new applicant. City Administrators and Officials Interfere With Burlington's Lawsuit In anticipation that a temporary restraining order would be granted by the court due to the Fact that Ezralow submitted a development plan that was in contravention to the Burlington Lease, on June 5, 2000, Ray Silver, the City Administrator and Executive Director of the Agency, wrote a memorandum wherein lie, in his capacity as the City Administrator, declared that the Redevelopment Agency and the City would be the applicants for the Specific Plan which was initially submitted by HCA.8 After considering Mr. Silver's memorandum and the accompanying declaration of Mr. Zelefsky, the Court deemed Burlington's ex pane application for a temporary restraining order to be moot considering that HCA was no longer the applicant. Mr. Silver's June 5, 2000 memorandum was the impetus for Burlington's lawsuit filed in federal court. The claims for relief sought in the lawsuit against the City and Redevelopment Agency are described in detail in Section N below. the Agency Prepares a Misleading Report Relative to the Economics of Retaining Burlington as a Tenant of Huntington Center On September 12, 2000, the Sedway Group submitted a report (the "Sedwav Report') to the Agency wherein it documented it evaluation of three redevelopment alternatives for Huntington Center. The Sedway Report reached the conclusion that sales tax revenue to the City would be maximized by excluding Burlington as a tenant from Huntington Center. In reaching its conclusion, however, the Sedway Report calculated Burlington's sales performance on the basis that its store is 194,232 square feet, rather than 133,500, the actual size of the Burlington store. The miscalculation was not a mere oversight, but rather an attempt to mislead the City Council into believing that Burlington's sales revenue is not within industry standards. In its fiscal year of June 1998 to May 1999, Burlington's net sales surpassed $13.5 million, which amounts to over $1 million per month in a supposedly 'dead" mall. The Sedway Report is a Farce, driven by the needs and requirements of the developer Ezralow. Over the last three (3) years, Burlington's sales tax revenue a Attached as Exhibit "C" is a true and correct copy of the June 5, 20W rnemo authored by Mr. Silver. Oct-02-2000 12:58pm Fioa—Tuchman & Associates 2133850595 T-505 A.017 F-452 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 2000 City Council Hearing, October 2, 2000 Page 17 amounts to $3,769,000.9 The Sedway Report, in determining the sales tax revenue per Square foot for the Burlington store, improperly evaluated Burlington sales tax revenue by basing its calculation of the square footage of 199,232 square feet, rather than the accurate square footage, which is 133,500 square feet. Therefore, the Sedway Report inaccurately concluded that Burlington sales tax revenue per square foot to be at $6.31, rather than the accurate sales tax revenue of $9.41. Simply put, the Sedway Report miscalculated Burlington's sales tax revenue per square foot by more than 50%. Burlington has reviewed the Sedway Report as well as the Keyser Marston Associates report. Both reports are objected to on the following bases: (1) No consultation with Burlington Coat Factory was ever undertaken. (2) The reports are improperly slanted against Burlington. (3) The Sedway Group evaluation of Huntington Center Redevelopment alternatives improperly evaluates revenue and sales tax generated based on a square footage of 199,232 square feet. The actual square footage of Burlington Coat l;acmry is 133,500 square fect, and the square footage of the leasehold compared with the gross revenues and sales tax number is improperly skewed. (4) The square footage of Burlington Coat Factory's comparative figures is ser forth herein above. Moreover, in the Declaration of David Biggs, which was signed on August 4, 2000, and which was served on September 5, 2000 in Orange County Civil Case Number CC09293 at paragraph 7, leis. Biggs states the following: "The Agency has been negotiating with HCA with regard to the redevelopment of Huntington Center, including the Subject Property. In such negotiations, it is essential for a Redevelopment Agency to examine the economics of any proposed transaction. Among other things, the analysis involves estimating the rate of return on the proposed investment, a task that is not possible without an estimate of the value of the assets involved. The economics determine whether This figure is an approximate aggregate from January 1, 1997 through August, 2000. Oct-02-2000 12:HPM Frog-Tuchman d Accociatec 2133850595 T-505 P 018 F-452 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re. October 2. 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 18 and how a Redevelopment Agency may provide assistance in connection with redevelopment. In addition, the economics determine whether the proposed redevelopment is likely to be viable. In assessing the economics, as well as for the purposes of potential property acquisition, the Fair Markm Value of the real property to be developed is a critical factor. As a practical matter, the only to determine the Fair Market Value of the real property for purposes of the economic analysis is to obtain an appraisal of the real property." (5) The Declaration of David Biggs, the Director of Economic Development Department stated under penalty of penury that the appraisal and inspection of the Burlington Coat Factory premises was essential for the expert reports, namely the Keyser Marston and Sedway reports. Those reports were concluded without this `vital" information. Accordingly, the reports themselves are objected to as being incomplete, slanted in favor of condemnation, corrupted in terms of having a goal in mind prior to obtaining all the facts, to be partial and driven solely to cause Burlington's tenancy condemned out. Attached to this letter as Exhibits D, E, and F (and incorporated herein by reference) are the declarations of Steve Lund, Bob Grapski, and Marls Nesei. Mr. Lund, who is a real estate agent located very close to Burlington, and who has been active in Orange County for the last sixteen (16) years confirms the uniqueness of the Burlington store and its location. Mr. Grapski and Mr. Nesci, both of Burlington, confirm that no one from the Sedway Group ever contacted Burlington to confirm anything. Their declarations also spell out the types of malls that Burlington is a part of across the nation, as well as the varying vendor and product base, which Burlington can bring to a mall. Mr. Nesci's declaration also confirms that Sedway's financial conclusions are unsupported, not based on facts, and constitute irresponsible predetermined conclusions. Redevelopment is directly related to revenue, and the Sedway Report was written to justify the eradication of Burlington. If the true numbers were analyzed and incorporated into the economic analysis, Sedway and the other City consultants would find that Burlington is a highly viable tenant and provides as much if not more revenue in any tenant mix suggested by City consultants. It should also be noticed that Douglas Gray of Ezralow testified that he was unaware of a single tenant who has signed a letter of intent who has stated that they would not be a tenant at the Crossings if Burlington Oct-02-2000 12:59pm Frori-Tucfnan rE Associates 2133850595 T-505 P.019 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2 2000 Cily Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 19 remained as a tenant in Huntington Center. This in and of itself seriously undermines the City consultants' reports.14 It should also be noted that in the OPA it is the good faith efforts of the City that are being rented out, that are being paid for by Ezralow to condemn out its own tenant. Ezralow is contracting with the City and the Redevelopment Agency to use its condemnation powers for a private purpose. This condemnation of Burlington, which is contemplated and is pretty much a done deal, is not to condemn out private lands for a school, a park or something that benefits the community. It is to get rid of an on -going and viable business, certainly something which is nor blight. The purpose of this OPA is to circumvent E?zralow's contractual obligations with Burlington. This should not be condoned. Instead, the redevelopment of Huntington Center should be subject to the long-term tenancy of Burlington Coat Factory. The City should not be used as a conduit to breach contracts and step on the property rights of others. Moreover, non -elected City officials and Mr. Gray have stated that they want this matter to be resolved prior to the election of the officials, and Mr. Douglas Gray has said they wanted the matter handled prior to elections. What is the rush and what is the problem with letting the public speak in an orderly fashion? This Sedway report, and the Keyser Marston report as well as the OPA have been worked on for months. Why were these just dropped into Burlington's lap, and why were these reports only generated only a short few days ago? Why is Burlington being ambushed? These reports were manufactured as part of the pre -condemnation outcome of these hearings. They are the manifestation of Douglas Gray's letters to Burlington dated September 21, 1999 and October 15, 1999, which are attached hereto as Exhibit "G" and "H". 10 It should be noted that Xr. Gray did testify that the Great Indoors signed a conditional letter of intent with the condition being that Montgomery Ward vacate its building. See page 28 of deposition transcript (rough draft). When asked 'Have any tenants that you signed LOI's with within the LOI's said we're going to go in here only on condition that Burlington is gone," Douglas Gray, the President of Ezralow and testifying as the person designated to speak on behalf of Ezralow, answered "I don't know. I honestly don't know." See page 38 of deposition transcript (rough draft). Oct-02-2000 12:59pm Frori-Tucinan i .Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 020 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2 2000 Ci • Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 20 THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT. A- Overview of the California CommpniLv Redevelopment Act. The California Community Redevelopment Act (Health and Safety Code, sections 33000, es seq.) ("Redevelopment Act") was established to provide local officials with the ability to form redevelopment agencies that would be responsible for the planning and implementation of program designed to rehabilitate blighted areas in American cities. The fundamental documents governing a redevelopment agency's activities is the redevelopment plan. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the redevelopment plan should be a very general document, providing the redevelopment agency with great flexibility to accommodate changing market conditions, development opportunities and the desires and needs of owners to participate in the redevelopment program. County of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville, 177 Cal. App. 3d 831 (1985); see also, 1n re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal. 2d 21 (1964). As noted in County of Sanu-CruZ_y._City of Watsonville, SUUM, at 841: By exercising certain of its powers to implement redevelopment, a redevelopment agency may induce private investment in an area. The succcss of any redevelopment project is dependent upon whether private lenders, developers, owners, and tenants can be persuaded to participate in the process. Thus, a redevelopment agency is unique among public entities since in order to achieve its objective of eliminating blight it must rely upon cooperation vvith the private sector. Redevelopment is also a process which occurs over a period of years. These realities dictate that a redevelopment plan be written in terms that enhance a redevelopment agency's ability to respond to market conditions, development opportunities and the desires and abilities of owners and tenants. Oct-02-2a00 01=00Pm From-Tvchnan : Associates 2133950595 T-505 P 021 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re. October 2 2000 City Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 21 B. Amendment of Redevelopment Plan Section 33450 of the Health and Safety Code (the "Community Redevelopment Law") states, in pertinent part: If at any time after the adoption of a redevelopment plan for a project area by the legislative body, it becomes necessary or desirable to amend or modify such plan, the legislative body may by ordinance amend such plan upon the recommendation of the agency. The agency recommendation to amend or modify a redevelopment plan may include a change in the boundaries of the project area to add land to or exclude land from the project area. Except as otherwise provided in Section 33378, the ordinance shall be subject to referendum as prescribed by law for the ordinances of the legislative body. The Community Redevelopment Law includes numerous requirements that must be satisfied with respect to the amendment of a redevelopment plan (California Health and Safety Code Sections 33450-33458), including without Limitation, that: (1) The redevelopment agency must hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment prior to recommending approval of such amendment (Section 33451); (2) The redevelopment agency must provide public notice of such public hearing (Section 33452); (3) The planning commission must consider any substantial changes in the redevelopment plan recommended by the redevelopment agency and make a recommendation to the legislative body (Section 33453); (4) The legislative body must hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment and provide public notice of such hearing (Section 33454); (5) The planning commission must consider any further substantial changes proposed by the legislative body and make a recommendation tot he legislative body regarding the same, and the legislative body must consider any changes proposed by the Oct-02-2000 01:00PM From-Tuchaan a Associates 2131850595 T-505 P 022 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2, 2000 City Council Hc�g October 2, 2000 Page 22 planning commission at a public hearing reopened for that purpose (Section 33455); (6) The redevelopment agency and the legislative body may hold a joint public hearing on the propose amendment in lieu of separate hearings (Serdon 33458); (7) The reports and information required by Section 33352 of California Health and Safety Code must be prepared and made available to the public prior to the public hearing on the proposed amendment, to the extent warranted by the proposed amendment (Section 33457.1); and (8) The legislative body must adopt an amendment pursuant to an ordinance that contains the findings required by Section 33367 of the California Health and Safety Code, to the extent warranted by the propose amendment (collectively, the "Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements"). C. The City and the &Pengy Failed to Satisfy the Redevelopment Plan Amen Re uir ntc -Withs cc to the Citv Council's Adoption of Resolutions 2000-68 and 2000-8Q. The City Council's adoption of each Resolution effectively amended the Redevelopment Plan because the Specific Plan amended the zoning standards for the Project Site with respect to the type, size, height, number and use of buildings and the permitted signage thereon. In addition, under the terms of the Redevelopment Plan, those zoning amendments were automatically incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan with respect to the Project Site. When the City Council adopted the Specific Plan on July 5, 2000 and August 7, 2000, it ignored the Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements, which mandate that certain procedures be followed when amending a redevelopment plan. As set forth in Section 2.0 of the Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards, and specifications set forth in the Specific Plan supersede the relevant provisions of the Zoning Code as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. In addition, Section 4.0 of the Specific Plan states that the Specific Plan %,ill be the zoning document for the Project Site. The Redevelopment Plant, hovwever, sets forth the zoning standards for the Project Site. More specifically, Section 708 of the Redevelopment Plan provides, in part, Oct-02-2000 01:OOpm From-Tuchman 3 Associates 213385095 T-505 P 023 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 20QO City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 23 that: that: The type, size, height, number and use of buildings within the Project Area will be controlled by the applicable City land use regulations and requirements as they now exist or may hereafter be amended from time to time. Section 713 of the Redevelopment Plan states that: The limits on building intensity, Type, size and height, shall be established in accordanec with the provisions of the General Plan and the zoning ordinances, as they now exist or are hereafter amended_ Finally, Section 714 of the Redevelopment Plan states, in relevant part, Design of all proposed new signs shall be submitted prior to installation to the appropriate governing bodies of the City and/or the Agency for review and approval pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City and the procedures permitted by this Plan." Prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan, the zoning designations for the Project Site were "General Commercial (CG)" and "General Commercial - Flood Plain (CG-FP2)". The Specific Plan modified the zoning standards for the Project Site in numerous respects with regard to building type, size, height, number and use and permitted sigtage, including without limitation, the following. (1) Section 4.3.1 of, and F-xhibit 13A to, the Specific Plan (A) prohibit numerous permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the "CG" Zoning District, which arc set forth in Section 211.04 of the Zoning Code, including "Vehicle Equipment Repair", and (B) permit uses that are prohibited or conditionally permitted in the "CG" Zoning District, including "Food Markets", "Hotels, Motels", 'Morrie Theaters", "Restaurants with Outdoor Dining, Alcohol Sales and Live Entertainment and Dancing", "Car Stereo and Alarm Installation", "Public Safety Facilities" and "Utilities and Communication Facilities". (2) Section 211.06 of the Zoning Code provides that the minimum Sot Oct-02-2000 01:01PM Frori-Tuchman t Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 024 F-62 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2, 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 24 area fnr nonresidential development is generally 10,000 square feet, while Exhibit 14 to the Specific Plan states that no minimum lot size is required for any nonresidential development on the Project Site. (3) Section 211.06 of the Zoning Code provides that the minimum lot width for nonresidential development in the "CG" Zoning District is 100 feet, while Exhibit 14 to the Specific Plan states that no minimum lot frontage is required for nonresidential development on the Project Site. (4) Section 211.06 of the Zoning Code provides that the maximum height of nonresidential structures in the -CG" Zoning District is 50 feet, while Section 4.3.3 of Exhibit 14 to the Specific Plan state that the maximum building height is 75 feet and am maximum of four stories, provided that special themed architectural structures or elements may be allowed up to 120 feet. (5) Section 211.06 of the Zoning Code provides that the maximum floor area ratio for nonresidential development in the "CG" Zoning District is 1.5, while Exhibit 14 to the Specific Plan states that the maximum floor area ration for nonresidential development on the Project Site is O.S. (6) Section 211.06 of the Zoning Code provides minimal building design standards for nonresidential development in the "CG" Zoning District, while the Design Guidelines set forth in Section 3.5 of the Specific Plan require the development of the Project Site with the character and theme of an "Italian Village" and include detailed guidelines and policies regarding site planning, common areas, the required "Entry Plaza", "Village Strada", "Plaza" and "Courtyard and Colonnade", architectural treatments, tenant storefronts, landscaping and signage. (7) Section 212.14A of the Zoning Code includes detailed development and construction standards for nonresidential development in the "CG-FP2" Zoning District, which denotes an area of specific flood hazard, m order to minimize the potential flood hazard However, the Specific Plan eliminated all of those developments and construction standards. Oc1-02-2000 01.01p71 From-TWman i ksociatec 2133850595 T-505 P 025 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re. Qctober 2 2000 Cily Council Hea ' October 2, 2000 Page 25 (8) Chapter 233 of the Zoning Code sets forth detailed signage standards that generally apply to all proposed signs in the City. However, Appendix C to the Specific Plan sets forth detailed signage standards for the Project Site that significantly differ from the signage standards set forth in Chapter 233 of the Zoning Code. Pursuant to Sections 708, 713, and 714 of the Redevelopment Plan, all of the zoning modification described in above were automatically incorporated into the Redevelopment plan, notwithstanding that the City and the Agency failed to satisfy any of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements. Clearly, the City used the Specific Plan to circumvent the Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements. The City's and Agency's power to implement redevelopment does not give the City and Agency carte blanche authority to set aside constitutional guarantees of "due process of Iaw," nor does it give the Redevelopment Agency plenary power to stray from its own rules and regulations which govern redevelopment. In adopting, the Specific Plan, the City Council, in one felled swoop, ignored the Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements, including without limitation, failing to hold a hearing on the proposed amendment, failing to provide notice of the hearing, failing to submit recommended changes to planning commission, and failing to hold a hearing by the legislative body on proposed changes. D. The RedevelopmentAjgency has Failed to Provide Burlington With a Reasonable Onp—ortunily to Participate in the Redevelopment of Huntington Center. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33339, a redevelopment plan must include a provision for participation by owners conditioned upon their agreeing to develop or rehabilitate their property in conformance with the redevelopment plan. Health and Safety Code section 33339 provides, in relevant part: Every redevelopment plan shall provide for participation in the redevelopment of property in the project area by the owners of all or party of such property if the owners agree to participate in the redevelopment in conformity with the redevelopment plan adopted by the legislative body for the area. In addition, section 33380 of the Health and Safety Code provides that "(a]n agency shall permit owner participation in the redevelopment of property in the Oct-02-2000 01:01pm Fiori-Tuchman & Azsociates 2133850595 T-505 P 026 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2, 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 26 project area in conformity with the redevelopment plan adopted by the legislative body for the area." Moreover, while a redevelopment plan is not required to have provisions granting priority to current business owners of the property subject to redevelopment, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33339.5, the redevelopment agency is required to adopt rules for owner participation and for preferences to businesses prior to the adoption of the redevelopment plan. Section 33339.5 states, in pertinent part: Every redevelopment agency shall extend reasonable preference to persons who are engages in business in the project area to reenter in business within the redeveloped area if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by the redevelopment plan. Indeed, section 302 of the Owner Participation Rules, which were adopted by the Redevelopment Agency, mandates that "Business Occupants engaged in business in the Project Area s� be extended reasonable preference to reenter in business within the redeveloped area if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by the Plan and these Rules." The Redevelopment Agency, however, has failed to provide a seasonable opportunity for Burlington to participate in the redevelopment of Huntington Center in spite of the fact that Burlington has requested a right to participate in such redevelopment. As stated above, on March 3, 2000, the Redevelopment Agency sent out its RFP to Burlington and other owners and tenants located within the Mall. The deadlines for the owners and tenants to submit a Statement of Interest and Development Proposal in response to the RFP were April 17, 2000 and May 2, 2000, respectively. In accordance with the time limits set forth in the Redevelopment Agency's RFP, Burlington submitted a Statement of Interest by April 17, 2000 — expressing its interest in participating in the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Prior to and during this time, however, the City and the Redevelopment Agency were having meetings with HCA and Ezralow regarding HCA's specific development proposal and, apparently, developing an elaborate scheme and schedule to exclude Burlington and others, but at the same time give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Act and its own Rules. For example, beginning on watch 30, 2000 (one day prior to Burlington's Petition to Compel Arbitration, and one day prior to HCA's application and more than one month prior to the HCA Response to the RFP), City staff began having meetings with HCA regarding its RFP — specifically the proposed Specific Plan — without any written notice to Burlington. Thus, at least two weeks before the Redevelopment Agency had received any other Smtements of Interest or Development Oct-02-2000 01:02pm Froo-Tuchman 3 Associates 2113850505 T-505 P 027 F-45Z City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 27 Proposals and prior to the expiration of the Redevelopment Agency's self-imposed deadline for those documents, the Redevelopment Agency was already implementing a scheme with HCA for MCA's development of Huntington Center and the taking of Burlington's demised premises. Such actions were in direct contravention of the Redevelopment Act. Indeed, the Redevelopment Act requires that once owner participation is invited, the Redevelopment Agency has a e 1 !�-utv to treat all project applicants, including current oxkmers, with -reasonableness" and "in good faith." 1IL.tc Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal. 2d 21, 60 (1964). The Redevelopment Agency's actions, however. were neither reasonable nor in good faith. In fact, the Redevelopment Agency's actions were especially egregious considering the RFP was vague in its requirement for a development concept, and since we now know that the HCA Response to the RFP (the proposed Specific Plan) is an alleged "City -initiated project." This "city -initiated project" of the Specific Plan was never disclosed or made public untll after a formal Planning Commission hearing had been noticed. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Redevelopment Agency and the City have been in collusion with HCA for MCA to take Burlington's demised premises through the Redevelopment Agency's power of condemnation, and thereby allow MCA to escape the Burlington Lease, which requires that HCA seek the approval of Burlington before electing to redevelop Burlington's dernised premises. These actions are in direct violation of State and local law and should not be further condoned by the City Council. II. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S ACTIONS, THE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THE '*OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT"' ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTORY AND COMMON LkW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. The power of state and local governments to regulate land use is expressly limited by the "due process" and "taking- clauses of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides that"[njo person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, property, without due process and wall; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In addition, state and local land use regulations are also, of course, subject to the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause. Consequently, denim of equal protection may be the basis of a successful challenge to land use regulations which are alleged to single out the challenger for more onerous treatment than other landowners who arc similarly situated. Oct-02-2000 01:02pm From-Tuchman d Associates Z133850595 T-505 P 028 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2 2000 City Council T-learine October 2, 2000 Page 28 A. The Redevelopment, Agency's Actions, the Specific Plan. and the 0PA Are In Violation Qf Equa1 Protection. Substantive Due process and Procedural Due Process as Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals against government deprivations of property without due process of law. U-S. Const., 14`h Amend. And Cal. Const., Art. I § 7. I€ a governmental action is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, such action will be declared unconstitutional and .i violation of substantive due process. ,egg YWaae of Euclid v Ambler Realty Co., 47 S. Ct. 114 (1926); = &Q, LackarX v. KaVfey, 917 F-2d 1150 (9"` Cir. 1990) (noting that government conduct that is malicious, irrational or plainly arbitrary will not be sustained). The premise behind the equal protection clause is that no person shall be denied the same protection of law than is enjoyed by another person is similar circumstances. See Hawn v. County of Ventura, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1977). Here, as set forth in detail above, by engaging in negotiations with HCA and considering HCA's Specific Plan before receiving any other development proposals, by "hiding the ball" that the Specific Plan was actually a "city -initiated project," by pursuing an improper RFP process to give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Act and the Redevelopment Agency's own Rules, and by failing to give Burlington adequate notice with respect the proposed Resolutions on which the City Council will consider on October 2, 2000, the Redevelopment Agency will unfairly discriminate against Burlington and deny Burlington a reasonable opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of Huntington Center. See, g. ., Hawn v. County of Ventura, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1977). These action are malicious, irrational and plainly arbitrary in clear violation of the equal protection and substantive due process protections provided by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the insufficient notice and lack of ability to participate also constitute denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, ems., C.atCy v. b1hus, 98 S. Ct. 1042 (1978). By adopting the Specific Plan and OPA, the City Council is condoning and furthering the illicit application process that was undertaken by the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Indeed, the City's own Zoning Ordinance requires that all property owners be included on the application. In particular, section 215.08 of the Zoning Ordinance states, in pertinent parr, that. An amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent, the Planning Commission, or the City Council. If the property is Oct-02-2000 01:02pm From-Tuchman 8 Associates 2133850525 T-505 P.029 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2 2000 Cigy Counrqil Hearine October 2, 2000 Page 29 not under a single ownership, all owners shall join in the application, and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall he submitted with concept plans and materials. As it stands now, the City and the Redevelopment Agency are supposedly the only applicants. The law is clear, Burlington, MCA, and Montgomery Ward should also be included on the application. As a matter of fact, FICA initiated the application process for the Specific Plan, but it was replaced as the applicant via the June 5, 2000 memorandum that was authored by Mr. Silver. Mr. Silver did not have the authority to initiate the application on behalf of the City and the Redevelopment Agency because section 215.08 mandates that all owners join in the application, including HCA, Montgomery Ward, and Burlington. In furtherance of a conspiracy to interfere with Burlington's lawsuit and the Burlington Lease, Mr. Silver intentionally excluded Ezralow as an applicant. In the event the City Council approves the Specific Plan, it would be putting its stamp of approval on a City -initiated zoning document for which the City does not have the statutory or legal authority to initiate without naming all owners as co -applicants. Because the City and the Redevelopment Agency are applying for the zoning change (in violation of their own rules and regulations), both the City and the Agency have exposed themselves to liability. The foregoing actions are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and should not be condoned or allowed to continue by the City Council. B. Bi4rlingion Was Given Inadequate Notice Relative to the Proposed Resolutions and the OPA that will be Considercd by the Cqx fguncil on Oct ber 2 20 0. Notice is vague_ A letter dated September 14, 2000 (and received in our offices on September 18, 2000) contained a two page enclosure entitled: NOTICE OF A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REGARDING THE POTENTIAL PROPOSED SALE, IF ANY, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO HUNTINGTON CENTERASSOCIATES, LLC, AND ON THE PROPOSED OWNER PAWFICIPATION AGREEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORIMATION PERTAINING THERETO. Oct-02-2000 01=0�pm Frm—Tuchman 3 Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 030 F-452 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 2000 City Council Heajittg October 2, 2000 Page 30 This notice is impermissibly vague and so twisted in its communication that it does not rise to the level to allowing a meaningful opportunity to respond. The language is so twisted and ambiguous that it is not clear from this alleged notice (and still is not clear) as to a) what property is supposed to be "acquired", b) under what circumstances such property should be acquired, c) who is paying for this acquisition, d) whether this is an attempt at an end round of a declaration of necessity. This vague notice was given on less than 15 days before the October 2, 2000 City Council hearing. The Staff Report, although stamped and entered by the City Clerk on September 22, 2000, was not available for pick-up until Friday afternoon, September 29, 2000. The Staff Report and the Resolutions contained therein are not consistent with the original vague notice, and the recommendations stemming from the Staff Report, as well as the proposed Resolutions, are vague, ambiguous, and most importantly, matters which were inadequately noticed to the public and Burlington. Each of the Resolutions, in and of themselves, Contain impermissibly vague language which will be dealt with in a separate section below. Accordingly, the minimum due process requirements with respect to the October 2, 2000 meeting, and the proposed actions to be undertaken thereat, have not been met. In addition, the intentional vagueness and ambiguity contained in the September 14, 2000 notice was intentionally calculated to hold back from the public the exact and true nature of the contemplated actions to be undertaken by the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency_ The original notice only indicates that "the environmental documents referred to below in this notice" will be considered without indicating for -what" and "why". In addition, the notice talks about the potential proposed sale without tying it with any specific property, and without identifying who the buyer is. In addition, the notice seems to say that what will be considered will be the purchase of Ezralow owned property for the benefit of Ezralow, which is obviously an attempt to mask the City's intentional and calculated interference with Burlington's lease with Ezralow. Lastly, neither the notice nor the staff recommendations provide adequate notice of the necessity, purpose, and use of the Sedway and Keyser .Marston Reports. In fact, these reports do not appear in any way necessary, proper, or assistive in consideration of whether there should be an OPA agreement or not. furthermore, it appears that the City and the Redevelopment Agency are attempting (through a back -door method) to adopt a scenario proposed in the Sedaray Report without actually giving notice that such a Oct-02-2000 01:03am F;on-Tuchman & Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 031 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re- Octo r 2 2000 Cily Counegrin October 2, 2000 Page 31 detennination will be made, and with the obvious intent of building in a ready made mold for the City and the Redevelopment Agency to have no choice but to condemn. This is all part of the scheme of pre-detemtination that this City and Redevelopment Agency have engaged in. The Sedway Report is a sham on its face, and was completed without one scintilla of fact gathered from Burlington directly. Therefore, notice is objected to on the bases of vagueness and timeliness. This hearing should be continued so that Burlington has a meaningful opporamity to be heard and to respond to the Sedw-ay and Keyser Marston reports, as well as the contemplated actions proposed by City staff, which were literally dropped in the laps of Burlington's counsel. the Friday night before the Monday hearing. 2. 1he Promised Resolutions are Vague and \Tot Supported By Any Evidence Whatsoever. The City Resolution 2000.94 is identical to the redevelopment Resolution 313. This Resolution, for reasons which are more definitively addressed in the body of this letter, is illegal and in direct contravention to the Ordinances of Huntington Beach itself. Resolution No. 313, which is also designated Resolution 2000-94, purportedly sanitizes the OPA's compliance with CEQA and providing the EIR by stating that the EIR performed in 1996 (for all five redevelopment areas) is sufficient. In Fact, the Resolution blithely concludes that "no subsequent environmental impact report or supplement to said previously certified EIR 96-2 is necessary or required." Not so. Had Burlington or anyone objected four years ago to this redevelopment plan or EIR that accompanied it, the response would have been that there is nothing to worry about because nothing specific has been proposed. By definition, the 1996 redevelopment plan and its EIR must be re-evaluated and readopted for the EIR to be effective for this Specific Plan, this OPA, and the specific Site Plan that the City and the Developer have in their hip pocket. Moreover, there is no evidence or facts which are supportive of any "findings" which could allow the City and Redevelopment Agency to piggy -back on 1996 EIR. Resolution 313 and 2000-94 (four short sentence paragraphs) refer to approving environmental findings, yet they are conclusory in nature and are devoid of facts or law to support the conclusions they reach. Not one of the four paragraphs contained in Resolution 313 (or Resolution 2000-94) are tied to any study, any report, any evaluation of the condition of the neighborhood, consideration of demographics, analysis of traffic, air quality, or any other Oct-02-2000 01:04p� Frori-Tuchaan it A"ociataz 2133850595 T-505 P 032 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re. October 2, 2000 City Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 32 impacts. Proposed Resolution 314 and Resolution 2000-95 are identical with the exception that one is for the City Council and the other is for the Redevelopment Agency. first of all, paragraphs 3 is redundant and should be stricken. Second, the language in the preamble and then at number 3 of the Resolution, which states "that the sale, if any, of the property within the Site" is impermissibly vague, not appropriate or legal in connection with an OPA, and an act towards pre -condemnation. The approval of the OPA should be kept separate and apart from any City Council or Redevelopment Agency determinations or pre -determinations to acquire property. furthermore, it is a violation of the due process rights of Burlington, and an impermissible talang of the Burlington lease, by making the determination within the context of the OPA, that Ezralow should be paid for its own land, which of course has Burlington's leasehold on it. Paragraph 2 of the Resolutions is not consistent with the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Civil Code, and the California Constitution, and other statutes, since the language puts the conclusion before the factual determination and evaluation to condemn. Obviously, this is calculated to wipe out Burlington and box the City Council in when it comes time to vote on condemnation. This Resolution is improperly overbroad and does not withstand even the minimum amount of scrutiny due to its over breadth and overreaching. Paragraph 4 of the proposed Resolutions also violates Burlington's due process rights because it grants the Executive Director unfettered discretion to wave his pen and change the OPA in any manner he deems necessary without providing Burlington with notice or a hearing. This is the same type of conduct that we saw employed with respect to the Specific Plan wherein Planning Director was given unfettered discretion to determine the Site Plan for Huntington Center. Additionally, the Resolution is invalid because it concludes that any later changes to the OPA are subject to retroactive and automatic approval on October 2, 2000. The Redevelopment Agency and City Council cannot abrogate their duties and responsibilities by delegating their authority to an administrator and allowing that administrator to make changes and approving the OPA. We suspect that this delegation to an administrator stems from the cramming of this OPA and incidental acts to it down the throat of the people. Both Ezralow as well as City opponents have confirmed that they want this OPA 6:t-02-200a 01:04va From-TuOman I Associates 2133850595 T-505 P.033 NU City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2 2QOO City Council Hearin October 2, 2000 Page 33 (and the condemnation vote) in place prior to the November 7, 2000 election. In addition to the time constraints of the election, shortened notice and pushing this matter through on a single meeting basis (Planning Commission, City Council, etc.) acts to stifle and short-circuit public debate and prevent businesses such as Burlington from meaningfully responding to well thought out and well developed schemes performed under closed sessions and redevelopment law (the most glaring example, of course, is the fact that the Sedway and Keyser Marston reports were probably in place long ago). The recommended actions also seek to approve the Cooperation Agreements between the Redevelopment Agency and the City. These items were never noticed. The reason that they were never noticed is because they have financial impacts which the Redevelopment Agency is attempting to keep from the public. The notice issue, however, is fatal to this request for Redevelopment Agency and City actions. C. Pre -Condemnation Actott e5 Have Been_ Undertaken By Ezralow, the Cityyand the Redevelopment Ag_enc. Ezralow has already pulled permits in contemplation of demolition. Attached to this letter as Exhibit ''I" is a copy of the permit to erect "temporary walls (prep for demo) inside main entrance to Mervyn's." The permit was applied for on April 19, 2000 and the final building and framing tools place on May 24 and 25, 2000. These walls cut off each of the anchors from each other within the Mall. This of course acts to restrict the flow of traffic. In addition, there are approximately eight (8) trailers on the parking lot of the property, and we have been infornied by the City permit staff that these trailers are for the contractors and construction crews, and that when Larry Dinovitz (who works for EzraloW) went to pull the permits for them, he was asked to post a bond. He went away because he did not have the bond, but he installed the trailers anyway. Scott Dinovdtz (who also works for Ezralow) confirmed at deposition that these trailers are for the construction crew. These trailers, of course, are in violation of the reciprocal easement agreements that were recorded on the property and which inure to the benefit of Burlington. The City has turned a blind eye to these trailers not being permitted, and Burlington's Complaints to the City have gone unheeded. The Staff Report dutifully reports (at the top of page 3) that "since 1998 additional retailers have left the Mall." Actually, they were evicted or ldcked out. Attached as Exhibit J" thereto are registers of action evidencing appro-,amately five unlawful detainer actions filed against the tenants of the Mall Oct-02-2000 01:04pa From-Tachman & Associates 2133850595 T-505 P.034 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2, 2000 CityCQuncil Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 34 in February 2000. All of the other tenants in the now walled -off areas were intentionally driven off with 30-day notices to quit. The actions of the evicting of the tenants, the erection of the temporary walls, and the placement of the trailers, as well as the manipulated findings of the Sedway and Keyser .Marston reports, point to orchestration of facts. In other words, the Sedway Report talks about a declining mall, and how the revenues have gone down, but it fails to mention that most of the tenants were evicted or asked to leave. D. The Redevelopment Agency's Actions Amount to Tortious Conduct Under California's Statutory and Decisional Law. 1. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's Contractual Relationship With HCA. Tort liability may be imposed upon a defendant who intentionally and improperly interferes with the plaintiffs rights under a contract with another person if the interference causes the plaintiff to lose a right under the contract or makes the contract rights more costly or less valuable. S�Allen v Pow 1, 248 Cal. App. 2d 502 (1967). The acts which induce the breach need not be unlawful. It is sufficient if they are lawful, but without justification. Id. The actions of Mr. Silver in the instant case were both unlawful and without justification. First, Mr. Silver's unilateral act of substituting the City and the Redevelopment Agency as the applicants for the Specific Plan was an ultra vtres act done for the sole purpose of interfering with Burlington's efforts to enforce its lease with its landlord. Second, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach ("Zoning Ordinance") clearly sets Borth the law with respect to initiating the process to reclassify property to a Specific Plan District. In particular. section 215.08 of the Zoning Ordinance states, in pertinent part, that: An amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent, the Planning Commission, or the City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership, all owners shall join in the applications, and a uaap showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials. Mr. Silver did not have the authority to initiate the application on behalf of the City and the Redevelopmenr Agency. Moreover, Section 215.08 mandates that all Oct-02-2000 01:059m Fron-Tuchman & .Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 035 F-452 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2, 2000 Cty Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 35 owners join in the application, including > zralow. In furtherance of a conspiracy to interfere with Burlington's lawsuit and the Burlington Lease. Mr. Silver intentionally declared the City and the Redevelopment Agency as the applicants for the Specific Plan. 2. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's prospective Economic Relationship with HCA. The tort of Interference with prospective Economic Advantage protects those expectancies involved in ordinary commereW dealings. See Youst. v. Lon o, 43 Cal. 3d 64 (1987). The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are (1) an economic relationship containing the probability of future economic benefit; (2) knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship; (3) intentional wrongful acts by the defendant to disrupr the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) plaintiff is damaged by such actions. Zimmerm2n v. Bank o(America, 191 Cal. App. 2d 55, 57 (1961). In the instant case, there is an economic relationship Between Burlington and RCA in that Burlington is leasing 133,500 square feet of retail space for a tern of 30 years (expiring in 2025). The Redevelopment Agency, however, knew of Burlington's Lease with HCA, and interfered with said relationship when it endeavored to commit numerous acts which were both unjustified and illegal. For example, the Redevelopment Agency, HCA., and Exralow had several secret closed door meetings relating to HCA's purchase and redevelopment of Huntington Center. One such meeting occurred on or about November 15, 19992 the day before HCA actually took title to Huntington Center. No tangible evidence (e.g., minutes) were kept of said meetings, even though the Rrown Act requires that public entities keep of record of any meetings with third parties relating to the business of the public entity. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency concealed (and it continues to conceal) public documents which they are required to disclose (pursuant to the Brown Act) upon request. Burlington has asked for such documents for over the past four months only to receive 14 documents and a response that it is holding back documents because it feels it does not have to produce them at this time. finally, Mr. Sih�er (and other City administrators and officials) interfered with Burlington's private lawsuit by declaring, in a June 5, 2000 memorandum, that the Specific plan was a "City -initiated project" and therefore declared the City and the Redevelopment Agency as the new applicants. This was done a few days after Burlington sought injunctive relief from the court in an effort to preserve its lease rights as a tenant at Huntington Center. But for the acts of Mr. Silver and Mr. Zelefsky, Burlington would have been granted provisional relief and HCA would have been % t-02-2000 E1:05am From-Tuchnan i Assaciatu 2133a50595 T-505 P 036 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 2000 City Council He ring October 2, 2000 Page 36 restrained. The acts of Mr. Silver (as an agent of the City and the Redevelopment Agency) was intentional and pre -meditated. Mr. Silver's June 5, 2000 memorandum was intentionally calculated to directly and illegally intervene in Burlington's pursuit to vindicate its contract rights against HCA. The ultra vires ants of Mr. Silver went against every notion of constitutional due process and fair play. Simply put, Xr. Silver (acting on behalf of the City and the Redevelopment Agency) illegally manufactured evidence that he and HCA knew would counteract and defeat the then pendin ex pane application for temporary restraining order. The June 5, 2000 memorandum by Mr. Silver was orchestrated and fashioned to directly counteract the private suit. For the foregoing reasons, the City and the Redevelopment Agency intentionally interfered with Burlington's prospective economic advantage. 3. City Administrators and Officials Conspired to Induce HCA to Breach its Contractual Relationship With Burlington. The tort action of conspiracy to induce breach of contract applies the general principles of civil conspiracy to the tort of inducing breach of contract (or interference with contractual relations) . A tort action will lie against third parties to a contract who, pursuant to a conspiracy, have wrongfully induced or procured the breach of contract. See Wise v. Southern Pacific Co., 223 Cal. App. 2d 50, 64 (1963). Mr. Silver and other City and Redevelopment Agency officials conspired to induce HCA into breaching its contract with Burlington by assuring Ezralow and HCA that Burlington's leasehold interest would be condemned so long as HCA omitted Burlington from its redevelopment plans, by engaging in negotiations with HCA and considering HCA's Specific Plan before receiving any other development proposals, by "hiding the ball" that the Specific Plan was actually a "city -initiated project," by pursuing an improper RFP process to give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Act and the Redevelopment Agency's own Rules, and by concealing public records from Burlington in an effort to conceal the redevelopment process being undertaken by HCA and the Redevelopment Agency. Burlington %till have its day in court, and it will establish that the City and Redevelopment Agency conspired to strip Burlington of its rights to participate as a tenant in the new Huntington Center. Oct-02-2000 01:05pm Froq—Tuchman d Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 017 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 37 III. HCA'S RESPONSE TO THE RFP CANNOT BE LEGALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE 1T PROPOSES A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT VIOLATES THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ESTABLISHED LAW. The HCA Response is a development proposal that is the Specific Plan. As described below, this Specific Plan proposed by HCA violates the City's General Plan, the Citv's Municipal Code and State law. The Redevelopment Agency cannot now choose I-ICA as the "developer" based on a proposal (Specific Plan) that is unlawful. To do so would result in the Redevelopment Agency proposing to contract with RCA through an OPA to undertake unlawful acts, and the Redevelopment Agency cannot contract to undertake unlawful acts. If the Redevelopment Agency were to do so, it would violate State law, including the Redevelopment Act, and be acting in an arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable manner, which provides additional grounds of violation of each of the principles and laws set forth above. A. The Specific Plan Is Not in Compliance with the General Plan. The City's General Plan requires that "development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and in accordance with the Development 'Overlay' Schedule (table LU-3)•" See Policy LU 7.1.2. General Plan Policy LU 15.1.1 requires "the formulation, adoption, and implementation of Specific Plans for areas designated with a Specific Plan Overlay. Table LU-4 of the General Plan specifies the land use category for the Huntington Center as "Commercial Regional (CR)." The Specific Plan does not comply with State law and the City's Municipal Code requirements for specific plans as explained in Paragraph B below. As a result, the Specific Plan is not in compliance with the General Plan, and HCA's response cannot be accepted because it is not consistent with the General plan. B. The S ec" lan Does Not Comply with State Law and Munici al Code Requirements for Specific Pla s. Section 65451(a) of the California Government Code provides in relevant part as follows: (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify ail of the following in detail- (1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by Oct-02-2000 01:06pm Fron-Tuchman i Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 038 F-4o2 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 38 the plan. (2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in plan. (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). The Specific Plan does not meet these requirements of the Government Code because it does not specify in detail the distribution or location of any uses of land. Rather, the Specific Plan has two different "Illustrative Conceptual piaster Plan" exhibits which specifically note the following: "This illustrative shows a hypothetical development scenario on the project site." The location and distribution of the uses and other essential facilities (including utilities and other infrastructure) are not specified (they are only "hypothetical") and are merely deferred to another day through potential future environmental review under CEQA and an improper site plan review process under secdon 2.3 of the Specific Plan, which process is done solely by the Planning Director without any requirement for public hearing or notice. This could result in any and all of the uses and other essential facilities permitted or required under the Specific Plan to be constructed anywhere, which is not consistent with Government Code section 65451. By delegation to a future date of an essential element of the Specific Plan, as required by law, General Plan Implementation Program I-Lli4 and Municipal Code Chapter 215 will also be violated by not having the Planning Commission and City Council consider the location and distribution of uses. Section 2.0 of Specific Plan similarly violates this Implementation Program and Municipal Code Chapter 215 by allowing modifications of the Specific Plan by the Planning Director when determined by the Fanning Director to be minor. By allowing this, all notice and hearing procedures under this and other Chapters of the Municipal Code are ignored and Oct-02-2000 01:06PM Froe-Tuchman i Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 039 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2-2000 C;ily Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 39 violated for amendments to the Specific Plan. In summary, the Specific Plan should be a tool to provide certainty regarding the location and distribution of future development in Huntington Center in compliance with State and local law. Howcver, as currently proposed, the Specific Plan would create complete uncertainty regarding the development of Huntington Center in violation of law and unlawfully delegate the authority to determine the location and distribution of land uses and essential facilities to the Planning Director. C. The Adoption of the Specific Plan and Entering into the OPA Will violate the California Erivironmental Qualily Act-, an Environmental Impact Report Must_BC&cpared. It must be noted than throughout the process of litigation and within the staff reports themselves, the City has taken the position that the Environmental Impact Report, which accompanied the adoption of the General Plan in 1996, will act as an umbrella "EIR" which will be sufficient to cover any Specific Plan or Redevelopment Site Plan that will adopted by the City/Redevelopment Agency. In fact, the Associate Planner, Jane James, has testified that a "Vitigated Negative Declaration" will be sufficient. EDAW, the consultants with respect to Environtnenta.1 impact Report and CEQA analysis has concluded in a report dated April 26, 2000 that the General Plan EIR will suffice, but qualify that heavily by stating a Specific Plan itself must be delved into and analyzed, and, of course, that site plans will have to be analyzed for CEQA compliance. The Environmental Impact Report requirement has been openly flaunted here. The City made the excuse that Environmental Impact Report will not be necessary since the Iiacerich project that was presented was close to the square footage, which was proposed by the new development and has concluded, therefore, that since the Macerich project is similar to the Crossings project (with the similarity only being in square footage) an Environmental Impact Report will not be necessary and simply a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be enough. These rationalizations are illegal and outside the law. An appropriate analysis of the Environmental Impact acquired under CEQA and these constant pre -determinations that such EIR's will not be necessary run completely afoul of EDAW s own reports which were incorporated by the City in its own staff reports with respect to the Specific Plan and also run afoul of common sense. The approach to environmental protections and California State Laws have been completely disregarded almost as much as the rights of property owners, including Burlington. k t-02-2000 01:06an Fromr-Tuchman d Associates 2113850595 T-505 P 040 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 2000 Cily Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 40 The City must prepare and certify an EIR for the Proposed Specific Plan. a. Overview of CEQA CEQA was enacted in response to the well -documented failure of state and local governmental agencies to consider fully the en,v7ronmental implications of their actions. Selmi, The rudicial_Department of the California ELivironmenta3 Qu4jy:Act, 18 U.C.D.L. Rev. 197 (1984)." The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that CEQA must be interpreted liberally "to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Laurel Heights Improvement A.gstt_ v._ The Resents ofthe University cif California ("Laurel Heights I'�, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 390 (1988), g x��tt,, ng from Friends of Mammath v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247, 259 (1972). Two of the central purposes of CEQA are ro inform governmenral decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project and to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(1) and (2). The EIR is the heart of CEQA. Guidelines § 15003(a). As noted by the California Supreme Court, the EIR: is the primary means of achieving the Legislature's considered declaration that it is the policy of this state to `take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the envirownental quality of the state.' (§ 21001, subd. (a).) ... Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is the document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action vnth which it disagrees. (Citations). The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. Laurel Heights i sup , at 392. `Z " The Office of Planning and Research has promulgated guidelines to implement CEQA 14 Cal. Code of Reps. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines). iz An EIR serves "to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has in fact analyzed and consider the ecological implications of its action." No Oct-02-2000 01:07pa From-Tjchman 1 Associates 2133850505 T-505 P 041 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 2000 Ci_SCouncil Bearing October 2, 2000 Page 41 CEQA provides for a three -tiered environmental analysis. First, the lead agency determines whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. Guidelines § 15061. If the lead agency concludes that the project is not exempt from CEQA, the lead agency then conducts an initial study to ascertain whether to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration in connection with the project. The lead agency may only adopt a "negative declaration" when the initial study concludes that "there is no substantial evidence ... that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" and further CEQA review is unnecessary. Cal. Puts. Res. Code § 21080(c)(1). CEQA applies only to `discretionary projects." Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(a) and (b)(1); Guidelines § 15268(a). A discretionary project is one which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations." Guidelines § 15357. b. Fair AMment Test Requires an EIR. If the administrative record contains substantial evidence that any aspect of a project "may have a significant effect on the environment," the lead agency must prepare an EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100; Guidelines §§ 15002(f)(1), 15063(b)(1) and 15064(a)(1).'3 Put another way, ... if the lead agency is presented with a fair AMment that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an FUR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not half a significant effect. No Oil Inc. v. City of LQs Angeles, Oil, Inc- V. C& of lens An el s, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 86 (1974). An EIR also allows the public to "determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials, thus allowing for appropriate acrion on election day should a majority of the voters disagree." People v. Coun y of Kern, 39 Cal. App. 3d 830, 842 (1974). "The report ... may be viewed as an environmental `alarm bell' whale purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." CounIX of Invo v. Yo , 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810 (1973) - 13 Professor Selmt pointed ouc chat one of the reasons that courts are permitted to closely examine CEQA decisions is that public agencies "are subject to political pressure to avoid the full OR process" which is certainly the case here. Selmi, supra, at 227. Oct-02-2000 01:07pa From-Tuchnan + Associates 2133B50595 T-505 P.042 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2, 2000 Cily Council MeaLias October 2, 2000 Page 42 13 Cal. 3d 68 (1974)). Guidelines § 15064(g)(1). (emphasis added). See also Friend of "B" Streets. Ci of a Ward, 106 Cal. App. 3d 988, 1002 (1980). A trial court is entitled to independently review an agency's determination that there was no evidence upon which a fair argument could be made that an EIR was required. As the court stated to Friends of " B" Street, supra. if there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support the decision to dispose with preparation of an EIR and adopt a Negative Declaration, because it could be `fairly argued' that the project might have a significant environmental impact. Stated another way, if the trial court perceives substantial evidence that the project might have such an impact, but the Agency Wed to secure re aradon of the regy.Lild EIL the Agencies action is to be Set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed ` in a manner required by law.' (Pub. Res. Code § 21168 5.) 106 Cal. 3d at 1002. (Emphasis added). Linder the fair argument standard, deference to the lead agency's determination is not appropriate and its decision not to require an EIR can be upheld "only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary." Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma. 6 Cal. App. 4`h 1307, 1317-18 (1992). The fair argument standard requires the reviewing court to employ "a certain degree of independent review of the record, rather than the typical substantial evidence standard which usually results in great defy renee being given to the factual determinations of the agency." Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation. Inc. v. Cily of Encinitas, 29 Cal. App. 4`h 1597, 1602 (1994). The Supreme Court has concluded that the interpretation of CEQA -which will afford the fullest possible protection to the environment is one which will impose a low thresholds requirement for preparation of an EIR." No Oil. In_c. v. City of Los An eles, at 84. Given the magnitude of the proposed development under the Specific Plan and the anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts associated with demolition and construction, the Specific Plan is a "project" under CEQA that will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 'Therefore, the City and the Redevelopment Agency will half to prepare an EIR. Oct-02-2000 01:06pm From-Tuchman d Associates 2133850595 T-505 P.043 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: Qct _ _ r 2. 2000 City Council Heri� October 2, 2000 Page 43 2. The Specific Plan 1s a Project under CEQA. Public Resources Code section 21065 defines project as an `activity which may cause either the direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical activity which is directly undertaken by any public agency." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065; Guidelines § 15378(a); see also, Goleta Union School District v. Regents of the University of California, 37 Cal. App. 4' 1029, 1030 (2d Dist. 1995). The enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances has been determined to be in activity undertaken by a public agency that are subject to CEQA- See City df Carmel-h --the-Sea Y. Board of Su ervisors, 183 Cal. App. 3d 229 (1986). Here, the Specific Plan is seeking and amendment to the zoning of the property from CG (General Commercial) and CG-FP2 (General Commercial -Flood Plain) to Specific Plan No. 13. Accordingly, the Specific Plan is a project for purposes of CEQA review. 3. The CiM_and the Rcdc-,reJoV=t,6&exigy >tilust Undertake CE A Review Before Proceeding with the Adoption of the 5pecific Plan. Public agencies shall not undertake actions relating to a proposed public project that would have a significant adverse effect on the environment, or limit its choice of alterations or mitigation measures, before complying with CEQA. Guidelines § 15004(b) (2) Under this standard, agencies may not make a formal decision to proceed with use of a site without first completing the CEQA review. In the instant case, should the City actual provide the Specific Plan and approve and OPA, or the Redevelopment Agency take any action based thereon, it will be in violation of the aforementioned provision of CEQA. The Specific Plan establishes a master development plan, including without limitation, planning concepts, design and architectural guidelines and other development standards for Huntington Center. There has been no review or analysis in accordance with CEQA of the impacts relating to, among other things, changes and limitations of uses, new permissible heights, utilities, traffic and circulation, and the effect of removing the site from the Flood Plain Overlay District. This and other analyses are all left to another day ahCr the new standards under the Specific Plan are adopted. This will also preclude any consideration of alternatives. Moreover, once approved, any future development will only be subject to site plan review by the Planning Director, rather than a public hearing process before the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Furthermore, the Planning Director can even make amendments to the Specific Plan without any public notice or hearing if he determines they are "minor." Thus, by proposing to approve the Specific Plan and its companion OPA before undertaking the appropriate and required environmental review, the City is Oct-02-2000 01:09pa From-Tichnan & Associates 203850595 T-505 P 044 r"-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 44 essentially limiting its ability to have any further decision -making authority in connection with the future development of Huntington Center. This is in violation of CEQA and is not allowed. 4. The Elements of Tiering Are Not Tiering is a process provided for by the Legislature in order to allow agencies to avoid repetitiveness, wasted time, and unnecessary premature speculation. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21065, 21093(a), Guidelines 4 15152. To qualify for the use of tiering, leader projects must: (1) be consistent %rith the program, plan, polio, or ordinance for which an EIR has been prepared and certified; (2) be consistent with applicable local land -use plans and zoning of the city, county, or city and county in which the later project would be located; and (3) not trigger the need for a subsequent EIR. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b). In addition, before deciding that tiering may be used with respect to a later project, the lead agency must prepare an initial study or other analysis" to assist it in determining whether the project may cause any significant impacts not analyzed in a prior EIR. �eg Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b); Guidelines § 15152(f). Here, the City and/or Redevelopment Agency have not prepared an initial study to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts of the Specific Plan. Accordingly, before the City can approve the Specific Plan, an initial study will have to be prepared. In fact, to date, there exists no complete or legally adequate environmental analysis of: (i) the proposed conceptual plans contemplated by the Specific Plan; (ii) the development of these specific acres or analysis of the proposed design and architectural guidelines; or (iii) a program of mitigation which if implemented would eliminate any and all potential fvr adverse environmental impacts. Thus, before any further action is taking on the Specific Plan, an initial study will half to be prepared and the proper environmental review under CEQA roust be performed. 5. The City and the Rcdevelopmrnt Agency Have Unlawfully "5pli the Rmiect for Purposes of Environmental Review. As noted above, the term "project" has been broadly defined under CEQA "Project" means "the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the env-ironment, directly or indirectly ...." Guidelines § 15378(a) All phases of project planning, implementation and operation must be considered in the initial study for a project. Guidelines § 15063(a)(1). The term "project" refers to Oct-02-2000 01:06pm From-Tuchman I .4ccociatec 2133850565 T-505 P 045 F-462 City Council of the City- of Huntington Beach Re- October 2 2000 Cily Council Hea!jU October 2, 2000 Page 45 the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretional approvals by governmental agencies. The term "project" does not mean each separate governmental approval. Guidelines § 15378(c). Under CEQA, a project must be fully analyzed in a sin a environmental document. In agency may not split a project into two or more segments with mutually exclusive environmental documents. Citizens Assn. for Sensible Develovment of Bishop Area v. County f Invo, 172 Cal, App. 3d 151, 165 (1985). Similarly, an agency cannot overlook a project's cumulative impacts by separately focusing on isolated part.-. of the whole. See MLcQueen v. Board of rect 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1144 {1988}. It is obvious that the Redevelopment Plan of 1996 is a guideline which only speaks in generalities. It is impossible for a document from 1996, which covers five separate properties, to meaningfully and factually discuss, in detail, and address the types of community needs and building and structural requirements that are necessary to address and comply with CEQA as well as other environmental laws. The City is undertaking a dangerous and improper avenue by seeking to protect this project under the guise of a redevelopment project document froth 1996. Indeed, if the document were challenged back in 1996, there would be nothing to challenge because nothing specific was done. For the 1996 document to have meaning, there would have to have been a specific project to properly evaluate the environment impact. The whole process is now is question, and the whole process is as follows: Is a City or Redevelopment Agency able to spin off from an older document (which now ostensibly cannot be challenged because the opportunity to be heard is barred, and there are certain Statute of Limitations applied) in order to use it to protect a later adopted more specific document and actions taken incidental to the development of real property? This question has not been fully addressed, but we believe that the answer is no. A City cannot "kosherfy" their documents from an old document in 1996, which does not even remotely say what the redevelopment will be- Accordingly, this Environmental Impact Report and the resultant conclusions should be analyzed from a proper basis by today's standards with the details of a Specific Plan, an Owner Participation Agreement, if one is adopted and, of course, site plans, not just mere 'conceptual site plans." The tap dancing around the law that has occurred here, of course, is not coincidental. The tap dancing is to try and push through the Planning Commission and then the City Council/Redevelopment Agency vague enough plans such that the rules and standards relative to the regulation of governments are circumvented and, of Oct-02-2000 01:Q9pP From-Tuchmar & Acsociatec 2133850595 T-505 P 046 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: Octobet 2, 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 46 course, to cram down the condemnation of Burlington and ylontgomery Ward. The challenge of this will be forthcoming in the event this OPA is adopted. In Citizens Assn. for Se sible T)evelopment of Bishop Area, supra, a county split a shopping center project into two segments, the first part consisting of general plan amendments and zoning classifications, and the second pan involving, a tentative map approval and road abandonment. The public agency prepared a separate negative declaration for each project segment. Because the project applicant had requested related discretionary approvals at different times, the county had failed to understand that it was dealing with a single project. The court overturned the negative declarations and the project approvals, holding that an agency cannot prepare mutually exclusive environmental documents for a single project. Id. at 165-67. The project description in a CFQA document must include: an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the initial project, and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it krill likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. Laurel Heights I, supra, at 396. In Laurel Hei h 1, the Regents proposed the relocation of a biomedical research facility to a portion of a building located in the residential neighborhood. The EIR for the project failed to analyze the cumulative impacts of the anticipated full use of the building as a biomedical facility within a few years. The California Supreme Court rejected the Regents' argument that, because the proposed expansion had not been formally approved, the EIR's analysis could be limited to the project in its initial form Evidence in the record indicated that, despite the lack of a formal approval, the Regents' ultimate plans were clear_ Therefore, because the expansion was reasonably foreseeable, and was likely to change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects, the EIR should have discussed at least the general effects of the reasonably foreseeable future uses in the anticipated measures for mitigating those effects. Laurel Heights 1, .s2ra, at 396-398. "The fact that precision may not he possible ... does not mean that no analysis is required." Id. at 399. Another case that illustrates this principle is Whitman _v_. Board of Supervisors, 88 Cal. App. 3d 397 (1979). In Whitman, an EIR was prepared in connection with an application to drill an exploratory oil and gas well, which omitted discussion of a contemplated pipeline if the well proved productive. The court found the EIR inadequare and explaaaed that "it]he record before us reflects that the Oct-V-2100 G1:09pn Frors-Tuchman & Accoc+atez 2133850595 T-505 P 047 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2 200Q Cirx Council October 2, 2000 Page 47 construction of the pipeline was, from the very beginning within the contemplation of [the] overall plan for the project and could have been discussed in the EIR in at least general terms." Id. at 414-15. (Emphasis added). Under the current circumstances, the Specific flan suffers from the same problems that occurred in Laurel Heights I and Whitr�. First, there has been absolutely no environmental analysis performed in connection with development requirements, permitted uses, location of uses and exemptions from City procedures and requirements and all other matters that are set forth in the Specific Plan. Second, any potential analysis, actions and mitigation measures that may be associated with the acnial development of the property are deferred to another day, which is an attempt, like Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area, to split the general plan and zoning classification (i.e., the Specific Plan) from subsequent required approvals (site plan review by the Planning Director, etc.). This is an egregious violation under the current circumstances because of the current attempts of the City and the Redevelopment Agency to say that the Specific Plan was covered by the very general General Plan EIR. As a result, in accordance with CEQA, the City and the Redevelopment Agency need to properly prepare an EIR or other environmental document under CEQA prior to the approval of the Specific Plan. 6. The Adoption of specific Plan As Currently Contemplated Without Environmental Review Would Unlawfully Defer Environmental Review. CEQA requires rhat environmental review and the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures occur at the earliest feasible state in the planning process. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21003.1. CbQA also provides that any proposed negative declaration should only be prepared for a project when "revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment with occur ... "Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2). The case of Sundstrom v__ County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d Z96 (1988), illustrates these principles. In Sundstrom, the public agency approved a use permit for a motel and restaurant that included a private sewage treatment plant. The initial study did not analyze the environmental impacts of the treatment plant, but instead required that the developer prepare a hydrological study after the approval of the negative declaration. The study was to provide a basis for establishing additional mitigation measures for the project. Oct-02-2000 01:09PM Frog-Tuchman d Associates 2133650505 T-505 P 149 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2 2000 City Council Henn October 2, 2000 Page 48 The court held that the public agency violated CEQA by including a condition that contemplated revisions to the project after the final adoption of the negative declaration. The court further held that the deferral of environmental review for the treatment plant ran counter to CEQA policy, which required environmental review at the earliest feasible change in the planning process. The court also noted that any mitigation measures added by the administrative staff as a result of this study would be exempt from public scrutiny since the public agency had already approved the negative declaration. The entire Specific Plan, the OPA, the contemplated future actions of this City, and the procedures set fbrth therein are an unlawful deferral of environmental review. First, no initial study was prepared for the Specific Plan to analyze potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures incorporated into the project, since environmental review would only be done with site plan reviews by the Planning Director. As a result, neither the impacts not the proposed conditions for the mitigation are analyzed, including those for or relating to uses, light, glare, noise, aesthetics, traffic and circulation, geotechnical, hazardous waste, air quality, parldng, flooding, construction and utilities, and each are deferred to another dam. This type of deferral of environmental redew and mitigation is not permitted under CEQA or the Guidelines and forms yet another unlawful proposal that is a part of the HCA Response. 7. The Adoption of the Specific Plan As Currently Con emIRlated without Environmental Review Will Result in an Unlawful Failure to Undertake a Cumulative Analysis of the Project's Environmental Impacts. And environmental document must discuss "cumulative impacts" when they are significant. Guidelines § 15130(a). However, even if the cumulative impact is not deemed significant, the document must explain the basis for the conclusion. Citizens to Preserve the Otai v. County of Ventura, 176 Cal- App. 3d 421, 429 (1985). "Cumulative impacts" are defined under CEQA as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b). Br' failing to prepare an Initial Study and undertake any environmental analysis under CEQA, there will be no analysis of potential "cumulative impacts," which is not permitted under CEQA and by circumventing the process, Burlington's and the public's due process right are railroaded. Oct-02-2000 01:I4a From—Tuchman I Associates 2133850595 T-505 P 049 F-462 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Re: October 2. 2000 City Council Hearing October 2, 2000 Page 49 IIT. CONCLUSION Considering the multitude of legal issues raised by the inadequately prepared Specific Plan (which has yet to be provided although allegedly adopted) and the unlawful acts undertaken by City administrators and officials, the City Council should reject the OPA and require the City and Redevelopment Agency to comply vazth the Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements in connection with the Specific Plan. In addition, the City Council should direct the Redevelopment Agency to work with Burlington, Montgomery Ward, and HCA in preparing and submitting a new Specific Plan that conforms to the Burlington Lease and established law. In the alternative, the City Council decision to approve the OPA should be continued in order to consider the legal issues raised in this letter. Lastly, this City Council should take a responsible position and not condone the privatization of public powers to line the pockets of a private developer. This City's sovereign powers appear to be up for sale to the higher bidder. Respectfully submitted, TUCH SOCIATES L. 'T'T_iCHMAN MMMD Counsel for Burlington Coat Factory Enclosures Attachment A: Burlington Lease Attachment B: Reciprocal Easement Agreements Attachment C: June 5, 2000 memorandum Attachment D: Declaration of Steve Lund Attachment E. Declaration of Bob Grapski Attachment F: Declaration of Mark Nesci Attachment G: September 21, 1999 letter from Douglas Gray Attachment H: October 15, 1999 letter from Douglas Gray Attachment I: Permit to erect walls cor construction in Huntington Center Attachment J: Resisters of Action in Unlawful Detainer Actions Attachment K: Pages 28 and 38 of the rough deposition transcript of Douglas Gray Attachment L: Deposition transcripts of Frank Coda, Ray Silver, Gustavo Duran, Jayna ..Morgan, and David Biggs, 16.000 petitions signed by local residents previously submitted and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 09/29/2000 11:1.1 Fai 213 620 1398 SMRH LOS AiNGELES Z002 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP • l�.a iTC] � •�_�i wapfr Ca �.�w �. ilYO�-G a-p•awa O-.. Cp�_a warrp..y ATTOONCYS AT LAW FCRTY-E1QHTN PLOOR 3]J SOUTH HOrC STREET LOS ANOELES_ CAL1lrQPINIA 9OGi7l-1b-&6 WRITER-5 DIRECT LINE (213) 617-5j65 Ms. Connie Brockway City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 TELEPHONE 12131 620-MaQ PAC.S1%A1LE (213) 620-1�388 September 29, 2000 OUR FILE NVM6ER 42X-76194 HA FACSCjt1I1,E Re: City Council and Redevelopment Hearing on Monday, October 2, 2000 _Reurding Owner Participation Agreement for Huntin on Center Dear Ms. Brockway: We understand that, as of 9-30 a.m. this morning, the Staff Report for the public hearing by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agcncy of the City of Huntington Beach regarding the potential sale of property to Huntington Centex Associates, LLC and the proposed Owner Participation Agreement with Huntington Center Associates, LLC is still not available. We fund this quite shocking, given this matter concerns and affects the property of our client, Montgomery Ward, LLC. We understand that either you or Gus Duran will be calling either Sean O'Connor at 7141424-2846 or me at 2131617-5565 as soon as the Staff Report is available. Thank you for your cooperation, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Jonathan . Curtis for SHEPPARD, WILIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP L A. LCRU-MUM70213911.1 CC' Scan O'Connor, Esquire Jack Rubens, Esquire L o s A N G E L L S ■ O RAN G C C O U N r Y ■ B A N 01 EGO ■ S A N P k A N C 1 5 C 0 1 09•291"2000 11:13 FAN 213 620 1398 SHRR LOS ANGELES 0001 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A WAITED UA91Lr Y PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING POOFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, FORTY-EIGHTH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE (213) 620-1780 FACSIMILE (213) 620-1398 TELECOPIER COVER LETTER 42X-76194 Los Angeles Office TELECOPY NUMBER TARGETED TIME ATTORNEYlSECRETARY E)CT (213) 620-1398 ASAP 4365 "I THIS TELECOPY TRANSMISSION WILL NOT BE MAILED DATE: May 5, 2000 TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY FAX NO: (714) 374-1567 FIRM: City Of Huntington Beach CONF. NO: (714) 536-5404 FROM: Jonathan Curtis - Direct dial (213) 617-5565 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (including this page): RECEIPT CONFIRMATION VIA PHONE REQUESTED: X YES NO FAX RECEIPT CONFIRMED BY: NAME OF SENDER / `�'� TIME STARTED l 1 IF ALL PAGES NOT RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL (213)620.1760 exL 3155 MESSAGE: INFORMATION THAT 15 PRIVILEGED CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DI LOSUR N APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGEN RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE- ORIGINAL ME53AGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE THANK YOU. 9 HUNIINGION BIA(H CHAMBERa COMMMI September 28, 2000 Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Mayor Garofalo: C11 Y Ci L"" C 11 Y OF cTo-i tit r."??. CA IGH SEP 32 A c-, 2 7 At a recent meeting of our Board of Directors the proposed plans for the Crossings at Huntington, an Italian designed open-air village consisting of a 4,500 seat theater, multiple high -end restaurants and over 700,000 square feet of higher end retail, were presented for our review. Although we have not had the opportunity to review the economic consultant's report, the Board unanimously supports in concept a plan that provides for the highest quality development that is economically feasible. The above action was taken because of the strategic location of the property and its potential to have a significant impact on the community's tax base. In addition, the proposed project will have a positive impact on the future development of the Edinger Corridor We appreciate the opportunity to present our views. C ially, ddell, C E esident Cc. Silver Biggs JR/s 2100 Main Street. SWe 200 Huntington Beach. CA 92648 R 714/536-8888 (FAX} 714MO-7654 ."r:': D'1 10/02/00 MON 13:49 1=A\ 714 841 4484 Cook/fisher Z 001 Debbie Cook 6602 Shetland Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714)842-1873 October 2, 2000 Redevelopment Agency City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Redevelopment Agency: .•l` Lei t i'•� i OF lfs'Jf1 UC-T - 2 A prior commitment prevents me from attending tonight's meeting to speak on item DI —adoption of resolutions concerning the redevelopment of Huntington Center. I strongly urge the Agency to encourage the cooperation between all property owners at the Center and welcome Ward's investment in any proposed project. As practiced in Huntington Beach, the use of eminent domain has never served the community in a financially positive manner, but rather has led to expensive, time-consuming lawsuits, and development that has not reflected the character of our community. While a complete remodel of the Center is long overdue, the path following free enterprise will ultimately prove to be the most successful. As yesterday's Editorial in the Orange County Register said, "The answer is simple: Government should get out of the redevelopment business..." Sincerely, b4l+� &., *,eb iIE I Lak mmmvn, Darcey Lainson 213 Indianapolis Huntington Beach, California 92646 City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council — I am writing to express my support of Ward's intention to stay in our community, and to remodel and improve their property. I do not believe the use of condemnation or using public money to purchase land, property and businesses is a good policy or practice for this situation. It puts Huntington Beach in an anti business position, and it is a costly effort in legal time and expense. Please reconsider this approach. I believe it is better to obtain a commitment from Wards that they will remodel their property, and then work with them. Sincerely, Darceyy Ldinson 213 Indianapolis r Huntington Beach, CA 92646 �J ? " 2" �J00 Kim Maurer 18925 Silverbit Lane, Huntington Beach, California 92648 Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: I am distressed with the direction we are taking with the redevelopment of the Huntington Center Mall. While I agree completely with the need for large-scale renovation of the mall, I am concerned the City is attempting to force out a long-time tenant and property owner, Montgomery Wards. If Wards is willing to work with the City and the new mall owner, and pay for their own remodeling, why should we turn that down? I understand the City is already contributing millions in redevelopment funds to the mall owner. If Wards can pay for their own renovation, then I support their continued presence at the mall. We have so many areas of the community that require the City's investment. Let's spend our money wisely and encourage and accept private investment in our community when it is offered. Sin ere%AL� Kim Maurer 18925 Silverbit Lane Huntington Beach, California 92648 S E P 3, 2U� r3 bZ � aS �na1 1) / City Council R r C E f V E D Redevelopment Commission S E P 23 2000 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street C:- / o: H. sa,�h Huntington Beach, California 92648 C;v.�; �� oriL-* Members of the City Council and Redevelopment Commission, I do not support the City's effort to `force our Wards from the plan for the new Huntington Beach mall, particularly if it requires condemning the property and buying it with public money. This seems a negative and expensive way to redevelop the site. I believe Wards has been presented as a roadblock to the redevelopment of the mall, which does not seem to be the case. Now, I understand they are willing to invest their money in the mall and in Huntington Beach. It appears we simply have not applied our best effort to working on a plan that benefits all involved. Meanwhile, the residents of Huntington Beach are getting tired of waiting for the mall remodeling. If Wards wants to be in the new mall, it must be because they are making money at the current mall, even in its shabby condition. With a remodeled mall and a remodeled store, Wards will make more money. This means the City gets more money. Please do not waste the public's money in an effort to drive away a long-time business from our community. Wads is an American institution. Let's not make Huntington Beach the city that condemns and buys property, pushing away business. Let's put the effort into helping Wards make their remodeling successful, and make Huntington Beach the city that businesses want to be in! rl ID Tracy Va an N.) CD o 16271 Sher Lane G Huntington Beach, California 92647 Lrti t� J� City Council City Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear City Council and City Manager, September 25, 2000 I am writing to tell you of my support for keeping Montgomery Wards part of the Huntington Beach Mall, to be. known as the -new "Crossings". While the store does not now look the way we expect it will with the new mall, it still provides a selection of clothing and items my family uses. When I was expecting my child, it was the only place in Huntington Beach I was able to find attractive and affordable maternity clothes for every day activities. Other stores providing maternity clothing of this type are not in Huntington Beach, and I prefer to spend my money in my own community to support our businesses. We have had a few different owners for the Mall. None of them have done .much for the Mall, other than drive away business. I find it amazing that Wards has stayed during such bad economic times. It seems unfair to try to force them to leave, when they are willing to remodel as part of the new Mall. Sincerely- N240 Dana Bowden 17491 Bellport Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 '. SEP c';� Mayor and City Council Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: HUNTINGTON CENTER MALL Dear Mayor and City Council - Sept. 26, 2000 iij S E ` 2IJ�Ii Why has the City taken so long to resolve the issues that are preventing us from moving forward with the Huntington Center Mall renovation? We have waited through different owners who have promised a lot, but shown us very little. We have waited through hard economic times. We have tried to support the Mall, even when there wasn't much there. We have watched while other communities build and fill malls. We have watched while good businesses, like Penney's, leave town. We have watched while the mall owner appears to try to force out the smaller stores and the one large store left, Montgomery Wards. It has been a sad situation. It makes no sense to send everyone away, build a mall, and then try to fill it again. If you have a viable, financially stable business, such as Wards, why not include them in the plan. I agree the current Wards store does not fit the planned image for the new Mall, but I understand that Wards has the money to reinvent its stores and its own image. Let them. It does not hurt South Coast Plaza to have Sears on its property, and I put them in the some category of products and services as Wards. K-Mart successfully "reinvented" itself and its products, proving it can be done. Let's move forward. Bring everyone together, are slowing the renovation, and build a mall! Sunday Christy 16382 Woodstock Lane Huntington Beach, California 92647 solve the issues that C, C= i C/) r X C7 G �=T %#, Spencer H. Hohw President- Momgomwy ward Properitivs Executive Mce President, Secretary8 General Counsel Wards National Off ce 535 W_ Chicago Avenue. 26th Fir_ Chitago.Illino-s 60671 I;*— V. 312.467.2220 Fax -. 312-467-3064 O -'. September 28. 2000 City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board y City of HuntinLton Beach v 2000 yfain Street I luntington Beach. CA 92648 Re: .Joint Public hearing of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on October 2, 2000, the Proposed Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of luntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC, to redevelop Huntington Center Dear Citv Council Members: On September 14, 20W we received notice that on October 2. 2000 the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of -Huntington Beach will be holding a joint public hearin�a to entertain entering into an Owner Participation Agreement with I luntington Center Associates, I.I.0 ("I:rralow"), regarding the entire Huntington Center, which includes the property owned and operated by Wards. In reviewing the documentation attached to such notice, including the Owner Participation Agreement and the economic reports prepared by the Sedway Group and Keyser Marston Associates. Inc. (the "Economic Reports"), we have become very concerned by the purported analysis of these groups and the potential actions by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of' I luntington Beach (the "Redevelopment Agency"). In the short period since we received the notice from the Redevelopment Agency, we have spent a lot of time and money to be in a position to respond to the Economic Reports and the proposed Owner Participation Agreement, however, the extremely short time period since we received the documents has made it very diflicult to prepare for the Cite Council hearing. I-herefore, we believe a continuance of the October 2"° hearing on the: Owner Participation A�_reement would be appropriate, however. if you decide to go forward, we hereby request you review the matters set tbrth in this letter and closely review the attachments to this letter which support many of Wards positions expressly stated in this letter. While you may believe that Wards has ignored its retail store at Iluntington Center for manv nears, the fact is that Wards has desired a redevelopment of I luntington Center and the remodeling of its retail store for a number of years. We met many times with The Macerich Company ("Macerich") to revie�%• redevelopment plans and Wards was more than willing to cooperate with Macerich with respect to a redevelopment which would include remodeling the (646320 4 - 9 28 00 9 24 AM) D I E-mail. ihv;neewards.corn Members ofthe City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board September 28, 2000 Page 2 Wards retail store. However, Macerich never seriously pursued any redevelopment due to the fact that it wanted a commitment for substantial governmental proceeds so Macerich could facilitate a sale of Huntington Center. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Wards stayed in Huntington Center (as opposed to major retailers such as J. C. Penney and Broadway) with the hope and goal that one day that portion of Huntington Center now owned by E•rralow would be redeveloped. which in turn would allow Wards to redevelop its property consistent with the redevelopment ofthe balance of Huntington Center. Wards had initial concerns with respect to the Specific flan adopted by the City of I Iuntington Beach based on the fact that it appeared that Wards would not be part of the Specific Plan as prepared by the planning department staff for the City of Huntington Beach. As publicly stated on numerous occasions, however, Wards believes it can work with the architectural requirements ofthe Specific Plan and is willing to be flexible as to the configuration of its retail store and the development of its site. Wards is also willing to be flexible with respect to its automotive center operation and the 13_5 acres of land which it owns within Huntington Center. As also stated publicly marry times, Wards will work within the specific architectural requirements of the Specific Plan, will agree to expend significant funds without eovernmental contribution to remodel its retail store and will work with Ezralow to make Huntington Center a very vibrant and customer friendly shopping center. Wards has remodeled 76 stores (with sales increases in excess of 20%) and has managed to complete redevelopments all over the country with the cooperation of many of the major shopping center owners and with the cooperation of governmental administrators throughout the country. Wards had presented a book to each of the members of the City Council at a previous City Council meeting describing its new prototype retail store which has been very successful in California (such as in Del Amo Mall. Torrance, California and Mission Valley, San Diego. California) and throughout the country The new Wards format features a circular design and creates a comfortable, aesthetically pleasing shopping environment. Along with the new look, Wards is offering new lines of merchandise and more brands, featuring better quality, trend right fashion and exceptional value. Wards is in shopping centers throughout the country with high -end retailers such as Nordstroms in Hurst, Texas and Macy's in Mission Valley. We ask you to please review the attached letters and articles which indicate strong support from shopping center owners for Wards new prototype retail store. As stated publicly many times over the past three (3) months, Wards is committed to remodeling its store in Huntington Center as part of and consistent with the redevelopment of Huntington Center and to expend significant funds to put its new prototype store in Huntington Center. As you may know, in August of 1997, the Redevelopment Agency took initial steps to acquire Wards' ownership interest in Huntington Center by retaining an appraiser to appraise Wards' interest in Huntington Center. In fact, in the fall of 1997, the Director of Economic Members of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board September 28, 2000 Page 3 Development for the City of Huntington Beach met with Loren Hohman, Director of'Real Estate of Wards, to discuss purchasing Wards' interest in Huntington Center and at such time threatened to proceed with condemnation if Wards did not sell its property to the Redevelopment Agency. Loren Hohman informed the Director of Economic Development at such time that Wards was not in a position to sell its property and did not have any desire to sell its property. In addition, we have reviewed the Economic Reports and feel very strongly that Wards' ability to perform in a renovated Huntington Center was materially misrepresented in the Economic Reports as the numbers set forth in the Economic Reports do not take into consideration a remodeled Wards retail store. At no point did the Sedway Group or Keyser Marsten Associates contact any representative of- Wards to obtain sales figures for a remodeled Wards store and did not have any communications with representatives of Wards to determine what tenants Wards are co -tenants with in other shopping centers. The proposed tenants mentioned in the Economic Reports include many of the type of tenants that Wards are co- tenants with in other shopping centers and regional malls throughout the country. We feel very strongly that one-sided reports such as those prepared by the Sedway Group and Keyser Marsten Associates are fundamentally unfair and lack credibility based on their failure to, at any point. obtain information from Wards. We ask you to please review closely the attached report prepared by Wald Realty Advisors. Inc. which clearly states that including Wards in the redevelopment of Huntington Center will make very little difference in the sales and property tax revenue received by the City of Huntington Beach and further states that the reports prepared by the Sedway Group and Keyser Marstein Associates are flawed in their :analysis of the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Please note that we have been informed, but have not verified, that Circuit City. the only retailer other than Wards which sells big ticket items in Huntington Center may be leaving Huntington Center to go to Westminster Nfall. We ask you, as members of the City Council, to sit down with Wards and agree upon a redevelopment plan that will work for all parties without forcing a viable and long-term property owner and business such as Wards to fight for its clear property rights through the California legal system. Hopefully, after you have received this letter, including the attached letters of support from major shopping owners such as Westfield and Simon Property Group, Iwo of the largest mall owners in the United States, you will not approve the Owner Participation Agreement with only E.zralow but will include Wards in the Owner Participation Agreement process. It is our understanding that the staff report with respect to the Owner Participation Agreement between Ezralow and the Redevelopment Agency will not be available until one (1) business day prior to the hearing, therefore, we also ask that you allow additional time at the October 2" `t hearing for Wards' representatives to answer questions and to present its case in a manner which we believe will allow the City Council to truly understand Wards' ability to be a Members of the City Council and Redevelopment :'agency Board September 28, 2000 Page 4 part of a successful redevelopment of I luntington Center. In the event you are not able to grant Wards more time to present its case to the City Council, w•e believe the only fair approach would be to continue the hearing on this matter until you are able to permit Wards to have a fair hearing to present its case. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact either Loren Hohman, Director of Real Estate, (312) 467-6241 or me. Sincerely, pencer 11. Hei e cc: Loren Hohman Chuck Knittle Corey Light Ray Silver Gail Hutton David Biggs Jonathan Curtis Sep-28-00 11:493m From-WALD REALTY +131D9793850 1-2is P-0Z F-358 19% South Bundy Dmre. Suitt Soo September 28, 2000 Los Mgetes, California 9oa25 Tcl phone 310 979.38SO Montgomery Ward, LLC Far. 310-979.3851 535 West Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 6067I SUMMARY OBVERSATIONS — Review of City Analyses of Redevelopment Scenarios, Huntington Center Wald Realty Advisors revievu of various reports prepared in support of the Scenario C recommended development plan is summarized in the attached memorandum (see Introduction for definition of Scenarios). Major conclusions are as follows: • Scenario B not considered in the reuse analysis report Esther a major oversight or unexplained exclusion of a potentially viable option that incorporates redevelopment of the Wards store and site. • No consideration of a proposed renovated Wards prototype store. Generates additional development on Wards property, higher sales taxes and property taxes; sales tax generation compares favorably with Scenario C. Inappropriate definition of Scenario B with a Wards store. Assumes arbitrary limitations on development scope and type; introduces an unknown department store into the analysis; based on inappropriate assumption of below -average quality level development. • Higher retail sales taxes generated by new tenants in Scenario B than in the recommended Scenario C plan. • Market analysis flawed or missing from consultants' reports. No acceptable industry standard analysis of supply/demand; development scope Nvas a "given" for all Scenarios; no analysis of tenant mix, sales expectations and likelihood of securing certain tenants; issue of major tenant compatibility with -upscale fashion" concept. • Concept Issues Not Addressed. We know on no analog for this type of center (no anchor tenants, major tenant is a Sears home furnishings store; mixture of upscale and discount/value tenants; large theater complex in face of industry bankruptcies and slowdown; huge amount of restaurant and entertainment space; undefined; "upscale fashion" center with potential tenants that are value stores with many already located in the market area. Comparison to Third Street Promenade and Old Town Pasadena is unrealistic considering location and market area differences_ Sep-28-00 11:49ad From-WALD REALTY 413109793850 T-210 P-03 F-368 MEMORANDUM REPORT TO: Montgomery Ward. LLC FROM: James P. Regan NVALt) REALTY ADD ISOttS 1990 South Bundy Dnvc, Suite Soo Las Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: 310.979-3850 Fax: 310-979.3851 SUBJECT: HU`NTINGTTON CENTER — EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS DATE: September 28, 2000 INTRODUCTION Wald Realty Advisors, Inc. (,�-- A) was retained by Montgomery Ward, LLC to Tevicw and analyze various reports and other materials prepared in connection with the proposed rehabilitation/renovation of the Huntington Center including: (1) Evaluation of Huntington Center Redeveloymeat Altemative,, prepared by Sedway Group ("Sedway" ), September 12, 2000; and (2) Huntington Crossings Reuse Analysis, September 12, 2000 and the Summary Report (referred to as the 33433 Report), both prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. ("KMA"). In addition, WRA reviewed market information in its files, contacted selected individuals in the retail industry and utilized data from Montgomery Ward in conducting its analysis. Our evaluation focuses primarily on the conclusions reached in the various analyses as well as key information and obvious alternatives that were not considered, primarily because the scope of the analyses were limited to alternatives specified by the Agency. NVRA takes issue with numerous statements, inferences from supporting data and conclusions contained in the Sedway report. However, the Sedway report had an admittedly limited and focused scope which, in our opinion, led to major flaws in the conclusions .- "Three scenarios specified by the Agency were evaluated from a market and a revenue perspective in order to identify the alternative that maximizes incremental sales tax revenue to the City." 1 In fact, the focus was not on establishing the market ,support for retail development based on accepted methods of retail market analysis. Rather, it appears that the scope of development and tenant mix were "givens" by the agency and the resulting sales projections are based on the sales of other potentially - competing centers with very different tenant mixes and orientation. ' Sedway report, cover letter dated September 12. 2000- Sea-28-00 11:50am From-WALD REALTY +13199793050 T-210 P_04 F-358 Memorandum — Huntington Center Montgomery Warul September 28, 2000 Page 2 The three redevelopment alternatives evaluated are identified as follows (see Exhibit l for tenant mix): Scenario Existing Major Tenants Sguare Feet A Retain Montgomery Wards and 967,365 Burlington Coat Factory B Retain, Montgomery Wards 875,544 Replace Burlington Coat Factory C Replace both Montgomery Wards and 947,861 Burlington Coat Factory Note: Mervyn's (82,000 SF) and existing strip tenants (132,094 SF) retained in all Scenarios. None of the reports rexiewed contain schematic plans of any of the Scenarios. Scenario C. which entails redevelopment of the entire existing center and requires purchase of the Wards property, is the reportedly preferred Agency alternative. The following comments summarize in outline form the major conclusions of our review and analysis. Supporting exhibits are attached. Sep-28-00 II*50as Frow-WALD REALTY i M89793B50 T-210 P.05 F-368 Memorandum — liuntington Center Montgomery W a September 28, 2DW Page 3 MAJOR OBSERVATIONS AND ISSUES A- REUSE ANALYSIS LIMITED TO SCENARIOS A AND C 1. No apparent reason for elimination o cep 'o B -The KMA reuse evaluation, dated the same day as the Sedway report, and the Summary Report only consider Scenarios A and C. No reason is given in any report for the elimination of Scenario B. ?. Scenario_B is a more viable option than Scenario A. • Scenario B with less development area generates 45% more incremental sales tax revenue and a greater percentage of new tenant space than Scenario A. 2 3. No consideration of Wards Proto store - None of the analyses considered the alternative of development of a previously -proposed Montgomery Wards prototype store with additional retail/entertainment space on the Wards property. B. FAILURE TO CONSIDER A RENOVATED WARDS STORE The Sedgy;•ay report, and apparently the Agency and the Developer, failed to consider a development alternative with a renovated prototype store as proposed by Montgomery Ward. 1. Prototype 'Wards store - The profile of the prototype is a smaller store (approximately 120,000 square feet) which has been introduced successfully in 76 locations. • Higher sacs volume - The store has target sales volumes of $200 per SF, considerably higher than the current store. • Potential for additional development - The smaller store would free up a significant amount of the Ward property to be used for new high -volume restaurant/retail/entertainment pad development. The Wards prototype at Del Amo in Torrance has been sufficiently successful that the Developer is adding a 400-scat food court, a stadium -seating theater and plans to improve and re -tenant the space at the Wards end of the mall. Sedwav report, Exhibit 14. Sep-28-00 11:50am From-WALD REALTY +13109793850 7-210 P16 F-368 Memorandum — Huntington Center Montgomery W September 28. 2000 Page 4 • Increased total retail sales taxes - Total retail sales from the Ward property could increase by over $35,000,000, with an increase in retail sales taxes of over $350,000 compared to the estimate in the Sedway report (Exhibit 2). • Increased maerty taxes — Depending on the scope of additional development on the Wards property, the prototype development could generate $121,000 or more in incremental property taxes to the Agency (Exhibit 3). • Com ares favorably with Scenario C - On a comparative basis, incremental retail sales taxes per square foot of development in Scenario B would be less than 9.0% below the Scenario C estimate, and could be greater depending on the final scope of development (Exhibit 2). C. RETAIL SALES PROJECTIONS 1. Inadequate supporting analysis. • There is no corroborating methodology or data analysis supporting the retail sales estimates of the three alternatives, nor are the sales estimates based on any apparent supply/demand analysis. In addition, the indicated increase in net sales tax revenue calculated by Sedway does not follow from the retail sales estimates presented in the report. 2. The Sedwav report projections ' dicate higher ew tenant sales in Scenario B • New tenants in Scenario B actually generate 16% higher sales per square foot than Scenario C (Exhibit 4 - assumes that 100% of the estimated increase in retail sales is generated by new tenants). Even if the existing tenants, including Montgomery Ward, experience a $45 per square foot increase in sales in Scenario B. the sales per square foot for new tenants is comparable to Scenario C. D. INAPPROPRIATE DEFINITON OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Scenario 13 is artificially constrai ed -- The Scenario B concept contains less square footage than might be developed and introduces in the tenant mix a small department store unknown in this market. Sep-28-00 11:51ae From-WALO REALTY +13109793850 T-210 P 07/13 P-368 Memorandum -- Huntington Center Montgomery tiV September 28. 2000 Pace 5 • Scenario B shows a net loss of almost 92,000 square feet of building area with elimination of Burlington Coat Factory, compared to a gain of over 72,000 SF when both Burlington and Montgomery Wards are eliminated. (Exhibit 5). • Introduction of a small department store unknown in the market stretches the reality of sound retail development. • Failure to consider other major tenant options. Elimination of a food court in Scenario B is not consistent with reasonable tenant planning for a regional center. 2. Scenario B seems to have been devised as an analytical stalking horse when in fact it could have considerable merit if properly planned, particularly with a renovated Wards prototype store- E. DESIGN ISSUES 1. Inappropriate quality_ level_ assumed for Scenario B. • The Sedway report is replete with references to the more distinctive quality design of Scenario C. Scenario B is described as having "...a quality level similar to a community center." • There is no rationale given for not "redeveloping" the center under Scenario B into a modern regional, not community, center with many design features similar to Scenario C. 1. Since Ward's is located at the far end of the center, it seems that the remainder of the center under Scenario B could be designed to meet many of requirements of an entertairime nt/lifestyle center, particularly since the net result in Scenario C is replacement of Ward's with a big box home furnishings store owned by Sears. E. MARKET AND DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ISSUES Our comments on the general approach to the analysis of the "market" and the specific plans for the Scenario C development are as follows: Sea-28-00 11:51am from-WALD REALTY 413109793850 T-210 P.08/13 F-368 i it S Memorandum — Huntington Center Montgomery W September 28, 2000 Page G No acceptable market analysis as defined by industry standards — all retail industry market analysis evaluates market supply/demand conditions based on a definition of an appropriate market area for the center, estimation of the demand for retail goods and services in the market area, evaluation of competing centers and major tenants in the market area, and estimation of the supportable retail development by tenant type given the characteristics of the supply/demand markets. There is no such analysis presented in these reports and, in our opinion, the market support for this development scenario is questionable: No definition of the appropriate market area for this center, which should consider physical barriers, access, the location of competing centers and retailers, and psychological barriers (`ring" analysis is inappropriate). • No analysis of competing centers which currently have many of the tenants proposed for this center and are in the market area (South Coast Plaza and Fashion Island). No analysts of the extent to which potential tenants Listed in the report are already in the market area and have non -compete arrangements. • No supply/demand analysis in the content of the proposed concept and tenant mix, which is amazingly stated as being similar to Old Town Pasadena and Third Street Promenade. • Most importantly, there is no analysis of the overall tenant mix proposed for Scenario C, which is unlike any retail center with which we are familiar. 2. Scenario_C Concept is not supported by the analyses. There apparently is no analog for this concept - an apparently unanchored center (Sears Great indoors is not an anchor tenant) with almost I Million square feet of space that contains more restauzant and entertainment space than any comparable - sized center; a 40,000-square foot multi -plea in the face of tremendous industry overbuilding and theater company financial difficulties; a presumed "upscale fashion" center with a list of potential tenants many of whom are value or discount merchants; a Sears home furnishings store as the large big box tenant; and so on. • There is no information that would support the market feasibility of what appears to be a concept unlike any in the regional center development business. Neither the locational attributes nor the market area are at all similar to Third Street Promenade and Old Town Pasadena Huntington Center Exhibit 1 Doveloper/Agency Aitemative Tenant Configurations T-enants and Size (Square Feet) 31enario A Scenario B Scenario C Montgomery Ward 186,000 186,000 0 Mervyn's 82,000 82,000 82,000 Burlington Coat Factory 194,232 0 Other Existing Tenants-32.084 1.32 084 132,084 Subtotal -Existing Tenants 594,316 400,084 214,084 New Tenants Theaters 90,000 90,000 90,000 Other Entertainment 54,860 67,640 88,140 Soft Goods 80,180 113,425 40,300 Upscale Soft Goods 0 0 140,750 Hard Goods 29,514 38,370 242,587 Shops 74,795 28,475 43.470 Department Store 0 88,580 0 Food & beverage Restaurant, bakery 35,700 46,200 66,700 Food Court 0 0 12,780 Other (not leasabfe) (8,QN (4370) (2,0541 Total Leasable $F 959,365 870.774 938,811 (11 , Sedway Group, September 12, 2000, Extubk 4. Wald Realty Advisors, Inc 9/28/00 T 3 s v f w Huntington Center Exhibit 2 Montgomery Wards Prototype - Retail Sales Impact Scenario B Prototype with %oM Scenarlo C Total Retail Area (Square Feet) 875,544 947.861 Estimated Incremental Retail 1 Siaies Tax [ 1] Low $ 1,286,571 $ 1,770,254 High $ 1,528,413 $ 2,253.936 Average $ 1,407,492 $ 2,012,095 incremental Taxable Sales - Wards Prato"e D,!Qyeja=ent Montgomery Wards $ 13.000,000 $ - Development of Surplus Property (2) $ 17,500,000 $ Total $ 30,500,D00 $ Retail Sales Tax Generated (1.0%) $ 305.000 $ Incremental Relail_Sales _Tax r Total (3) $ 1,712,492 $ 2,012,095 Per Square Foot of Building Area $ 1.96 $ 2.12 Difference 6.6% (1) Seaway report. Exhibit 14, (2) Estimated 50,ODO square feet at $350 per square root in taxable sales, (3) Average Seaway estimate plus prototype development. Wald Realty Advisors, Inc. 912&00 0 W T W co Huntington Center Exhibit 3 Montgomery Wards Prototype - Property Tax Impact Current Assessed Value (1) $ 9.090,380 Estimated New Development (SF) Montgomery Wards 120,000 Est. Additional Retail/Entertainment Development 50.000 Total Development Area 170,000 Estimated Assessed Value ($1251SF) (2) $ 21,250,000 Less: Existing Assessed Value $ (9,090,380) Net Assessed Value Increase $ 12,159,620 Net Increase in Property Taxes (1.0%) $ 121,596 (1) Information from Montgomery Ward. (2) estimate by WRA based on Montgomery Wards prototype cost and estimated total cost of new pad an in -line restaurant and retaiUentertainment development. Wald Realty Advisors, Inc. 9/28100 W Sea-28-00 II:52a■ From-WALD REALTY +13109793850 T-210 F.12/13 F-36B Huntington Center Exhibit Analysis of Projected Increase in Taxable Retail Sales Tenants and Size (Square e Feet Scenarjo-B Scenario C Montgomery Ward 186,000 0 Mervyns's 82,000 82,000 Other Existing Tenants 132.M 132.084 Subtotal - Existing Tenants 400,084 214,084 New Tenants Theaters 90,000 90,000 Other Entertainment 67,640 88,140 Soft Goods 113,425 40,300 Upscale Soft Goods 0 140,750 Hard Goods 36,370 242,587 Shops 28,475 43,470 Department Store 86,580 0 Food & beverage Restaurant, bakery 46,200 66,700 Food Court 0 12,780 Other (not leasable) j4770 (9,050) Total Leasable SF 870,774 938,811 Less: Existing Tenants Retained (400,084) (214,084) Common Tenants (Theater) (90,000) (SD-QQ) Net New Retail Tenants 380,690 634,727 lncreaaed Taxable Sales/SF --New Tenants Estimated Increase - Taxable Retail Sales (1) $ 138,349,200 3 198,809,500 Imputed Increase in Taxable Retail Sales per $ 363.42 $ 313.22 Square foot of New Tenancy (excluding theaters) (1) Evaivatiou of Huntington Center Redevelopment Alternatives, Sedway Group, September 12, 2000, p.46. Estimate represents mrd-pant of teigh and low estimates of taxable sales increase above V%e existing sales adjusted to exdude the "atef (common element with low taxable sales). Wald Realty Advisors, Inc. W28= Huntington Center Exhibit s Summary - Changes To Retail Areas under Proposed Scenarios Total SCENARIO ; qua.M FeetNot Cha go In Retail Am& A Retain both Montgomery Ward and Burlington Coat Factory Retain Existing Strip Tenants B Retain Montgomery Ward Replace Burlington Coat Factory Retain Existing Strip Tenants C Replace both Montgomery Ward and Burlington Coat Factory Retain Existing Strip Tenants 967,365 -- -- 875,544 Eliminate 194,232 SF in 3-story building Replace with 102,411 SF (in presumably lower density structure) Net Loss - 91,821 SF 947.861 Eliminate two 3-story buildings with 380,232 SF Replace with similar amount of area (360,729 SF) in presumably lower density structure Comparison to Scenario B Eliminate 186,000 SF (Montgomery Ward) Replace with 258,317 SF Net Increase - 72,317 5F Source: Evaluatinn of Huntington Cgnter Redelyglowent Altemabyea, Sedway Group, September 12, 2000, Wald Re&Y Advisors, Inc. 9128100 T W SEP 28 2000 10:51 FR SIMON PROPERTY GP DEV317 685 7299 TO 913124676249 P.82/02 SIMON' NTUMDial- s3S7-:6yyOSS pAt No. I3t7.6BS 7199 WWI.. - ii9D111fllgflRWr+.qt�+ September 28, 2000 "Via - Fax #312-467-6249" Mr. Loren Hohman Real Estate Manager Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. S35 West Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60671 RE: North East Mall Redevelopment Hurst, TX Dear Loren: I wanted to take a moment to update you an the North East Mall progress. Recently, Sak's opened along with a substantial amount of the new tenants that we brought Into the property. We have completed the expansion and renovation of the entire mall. I am happy to share with you that everything has been extremely successful. Further, as you know, Nordstrom will open in March of 2001 and we are finalizing a deal to bring Foley's to the property, opening In 2001. This will be the only mall in the Dallas metro-plex with the seven department store line-up of Dillard, Foley, 7C Penney, Nordstrom, Saks, Sears and Ward. The revamped/remodeled Ward store Is fitting very well with the diverse development that we created. In a market place as varied as we have, Ward is an important department store In our mix and, certainly, your redevelopment of the store has generated an increase in traffic for both you and the mall. Loren, again, we appreciate your company's effort as well as yours personally to help us transform this property and wish you continued success. Sincerely, SIMON PROPERTY GROUP Arthur w. Spe meyer, 1 Senior Vice President - Development AWSJdb 115 West lVBSNngton Smrt lftdw% p W Indiana 46204 317.936.1600 shopsimon.corn - HP. 2a, 2000 10:24AM WESTFIELD COEPOEATION, TNC. V'sa Facsimile -- 342-M-5249 September 26, 2000 Mr, Loren Hohman Montgomery Word 535 West Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60671 Re: Westfield Shoppingtown Annepuis Westfield Shoppingtown Mission Valley Dear Loren: WINtlhld Cerpo�efo� lne, rla�at wp�,�rti�en,te,�rd Mh Hoar !a AnVkk rA R0U4748 Tele* w P") 4744US Fe" nilo 0101471440 I wanted to drop you a quick note to compliment you on your Ward Stoma renovation program, I recently had the opportunity to viait the Mission Valley and Annapolis stores and was impressed with the level of design and architectural Vnlshes used In the store layouts. I look forward to Y urs falthfu DimKO Vezelakls Chief Operating Officer DV;tw you next week. SEP 28 2000 11:36 FR URBAN RETIPL PROP 312 915 3334 TO 94676249 P,02/02 Oscar Reid V A FAX Exocub a vice Pre3 ident Phune: 312/915-3331 Mr. Loren Hohman Regional Real Estate Manager Wards 535 West Chicago 250' Floor Chicago, IL 60671 Dear Lorea: September 28, 2000 Subject: Wards Stratford Square Bloomingdale, Illinois I think I have expressed to both you and Spenser over the last year or so how happy that we, as management and leasing agents of Stratford, as well as ownership are about the great renovation job that you have done at your store here. The store layout is terrific for the shopper, the design. the quality of the fixtures and improvements, the merchandise, as well as just the general ambiance of the store is as pleasing. or even more so. than the stores operated by the other major stores in the center. Keep up the good work'. 'ours, OR:jh goo NORTH M1CtUGAN AVENUE CMCAGO. UJINOIS 60611-1.592 FAX: 312/915-3377 ■ THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1999 ■ ............................................................................................................................................................ Pleasant H I ill -Record Pleasant Hill, CA 'New' Wards sports Wen look By stephanle Wright staff writer !Montgomery Ward has shurtened its name to Wards and is sprucing up several of its stores lindunwrde, includ- ing its store in Pleasant Hill. Converting them into what the company calls 'innovative concept stoma," the purpose is to make shopping easier and more convenient for cus• tomers The change Wards attire is its streamlined openness. A customer enter. ing the front doors can quick• ly scan the first -level depart- ments and decide which part of the renovated store they wart to head for ]ristcad of being squared off into separate departments, the store contains what the company describes as a circu- lar, racetrack design. Thia is literally a round path domi- nating the center of the store with departments to the cen- ter ' and outaide of it. Customers easily skirt along open, side-by•side depart - merits rather than navigating around cumbersome walls or reading in-store maps to fig• u re out where they want to go. 11re only exception to this design is the children'& and automotive departments, which Htill remain behind single, most dramatic Wards employee Pernella Duncan welcomes shoppers to the to - the Pleasant Hill setting up a new Wards credit card account. imposed by the building'N lay- out A touch of sophistication exists in the addition of attractively displayed, stylish women's fashion&, and light. colored wood is incorporated into the line jewelry depart- ment counters and through- out the store. Adding to the look are the ruby and gold Christmas banners dangling from the ceiling, "Me three main goals of the renovation are quality, value and hot loops at prices people can afford," said Debbie McCoy, 6tore manager. "We're very proud of oLr jewelry department. We have some nice items at affordable prices " She said the jewelry line is expanded and now includes Is is jade and latinum oLm corrowuw pain %tore and'OflefS to assist them with P ouv. C(«x ivuw W� Young shoppers Emily Saws (right), S, and Brianna Cm-rri. 4, Wards From page 1 pieces. . Home items, including bed- ding, linens, curtains and photo frames, have been moved down- stairs, so people in a hurry don't have to trek upstairs for what McCoy says are popular items. The shoe department also accommodates time -crunched shoppers, and the majority of it is on the main floor. Customers who see a sample shoe they like can check the boxes of shoes below for their size and serve themselves, rather than wait- ing for a sales associate to find it for them. Upstairs, furniture, large home appliances and home electronics are laid out in the same circular design. Furniture, now placed in six different collections, integrates living room, dining room and bedroom groupings to give cus- tomers an opportunity to see how the furnishings would work together in a home set- ting. OEM co"0MUR 00to Wards sales associate Joe Curry looks on as Glen Richards measures a coffee table in the newly -renovated furniture department. Audrey Richards observes in the background. And the large appliance sec- tion is greatly expanded with lots of built-in stoves and even a GE center, complete with built-in ovens, stoves and a refrigerator. "We have a lot of built-ins that people can actually see instead of just looking at them in a catalog," said McCoy - "Our home electronics (department) is significantly different. Before, it was a dark hole in a corner. Now, it's really open and very interac- tive." McCoy said that in addition to the aesthetic changes, she and the company are also striving to improve customer service by instilling in new sales: associates. the need to put customers above anything else they need to do in their jobs. The store remained open dur- ing the entire -renovation, and the sales associates endured the process .and continued to work hard, McCoy said. "I'm more proud of my associ- ates than anything else," she said. "'They 'did a wonderful job." Wards -is- located at 2302 Monument Blvd., in Pleasant Hill. Store hours are 10 a.m.-9 p.m. Monday through Friday: 10 a.m.-8 p.m. Saturdays'; and 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Sundays. Auto Express is open 7 a.m.-€ p.m. Monday through Fridays 7 alm.-7 p.m. Saturdays; and 1C a.m.-5 p.m. Sundays. Call Wards at 674-6200 foi more information. Torrance,CA Daily Breeze • FRIDAY August 20, 1999 Busin ss ARAMMIR NVARTUC/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER Customers walk through the Wards store in Torrance's Del Arno Fashion Center after its three month remodeling project. OPEN UP Wards gets new name and, with renovation, a new look By Alison Skratt BUSINESS WHITER Jim Orzechowski, district manager for Wards department stores in Los An. geles County, doesn't mince words when asked to describe the chain's Del Amo Fashion Center location before its re- cent top -to -bottom. million -dollar reno. vation. "It was dark, dingy and cut-up," Orze. chowski says. . A series of walls that have since been removed used to compartmentalize the store, which was further hindered by In- tentionally muted lighting. Now shoppers see wide, bright aisles and a circular floor plan that positions departments like the spokes of a wheel in an effort to make customers want to buy things throughout the store, rather than just dashing in and out. The new look is central to Wards' strategy for making a profitable come- back from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which it filed for two years ago. Since then. it has closed more than 100 poorly performing stores, fired about 4,000 em- ployees. and changed its name from Montgomery Wards to Wards_ Earlier this month. the company emerged from court protection as a wholly owned unit of General Electric Co determined to find a foothold in the competitive world of low-priced retail- ers_ The Torrance location is one of 19 stores in nine states slated to debut the prototype layout this weekend. Today marks its official grand re -opening, al- though the three-month remodeling pro- jest was completed while the store re- mained open, says manager Karen Schuenemann. Wards first experimented with the concept at three stores one year ago. Those locations -- in Las Vegas. Illinois and Maryland — have since seen sales increases 40 percent greater than those experienced by the rest of the chain, says Kathleen O'Neil, spokeswoman for Wards' national office in Chicago - Those successes convinced the compa- ny to implement the plan at more than half of its 252 stores by 2001. upgrades that will cost Wards between $l million and $2 million each. O'Neil says. She de- clined to divulge how much was invest- ed in the 157.006-square-foot Torrance store, but because the average Wards is just 95.000 square feet, the price tag Probably came closest to 52 million_ The payoff a store that's easier to nay. WARDS/13I 1 Wards FROM PAGE 87, igate and more likely to encourage what retail ex. perts call "cross -shopping-" In Torrance, it means a customer entering the store from the mall is greeted by the jewelry de• partment, but can easily see across the store to housewares, a view that used to be blocked by a wall. As they walk to housewares, they'll pass by the shoe department and women's wear. "You can stand here and you are able to see from one end to the other," Orzechowski says- "In our old store, everything was so tight you couldn't see any- thing_" The concept is not a new one, but it is effective, says George Whalfn, president of Retail Manage- ment Consultants in San Marcos. "There ire a variety of theories about floor plans these days and the racetrack theory is, quite frank- ly, an old one at this point," Whalin says. "But it's definitely not old hat. There are a lot of people who still think it's the only way to go." J.C. Penney, Circuit City and Nordstrom are a few of its fans, Whalin says- Even Toys R Us has includ- ed the racetrack concept among those its consider- ing for similar make -over plans, he says. Still, Whalin says Wards is struggling to win back customers who abandoned it long ago, and get new ones in an industry filled with retailers who are much farther ahead in creating a niche_ for them- selves, The chain, known mostly for its electronics and appliances, is trying to target the same group of shoppers as competitors like Penney. Sears and Mervyn's, women between. 30 and 55 who have household incomes between $25,000 and W,000. Like the rest, Wards knows the key to winning them over is apparel, O'Neil says, a segment that accounts for about 30 percent of its sales. The com- pany hopes the new prototype will push that up to 40 percent, she says. W-halin isn't optimistic. "One of the things that we look at a lot and use to judge chains on is relevancy to the consumer and the marketplace. What do they bring that's different and unique?" Whalin says. "I don't see that with Montgomery Warr I don't see anything that distin- guishes them from a lot of other retailers." pylaS ausnesS l0umal a November 5-11. 1999 SMARTER SHOPPROW The new wards at northeast Mall in Hurst features larger displays and more Contemporary products. Says Ed Apse. Fort Worth drStrct marUger for Wards Wards brings new attitude to store at Northeast Mall Department store shortens name, adds new updated styles R7 MAIfEtm[ IlAWLEY Staff Writer HURST — Montgomery Wards is pumping up Its image and is starting its North Texas campaign at Northeast Mall in Hurst. Chicago -baud Montgomery Wards Holding Co has undergone some major restructuring to create a Mort: contemporary style for the department stores TheWards at Norlheast Mail in Hurst is the first store to undergo ren- ovations in the Metroplex and only the third in texas_ The others are in El Paso and Baybrook. southeast of Houston - More than 40 stores nationwide have undergone renovations since September 1998 The store name also has been short- ened to Wards. "For several years the customers have branded us as Wards, and after several studies we have come to short- en our name and open up our stores to fit what our customers Kant." said Chuck Knittle, vice president of gov- ernmental affairs and corporate com- munications at Wards As part of its turnaround. Wards has closed more than RX) underperforming stores Seven stores have dosed in Texas since January, including three in The Dallas -Fort Worth area, said Kathleen O'Neil. Wards spokeswoman Knittle said that over the last three years Wards officials have been dcvcl- oping a strategic four -leg plan to rcno- vate and redesign ail stores nationwide The plan entails upgrading mcr- chandise content, revising marketing and advertising, overhauling and improving customer service and improving merchandise presentation. he said - Competitors J_C. Penney Co. and Dillard's declined to comment on the changes at Wards - The design elements used in the redesigned stoics include a circular lavout with wide aisles and prominent bright displays_ "fire circular racetrack takes the customers ail around the store, helping them to sec the entire assortment of merchandise," said Ed Able, Fort Worth district manager for Wards. Wards has also upgraded ifs fash- ions and displays - large product displays help the ctis- tomer identify themes and looks in a nonconfining manner. Abk said. [helping Circular rack takes the mers all nd the store, them to see ntire assortment rchandise.' — Ed Able Montgomery Wards "We have upgraded our fashions and added more brand names like Lee, Gloria Vanderbilt and LEI for juniors," f he said - Wards has upgraded its home fur- nishings dcpartment with a Collections line and It now groups living, dining and bedroom furnishings together_ "There are six different groupings and they are all made to match," Able said. '"his will help the customer to visualize the products in a home -like setting to better put together a set of products_" All in -home merchandise through- out the store is marked with a color seal, making it easier for the customer to match products for the enure home. Able said. In addition, Wards has also begun renovations on its Auto txpress center. The first Auto Express center in the nation opened in Hurst in October- jl Cliff Upchurch, district manager for the Auto Express center. said that the auto center also features a eirtular pathway throughout the merchandise area and the color scheme and displays arc tailored to be inviting and pleasing to the eye of female customers. Several Metroplex stores are in line for rienovatioris to take place next year r Hurst, TX Stockton, M IF ar Mdfltay, hiovelat r f. Im Nation's 1st is city's latest stocktor�s Wards store completes its makeover Bylk> It Staff 1h4ew Montgomery Wards' Stockton store last sha>riu completed a three month make m on a stale dw wotdd matte imW gwu Madonns Gone are the don lights that shorve on aan>pad, cartused mer• chandlse. Customers will find aide shies, more cash reglttrYs and denting towru. brand t►a11tc displays. bright Ilghling, and upscale mestYra<tdtx -Upscale' isn't a word many +could use to descre t �btttaed � F�ib the natlona oldest deptrlmemt slue and a re�a�uq{ stalwart tha [or dudes Iw d�thed [Sty mh- tm and catered to mfddh- incatae fannLihs But Wards shopper loanne Ihfte of Stockton, nu,eyvyl he surroundings last creek io the ,.omen% appard depwtrrhmt sera a EFatant dwhge In the More she has krx wh for yearx'lt looks Wee one of the true sues now Irs sorely Other customers were equally 11t loots clams r:- said Madeline Young -of Galt, posing nearby in the ' department.'IL looks like they added a little ensue produrn. and Oft a brut better Muevnent Imes with the gosh of MmLgomcry Ward execu- tive, who am presiding mull the rnoa-mtnsiae resrroddlrvs pAkd W Maseru manory for the 127•yesr asd aonywryw urd the equally bold aim of attracting [Wore upscale CahlrOnetS. The mmoilelbfg a foM o19eLib Say. Is pan of a strategic plan concened about three years am and precedes Wards' Wuncial dlf- scul ies. The cunpany AW for C apta II 6animptcy protection in 1997 and emerged in August after a restruen rin g eRon that Inchided shutting dorm Entire than 100 storm rhationwde- Wards operates 252 side In 32 Mates. N edQttiorh to rancddfng Morse and ugpad;f s mcrhafdlse, rite plan ceW for r-ising makeilfug plans and improving customer service. Ward% ow.Aves have dem nd the store's Ided appnd buyers as nvOrtnn 30 to 55 years old with annual houmbold incomes of $25.000 to $50.000- Furniture. eiectronlo, appliances and otter momappard items have a some- what higher target: men and warren file 26.65 with housdiokd incarnes or Si25,A00 W SMA00. 'There re re braod•ctinxfous;CYftosmera saidaManimo Albrecht, Wards' Northern California district managm One of the first dp-� of the shift Is the prominence of the jewelry deparbrhent. the ulthnete ork=rx In Stockton, the section was Aram phew nrr Casco SAMXFtS SPRUCED UP: The tagade of rice remodeled from the Sherwood Mail parlanq iot_ The nation's Wards store in north Stockton his seen Last +reek okk-u department store a polishing its wriage ROOM TO SHOP. The rernodolod Wards in Stockton has ender arsies. pushed foewar toward the mall - side entrance and given an airy look by tmrovhrg pan of the otil- 4 abort the counter spaf4 the department Is abo carrying; more-espenslve Items, such ere Wi¢1Qtsrd dlamoric& `It glees a Feal Imp. 11b - Stockton bruKh mans" Georg Robbrette said. -Ihh es one or the flea things that got remodeled. Since it was pea In. bhalness has been trentertdmW Customers entering the store hma other deparmrerhn wLE atstr notice diffesereas, such as cendy. anbrial-print lingerie and poke - man gsc. -It's really hot right now,` Albrecht said But the least -fashionable depftrrrem. houwwartaw has per. hops changed dw most. The smrt has prorninendy cHs- pU?ed premium brands, such as Mayug In the appliance depart- tmed and Ear -saw Sony wLrA- don aitz in die horde-dectmnks dip irtment Martrm and drapery departrimm with hko sales vol- umes at the Stockton Mote, hoe been positioned dim,* across from each other. Move mrrdm- duc Is on displays Albrecht sod pornUntg to a Line of door -high ta0 1h MOR wall. dlspiays that cover nearly The Stockton site 1s the ERh of WVsdY 15 central tAhJdorrda Mom from Chico to Balrersfretd to underp remodegri& Though of hl rals won't dtscove EmanieW details for the privately held compa^x Albrecht aW the Stockton store Es emnsldered trite of the best-perfortming and best. positioned stores In the fegyon. It's also one of the largest. While the shonet physkal bound. aries didn't expand stockroom aaih and drparuncrx erhdramo rose broken down to expartd Lhe sales Door- Space for shot dis- plays, ran example, innensed by about 70 percent. Robinette said This aflohn rot to keep mom stock on the floor rather than hair tavermaa nncf000rm.- Please "a warms, Bach papa New faces These ere some at this new or renovated stores this rim debuted in and erased SWddcn!5 mob in menu years ■ Sears, remoaetad " 19% ■ Ord Navy. opened .brie 19% ■ The Dhney Store. op~ $epWnloer 1997 ■ Dilliar" opened October l 1197 ■ uwvv, fernodeled late IW? ■ Oyrntioree (Clribenls "t>r�f, opened May 1990 ■ Mns. Fads Caoldes. opened Octobef 199E ■ Bangs & Nobra 600keMera, reloC2led and opened Noben+be< 19911 ■ Gynhborse Play Propnma fecavay oehaer). operwo DeoembW ■ Osteway Cciur" (mmptasr soltwane. hardware)- opened Deceintw ■ K'B Toys, hernodsNC Fetrwry ■ Big Kniert, +otDmOW and fem06eied .+tare • Regis f saw). ■ an" OUVOK a*afded and ran o*W Septi"ter ■ Natural Wonders 4fl Shop). Bepte+tbe ■ CtafrsY (abassmfles). remod- cased October ■ tYrt Seal. opended and .01. eked October ■ Target. mmarded end mmod ew octobar Of Gap. GopKids and batryGM opening an tnonth ■ FMIS!"u (aytleat bowm doowv). opeftrrtq the .,Ole ■ Waves Mus1c, ope 0 this rrnonQn ■ Cnnwnt A wden, rekhtatrip and expending eadq 20t10 ■ Strvlo surprtasa, nernooti" spina 2000 WARDS Continued from F1 Space was a deciding factor, because the remodel required aisles to be widened and added a circular aisle that runs through the store. The circular design allows cus- tomers to browse more easily among departments and therefore shop between closely positioned, complementary sections, such as girls' and women's apparel, for example, Robinette said. "it opens up the departments. The (previous) aisles prevented (customers) from looking around." This so-called cross -shopping, retail experts say, is an essential part of a department store's suc- cess. Sears' long -running 'softer side of Sears" ad campaign is an example of the stores attempt to promote apparel sales among cus- tomers who go to the store in search of specific hand goods such as washing machines and refiig- erators. ,While Sears' underperforming apparel category has pulled down company profits for at least a year and a half, there's some indication that the company Is turning around, said Tom Tashjian, man- aging director of Banc America Securities in San Francisco. "In the past two months, Sears met and beat sales plans," he said. "And the hard -goods side of Sears continues to do weV While Sears and J.C. Penney remain solid companies, they, like Wards, nevertheless face increas- ing competition from discounters and upper -market retailers, he said. `The postwar baby -boom cus- tomer who's comfortable shopping in an upscale store and a dis- count box store in the same trip would probably pick up basic home goods at Target rather than at Sears and Penney." But remodeling efforts, whoe updating a store's outdated look, are typically expected to jump- start sales, retail experts say. Such efforts, they say, can boost sales for the stone and vicinity. "It's a major step to have that store make a major financial commitment," said Mike Donaghy, manager of Sherwood Mail. "The success of an anchor store typi- cally means success for other stores. The whole mall does we[V Weberstown Mall marketing director Alexandra Pappas agreed. Pappas witnessed an uptick in mall activity after Sears was remodeled in 1996. "They benefited tremendously Record photos by CLIFFORD OTD PROUD MOMENT: George Robinette, left, manager of the Stockton Wards, and district manager Mark Albrecht admire the remodeling. MORE CHOICES: Pam Myers of Stockton looks over the increased selection of women's shoes last week at the newly remodeled Wards in Stockton's Sherwood Mall. from their remodel." Retail fixtures such as Wards also have a longer -term impact on a community, experts say. In January Santa Maria became the latest California community to lose a Wards store to the compa- ny's restructuring. " The impact is significant," said Bob Hatch, president of the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Com- merce. The store, a downtown fix- ture, was often busy, he added. Hatch couldn't say why the store dosed but noted that the loss coincided with the entry of several big -boot retailers on the edge of town, including Wal-Mart The newer stores are likely i3il- Ing the gap, but the Wards store Big changes Improvements to Montgomery Wards' Stockton store, which paral� lei those at recentty remodeled stones in Sacramento and Modesto, include: ■ An additional 5,000 square feet of retail space, bringing the total to 75,000 square feet. ■ A circular aisle rtrrming through marry depart- ments and wider sec- ondary aisles. ■ Additional, more -Mess~ ble dressing rooms and cashiers. ■ New lighting fixtures, increasing brightness by 40 percent_ ■ Prominent displays of individual brands and styles. ■ Additional, larger signs for departments. ■ Upgraded merchandise across departments including jewelry, womens apparel and home electronics. ■ Addition of trendy items such as animaE print lin- gerie and Pok6mon gear. ■ Expanded clothing and shoe departments. 0 Expanded nonapParel departments, including draperies, bedding and appliances. was nevertheless a popular desti- nation for many years, he said. You get used to shopping at a store. ... It stayed there while things changed numerous times." SF[TiOK C DOW !ONES: 79.73 - S&P: 9.79 -401 NASDAQ: 65.39 -- rr 30-YEAR t-BOND YIELD: 5.90 BUSINESS www.kestar.com THE KANSAS CITY STAR. Wednesday, dune 7. 2000 WE?4M WGrtLe Komar Gry Spar Wider aisles have proved popular with shoppers. according to Dennis Keefer, manager of the Oak Park Mall Wards store -The store also has much more selling space and a Luger jewelry department. Shoppers find a new. Wards Better grade of merchandise accompanies store remodeling �`" �'y t!WARDVATrrWGLANCE $y TOYCi SMITH e culmination of d f W i i l th r _ ` ' + " ��By-�'year end; 7fi of 251 The Kansas city star strategy to keep its market ., S,stor Will ";Jemodeled. niche between the discoun- emphasizes hartene Brunts of Osawatouvc, ters and the upscale retailers The plan irtdvded improving� ,WRe'modelLng �w �r alslesLietter t � Kan., expected a Cexperience merchandise, increasing the <y...- .. Ifgt #ing+asld:clear,;easy- routine shoppingeffectiveness when of make �8 ': and advertising, and imprw W-s _ r" to=na��gate_store layout, I■=Wards also,hUtaken visited Wards in Oak Park I -- • u.-�a:1 r -z., she ng customer service. .: �3tgpstt0 `mprOVQ,rtterCllatt- Mall recently- But Brunts was The company. which dLseimarketv'ertis- - stunned at the changes she found. emerged from two years of Chapter 11 bankruptcy Iasi jig+and customet�service. "It's gorgeous,- Brunts said August. is remodeling 33 of its _��tV�laids s,,ow`r ed. by GE -1 was shocked when I cause Wards stores this year. bxdud- t.. ' �+'" ItaI70 f iC]tal-of Stamford, Conn.... in. You can see where you ittg the oak Pak MaIl store it dtld-Came;011tR f€ _ nk- need to go. and the prices arc also remodeled three states in >C ; I . sr�ptcy. reorgarliv atLon good. too,' Remodeled stores such stslast'August�; 1998 and 40 stores in 1999. out ib the one in Overland Park are see WARDS. C-6 WARDS: Stores; stock changing Continued From C-1 Of the chain's 251- "The (remodeled) stores are do- ing very well, with 20 percent in- creases" in monthly sales, com- pared with a year earlier, said Chuck Knittie, a spokesman for Wards in Chicago. The Oak Park Wards increased its selling space by a third by taking over the former MC Sporting Goods location, along with unused stockroom space. Inventory has ,been expanded in every depart - ,merit. The jewelry counter has been moved to the main entrance on the top level and has doubled in size. Wards also is building on its strong fi.uniture business by carry- ing such name brands as Broyhill and Bassett. Furniture displays of- fer complete living room, dining room and bedroom settings. Cus- tomers can outfit their entire house in one style. "We've been selling furniture over 125 years; it's always been a mainstay," said Dennis Keefer, .store manager at the Oak Park Wards, who has worked for the company for 39 years. "We've in- creased the brands, along with the quality and the style, dramatically. Johnson County is a market that has accepted our furniture very well." The furniture department takes up more than half of the lower level and is surrounded by related de- partments, including domestics, window treatments and lamps. Along with more and better mer- chandise, the remodeled Wards stores are designed to offer their tune -crunched customers a more enjoyable and efficient shopping experience. Instead of a "jigsaw puzzle" lay- out, the new design has a circular racetrack design. In addition, cus- tomers can clearly see across the store, and various departments are identified by large, overhead signs. Customers previously relied on more -complicated, color -coded maps to navigate the store. The main aisles are twice as large as they were in the previous design. lights have been doubled to give the store a much brighter appear- ance. The store also has increased the number and size of its fitting rooms and streamlined its check- out areas. Wards' core "fashion" customer is a 30- to 55-year-old woman with a household income of $25.000 to $W.000. She has traditional values, seeks value and quality, is focused on family and feels time pressure. The company has a broader base for its appliance and furniture cus- tomer. That customer could be a man or woman. age 26 to 65, with a household income of $25,000 to $85,000. Montgomery Ward, which is owned by GE Capital of Stamford, Conn, also has stores at Blue Ridge Mall, Indian Springs Marketplace, Metro North Shopping Center and Ward Parkway Center. Those stores will not be remodeled this year. The company has not made its plans fi- nal for store remodelings in 2001. "Yes, we are.very pretty now," Keefer said. "The stores are very bright now and the stores are easier to shop. And we have an expanded assortment, a lot better brands. But you have to have the customer ser- vice, all those things with the focus on customer service. That's what brings it all together." To reach Joyce Smith, call (816) 234-7750 or send e- mail to jsmith@kcstancom P^6e 12 ^^ TtrF JOURNAL RT-pfeD wCo..aSo... Mf 3. 2000 ■ PUBuc EYE Wards innovative in Oklahoma Citygets Aamn Montgomery Ward had a retail- - s'1i . e• : �}: ,! c -' 1 rl rt , + mg idea in 1 RT2 He would prtrvide quality" �.' '�' -�` y-,�r. .:- J _ p merchandise to rural comumers by direct 1 - _5 _+ mad `... _.[� - j .�`�• ! .• r -Satisfaction or Your Money Back- was , .6 -i the guarantee that'- wasthecomrntonr of the philosophy in � .the 1675 catalog. 1 ='r It hook the cum- I ; R'J -• `f' pony more than 50 1 ,'Y'�"i •=`i[�' - `- `p 1 r r w years to open rb firs, i free-standing store - i _ _ - 1. =✓`-7._- T- -- -.- _J, - ,. - :'.i,.f in Plymouth. Ind., ui ++�� 1926 The tarty philosophies worked David fairly well lnr the PO company for several Street decades Level Then came View changes And not all of the changes were : ti positive for the company that was then known as Montgomery Wards E In 1968. the company was merged into Contatner Corp- of America to form Marcor. Then Big Oil got involved when the compa. ny was purdiased by Mobil in 1976 Catalog operations. on which the com- pany was founded, were discontinued in IW The retail operations were divorced from Mobil in 1988 in S3 8 million lever. aged buyout fed by senior management. That was followed by a bankruptcy fil- ing After a two-year restructuring, Wards emerged hum bankruptcy protection in August and under the ownership of GE Capital has developed a plan to put it on successful track In late 1998, Wards launched three pro- totype stores and expanded the prototype to 4n additional stores in 1999, including units at Penn Square Mall and Crossroads Mall- J Tile latest store convened to the new J concept is at Hentage Park Mall - making s Oklahoma City the first market to be com- pletriy shifld to the new look in the Chicago -based chain of 251 stores in 32 states Carrie I larnson, store meriager in Midwest City. and Karen Nelson, disinci manager. say the new concept places Wards between the upscale department stores and the dtscounr .,+ores on the retail map - The new design was developed to be TOSHIBA boom enlocable and rffurrnt- Hamson pointed out the wide circular .'.,r ; -, aulecs providing a clear sight lime from ;'�•- t `- - women b apparel to jewelry and acres- - ho n are easily fed into min'+ f"; soncsS^ a • = 'ppe � v' .. -.fir :;(t•'_ and children's apparel and shoes. :aT'.' ` _ _- . = - A The wft goods are all on the first floor . ,` _ t of the redesigned store. In fa_shioru and �•v° . �'• �, shoes, Wards is offering more brands and., has upgraded its private label merchandise. •s Iiarnwn said But there is something musing from the traditional department store layout- The :y ' different departments are not cluttered with - cash registers and individual payment areas Harrison said that one of the major changes is that cash registers air at the :s door You pay for all merchandise when you leave rather than paying in each department 71ie circular layout also is used out the r second floor where furniture, appinancees, housewares, lawn and garden, electronics, and home decor merchandise is found Fumiture is in the middle of the circu- lar aiste•S orm the second floor surrounded by the other departnterts- Again. there is a clear sight line between departments to encourage cross -shopping between depart- ments Nelson says furniture is displayed in e ti 'ate room gmups, unlike some tither depart- ment stores -A lot of department sioreb do not even Offer lurruture anymore.- thr said But that is part of the plan for Wards. -You can completely redecorate or fur- nish your home from+ merchandise available on the second level.- she said Belson was named district maruger ui April. She came to Oklahioma City from Clucago where she was manager of a store near the company's headquaners- From her new office at the Penn Square Mall store, she oversees 13 stones in Oklahoma, Texas, Missnun. Kansas and Arkansas. Nelson has been with Wards for five years. Harrison has been with Wards for seven years, starting as an apparel manager. She has been manager of the Heritage Park Mall store for three years As they showed the new store design. Han son and Nelson both stopped to offer friendly help arid get comments from shop- pers who were not familiar with the new design Many of those shoppers fit into the core customer Wards has taWicd. Harrison describes the core fashion cus- tomer as being a 30-55 year -old female with household income of S25.000 to $50.000. She is family focused. time pressured and seeks value and quality in fashion areas The corehtardlwes customer could be male or female age 26-65 years old with huusehold income of f25M to S85,000. But even with all the changes for Wards• there are still connectiorib with the onginal Feud concept of belling to rural cnutomen that Aaron Montgomery Ward had when, he started the company 128 years ago Areas of rural Oklahoma not far from the Iirntage Park Mall Stott pruv idr the Midwest City urut a market that Wards in larger cities do not have. "We sell a col of tractors at this store." Harnsort said David Papa is chit managN adtor of The Jounal Record Ha reloorneS your cotrvnanta and oontribuhvei Volt mey reaU+ ttirri by phone at 275-M50• by tax at 27&2no or by e�rria,l. d1MR elournaire-o ad coin+ TOSHIBA boom enlocable and rffurrnt- Hamson pointed out the wide circular .'.,r ; -, aulecs providing a clear sight lime from ;'�•- t `- - women b apparel to jewelry and acres- - ho n are easily fed into min'+ f"; soncsS^ a • = 'ppe � v' .. -.fir :;(t•'_ and children's apparel and shoes. :aT'.' ` _ _- . = - A The wft goods are all on the first floor . ,` _ t of the redesigned store. In fa_shioru and �•v° . �'• �, shoes, Wards is offering more brands and., has upgraded its private label merchandise. •s Iiarnwn said But there is something musing from the traditional department store layout- The :y ' different departments are not cluttered with - cash registers and individual payment areas Harrison said that one of the major changes is that cash registers air at the :s door You pay for all merchandise when you leave rather than paying in each department 71ie circular layout also is used out the r second floor where furniture, appinancees, housewares, lawn and garden, electronics, and home decor merchandise is found Fumiture is in the middle of the circu- lar aiste•S orm the second floor surrounded by the other departnterts- Again. there is a clear sight line between departments to encourage cross -shopping between depart- ments Nelson says furniture is displayed in e ti 'ate room gmups, unlike some tither depart- ment stores -A lot of department sioreb do not even Offer lurruture anymore.- thr said But that is part of the plan for Wards. -You can completely redecorate or fur- nish your home from+ merchandise available on the second level.- she said Belson was named district maruger ui April. She came to Oklahioma City from Clucago where she was manager of a store near the company's headquaners- From her new office at the Penn Square Mall store, she oversees 13 stones in Oklahoma, Texas, Missnun. Kansas and Arkansas. Nelson has been with Wards for five years. Harrison has been with Wards for seven years, starting as an apparel manager. She has been manager of the Heritage Park Mall store for three years As they showed the new store design. Han son and Nelson both stopped to offer friendly help arid get comments from shop- pers who were not familiar with the new design Many of those shoppers fit into the core customer Wards has taWicd. Harrison describes the core fashion cus- tomer as being a 30-55 year -old female with household income of S25.000 to $50.000. She is family focused. time pressured and seeks value and quality in fashion areas The corehtardlwes customer could be male or female age 26-65 years old with huusehold income of f25M to S85,000. But even with all the changes for Wards• there are still connectiorib with the onginal Feud concept of belling to rural cnutomen that Aaron Montgomery Ward had when, he started the company 128 years ago Areas of rural Oklahoma not far from the Iirntage Park Mall Stott pruv idr the Midwest City urut a market that Wards in larger cities do not have. "We sell a col of tractors at this store." Harnsort said David Papa is chit managN adtor of The Jounal Record Ha reloorneS your cotrvnanta and oontribuhvei Volt mey reaU+ ttirri by phone at 275-M50• by tax at 27&2no or by e�rria,l. d1MR elournaire-o ad coin+ FURNnUREfFODAY JUNE 25.2M specialreport Wards rearranges furniture Lifestyle presentation out front as RTA goes to electronics By Carob Sloan CHICAGO — Furniture is out- performing the balance of the store as Montgomery Ward moves to refashion itself both in name, merchandise and presen- tationIn some 55 units that have been retrofitted, Wards — the retailer's new name — is pro- ducing sales gains of more than 30% on average in furniture, compared With incrcasrs of 20%-plus for the store as a whole, said Tom Grimes, executive vice president, home. He said that non-rer- rofrtted stores arc showing 8% gains, with fur- mturc hitting 12%. "Roger (Goddu, Wards chairman and chief executive of- ficer) loves the furniture busi- ness and gives it a lot of sup- port," Grimes said. At the same ome, Wards has moved its merchandise assort- ment around inside the stores- It has pin rrady-to-assemble furru- ture in the onnsumer clectronia department, reducing SKUs in electronic products to make room, Grimes said. "We're doing close to S50 million in RTA and the elec- tronics busyness also i5 very good," he said I.tiw-priced dining room fur- niture has been moved into housewares, another effective step, added Craig Stank, vice president, furniture- And patio furniture has been moved to a place of its own, with all three changes opening up floor space and possibilines in the furniture department rtscif, Gnmcssaid_ ""The crincal thing is that we took the bminess from the back of the store to the front of the store," Staak said_ In metro Chicago's North Riverside store, for example, furniture now greets consumers as they come off an csculator. "Lire have eight bfesn•ies that anchor the furniture floor (in North Riverside) and the pre- sentations combine upholstery, case foods, home entertainment units and accessories," Staak said_ Among the current lifestvles are Continental Tapes- try from Broyhill, Country Squire and 031khurst from Bas- sett, a British culomal look that will be replaced with a contem- porary statement, Master De- sign's Islee Wash with Klauss- ner's Dochsidc Collection, and hiaster Design's ;coaster Cherry Collection. lil'ithin the furniture mix, "leacher has ticcome a phenom- cnal seller, with a direct import our business with La-Z-Boy and Action Lane." said Stank. But Wards has downsized the as- sortment and moved the section to the lack of the ceparanent In putting together the mer- chandise mix, said Stank, "we have a trend department that gives us direction across the store hue doesn't pick covers_ They do go to Showtime_" In picking colors and covers, he added, `we uti- lize the knowl- "We consider stocking a edge of the trills and manufac- competitive advantage, and SL1ters." we get 4 2 t" 'we don't b urns a Yeardesign an}thing ourselves," Grimes empha- sized, `and we're holding manufacturers more account- able. But we also have a product development group which we never had before." Wards crocks in huniture as- sortment "and we're preen good at forecasting," he added. "Wt consider stocking a compeome advantage, and we get 4 1/2 nirru a year." The retailer also has an ac- tive direct import program with its own offices and quality con- Tom Grimes, Montgomery Ward from Divania with three pieces at $1,499 a ittajor winner," said Stank. Leather now accounts for about 10% percent of Wards' upholsery h,rsiriess_ Eight collections are shown in bedroom, a fairly recent addi- tion to the Wards mix. 'We weren't in this business 2 112 years ago. It was mostly youth furniture, where we now have three groups," Grimes said - lie added that in dining roorn, "5999 is now our best price point, and most of our din- ing promotions include six chain-" The furniture depart- ment's dining room mcrchan- dise "has been upgraded to se- ruor dining, and mostly our own direct imports " In upholstery, the company continues to explore higher prices and gets good mileage from the products it keeps on the fltxir_ "A year ago, we debated S799 25 a top price point and now we're thinking $899," Grimes said_ "If a frame doesn't do S3 million, it's a flop_ We have frames that do as high as S 10 rnilbon-" In bedding, the department has been opened up and lighted "and it's amazing how much headboard business we do," said Staab As for recliners, which were one of the three strong points in the old Montgomery Wirel line- up — the others were lidding and promotional upholstery — "we sell sec recliners as 154 of our business and we do roost of trol people in the Far Fast_ About h0% of the direct imports come from China with the bal- ance from 'Thailand, Malaysia and Taiwan. �s the display and organita- tion of furruture has changed, so has the marketing - "We have more value and st)le, and lea density in our vi- suals," said Gnmes. "We try to drive weekend business with price and we have more TV and other support media." RTA two mm: Sander's borne ofte twlbetlon Store Daft Is stxnvn wfth a World Office Prodtat•ta dwh. SwaT ow Am; A Bro"111 bedroom reflects a Hbstyle statement on the fiatftxe lloor. r OM E - 1 of --4 SKmoN D WI'JDNFSDAY, MAY 3, 2000 Montgomery Wards gets new look w8wa>R MANAMM J"MU, htEWc rR 0 MANASSALS Montgomery Ward in the Manassas Mall hosted a grand opening over the weekend for its remodeled store "We got an overwhelming number of compliments on the looks and layout of the store," said Sarah Davis, manager. The remodeling represents a major change in the Wards store format to better address customers' needs. In 2000, Wards is remodeling 33 stores to complete all of its locations in Baltimore, Wash- ington, Chicago, San Francisco, Sacramento, Calif., San Antonio and Oklahoma City. As part of the plan, the Manassas store has been total- ly revamped, with all the inte- rior walls removed to give the store a vast, open feeling. 'We have received favorable comments from all of our cus- tomers," said Tom Kayda, dis- trict manager. The first 1,000 customers coming into the store Friday and Saturday were given gift bags. Construction on remodeling the 85,000- squa re- foot store began in January and remained open throughout the process. "It was a mess at times, but we now have a much nicer and user-friendly store," Davis said. dDK Sanrtm 1sA.twrwu�s kx.�cuti t�ss�c;Ea ♦ See WMs 11), Maw, Vllal+d in tro 11 Mal lasted A grand gtettitg ft possi tnWoettd tar Rs reattped stt M ♦ WMDS Continued from Page D1 She said the new circular layout provides a convenient and enjoyable shopping expe- rience while promoting cross_ shopping between depart- ments. "The wide aisles and clear sight lines give a warm, invit- ing environment and (one) where affordable fashions are highlighted," Davis said. Shopping carts and strollers are also available for cus- tomers. The store in Freder-icks- burg is also celebrating its grand remodeling. For generations past, shop- ping was exciting, and a trip to the department store treat- ed the customer to the best that retail had to offer. Wards' redesigned stores take the next step in creating a store that provides today's time - crunched shoppers with an experience that is both enjoy- able and efficient, Kayda said. "Breaking the model of the `jigsaw puzzle' layout of tradi- tional department stores, the new Wards features a circu- lar, racetrack design that cre- ates a comfortable, aestheti- cally pleasing shopping envi- ronment. Gone are the com- plicated color -coded maps, replaced with clear sight lines, warm colors, bright sig- nage and a customer -friendly layout," Kayda said. "Graphics and signage are smart, clear and educational with touches of wit and humor, reinforcing the good taste, value and spirit of Wards," said Davis. With its 100 employees, Wards is open from 10 a.m.- 9:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-9:30 p.m. on Saturdays and 11 a.m.-6 p.m. on Sundays. Wards has 251 stores in 32 states with 32,000 full- and part-time employees. It was founded in 1872 by Aaron Montgomery Ward to provide merchandise to rural con- sumers by direct mail. The first retail store opened in Plymouth, Ind., in 1926. • Cantart Bennie Scarton Jr. at manassasjm@aol.com THE FREE LANCE -STAR, FREDERICKS BURG. VA. TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2000 A7 .a.4r+.�-• ,ter •"� `New look' Wards to unveil changes By JOBY NAHAS THE FREE LANCE -STAR Wards department store is celebrating the end of four• months of spring cleaning. On Friday, Wards will kick Off a grand re -opening celebration after remodel ing its Spotsylvania Mall store. Wards will have week- end giveaways in honor of its new look. The new .layout means shop- pers now can find a bigger selec- tion of merchandise arranged around a circular aisle, called the "ring road," said Gary Nelthropp, store manager. "'They can pretty much get a view of our entire store and move from one area to another just by going around that ring," NelthropP said. "It makes it a little bit simpler." The Chicago -based chain, now owned by GE Capital, was found- ed in 1872 by Aaron Montgomery Ward. The remodeling follows a two- year restructuring period after the company filed for Chapter I bankruptcy protection. The com- pany dropped "Montgomery" from its store signs at that time. The department store, which has been located at Spotsylvania Mall since it opened in 1980, is one of 33 locations Wards is remodeling this year Its Man- assas store is also on the list. More'than 70 of Wards' locations will have been remodeled by the end of the year: Wards operates 2,,51 stores in 32 states. Nelthropp says the revamped layout includes more electronics, apparel and houseware items in an easy -to -find layout. Furniture lines including Bassett and Broy- hill have been added to the mix of living room, dining room and bedroom suites already sold at Wards. The updates at Wards are the last of several new looks for Spotsylvania Mall, said Jill Cham- berlin, mall marketing director. Anchor store JC Penney re• y,i COURTESY / WARDS Wards is remodeling its stores with a circular `racetrack' design to make them more accessible to shoppers. This is a remodeled furniture section. modeled its location last fall. Sears and Belk spruced up their stores prior to that. And Pacific Sunwear, Motherhood Maternity and Aromid' Italia all recently opened here. The new look at Wards keeps the mall looking new, too, Cham- berlin said. "It's fresh, clean and more accessible to customers," she said. "They did a really nice job." M1 0 Busla"Iess. Munster, IN Postlribune . Saturday, August 21, 1999 ROP LA"v A0. a nrrvWPojr.TRmura Jerry Koontz of Gown Point (right). manager of the remodeled Wards in Munster, talks with shopper Ehnryn Studer of Highland at the store's official reopening Friday. Wards sports new look Shoppers at Munster store's reopening Friday liked .it Rv LAIJitA PAut Correspondent MUNSTER -- Ruth Rivera of East Chicago was one of the first people Fri. day to visit the remodeled Wards in Munster The store broke the mold of the con- fusing jigsaw puzzle layout of older department stores by going to a circular layout And Rivera liked what she saw. "I used to come here before and I did not care for it." Rivera said. "Before their clothes were not good quality and now they look much better. With the new layout you can see where you want to go right away, and the aisles are much wider" Once known as Montgomery Ward, the retailer is attempting to become profitable after emerging this month from bankruptcy. 'Ib do so, the store held 19 reopenings across the country Friday of revamped prototype stores, including the one in Munster on Calumet Avenue hMwy A. ZVVVrrWP06TRipil! The remodeled Wards store in Munster on Calumet Avenue. JerryKoontz, the Munster store man- ager, said the circular layout promotes "cross shopping" in which customers can shop for appliances, linens, clothing and electronics all at the same time. "A person who comes in for jewelry can come into the middle of the apparel floor to look at jewelry and then they can see at a glance misses and junior apparel on the other side," Koontz said. "Across the isle is linen and men's is on the corner_" Koontz, of Crown Point, said the remodeling project lasted six months and took place in phases so the store did not have to close. He estimated more than 5,000 came to the official re -open- ing in the morning_ "We have a very loyal customer base," Koontz said. "Phis store has been in the area for more than 30 years. They came out to see the new Wards." Sidney Doolirde, a founding partner with Mcmi11an/Doolittle Limited Labili- ty Partnership in Chicago, said Wards is coming out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy and working on getting in the black. "That means redoing all the stores that remain open," Doolittle said- "They are looking at their prototypes- They are quite good and are performing well." He used to be vice president of Wards' international and catalog divi- sions. Please see New Wald, Pao 86 New Wards Remodeled Munster store has reopening Continued from Page B3 "The problem with Wards was not that Wards changed but the rest of the market changed and it left Wards behind," Doolittle said_ Neil Stern, a partner and retail strategist with McMillan/Doolittle LLP, said the new Wards appeals to today's consumers. "In general consumers have less time to . shop," Stern said_ "They want to shop less. When they are at the store they are looking to be more efficient in the way they shop. The old retail model was put the mills at the back of the store, put the phar- macy in the back and make cus- iomers travel as much through the store as possible- The old theory was the more of the store they see, the more they are going to buy," he said. "The new theory is if you irritate customers too much by making them go through hoops, they'll just leave. They have a lot more options." Chris Roffelsen, the tri-state dis- trict manager for Wards, said the new store is very "fashion forward." "We have the styles and brands people are looking for," she said. Loretta Jordan, of Hammond, bought pants, shirts and ties for her husband during a shopping spree at Wards on Friday "It's kind of weird when you used to come to the old one — the layout is different," Jordan said. "I think they give more space for apparels and linens. I think they did a good job-" h,ur: T ,:I: i o.'. Cc=;CFI. CA 2000 `;EP 32 A g: -1)(; Mayor and City Council R - Co E ' '•` �� City of Huntington Beach S E P 2 2000 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: The HUNTINGTON BEACH MALL Mayor Garofalo and Members of the City Council: We are one hundred percent againstthe use of eminent domain for the purpose of eliminating businesses in order to replace them with someone else's vision of what should be in Huntington Beach. In the case of the Huntington Beach mall, the Wards store has been surviving through good and bad times in Huntington Beach. I understand they now have the financial backing and desire to renovate their store, along with the renovation of the mall. Now the new mall owner and some others want Wards to leave? In this Country, lawful businesses have the right to pursue success. It is not the role of government to determine which businesses should be in the Huntington Beach mall. Wards has the right to exist on their own property, and it is up to them to make their business successful. Please respect the rights of private property owners. Let's not make eminent domain our tool for economic development. Jinx Verona Huntington Beach TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 30TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010 PHONE 213-385.8000 • FAX 213-385.0595 September 27, 2000 Ili 1 101.311 Connie Brockway City of Huntington Beach Economic Development 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 1untington Beach, CA 92048 Re: Burlington Coal 1-uctory Warehouse of Huntington Beach. Inc- v, Huntington Center Associates. LLC I-Ieuring Set for October 2, 2000 Our I. -Ile No 9956 Dear Ms. Brockway: On October 2, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. there is going to be a meeting relative to the O.P.A_ Enclosed please find a total amount of 16,106 signatures on Petitions. These are original Petitions which are signed by Huntington Beach and other area community residents which concern the conduct that has been taken against Burlington Coat Factory. Many of your citizens errant to preserve the Burlington Coat Factory store and object to the treatment at the hands of the City of Huntington Beach and its Redevelopment Agency. We request that these Petitions be part of the record. Please take great care with these Petitions as these are the original Petitions. Very truly yours, TUCH & ASSOCIATES A I L. TUCHMAN ALT:rehm l"nelosures SEP.28.200a 10:15AM "WDS REAL ESTATE N0.163 P.2i2 MW September 28, 2000 Member of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Council Member: I respecdWy request that representatives of Wards be granted one hour rather than the allotted three minute time limit to respond to the staff report for the Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach on October 2, 2000 regarding the proposed Owner Participation Agreement between The City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC to redevelop Huntington Center. My reasons for the request is twofold, first, that the Owner Participation Agreement, as written, will allow the taking by condemnation of a Wards store which has been operating since 1966 and secondly, Wards will only have one business day to review and respond to the staff report on this proposal which will not be available until Friday, September 29, 2000, according to a representative of the City's Director of Economic Development. Given the importance of this matter to a long time business and property owner in the City of Huntington Beach, it seems Wards should be granted additional time to specifically respond to the staff report at the City Council hearing given the limited time that Wards will have to review and discuss the report, Mike Adams, our representative, and I are prepared to discuss this matter and respond to any of your questions at any time. I can be reached at 312-467-6242 and Mike Adams can be reached at 714-969-4938. Sincerely, Loren o Real Estate Director Copy: Ray Silver uMI, . 60771 51 J= 2 3 5 b rR 9 10 c) LU PETITION As._c onccE-�zd Litizer:s, we are outraged by, and 6b�p'ct I-o 3Etn 'L reatment that Suil=ingto_n Coat Factory has received at the hands of the C'it�yLof Huntington Beach- aril its Redevelopment Agency in connecti.&O the �dis�ute between Burlington Coat Factory and its landlord at the Hunti 'on Beach Mall, the EsraI-ow;tomFany/Huntington Center Associates, LLC. We who'eheartedly support Burlington Coat Factory and hereby demand that neither the City Council of T_hP City of Huntington Beach nor the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach take any action affecting the interests of Burlington Coat Factory until Durlington Coat Factory and the Ezralow Coiupdriy/Huntington Center Associates, LLC ILdVC Lesulved their dispute. VAT ADDRESS 7 Print-: 6 d,w ; ,moo c4 QS Strccr.: 3 f I �w?��N e Ap�- 30 7 City: Sati�-a 4"'0 CC,. 0 signature: (oar��'.tD State & Zip: �Z :7o q � erint: I� d[e jv III ��1lll�� SL�CCL: 7 +: i t y : �rO� '✓ Z -ignatur '�La! e 4 Gip. 92701 riinL : rfLa N St ree:: �$ 2 q{1 'C) SWI s-pi U C i t Y . 1�J s-I' rn n she t` QQ S�gr�aLure: State & 2ip: C i•r_rt fV]/` i C� SLreeL: /b7D3 L yn� S7� City: �I �f� v iiyr�ctuce ` :hate d Zip:: [Tint: {�� p I �C� StreeL: _ B�✓ Cxr.y: Signature: State 6 Zip.Yoe 7 3aO !'cinL: Cit I �O�h SLreeL: �� 592 L C�G1A S-1 C•'Y G2oul Siyr:atu_r: :SLdLr b Lip: act- g 3 Pr i n Street : 1 t /rzfrr � +� r r y : CL 0,r&l Vx'QY / � 'T.P-ri v C' , r .,��,�,Lu�r: State a 71F;: LGr�V W 4� Prier : Street : lOi? A+. l� l City: SM-r err Say:laLuir � \ / �;r_ur.; t 7�zi L S t r P P r. l� C'it.y. p .;ignat c: State 6 Zip: �(eiv\ Streer: 100�� Cc.� bc, L✓ City: �„) S S 4-Y Signature: S+,sdLu L 7.jP: the aie---w-, Wards Our Mission: -Y I'hc new Wards is conver►ient. comfortable and easy to Shop Y The ncxv \ ards is simple, open. hrig;h1. energetic - a place where shopping, is not only easier, but sm:a►'ler - an m mospliere Ihat demonstrates both ► uality and valuc in supporl oi'custnmcr-helpful set -vice Y The new Wards is unique. establishing, a new retail niche that crcalcs a significant differentiation between discount ;lures and dep;irtmcnt slows and reali int►s ll arils. IrritaL,c of f-clail innovatim). Our Progress! V 3 Conversions, 1998 V 40 Conversions, 1999 V 33 Conversions, 2000 with 2 m aj or expansions V 45 + Planned Conversions, 2001 V By year end 2000, complete market coverage in Sacramento, San Francisco, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, San Antonio and Oklahoma City. ¥ By year end 2001, complete market coverage in Tampa, Denver, Las Vegas, San Diego, Austin, Portland and Phoenix. Interior V Contemporary Design V Light, Bright and Open V Circular Race Track Design V Absolute Sight Lines V Quality Materials V Exceptional Lighting Fine Jewelry Yorktown Mall - Fall 2000 Fashion Apparel Yorktown Mall - August 2000 v; Las Vegas NV Before / After - Fall 1998 Torrance CA Del Am Fashion Center yy 11 1 � 1 6 � •' ��` � l� t C MEMO_ 1 1 1 tJ{ ' ��ify�{fry%il�� '\ .=r�►�a I�'r�^�� — r� FF r114 •'•;.' f�-�, ""'!"� �'R�"" �j.��.�"•Z:- (�- � .3_�Jy^c�� \ `\",.• •',- \`.i�_��_'��'�� 1-��-- -- - _r� .,j�4 - - - `+ter C M I M A N A 0 A M 5 LAMA& all4116 NIP [ M I M A M ADAMS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH F InterOffice Communication Economic Development Department 0 o - ter.•=+_ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members "Q VIA: Rav Silver, City Administrator ;, 7 FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development G' r DATE: September 29. 2000 SUBJI-CT: LATE COMMUNICATION/AGENDA ITEM D-I — JOINT PUBLIC I-IFARING OIL PROPOPSI?i) OPA WITH HUNTINGTON CENTER ASSOCIATES The following information is being provided in addition to those materials transmitted with the Staff Report on Agenda Item D-1: In response to a number of suggestions made by Mayor Pro Tern Tom Harmon, a number of clarifying revisions have been made to the indemnity section of the proposed Owner Participation Agreement to be considered under Agenda Item D-L Huntington Center Associates has readily agreed to these clarifications and the revised pages are attached. 2. The Comments and Response to Comments for EIR 96-2 were inadvertently not included with the previously provided copy of EIR 96-2 and are attached. This package together with Draft EIR 96-2 was certified as the Final EIR_ 3. A copy staffs PowerPoint Presentation is also attached. I)CB Attachment xc: Connie Brockway. City Clerk Gail Hutton. City Attornev Murray Kant. Agency Special Counsel J�7e coM��} ATTACHMENT #1 OCR.!�_al.'-.F4 T:�� _'..".i(}` C 0 hn per-ea-uu lr:ee rrQ2:QLLAMv a ��+lrni 66r 12136962156 ao). cM.OfBaamrclURmmc The Participant tdull bcu ell COM of conatteredag. r0abiltraUng V4 tnttovatleg the itgprovaMrssts ors the Sim and oorstructing and iactalling all public and prlvok on. and off -cite impr vemcuu &aco3 os diz for. except u net fat* In the Schedule of Feetibibly G* Payments (Attacbmtnt No. 7). Too Schedule of FwibiNty Gay Pt mwn eottt is% of Part I and Part 2, %ith Part 2 aWy beeovn ng applicabie in the event this Agreau nt is taamina to as to the Ward Parcel purtuartt to SWOun 702.1 (b) or7021(c)• 404. Partisipas:t hee'ab�► wart�rila a� r�eprrreats tip Participant is party to a r�e+ciprOCal eastrr�eat agwsm Wilt other property owners wlthm rhr Site. Parti4ut "I cot MWA the Miprtxal eaaemnt apternem without the p>ior wd ua app ml of AVMY AS to bOth consistency with this Agfeerttmt U d pat otat's authotiry over me emirs Sltc to accamp liah the rtdev*WVnww purposes conttmplmod under this Agtmtmt Perth ipaat eovrmt+trte to use its best efforts to obtain the caawtofadw property owners within t} a Site to redevelop the part* lots and building MOW16rs on %a Sit* pwsuuu to this Aareer t_ g wS. Sr'"'i'.lielvuf R«..M The Participut OWI obtsm. or cause to be obt Med, at approvals mquued for the radevelopmeat of dw Site. including dwo spacified hacia. within the times specified in the Schedule of Pedonwee (Attachment No. 3). The Puticipw dsail bogie red complete all c nje uMov sad rehabilitation within rha Van spe6rrrad is the Schedule of Pc:11offnOW0. The Schedule of Pai mance is subject to mvision frost tout to time as approved in writing by the A;eaey axetahtive Director or designee and tea PsrtidPnL Duff perio& of c4tti wcftcm anivor Tasbilitation. Ox Participant shall tubralt to tha Agewy a wriam report of the MOOM9 of the oowawction when, and d numbly requit ad by the Ag=y. The m7m shall be in au -A fame aad detail as may be maaenably required by the Agency ra4 shall nvjudc a number of emstuotion pbotogaphs, (it feTaived) takers Baca the last t., oW by the Participant. f 406. The Partlelpaat &Serer to aw sbao duhn4 role me, indertsrhilj and hdd harp iUm the Agency and the City rend their respective officers and employsxa f m atld sSidnst say and all claiuls. rctions, IhMliry, p"tics, charges, loos, damage, casts. or espeasea whatsoever (including racorable attorneys' fees and ca►:.rt costs) mia n from or as a result of the death of any penm oT any accident, ft", low or datluge wllntsocvcr carted to any parson or to the properly of any pet on +maid+ Asti occur directly or indimmly as a result of or in commmion with the aca of or Oct bcbalf of %bc Pardo{pant in connection with the redeveiopmaut of the Site. this Agreemm or t#te 4z ittlplamtntation t>thrseof, w>hedwr such avivitics a perfar+mnaae,&asof be by the 9"cipm'. at by rrtyone directly or indirectly emptoycd or cm0actad by Participant, or whether such damage Shall ,occur or be discevercd before or a t?er termizwtion of this AVnMMd rt. T n indarraity and agrean&nt I O:.T-e2-2OeO 12-54 c-.8 223 3516 135% P.02 (IrT ?qCU IC ;�'Fa t.'t"'�')w Cq 213B96i45] NO. 2917 o3d 1,944 to defend, r•laaae mW hold harmlecc the Agency and City chall include but tball eat be limited to any and all porAng and f4bas claims;, action, IiAbiliry, judeMents, order, penalties, ohsrges, lose, &mugc, c*su, or expeases wha'-V�cvcr (i=Ndinj ressomkbtc utonwyd fees and wort cosh) erining Dom or as a result of is claim, administrative proceeding or judicial lefion filed by or against suer Participant or A p=y or City or UW of their respective officers ad employees rotacirtg to the subject of ibis Ag wnent or the deaisions sttd'ar actions taken by chi Agency or City relating to or in itnplemerr don of No AgreawA including, but rat limited to the following lswmits cut'rpttly under liligatiod: A. BUfllagtofl Coat Factory Waroliou9e of Huntington Hucb, Inc., a California corporation v. City of Huntington Beach Redevclopmeni Agcocy, a California mwtitiipal corporation, City of Huntington Beach, a California asueiieipal corpoRtiw Ray Si1Vcr, itidivi&Ally and its his capacity as an Administrator for dm City of Huntington a"ch Redevelopment Agency, Howard Zelefsky, individually sad in his capacity as the ❑irecwr of Pltitutittg of tttin Ciry of HuntiuSson Smbs, United States Nitrict Court, Central Diitrict of California, Cm No. CVbO- 066S3NM(Alfx). b. In the Nfaltor of the Petition of ft RadevelopmeW Agency of the City of Hunt>n&n Beach, Supcaior Court of Cali forms, CDua y of Orange. Civil Case No, CC09293. c. Budinpn Coat Factory Warehmm of Huntingtoa Beach. Ino., a Califomin owpamdon v. Huntz&n C4mter Associates, a Dclavmm limited liability compeaty, Eualow Retall Pw4 rtics. a Delaware limited liabilfty company. The Rzmlow Company. it Uawart limited liability toatparty. Superior Court of California. County of Orange, Case No. OOCCO6309_ d. Montgomery Ward, LLC, a Delaware ritnittd liability company Y. Ciry of Huntington Beach, a [alifernia tnuaicifW corporation, as Respondent, and Huntington Certtcr Associates, a Delaware 1imded liability company. acid Redevelopmou Agency of the City of Huntington Beac1L a publ it body, corporate and politic, as Real Parties is Merest, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Cue No. OOC'09292. 71w Puricipsnt total! ,not be responsible for, and sirrh indemnity shall not apply to the attest that wA harm rm'ttltS gain UN CrO36 nc",.ligmw at wrong11t1 tAtOtttiow) acts or ornis 021 of the Agency. City, or their TrgXJtivc OMCM. agents oar employees; provided. lsowaver, that Participant sluff mmalr obligated to pay for claimr.. actions, liability, jvdsmants, orders, pansltici, charger, loco, damage, costs, or axptmees wbatsa:iw (including rtuonable attamaye foes and court costs) for all present and future lidgtttioe arising out ofor related to The subject of this Agreement (including, but not limited ro, those dsscnbed in Section 406.1 (a) through (d)) regatdlea of the outcome of any such lidgation). Psr icipant's abligatlom set fortis above rcgording the payment of reasonable anarneya' fees incurrdd by Agency shalt be subject to tht followkr. (I) Participant shall only be obligated w pay for those teats incurred altar the date of this Agreement; (2) payme u of attarncys' ices and cadets under this sgroftneat to defend dwW be paid by Participant to Agency at ir=rmd and when due for l2ymert by AeemY. (3) Agency steal I have the ri& to select Agency's legal Counsel, but aha11 periodically coruuh with Participant including without 11mitation, pcfor to hiring outside 20 OCT-02-2000 10:54 ele 223 3516 96% P.e3 „0ti=41411�... �7...�.� O. 1i131962450 0'. .r .�b-944 legftl eounso- (4) Agency shall provide PutWpsut with mott@tly coat reports; and Agency sorts to adrnil i tw wah t08ts in a goat effective rrtatutor. Due* ate parted commeacmg with any prelinnary work by Participant tm or with regard to the Site or 4x* portion t>r ami, ur I twenty (20) yem ef6rthe Opcmfi g C.ommcnvwnentData, the Participant shall take oat, maintain and fwsi* or cause to be fir fished to the Agency, duplicate originals or appropriate ccrtifo©lae (countmsigned by an sudwrized agent of the insurrr) of inzaawe as WOWS: A. Comprebetttive grsteaal lieWlity (bodily injury and property datnagel automobile liability (including owned, Elrod, ad ttam-owned vahacles)► blanket c ntractual liability, and personal injury tlabi:ity, all with limits not less than $5.0D0,000 oornbitsed aiagle limit per occurtzacc. All such polioiee shall contain a waiver of wbrogattion fbr the beuflt of the Agency and the City. B. All such Wurattce policies shall contain the follemiq three aadorummi pravt%lms. "The City of Kun*tnn Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington R"oh (the "Azencyl"). their elective and appointive boards, office, slid etnployecs are added as xtditional insurtds with set?pcat to this subjca: project and ooatmet with be Asuncy.” 2. Nnlxc: "Said policy shall nos x mimic, be cane 4 nor tbt caovuage mduecd until after thirty (30) days .written notice is yivcst to the RodewtopnWnt Aaeacy of the City of Hwttirtgtan Beech-" "Said poli:.y and wvetap u is afforded to the Gry of Huxtiogton Beach and the Rcitcvclopmont AgriCy of the City of Htmdneon Bcacb, their elective lad appointed boards, offims and unploya" $hull be primary insumAeo and noc contriIxOng with any odtat insumo0 tin nt4inM by the City of Hatingm Beeeh or the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hnndogtun Beach." C. All such insurance policies slash be provided by ituttress admitted and authoripad to do business in the State of CaLforniz with a minimum rating of A: IU. Participant must deliver proof of tits insunw:a requittd ua &r this Section 406.1 to Agency prior to Agency execution of this ASmoment I4 The Irourance coverage and limits reilutred harein shall not be construed as a limit of Participant's liability. Participant agrees to respond for any looses with respect to this Artemeat, and knPIm motion tbeaeof. Incurred by the Agctuy Or City and 31 zz OCT-02-22,2a 10;`55 618 223 3516 96% P.04 ATTACHMENT #2 City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 Office of the Director Housing Redevelopment Fax September 26, 1996 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 536-5582 536-5542 536-5582 (714) 375-5087 To: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Commentors Subject: Response to Comments Document for Environmental Impact Report on the Amendment and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Thank you for providing a response to Draft Frivironmental impact Report (Draft EIR) Number 96-2 for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project_ Per Section 21092-5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Response to Comments document is attached for your review. You are invited to attend the next City Council hearing on October 7, 1996, at which time the Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project will be considered for certification. The hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648. Again, thank you for responding to the Draft EIR. If you have any additional questions about the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project or the Draft EIR, please contact Ms. Linda Niles at (714) 536-5271 or Mr. Stephen Kohler at (714) 536-5582. Sincerely, David Biggs Economic Development Director Attachment: Response to Comments Document 9/26/9&cf-\AS6630\EIR\RTCC OVF-R UrRv TABLE OF CONTENTS/LIST OF COMMENTORS PAGE GENERAL RESPONSE REGARDING SCHOOL CAPACITY ISSUES .......... 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT .............. 2 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ............................. 8 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ................... 9 OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT ................. I ............... 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ..................... 12 COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ...... 18 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ... _ ....... 20 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DMSION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES ..... . ... . ..................... 22 ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL_ ........................ . ... 23 THE GAS COMPANY ....................... .. ..... I ........... 24 ATTACI-IMENTA: REVISED DRA1T FIR SECTION 4.13 9/26/96«I:\Y,56630\UIR\RF.SPONSE-DOG+ It RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DRAFT EIR NO. 96 Septe►nber 26, 1996 Prepared by: The City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Atin- Linda Niles TABLE OF CONTENTS/LIST OF COMMENTORS PAGE GENERAL RESPONSE REGARDING SCHOOL CAPACITY ISSUES .......... I HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ............................. 8 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ................... 9 OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT ................................. 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ..................... 12 COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ...... 18 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ........... 20 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOT IERMAL RESOURCES ........ . ...................... 22 ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL ............................ 23 THE GAS COMPANY ............................................ 24 AT"I'ACHMENT A REVISED DRAFT EIR SECTION 4.13 9R6i96«1=N.RSG630\EIR\RE5P0NSE DOC* ii GENERAL RESPONSE REGARDING SCHOOL CAPACITY ISSUES This response is provided to address a general issue brought up in each of the school districts' comment letters. This general issue involves the methodology used by the City to determine school capacity and the assessment of impacts of the adoption of the Amendment Merger on school district capacity. The school districts commented that the methodology used in the Draft EIR was flawed in that the impact assessment failed to take into consideration the variable class- room Ioading that the districts have to provide for such classes as science labs, special education, shop and other education programs that had smaller class- room sizes. The effect of these comments, in general, is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom than the student average employed in the Draft EIR. As indicated in several of the responses to individual comments, specifically HBU-4, OV-3, and HBC-9, the Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger used school district reports and personal communication with district facilities planning staff to determine school capacity and student loading figures. The capacity and loading averages for each school took into consideration the smaller class- room size demanded for Iabs, shop and other special programs, as well as classrooms that hold larger classes such as physical education, band, and choir. This led to the use of an average class size in calculating capacity for each school. The school districts did not include school capacity alternatives in their comments. The City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure pro- vided earlier by school district staff and in their district's facilities master plans, because it continues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and be- cause of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity. The City wishes to cooperate with the school districts in finding solutions to overcrowding. In the recently adopted General PIan (May, 1996), the Council adopted policies to assist the school districts to offset impacts from new devel- opment. The General PIan and EIR acknowledge cumulative citywide impacts to schools from new development, and mitigate these impacts as development occurs. These policies apply to all projects within the City and also within the Redevelopment Project Area_ Because these policies were adopted by the City Council with input from the school districts and because they mitigate impacts of growth for each subsequent project and for cumulative impacts related to future growth, the impacts of new development have been determined in the General Plan Update EIR to be mitigated. Future development projects will be subject to these General Plan policies, and will be subject to separate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General PIan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyse project impacts. 9I16i96-,t:NRSG630V:IRIRFSPO%SE.DOOM HBU-1 HBU-2 HBU-3 HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT The comment is introductory to the body of the letter. The comment requests that the City consider a comment on one school to be applicable to all schools in the Huntington Beach Union High School District (i3BUSD). The City agrees that this request is reasonable and agrees to the requested approach. However, only HBU-6 specifically addresses one of the schools. Because the comment does not include any specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary. The Draft EIR describes State allowed fees and other possible programs that school districts may use to offset impacts resulting from increased student attendance generated by new development. The discussion was not meant to be exhaustive, but only to provide the reader with relevant background regard- ing non -fee alternatives that districts have at their disposal to address increased student load in a school or district. The City acknowledges other programs to address increases in student enrollment brought up in the comment, including purchase or lease of portable classrooms, remodeling or construction of perma- nent facilities and transportation of students. However, because there are existing City adopted General PIan policies designed to mitigate growth impacts of new development and because there is no construction authorized by the proposed AmendmentJMerger beyond that is identified in the General Plan and General Plan Update EIR, there is no need to implement additional mitigation measures as a part of the Amendment/Merger. As stated in Response HBU-2, there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger program beyond the development levels identified in the General Plan and analyzed and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR- It is the conclusion of the City that, regardless of the potential secondary effects resulting from the minor increased student enrollment brought up in the comment, there is no physical impact on the environment associated with increased student enrollment that can be fairly argued to be caused by the proposed Amendment/Merger program. There is a limited amount of discussion of the secondary effects of increased student enrollment in the Draft EIR. As stated above in HBU-2, a school district may employ a variety of responses to address additional students enrolling in a particular school or within a school district. Many of these activities involve changes to educational programs, schedules, utilization of existing space and the use of portable classrooms. Most of these actions involve no physical changes or are exempt from CEQA because they are fudged to have minor or 9/26/96NI-1,RSG650%EIR1itt:SPONSE-DOCo 2 HB U-4 no environmental impacts (e.g., placement of portable classrooms is generally considered exempt from CEQA). It is not the role of the City through this EIR process to choose a school dis- trict's response nor can the City guess which response the school Districts might make to house additional students. Because of the range of student placement options, class size alternatives, transportation alternatives, space utilization decisions, boundary changes and classroom construction options, any attempt by the City to formulate an appropriate educational program would be speculative. As pointed out in the comment, reliance on existing portable classrooms may not take into consideration refurbishment needs of a particular building at a particular school, and reliance on year-round schooling may nor take into consideration the nuances brought up in the comment re- garding scheduling and additional miscellaneous costs. The comment, how- ever, does not provide the City with information or evidence that the HBUSD will take any one of the actions mentioned above to alleviate possible future school overcrowding. See HBUA and IIBU-5, below, for additional response. The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom that the average employed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR uses an average of 30 to 33 students per classroom- This is not meant to be an absolute number; rather, it is a consctyativ_e estimate based on input from the HBUSD. In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant sur- veyed each school district, including HBUSD, to determine student loading factors and available classroom space. In correspondence to the consultant, HBUSD directed the consultant to the District's 1995 Master Plan. The consul- tant used the range of student classroom capacity or loading factors recom- mended in the Master Plan, reported on page 14 of that document. The Draft EIR includes the range of 30 to 33 students per classroom to determine capac- ity. 'Ibis range is also within the lower end of the range used by the District for calculating student loading for laboratories and shops, which is reported in the District's Master Plan to be between 28 and 36 students per classroom. It is also noted in this same HBUSD report that the District "staffs the schools at 31.8 students per teacher." The City has relied on the District's own report for the calculations presented in the Draft EIR, as recommended by HBUSD staff in correspondence from the District dated May 16, 1996, on file in the City's Community Planning Depart- ment. The City agrees that there are cases where classrooms have more than 30 students (e.g., band, physical education, choir) and that there are classrooms with fewer than 30 students, as is pointed out in the comment (e.g., physics labs, chemistry labs and industrial arts). The City's calculations do not assume 100 percent use of class space, only that the average is between 30 and 33 students per classroom. The use of this average is deemed to be conservative. 9l26196«1-1RSG6301EIME.SPONSE-DOCr 3 Ii8U-5 t[Bu-G The Drab EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated average classroom capac- ity for figuring potential impacts to schools. The comment does not provide new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the claim that the Draft EIR should utilize a lower average classroom capacity. Therefore, the City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided by school district staff and in the District's 1995 Master Plan, because it contin- ues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence of another feasible: method of verifying capacity. Because there is no development authorized by the Amcndmenthtilerger bc- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the AmendmenvMerger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrunity that will more specifically analyze project impacts. The City acknowledges the effect that cumulative development has on a school District's capacity, and agrees with the State Legislature that development impact fees should be collected to offset the effects of new development. It is the City's position also that cumulative effects from citywide development should be addressed by new development as it occurs, subject to the provisions of CEQA. The City's policies regarding new growth and school impacts are included in the recently adopted General Plan. `these policies are included in revised EIR Section 4.13, which has been updated with the policies as adopted by City Council. Attachment A is revised EIR Section 4.13. As development is proposed in the Redevelopment Project Area, it will be reviewed for specific impacts on the appropriate school and/or school district. The decision to refurbish existing portable classrooms or to replace existing structures is a matter for HBUSD to resolve. The City is not in a position to judge the useful life of classrooms, although it is the understanding of the City that these classrooms are being utilized, and that the classrooms mentioned in the comment are occupied by students. New students generated by develop- ment should not affect utilization of these older classroom spaces. Because of the extensive utilization of portable classrooms of the site, within the District and throughout the State, use of "Permanent Capacity" would significantly understate actual school capacity. 9f26r96«t_ViSG63"-IR\RfSPONSE_DOG+ 4 HBU-7 HBU-8 HBU-9 As indicated in Response to Comment HBU-4, the City based school capacity on school district reports and input from each school district's facilities planning staff. The opinion of the commentor is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. See Response to Comment HBU-4 for more discussion. As indicated in Responses to Comments HBU-4 and HBU-7, school capacity calculations are based on input from each school district. The City has no authority over the year-round school decision, but only points out that school capacity can be increased by up to 25 percent if such a strategy is used. Please see Responses to Comments HBU-3 and HBU-4, which discuss this issue fur- ther. Regarding the use of older portable classrooms in calculating capacity, please see Response to Comment HBU-6. Regarding the cost of additional portable classrooms to house snidents gener- ated by growth resulting from new development, please see Responses to Comments HBU-3, -4, -6, -9, -12, and -13. As stated above, the City's General Plan policies and future environmental review required for each subsequent project subject to CEQA will be assessed to determine whether there is a significant environmental impact on schools. The statement in the Draft EIR is correct. State law enacted in 1986 (AB 2926) provided a comprehensive school facilities program. This legislation amended the School Facilities Act and consolidated the assessment of developer fees into a single body of law and authorized school districts themselves to impose school impact fees. The legislation set monetary limits on these fees. The legislation expressly stated that this was to be the exclusive method of raising local financing for permanent school facilities. Although these fees have been set by State legislation, other mitigation for environmental impacts can be required, as noted below. School districts in the State now operate under an amended version of the School Facilities Act and case law mentioned in the comment. This case law helps further define the School Facilities Act. Mira (1988) held that a local agency could deny a zone change if signifi- cant impacts resulted from that action. 926r96,,I:%RSG630`EIRIRE--SPONSE.D00> ICIf�(I] HBU-11 HBU-12 Hart (1991) held that legislative acts (General Plan Amendments, Spe- cific Plans, etc.) were excluded from the Schools Facilities Act, which applied only to administrative or quasi-judicial project approvals. Murrieta (1991) held that the School Facilities Act did not prohibit CEQA mitigation measures for legislative land development approvals that caused school overcrowding. In consideration of the above and acknowledgment that new development may contribute to overcrowding in the future, the City's General Plan, adopted May 13, 1996, includes policies that mitigate the cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan Update EIR. The City will implement this mitigation for each new development within the Merged Project Area. See Response to Comment HBU-5 for additional discussion regarding General 'Plan policies to mitigate school impacts. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. The issues related to cumulative impacts are addressed in Responses to Com- ments HBU-2, HBU-5, HBU-9, and HBU-12. The Draft EIR did not include the final wording of the General Plan as adopted by the City Council. Revised EIR Section 4.13, included as Attachment A of this Response to Comments document, includes the policies as adopted. See also Response to Comment HBU-5. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development anal} -zed 9/26i96«t:1RSG630'.E•I"FSPONSE_DOCm 6 HBU--13 in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. As stated in Responses to Comments HBU-2, HBU-5 and HBU-11, citywide cumulative impacts have been acknowledged in the General Plan Update EIR, and General Plan policies have been adopted that offset those impacts. Note that all General Plan policies, including the policies applicable to schools, are applicable to individual private projects within the proposed Merged Project Area and any Redevelopment Agency sponsored development. These policies, applicable to all redevelopment projects, mitigate impacts to school Districts. Additional mitigation is not warranted in this EIR but may or may not be deter- mined necessary during the entitlement process. The City has responded to each comment, and has revised Draft EIR Section 4.13 to address the concerns brought up by the HBUSD comment letter. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment,/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. 9/26/90-1-1RSG630O RNYT5 PONSE. DOO> 7 io OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH Comment noted. No response necessary. 9/16/96-i:\R5G630\EiRXAf:5PON5E. DOC>, TA-1 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Comment noted. The recently adopted General Plan includes policy CE 3.2.1, which requires developers to include transit facilities, bus benches, shelters, pads and turnouts in development plans. The City's Transportation Demand Ordinance also includes these provisions. Any project carried out under the proposed Amend ment/iMerger must comply with the General Plan policy and the Transportation Demand Ordinance. 9R6,96-1:\i,SG 636\.EIRIRFSPO?gSE. IOC» 9 OV-1 OV-2 OV3 OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT The commentor requested extension of the comment period to September 6, 1996. The City denied the request due to the availability of the Draft EIR to the Ocean View School District for the full 45 day review period, as required by CEQA. The statement is an introduction to the comment letter stating that legal coun- sel to the Ocean View School District has reviewed the Drab EIR, and finds that the Draft EIR fails to adequately address impacts on the Ocean View School District. The City respectfully disagrees with the comment. The Draft EIR thoroughly analyzes impacts to the District utilizing classroom loading charac- teristics and student generation factors provided by District staff to LSA in a letter dated May 16, 1996. Please see Responses to Comments I IBU-4 through HBU-12 for a discussion of General Plan policies that mitigate future projects with the Redevelopment Project Area Becausethere is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ ,Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the AmendmenthMergcr incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan- See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom than the average employed in the Draft EIR. In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant surveyed each school district, including OVSD, to determine student loading factors and available classroom space. Through personal communication on June 18 and June 20, 1996, Mr. James Tarwater, Superintendent, provided the consultant with the District's classroom loading capacity and the number of classrooms and portable class- rooms at each school. The consultant used a classroom loading factor of 34 students per classroom to determine capacity_ The classroom capacity number provided via telephone was slightly higher than that indicated in Mr. Tarwater's written response of May 29, 1996. However, the City chose to use the lower classroom capacity figure to provide a more conservative approach_ 9/26/96-1 \RSG6301F[R\RFSP0NSE.D0C? 10 OV-4 OV-5 As stated in Response to Comment OV-2, Section 4.13 has been revised to include the District's statement that there will be an overburden of 55 students districtwide. Section 4.13 also indicates that there are General Plan policies in place that offset impacts on school districts. The Draft EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated average classroom capacity for figuring potential impacts to schools. The comment does not provide new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the claim that the Draft EIR should uti- lize a lower average classroom capacity. The City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided by District staff, because it continues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity. Because there is no development autho- rized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendmetit/Merger wilt have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the AmendmentNerger incorporates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. Therefore, the finding in the Draft EIR that there will be no significant impacts remains valid. See also Responses to Comments HBU-2, HBU-3, and HBU-5 for additional discussion of these points- This comment raises the same issues as were raised in Responses to Comments HBU-2 and I-IBC-8. See Responses to Comments HBU-2 and HBC-8 for a re- sponse to these issues. The City agrees with the points brought up in the comment that: 1) an EIR should consider enrollment capacity impacts of a project; 2) impacts can occur to both the "natural environment and man-made conditions;" 3) significant impacts to schools should be mitigated, and 4) socioeconomic effects of a project that lead to physical impacts should be considered in an EIR. The City believes that the Draft EIR addresses these issues to the extent applicable to the Amcndment/Merger. Regardless of these issues, the comment does not provide a basis for the conclusion that the proposed Amendment/Merger will cause a significant impact on the environment, either natural or man-made, nor does it make the connection that the Amendment/Merger will "overcrowd the District's schools, which in turn is a negative impact on the ability of the District to provide a sound education for its students." Without providing a factual basis or supportive evidence, the District's assertion that the Amendment/ Merger will create the level of impact claimed in the comment is not supported. There is no evidence or causative chain of events that can be tied to the proposed Amendment/Merger that would indicate that an environmental impact would occur to the extent that there will be a significant impact on the environment. For further discussion see Responses to Comments OV-1 and HBU-3. 9r26i96«t=1RSG 630� ..IR1ftFSPONSE.I)OC» I I HBC-I HBC-2 HBC-3 HBC-4 HBC-5 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT The school capacity calculations for Dwyer Middle School have been revised to reflect use of the portable building for food service uses. Please sec revised Draft EIR Section 4.13. The District's finding that there is no excess capacity is noted, and will be forwarded to the decision makers. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendmenthtilerger beyond the growth al- lowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Mergcr incorporates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EiR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. Current enrollment figures and the District's statement that there is no room for expansion are noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers. The Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District- The projections proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not be used in the calculations of school impacts. Current enrollment figures are noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers. The Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District_ The projec- tions proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not be used in the calculations of school impacts. Current enrollment figures arc noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers. The Draft FIR used actual enrollment from the District. The projec- tions proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not be used in the calculations of school impacts. Shifts in educational programming being implemented in the 1996-1997, and the 1997-1998 school year may have an impact on school capacity, as indicated in the comment. This new State educational program, the Class Sire Reduction Program, does not mandate that local school Districts lower class sire. This optional program includes State funded incentives of $650 per pupil allocated 9/2606«1.\R5G630%F1R\RE5i10HSE DOC- 12 NBC-G HBC-7 HBC-8 for schools for classes that are reduced to no more than 20 students per teacher (kindergarten through third grade). The State also passed SB 1789 to fund facilities needed as a result of the Class Size Reduction Program. This $200 million fund allows local Districts, such as Huntington Beach City School Dis- trict, to obtain $25,000 per classroom formed as a result of class size reduction. This $25,000 is to be used for facilities at the school where the new class is formed. If any environmental or socioeconomic impacts result from this pro- gram, it is the responsibility of the District to assess those impacts in an envi- ronmental review, as required by CEQA. Because of the funding incentives offered by the State, the District may fund construction of new classrooms or convert other school space for classrooms on existing school sites, thereby increasing capacity. There is no CEQA require- ment for the City to be directly involved in issues related to the CIass Size Reduction Program and the facilities needed in this evolving program. How- ever, because this program is in the process of being implemented over a two year period, and because of the facilities funding available through the State for this program, it is premature to determine how the program will affect school capacity in the future. Likewise, it would be speculative in this EIR to deter- mine whether, or to what extent, the proposed Amendment^terger would affect schools in combination with the Class Size Reduction Program. Because of the uncertainties involved in implementing the Class Size Reduction Program and the absence of impacts identified in the Draft EIR related to the proposed Amendment/Merger, further environmental analysis is not practical or useful, and is not required by CEQA_ Comment OV-5 makes the same legal points as HBC-6. Please see Response to Comment OV-5, which addresses these issues. EIR Section 4.13 has been revised to include updated General Plan policies that apply to school facilities impacts and mitigation, as suggested in the comment. See Attachment A. The Draft EIR was prepared for the proposed Amendment/Merger. The District has several considerations in its effort to optimize use of current facilities, including modification of education programs, cost considerations, and loss of playground space issues among many others- This is further compounded by the Class Size Reduction Program mentioned in response to Comment HBC-S- It would be highly speculative to address the multiple combinations of District responses to increased demand on individual school facilities or districtwide. Please see Response to Comment 11BU-3 for additional discussion. 9.26/96NI-VtSG630\EIR\R SPQNSE-1XK» 13 HBC-9 IIBC-X O The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom than the average employed in the Draft EIR. As previously discussed in Response to Comments HBU-4 and OV-2, the classroom loading capacity used by the consultant was a conservative estimate, using average classroom sizes, based on input from each school district, including HBCSD. Responses to Comments FIBU-4 and OV-2 address the classroom loading capac- ity for other districts. As with these other districts, the City obtained input from each district in determining capacity, including HBCSD. In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant surveyed each school district, including HBCSD, to determine student loading factors and available classroom space. Through personal communication on Jun 19, 1996, Mr. Jerry Buchanan, Assistant Super- intendent of Administrative Services, provided the consultant with the District's loading capacity and the number of classrooms and portable classrooms at each school. The consultant used a classroom loading factor of 30 students per classroom to determine capacity based on this input. Regarding year-round school programs used to increase student capacity at schools, see Response to Comment HBU-3. Please see Response to Comments HBU-2, HBU-5, HBU-8, and HBU-12 for a discussion on cumulative impacts_ The Draft EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated average classroom capac- ity for figuring potential impacts to schools. The comment does not provide new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the claim that the Draft EIR should utilize a Iower average classroom capacity. The City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided by District staff, because it continues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. Regarding issues of cumulative impacts, see Response to Comment HBC-9. Please see Response to Comment I UIU-G for a discussion on portable classroom refurbishment and replacement. 9a6,196«I \MG630TIM SPONSL noC" 14 HBC-II Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Mergcr be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendmcnt/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. Section 4.13 of the DEIR has been revised to reflect a revised school capacity calculation for Kettler Elementary School to reflect use of the portable building for child care use - Regarding implementation of the State's incentive class reduction program, please see Response to Comment HBC-5. Regarding year-round education programs, see Response to Comment HBU-3- Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendmenthllerger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/ Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/iMerger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Drab EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CL-QA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. 9/2"6«I!\RSG630%F.IRIRESPONSI: DOC- 15 HBC-13 IIBC-14 HBC-15 HBC-1 G HBC-17 The issues in this comment are the same as those brought up in Comments HBU-3 and HBU-4. Please see Responses to Comments HBU-3 and HBU4. The issues in the comment are the same as those brought up in HBU-9. Please see Response to Comment HBU-9. The statement that "the impact to each of the District's schools is significant" is a conclusion that appears to be without supporting evidence. Each of the issues in the comment letter preceding the statement is responded to in the numbered responses. As indicated in Responses to Comments HBC-8 through HBC-14, the City's recently updated General Plan acknowledges the citywide effects of additional students generated by new development and has provided mitigation, now in the form of General Plan policies_ These policies are re- ported in the Draft EIII and updated in revised EIR Section 4.13, included in Attachment A. The City acknowledges that new development will contribute to facilities bur- dens that must be faced by the school districts. The City has recently adopted the updated General Plan, which includes policies assuring cooperation with the school districts and providing mitigation to offset impacts. In this light, the City respectfully disagrees with the comment_ This comment raises the concern of impacts resulting from cumulative develop- ment projects, and indicates that each project should mitigate these impacts. As stated in Responses to Comments HBC-15, HBU-5, HBU-11, and HBU-12, there is acknowledgment of cumulative citywide school overcrowding impacts in the City's General Plan_ This issue is addressed and mitigated in General Plan policies included in the Draft EIR and updated in revised EIR Section 4.13, which are included in Attachment A. See Responses to Comments HBC-15, HBU-5, HBU-11 and HBU-12 for a full discussion of this issue. Please see Attachment A and Responses to Comments HBU-12 and HBC-16 for further discussion_ 9/2"61 1RSG630'•I:1R\RESP0NSE DOC" 16 HBC-18 IIBC-19 This comment reflects the same opinion included in Comments HBC-15 and HBC-16. Please see Responses to Comments HBC-15 and HBC-16 for a discus- sion and response to the issue raised in the comment. This comment is a summary of previous comments HBC-13, HBC-15, and HBC- 16. Please see Responses to Comments HBC-13, HBC-15 and HBC-16 for a discussion and response to the issues raised in the comment. 9t26196« I \RSG6301F.IRXRLSPON5r.DOO- 17 co-] CO-2 CO-3 COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY Comment noted. The Amendment Nerger of the existing projects will have no effect on existing trail facilities or on-road/off-road bicycle facilities. The Project Description found in Chapter 3.0 of the Draft EIR states that the primary purposes of the proposed Amendment/ Merger are to amend tax increment revenue limits, amend the powers of the Redevelopment Agency to pursue property acquisi- tion, extend the timeframe for Agency indebtedness, expand the list of possible infrastructure projects, and merge the five existing redevelopment projects. Table 3-A in the Draft EIR, page 3-8, shows the expanded list of possible infra- structure projects that may be carried out by the Redevelopment Agency. Among the items on the list are housing programs, public facility projects, community development programs, and commercial rehabilitation/ redevelopment projects that would have no affect on trails or bikeways. Devel- opment within the proposed Amendment/Merger area will still be subject to policies of the General Plan, which promote the provision of safe and efficient bicycle circulation through implementation of the City's bicycle plan. The infrastructure projects to improve and maintain pedestrian, bicycle and vchicu- lar circulation include: 1) completion of improvement projects already under- way (various roadways in Oakview Project zVea, Center Avenue completion), 2) completion or improvement of roadway connections (Gothard and Hoovcr and the 405 Interstate Highway (1405) interchange at Huntington Center, widening of McFadden AvenueAA05 overpass), and 3) Edinger Avenue alignment project. Review of each of these potential projects indicates that there will be no nega- tive effects from these projects on County designated trails or bikeways, and there would be improvements to citywide pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle facili- ties resulting from the projcct. This EIR addresses the proposed Amendment/Merger of five existing redevelop- ment projects on a program level_ This Program EIR does not include specific information or environmental analysis of the bikeway cited in the comment because the project is not specifically authorized or environmentally clear in this EIR. As indicated in EIR Figure 4.1.1, the railroad right-of-way is main- tained as a distinct land use from McFadden Avenue to Edinger Avenue within the Merged Project Area_ General Plan policy CF. 3.1.3 requires reservation of this right-of-way for future transportation uses such as a transit or bicycle facil- iry. In addition, bikeways are projects that are permitted in the Merged Plan and could be funded by the Agency at some time in the future. Should such a project be proposed, a separate environmental review may be required for that projcct, subject to the provisions of CE-QA. V26,96<<t 18 CO-4 CO-5 The Draft EIR prepared for the Amendment/Merger is an environmental review document prepared according to the regulations and guidelines of CEQA. As such, the Draft EIR considers the Amendment/Merger and the probable envi- ronmental consequences of that project. The comment suggests that the City consider a linear recreation corridor along the north -south Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This comment does not bring up any environmental issue or new environmental impact related to the project. The comment sug- gests a new facility for consideration by the City. Because there is no environ- mental issue or concern raised by the comment, and the issue is a land use issue outside of the environmental issues required to be addressed in an EIR as described above, no further response is appropriate or necessary. The com- ment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Comment noted. The proposed Amendmcnt/Merger includes no provisions, plans or projects that will conflict with this planned hikeway. As with Com- ments CO-3 and COA, there are no environmental issues that are required by CEQA to be addressed in this response. Please see Responses to Comments CO-3 and C04 for further discussion. �}fL6�JG��t-�RSG534 f:iA1RfS4OtiSt:-DOC- 19 AG-1 AG-2 AG-3 AG-4 AG-5 AG-6 AG-7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS The comment is an introduction to the comment letter. No response is re- quired. The comment is a summary of the Draft EIR and introduction to SLAG review processes. No response is required. The comment indicates that growth projections used in the City's General Plan Update program were inconsistent with SCAG projections, but that they are being addressed in other venues. The comment does not relate to the pro- posed Amendment/Merger or the environmental effects of the Amend- mcnUMerger. Further, there is no comment regarding environmental concerns or impacts discussed in the Draft EIR- Therefore, no further response is re- quired The comment restates the findings of the land use discussion in the Draft EIR. There is no comment regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. The City agrees with the comment. No further response is required. The City agrees with the comment that job creation resulting from the Amendment/Merger is within the projections included in the General Plan. The City agrees with the balance of the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. The City agrees with the comment. There arc no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. 9/26,96-1 VtSG63M-IR'-RESPOSSE DO(>� 20 AG-8 AG-9 AG-10 AG-11 AG-12 AG-13 AG-14 AG-15 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. The comment regarding Newport Beach is noted. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. Comment noted. The City agrees with the comment. There are no environ- mental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required_ The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required- The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. The comment indicates that growth projections used in the City's General Plan Update program were inconsistent with SCAG projections, but that they are being addressed in other venues. The comment does not relate to the pro- posed Amendment/Merger or the environmental effects of the Amend- ment/Merger. Further, there is no comment regarding environmental effect discussed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, there is no requirement to provide further response_ 9/26/1J6«i=1RSG630N.I:IR\RFSPONSI DOC-� 21 DOG-1 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DMSION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES Comment noted; no response necessary. 9R6i964,I:\RSG6301EIR\RFSPONSF IOC* 22 VC-1 VC-2 ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL Comment noted. The Project Area is heavily urbanized. The proposed Amendment/Merger will not affect large areas of open space typically associated with field mice and other small mammals. There are no specific development entitlements or approvals associated with the proposed Amendment/Merger. Therefore, landscaping is not being proposed as part of the project. The com- ment will be forwarded to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Agency, the City agency responsible for carrying out public sponsored landscaping projects. Comment noted. The Project Area is already urbanized and drainage improve- ments are in place. However, one of the objectives of the AmendmentiMerger is to maintain and/or upgrade existing drainage improvements. This will fur- ther the objectives of the Vector Control District to ensure proper drainage within the Project Area. 9fe6,A)5-1!HSG530V:1ttWi-SPONSE_DOC" 23 Gs-r THE GAS COMPANY As reported in the Draft EIR, gas service can be provided from existing mains without significant impact to the environment. No response is necessary. 9/26/96-1-\RSG6 3ov:IR`JRES Porvst:.I)oc 24 Board of Trustees: HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION BOMie Bruce 9 Bonnie Castrey ° F r HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BarbaraCurt Joh]ones es + + Michael Simons s 10251 Yorktown Avenue • Huntington Beach, California 92646-2999 (714) 964-3339 FAXC714i 963-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools August 26, 1996 Stephen V. Kohler Economic Development Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Kohler: RECEIVED AuG 2 8 1996 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT As you are aware, the Huntington Beach Union High School District has expressed its interest in the proposed merger of the five Redevelopment Project Areas, through our response to the Notice of Preparation, dated May 15, 1996, and our letter regarding the draft Environmental Impact Report, dated August 1, 1996. I am now requesting that my letter to Ms. Linda Niles, dated August 1, 1996, be incorporated into the official record of responses to the redevelopment project merger Draft Environmental Impact Report. I look forward to further discussions with City staff on this matter. Sincerely, Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Attachment HBU-1 The mission of the HBUIISD, responsive to our diverse community expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and focused educationul program which develops responsible, productive and creative Individuals with a capacity for leadership. HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT B3oard of Trustees. Bonnie Bruce Bonnie Castrey Barbara Johnson Curt Jones I025I Yorktown Avenue • Huntington Beach. California 92646-2999 Michas! Simons (714) 964-3339 FAX(714) 963-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools August 1, 1996 Ms. Linda Niles Senior PIanner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Linda: I appreciate the opportunity City staff gave me to express my concerns about the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the proposed merger of the redevelopment project areas. As you requested, I will try to summarize my concerns in writing so that you can review them with your consultant. My comments concern Section 4.13 - Schools and are keyed to the first pages in that section where an issue arises. I ask that you consider that comments made regarding the analysis of one school would be applicable to all of our schools. PROJECT IMPACTS Page 4.13-5: In the third full paragraph on this page, the statement is made that the DEIR "describes the options for responding to increased student enrollment". While the report describes some of the options, it does not exhaust the possibilities. For example, the purchase or lease of portable classrooms, remodeling or construction of permanent facilities, and transportation are all options that are not discussed. At the end of the same paragraph, there is a statement that the analysis considers "the potential adverse impacts that could result from those choices" that are offered, but there is no true discussion of such adverse impacts. For example, the continued reliance on very old portable classroom space is an implied option; yet there is no discussion of the cost of rehabilitating or replacing those classrooms. Nor is there any recognition of the various problems that arise in considering year-round operation as an option, although these are well documented. For example, ensuring that all courses are available on all tracks often results in extra cost for teachers of courses such as physics, trigonometry, calculus, and Advanced Placement offerings. HUN'TINGTON BEACH HIGH SCHOOL Page 4-13.6: The DEIR ignores the capacity computations described in our facilities master plan and adopts a new, simplistic approach of multiplying classrooms by a loading figure. Such an approach assumes that students fit neatly into groups of 30 and that all classrooms will be used to house these neat units for 6 periods a day. This approach ignores problems such as physics or chemistry labs that don't have sufficient stations to hold 30 students, or industrial arts programs that don't attract 180 students a year. Our capacity analysis recognizes that we can never use 100% of the space. HBU-1 HBU-2 HBU-3 HBU-4 The mission of the HBUfISD, responsive to our diverse community erpectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and focused educational program which develops responsible, productive and creative ifutividuals with a capacity for leadership. In the second full paragraph on this page, there is reference to the new housing units in the Main -Pier area. Setting aside whether the correct student generation factor was employed, the DEIR at least acknowledges that some enrollment growth will result from the new housing. However, the impact of this growth is dismissed since the affected school is alleged to have capacity. This conclusion assumes that the capacity can and should be dedicated to this developments. The logical outcome of this argument is that, if a school has 100 seats, and 10 new development each generating 100 students are planned, none of them has an impact since the school's 100 seats can accommodate the students from any one of the developments. It is this fallacy that leads us to emphasize cumulative impacts when we request that every new development contribute to mitigation. HBU-5 OCEAN VIEW HIGH SCHOOL Our capacity analysis shows that OVHS enrollment currently exceeds the permanent capacity of the school. The DEIR ignores the need to replace the existing portable classrooms, which are HBU-6 beyond their useful life. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Page 4.13-14: In the first paragraph of this section, it is suggested that the school districts "may have inadvertently understated actual capacity" and that "[w]hen student capacity is calculated, HBU-7 the student capacity figure increases substantially". As I have already set out above, I think our method is more accurate than the one used by your consultant. In the second paragraph of this section the conclusion is drawn that "there appears to be adequate space available to serve additional students." The paragraph goes on to say "[w]hen a year-round school schedule and increased usage of portable classrooms are considered, adequate capacity is assured." These conclusions are not justified, given the flawed approach to calculating capacity, the problems associated with year-round schedules, the age of the portables we currently use, and the cost of new portables. HBU-8 Page 4.13-15: In the first full paragraph on this page, it is asserted that "[w]ith the exception of community facility districts for specific developments, no other mitigation measures to meet increasing school enrollments are possible, pursuant to State law". This assertion overlooks the HBU-9 Mira, Hart and Murrietta cases, as well as the various mitigation agreements in place in the City of Huntington Beach which have been sanctioned by the City Council. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS In one sentence, the DEIR recognizes that something called cumulative impacts exists and then denies that the students generated within the project will contribute to a cumulative impact. If HBUA0 cumulative impacts are to be addressed, then every project that generates students must mitigate its fair share of those impacts. GENERAL PLAN POLICIES I have not checked each of the policies noted here, but believe they are inaccurate based on the I HBU-11 last one which I am certain is not the finally approved language. MITIGATION MEASURES The conclusion that mitigation measures are not warranted ought to be revisited, based on the i objections raised above. l HBU-12 2 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION We contend that the conclusions in this section are drawn from a faulty analysis and should be revisited after we address the objections outlined above. HBU-13 As I noted at the outset, I have attempted to summarize my concerns. I would be happy to discuss them further at your convenience. Sincerely, lr Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent, Business Services c: Dr. Marc Ecker, Fountain Valley School District Mr. Jerry Buchanan, Huntington Beach City School District Dr. James Tarwater, Ocean View School District Ms. Barbara Winars, Westminster School District 3 r• �4,tatr of California GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH s 1400 TENTH STREET PETE VWLSON SACRAMENTO 95814 LEE GAMSOM GOVERNOR 0=00A September 5, 1996 STEP:iEN KOHLER HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AWCY 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON WACH , 4A 91648 Subject: HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELO?MENT PRCJECT SCH 1 : 9604=075 Dear STEPHEN KOHLER; The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have commews. This letter acknowledges Lhat you have CompLied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant co the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ANTERO A. R_VASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse PRO s-j1UtJL:c ut I,uiJayrlct&MJL Zsa II.-Ctw+r.M•-•� arlo INN �.•..a ima�wrwro- t�1 lo*ar4 vdNtuaL, pcHr ..Aneee P.haCt Ihk.G••It Lr. r..Ll+.....lawTaCr^_r.L•..1•.1y.�tyle.t_r. lfed..t.S.pwnen. frrree _ /• lead-NcencT M^m::K� - A��r1• - L)rtYf.fwrAt •� t �:[ Ile-.Yv..rL rwnext lanon 4-et1r1 Y S7iJkL Carr. M4^-Mwa„WzP, .:L=o _ � T14rA __ _- G.r.*•7yt„q� 1 "We% C.armT - -�.trtTr..�s. Catn�w.•ar liL: •etc ,. v _ r-„df- A.,., a'■ Atltlaai. hwat h0. wA. w•..i•.+t CY ws Srtt.oe MIM T" NA' a"•at=LbW r+`••-JY >•tQun lY;]cl SOq at 1-n lalyr.44ll_101 W.4a....1•t- r`LU AWPerb- INA' UAW)* %MfbMM l.r&g ltbl. l %OW* a..w..... >ts� . H+..n �• 6ruA 1'N m�l ��r.ci ..^..rt Ner. •:a..ry rrr.rr Y iS.•.M.� xr.•A �j.a]n fi 1 e�n..w .r1w t l7.m l� law... Typr cm&,u .•t CPA; 0 Nol D tribal-- U)*—L n r• rtt ❑ Fnrl T—tv Loth L] f(! (h►x 301 Ya} rA U n—, D� Q )thar D r .A F]l U V rbtr to Z O ix)xa Lrcwl Ann- TYP- Genenl Ps.- UIL bw Pt�•...., SPKt/k Ma- H-•-PhA Janne ►r.n..e O Mtks�••a, Qj le.V+tbOmt n. HnMw i1A.lww.r C rl Game.M- & kMgn -A Rart d ll it 7ft""Ovmertt C vet tttl•.•t ❑ lie.wl F—it Z L-J Dwdm 0O-b e anal) +UFL TlaCt .4aw •.Q) Da. Wp,o...• Ty": 131ltweewt..r tl.as w...._ ❑..=rra,1,,... wn Sc1rr..- ,a R c:o�, sqk w..s. T itwntn�' sa..ana' Jr:nrr.l tf.dtttrtr� Syk. �.`At r.Lnyloraaa ro..a� T�•Pc -%#" T.s.ttr4. N T.p. lttvl'q.IPm.} -- H.nrdo.a r TYP• Pwi�+ WWa UL[•.•s.l V DorLM t•1 m r- ,Ari,YYuN M.- leedh%t m SChod►A , •.,, c.et 1tt,� ti a7 rs 0Afraj, r+lL-I 8110do F-*.&LAM 1%mK.....t ❑!.rwsroxes C_i4.le[S.rP017•r^..nd•rr:er w►. Q.a.Firy a4eo7aL.d •..••► RSM tr Ct[w.n �•edernlrLr.n.n w.ryrolope..liuw%aj w.w-ft Wfrr ..>+ctma.tteRtG•'.d1.11 . • oaY.l 7n.sr !� h1ov�W C sau vwn U ov-h t-1w. r, WL.^w O fatoc.M—Jowl � L-j f1w FM-u �LYnev.a.e}t0. rw,yl IK xr+x►+l!'...t•r et D1te.+r.si�l4ra O T..!w-Ct1,.L.1t.r. 7Yt1r44r. Cu nula," ❑t]•1•a. r/t1..1♦t lyd L'a✓i1t�l.rVt: _ _• 1•tAa 1 bar Y.Foo'n ►i.r... Deltalv.:- T1.r pevt •a 1�V�t n to wtn..W^.Ar r.a .tw.p� a Cyr !�. t••ww..M •tl•wd IYdnr�w•+••� r�any}.nte.s. �.Nur..le Ga, •d styt,prypon }..1m rnq o:T-..^f7 adoped ,T. 1_6p enl I"*,b ebDluhsd .,Ate the lowpwon of rht tfw t ,6srvs rtat.+. 4.1e.atOpaslfa Aaa•xv induct. }4.,wtwtan C:.nr• r,avneilS.i Lw+r• t 11ede•eL�-•.�dt hgac. f 1pK}. htLA.H.. >1s.irMoom.n ryo; ,l". Orlmuw R.d.••.t%.rt..... Pn-f-, (19Tl u-w-ae&d. ZWLr poacm ?-Meg '1T7S) ••+1 .T•t 1'OeaYNn.Lrtr t1.a4.tEl..err. Yt•.yn (1}a7} Ilse �� NxW... .O.aGoe 11...wYar�d Red+..rls.e... her.es•..m. and. }ww.o a6.d •hr StWa Ckusnatlo�. C,,,lnr.- Mr- Oles B1hir Prolccl Scul io the tWlowiat 5tala Apaclra (916) "SZC 11 _� Rpal7ter St>rsuf'eaaatatr 5•tt Sate Rnirw DeRr-�(�- Roams —� Otteaat$t Vice bry �AA , (;oawat Comm cjlvrPA Dept Rari4•. to AyteCT Qry-..L-L. - Cent.! Uwv _ AJW Ctstoredu Pw b� �� Ck Wot: �.aw &7 1Stmty ltt. to RCN / _ lorurYa,:.r. GVL'RCH- Harts F-ShO c atme d _ SWFCA Delft Slit CON.PLIANCE _ .. DTYa PM*.MPQ Pu1.taRMCAO -$WltC9 W'IrRisto tlrete eofa SCH Naalber oo all Coowmt. Resl�at..e �_ akg vrQCB a _,�, �VOY/a7s T o� �. A �TC Fkwv fgrrarU late tonwtaa dirwily to lbi Ots YtVAdk CerrW'*l I Led ASt11CT Y.a Tmk p Meat ^Ctttc:twat . _ AwoaMUS ladtptedantCoula 7 J7 AQ.MD/APCFI (Re:au 1Xt r 121 ctil - X C3kmmn /OL bnaST camn NAIR TnrAPtaetnna PIK LI.Anwr.I Ot.ri SamsLln V_,s HV�alm& WNtl rc �Stat1 Lan1i •+•r+'* DnrA:a6 WD 74h-w &*I YLv _, Mcdkd ►►'cur C.vtrr_ MIN ■e■ r my OCTA Mr. Stephen V. Kohler. Pre+ec? Man --or w avow Huntinrrlon lei! Red— !V .r l w0 J .Vll.r x� { 2nnn Mai!, Street I ....ty.... • v,.a.w 1, CA 2dr. �' t�.�l• cm1+ VftCW Subject: Draft EiR for tw Huntingwn Beach Redevelopment project I Tat a* .car ( Dear Mr. Kohler: AWWxFlaw ra..r.! R,►,ron j The Orange County Trammortation Autheriry, rOrTA,► Knit re;,. t C 0; pa Environmental irnoact Report for ffie HljntnnMn Rs„� ti ��n...tlr._.-._�• n__:_ Ja"M W SM, •.a.... >.a,IwNlllcrra rltl)CI;L end has the followi n commer!t: olvru. v y.w OCTA me�H,, r...,.:.�..� .+l r1�.rlacA vus saivice fouyfl iiw proposed redevelopment Ij -taa. Ste!` ::outi ,uca to roq�rost that pus turnouts he piaoed as needed. The n,..w/ w �ws, l „, 1_ c a T e-a" Rn.airor's of the iumoutss would have to be determined when more dei" ac pians are available. Please submit detai+ed maps to OCTA as they �•�..�,�"""� f become available. A~ ftw AftfIldifill Thank you for the opportunity to comment on ttus prcfOV. Please reel fnon tb AVWR sue, t call me at (714) 55a-5765 or B01 BBrtOry of (714)560-5912. 0"" T. Sincerely. i N't j 11 J j�_ . LA or`ge L. Dufion 1 ranaportaiion Analyst c: Bill Batory, OCTA wr1DOC 1 Orarga Cwony Tq&vpprQ*ft Auf W My k S:;v �a+l.n Ata►ati�sr i P_ O. 6ior r�rw � Orarly� � ('e Warrp FaG 13• � 59� � f/ T41 UGC r� (6?8�71 f TA-1 01 BROWN. O'DONNELL. MILLER. BROWN & DANNIS If ATTO"M A::wtiY A FAOFL5IOVAL CQUOIw1oN NL n L 7D�oerJ b� G ML'J,1 J 11Lv� _V61 w1ti. September 4, i 996 ><. Sa1at 1- C+vt4nd Uao 1 U 1wrorn }a M �.. w WCU Prz W. SUMI U- E Una!& VIA F,&CfiTMLE AND L_ SLA _. Sac Sal=" mmAcr 1 _ Pei, Steven Kohler .4, Project Manage: IW I50.4 City of Hu t7ngtoa Beuh 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Re: DEIR 96-2; Our 51c 5400.1.001.6 Dear Mr- Kohler. �1o�ee�a� Floo 5— Raawp. Gl SUS rG t 11ro-tlU :sso V's rovi Sala U FZW redo. Gn Xri T& 3tOJ]> f 6u: dot =177)LM We represent the Ocean view School District in regard to its dealings with the City's Redevelopmetat Agency. Recently we received your letter stating that the DEIR an the merger of redevelopment areas is available, and informing us that September 4, 3 996 is the end of the comment period ibis letrer is to restate the request I left for you in my phone message cf today, for An ex=icm of time to respond until September 6, 1996. The District hopes that this v411 not be an inzonvenience for yoUr office. Thank you for your consideration. Vcry truly yours, BREON, O'DOIvT7ELL, MILLER, BROWN & DANNIS 6�;,,;d, �,,, Priscilla Brown ;f.1Wrc4iE`iT5`NLOtSoold\KOh- Ml- 96 Niac Ali S&UAM U 7r¢ Lt �If}oen itt 110/64,2-11.1 Can ►k.L a it. r;ji62 am I= D*p C► �: furs�s.o:aa Ov-1 L BREON. O'DONNELL. MILLER. BROWN & D°.NN15 AMkv ITS AT I AN A PAOFESSIONAE COR$OWION a sK.aa,m s49M xzqp.-n L crDPAWL �r-c.Yaa r.L.. Dvoii C. bukr Su FfLNWW C^ %O FdoQh► -2 3L 43S/f W3N -AVa7i.Dd261 ha CJ'1!..U3U W k U"Up &WIM A. R■f,W September S, 1996 us, V6� �� X.a" I -Le hit )A :. CA x. 4 -UJ11^ I. o-1■.t rr »nn-6a» r< X01Tn4wi DIVId A. WON e," e...dnp, :7J+2 uqpM AD" FTW a Suva Sum rt:9 R pp�oiY r." GK A a7� :d AI iD " u VIA ]FACUMnE ACID E S. MAIL CA smAm Wr nd ro;Nt•u:� I&M L MQCW Steven V. Kohler Project Manager um CA ' �G&M, E"n KedeYplop:xa,.r:; Ag, aey of the City of Huntington Beach mid Cri' A, HuntiVon Beach &a °ia` C" I2000 Main Street =4L 6�91S9fR03 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Revonse to DER on Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment project Arias to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopntnt Project, Our file 5400.1.001.6 DearMr. Kohder: The Occm view School District C'District") has asked that our firm respond to the Draft EnvironmcntaI bnpact Report C DEIR") prepared by LSA & Associates, dated Iuly 19, 1996 for the Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach ("Aocz cy"). We have reviewed the report as well as the Draft Redevelopment Plan and Report prepared by Rosenow Spevaeck Group, Inc_, dated July 17, 1996 for the Agency. Our review of these documents discloses that the DEIR f2ils to adcquatrly address the impact ou fm District both in terms of the fecraal impEca ions of the redevelopment merger and the legal obligations of the Agency. The DMR asserts that "the number of additional students resulting from the ArnendmentlMwger dues not exceed any affected school's existina facilities and ctV26:es." (4.13.4.) It claims *=t if the District's capacity is recalculated using a loa a facsar of 31 per classroom, including portables, theft adequate ckpmty is achiwva (4-13.4.) .".`moreover, it continues, "When a year round school schedule rnd increased usage of }portable clumooms are considered, adcquwt capacity is &wxtd." The DEIR's student capacity chart, Table 4.13.A shows that currently the schools in the District are at 89% to 100% capacity. These figures are oa-se d on the District's estimate, OV-2 OV-3 '1Q N't? Al Steven V. Kohler Redevelopment Agency of the Ciry of Huaftron Reach City of Huntington Beach September 5, 1996 Page 2 and as pointed our in the District's May 17, 1996 letter, the District calculates that its capacity will be overburdened by 55 students. The DER assumes that these figures are inflated, but gives no facts to demonstrate that is the case. It ignores the fact that the District caurtot load every classroom at 34 due to programmatic rea_soas (special education O_ V-3 classrooms, for example must be loaded at a much smaller rate) and contravr al reasons. Ave ge class sizes are negotiated with ere teachers, the District cannot unilaterally change them. In addition, even if the District could address the capacity problem by adding portables, how are these to be paid for? The report does not address this issue, and even worse, speculates that all the District acted to do is go on a year round schedule to solve its capacity problems. This ignoics the practical and fmaucial cost of yea: round xhooling. It is not a money saving device for most districts; it requires additional staff and operatiorW coM La addition, community supporr for the concept is critical. The DER completely fails to OV-4 assess the fmibility of any of the mcasures it suggests. In short, the DEIR glosses over the factual realities of the redevelopment project and azoneously underestimates the impact on the District. Student Ovetsrowdipg ir,An Enviromzntal irrpro t The DEIR's approach to the Agency's impact on the schools is ftmdamentally flawed by its assumption that school overcrowding is not an tnvironmental impxt. (4.13.3) This is based on a Court of Appeal decision , Goleta Union School District v. Regents of the Universirl oj'Callfornia (1995) 37 Cal,App.4th 1025 {"Goleta"), which, we contend, would not withstand scrutiny if applied in this cast. First, the case ignores CEQA Guidelines and ca9c law. The Craidclines state at section 1530 that "the `environment' includes both natursl and n=-made conditions." In Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1212, the wort held that a school district may properly state a CEQA cause of actin when a lead agency fails to address or provide for adequate ini6gation of impacts on schools_ El Dorado Union High School DisYricr v_ City of Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123, the court held that an EIR should address school issues, and consider student eraelltneut and exi.stiag and fdtnuc arollment capacity. In a related cast, Fullerton Joint Union High School District V. Stute Board of Education (1932) Cal.31779, the court held that a school district reorganization plant which would require construction of new school facilities created a possibility of significant enyimnrnentaL impart and theref arc had to be addressed in ao EIR. OV-5 VLA S E AND U. 5.'M Steven V. Kohler Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Clr,v of Huntington Beach September S, 1996 Page 3 1n addition, the cotat's ruling Ieft in place the position that socio-economic impacts are Mcvard considerations if thty either result from physical impacts or contribute to such impacts. In this case, the construction of arw housing will create a physical change which vAU Overcrowd the District's schools, which in turn is a negative impact on the ability of the District to pro%ide a soured education for its students. The DEAL ignores this coansetiorl Finally, CEQA requires that all "reasonably foreseeable" impacts be assessed, and impacts on schools resulting from ucw devc1opmtnt am reasonably foreseeable. (Lausel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Untversiry ofCulifornia (1998) 47 Cal. 3d 376) This basic premise cannot be ignored. Thus the District submits that the IDEIR fails to adequately address the izrpact ofthe development contemplated under the Agency's plan on the District. Very truly yours, BREWN, O'DONNELL. MILLER, BROWN & DANNIS ('(6o ' gw�� Priscilla Brown QB:kmd E cc: James R. ?arwater, E&D. Cr WPYCLjVn'$ 44MjMisuc4t F P;Z.L% OV-5 Brian E. Rechsteiner President Brian Garland Clerx Shirley Carey Member Robert Mann. Ed D Member Catherine McGough Member Duane A D,shno. Ed.D. Superintendent Alan Rasmussen. Ed D_ Assistant Superir.!enCert Personnel/Educational Services Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent Adminislrn6vC SeNIceS HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2045+ Craimer Lane • P p Box 71 Huntington Beach_ California 92648 (71 a) 964•6888 RECEIVED September 3, 1996 BY r- S A 1&,r SE P U 4 1996 Stephen P. Kohler Project Manager HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project EIR Number 96-2 Dear Mr. Kohler - This letter is in response to the Draft EIR 96-2. The comments are limited to Section 4.13 Schools. My comments are applicable to all district schools. - Table 4.13 A - Schools Serving the Merged Project Area Middle-SchoolDyaeT i BeaQh Cily- Current enrollment will be 950 at the start of school on September 4, 1996. The portable classroom listed is a Foci Service kitchen which cannot be used for classroom purposes. A new HBC-1 addition to the school was opened in 1995 to handle the enrollment from the Holly Seacliff Project. No excess capacity exists for new projects. Sowersi 1 h I B D - Current enrollment will be 1,190 students at the start HBC-2 of school on September 4, 1996. There is no room for expansion. Kettler Elementary School _(HBCSD) - Current enrollment will be 700 on September 4, 1996. The school has 4 portable classrooms, not the 6 listed- One of the portables is used HBC-3 for ? YMCA. Child Care Pr agm-n. Smith Elementary School (HBCSD) - Current enrollment will be800 on September 4, HBC-4 1996. This school takes most of the new development in the City and will not be able to handle further development. The capacity at Smith and Kettler and the rest of the K-5 schools will also be further impacted because of a decision to implement the state program of class size reduction. District wide, there will be a need for 42 additional classrooms when fully implemented in the 1997-98 school year. On September 4, 1996, when school starts, the District will implement class size reduction for the first grade only, which will require an additional 3 HBC-5 classrooms at Smith and 3 classrooms at Kettler. The first grade implementation effectively reduces capacity at Smith School by 53 students and 48 students at Kettler. This pattern, when projected for full implementation effectively reduces the District's capacity at K-5 by 900 students. "We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer" Mr. Stephen Kohler September 3, 1996 Eags2 Project Impacts 4.13.3 - Pages 4 & 5 - The analysis focuses on a flawed interpretation of Goleta Union School District v. the I HBC-6 Regents of the University of California. The analysis further fails to note the impact of Mira, Hart, Murrietta and several other decisions that address the issue of mitigation. The recently enacted General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach sanctions implementation of I HBC-7 higher fees. This section further fails to analyze the adverse impacts that could result from the options proposed. Year -Round Education has been studied at length by the District because of the HBC-8 cost among other issues. The loss of playground space on already impacted sites has been discussed at length. Project Impacts 4.13.3 - Pages 7, 8, 10 & 11 Dyvyer Middle School - As addressed earlier, the capacity analysis is flawed. The consultant should leave the loading of schools to those who will be forced to put teachers and students in them. The portable cannot be used for a teaching station and the 45 classrooms include computer labs, home economics, drafting, wood shop and physical education stations. We cannot load every square foot of space every hour of the day. The District's capacity analysis has been carefully worked out and works for the District and the community. Dwyer is not on a year round track and community surveys at this time do not support the concept. Even if implemented, it is doubtful that a 25% increase in capacity can be reached. The school capacity was increased to house students from the Holly Seacliff Spec Plan area. The expected enrollments from this project utilize the current unused capacity. The development within Yorktown -Lake and Main -Pier, which Dwyer serves, will further stretch the ability of the District to serve this area and ignores the cumulative impacts that every project has on the District's ability to serve students. This project does have an impact from additional students. HBC-9 Sowers Middle School - Once again the flawed analysis assumes that the District can use 100 of the space all of the time. Sowers also has portables over 20 years old and leased portables that must be removed at the end of this school year. The same issues raised in the NBC -I Dwyer analysis apply to Sowers except for Holly Seacliff. There is an impact to Sowers School from the project. Kettler Elementary SchQl - Once again the analysis is flawed. Kettler has 4 portables, one of which is used for child care. The new current enrollment plus class size reduction, wipes out any real or imaginary capacity. The design of the school and its core facilities HBC-1 further limit the capacity. Year Round Education has been discussed and rejected because of the high cost. The impact to Kehler is significant and the school cannot house students from the planned project. Smith Elementary School - Once again the analysis is flawed. Smith shares a 21 acre site with Dwyer and the District's Maintenance and Operations Facility. If the capacities were HBC-1. as suggested, we could not physically handle the students, let alone find a classroom for them. Smith has taken the brunt of the new development west of Beach Blvd. and the Mr. Stephen Kohler September 3, 1996 Page 3 cumulative impacts are still being felt. Not dounting the 3,000 plus units from the Holly Seacliff, there are over 300 units with approved tract maps yet to be built that will impact Smith. Development will continue to overload the school. The impact to Smith School is significant and the commutative impacts compound the issues. Other issues not considered by the consultant in doing an independent loading analysis include: 1. The impact of Special Education- We load these classes at 6-12 student per room 2. RSP Special Education Program- The middle schools each have 3 classrooms and the elementary schools, 1 classroom. These programs can not be housed in the parking lots. 3. Technology- Each school has 1 or more computer labs. Summary of Impacts 4.13 - Pages 14 & 15 The District did not inadvertently understate its actual capacity. The consultant used a flawed analysis that we have attempted to document. Students do not arrive in nice round numbers easily divisible by 20 or 30. They do not all show up on the first day of school and stay for the year. A well rounded program requires special education, GATE, computers, libraries and child care, none of which were utilized in the consultants analysis. We don't send students home when we get over 20 or 30, we put them in a classroom even if it means class sizes are smaller. While we load at 30, our averages are lower. Reducing to 29.5 adds 4 classrooms. No mention is made of the difficulty of implementing year round schedules or that most year round programs generate for less than a 25% facility increase. No mention is made of old portables, or the cost of new portables or the loss of playground and parking space. When they arrive, where will everyone park? HBC-1: As mentic^ed earlier, tl:e repon ignores a whole body of law which discusses the issues, most notably, Mira, Hart and Murrietta. It ignores the fact that the General Plan and three Huntington Beach Specific Plans sanction additional mitigation. It further ignores a whole HBC-11 series of ritigation agreements that were negotiated with both large and small developers and then blessed by the City Council. 1-he impact to each of the District's schools is significant. i HBC-1! Cumulative Impacts 4.13.5 Page 15 This issue was addressed earlier. Every project must mitigate its share of student impacts and the discounting of the impact does not lessen its reality. Each school has significant impact. If 100 homes are added within the District it matters little if it is 1 project of 100 HBC-1( units, 2 projects of 50 units, 4 projects of 25 units, or 100 individual permits, they will generate the same number of students. Mr. Stephen Kohler September 3, 1996 Page 4 General Plan Policies 4.13.5 Page 16 The General Plan should speak for itself. This is an incomplete list of the policies and does I HBC-1, not appear to be accurate. Mitigation Measures 4.13.6 Page 16 There is significant impact and mitigation should be required. The impact of class size I HBC-1 E reduction increases the lack of adequate facilities and should be addressed Level of Impact 4.13.7 Page 16 Since the conclusions were drawn on faulty or inadequate data, the impact on all schools I HBC-1f should be changed to significant. Please do not hesitate to call if you need additional information. Sincerely, Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services cc: +Julie A. Cho. Environmental Analyst, LSA Associates Linda Niles, Senior Planner, City of Huntington Beach Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Dr. Mark Ecker, Superintendent, FVSD Dr. James Tarwater, Superintendent, OVSD Barbara Winars, Deputy Superintendent, Westminster V `r- y C] F FtANGI. ENVIAONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNWG SEP 0 41996 RF-CEIVED SEP " 5 Z96 Stephen V. Kohler, Protect *tanager M. RUANE :CTOR. E A MATHEWS = PLANNNG LOCATION: 30 N. ROWc R ST. TWIRD FLOOR SANTA ANA, CA MAILING ADDRESS P.O- BOX 400 SANTA ANA. CA 92702-" Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency DEPARTMENT OF 2000 :lain street ECONOMW, DEVELOPMENT Th:ntingten Beach, CA 32646 SUBJECT: DEIR to Amend & Merge Ex=sting Redevelopment Project Fleas to Create the Huntington Beach kedevelcpaent Project Dear M.::. Kohler: TEL&NDNE : (71a1 e3 -+&t3 FAX r. 834-2771 DPC: a344772 The above referenced iter 0 a draft Envirorrental Impact Report (DEIR) for the. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. The proposed project would merge_ five existing nor. -contiguous redevelopment projects (totaling 6i9 acres) to more CO.1 comprerezeively attain the ability to correct blighting conditions, promote economic development and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. The County of Orange bas reviewed the. D=IR snd offers be following comments reSa,rding recreation and open space: 1. Section XV. RECREATION should address recreat_o_nzl programD, ircicd_ing opportunities for riding &nd hiking trail facilities, and on -road and CO-2 off -road bikeways. 2. The Commuter Bikensys Strategic Plan ;CSSp) identifies a reS o;lal Class I (paved off -road! bikeway along the railroad right-oii-way easterly of C-othard Street_ The SIR should address ttis bikeway, which will connecC Golden West College, Huntington Center, old world Center, and Park & Ride CO-3 facilitiea to residential areas- It will also link at leas= three of the five redevelopment areas. 3. It is also suggested the City consider a greenway (linear recreatwn corridor) along the railroad right-oc-way. Greenways typically include CO-4 bikeway$ and riding and hiking trails. Greenway corridors are an important amenity for comt~unit:es with redevelapmenL areas. Mr. S. Kohler Page 2 4. the CB3P also identifies a regicnal Class I bikeway along the crest side of Pacific Coast Highway within the pier section of Redevelopment Area CO-5 ## S . Viank you for Se orportunity to respond to the DEIR. If you have any questions or need to contact us, pleasa call Charlotte Farryrcan at (714) 034-2522. very truly yours, l George Britton, Manager Savironmental & Project Planning Division SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 818 west Seventh Street T2th Floor Los Angeles. California 9ooi/-3k35 t (223) 236-L800 f (213) 236 1825 www stag ca gc.• ar, IA.,�v oi...Lecwvr,nr MHh_.:,e 6wkr- La. Arai a Lnuru, ra..d ►re.�df-, �s.. o. Rob M.'-I.��- Of MOr— In s-.rd-.-r IN,- p.,-1 • &-b Rov.r- R...... !r .w.,Of,.npt,..L S.-S.", l..a O+dLOn- Il Lrn,N w M�Nr'.CM A.T•R.L A..d Ay'fM 10. A_�.i'. 1Lw h..d A:.:fM R. ia. Mrf4. Llern An..... •�..O.,d 1., .. Enh R.r.ln� •, - .. - C-r .. Ek • IL I L\.m,.y, lu\ Myr:n •,Sur b.- R M.r..n Lauac. aAb r,rh. ROrn.r.d • L-1. Ch.f l.:..r M�r4f r.a Cra." C"" , - R+ M-d.•Lfnln..d0 ..D r-3 (rv..•.andan - L! I,..,h . ).F- n.. La. -KIn - MK I."1 Prvar La. An 4, C.l.""• lk 1l C.I-v re. Ant.L. cj-d.l. ' 1..\.a G'"t-1 La njtlrr • C...!a..d H.,dert,.n :ntl.•_md MA, f ..ndrt. 1.. A..e- - No, H.".- L.n .l.k, • Abb. LAr.d. ,A,rH Hall,—d • E.,t- f.0 - Alh-m , • n.- d Tl,rn r,:..�.:r T.w,.nrf • 1.nn, QrO,ru 1-2 K! rl..,•,.f F4 !•ry R..... • M.:1 Rally, 7L- Ar ri- • R.rh.rd Ilx.rA.n lua 4. AID.., Rubin- Sw,h C- - f,-- a- Ca. PZ • IL., Snnh- W:!b-xr • R16 .n.a h. Lo. A„x.l,. • r.I -..., h.- w, .-,fir, :<.•.An�• r..d! wrh: CI—..- l.ul Zfr. 5--% P.vd.-. a..nV 11'e S.. CZ;-- - A. h"ry •R.,. 0.rn w..•, or S.n Mrn.rtl�..o l.rr. -+,illy. y.,. ,4-J.a b...... ... ��.' K", Chip.. -IL - PLA i Upl.. August 16, 1996 RECEIVED AVG Z 6 MEMLI-Im. .. ,..a Mr. Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92507 RE: Comments on Draft EIR for Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project - SCAG No. 19600223 Mr. Kohler. Thank you for submitting the Draft EIR for Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and other agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with regional plans. The attached staff comments are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed development within the context of our regional goals and policies which are based in part upon state and federal mandates, as noted herein. While neither the project sponsor nor the lead agency is required to undertake the specific actions recommended by SCAG or other agencies through the Intergovernmental Review Process, there are requirements in state and federal laws for consistency with regional goals and plans, as noted herein. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Bill Boyd at (213) 236-1960. Sincerely, Ji VIVIANE DOCHE-BOULOS Intergovernmental Review 11:\11UNTt3EA1.GP3 AG-1 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION TO COMMENTS RE: HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAFT EIR BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is a Program EIR which represents a proposed amendment and merger of five previously adopted Redevelopment Plans/Projects within the City of Huntington Beach. The five projects include: Huntington Center Commercial District, Main -Pier, Oakview, Talbert -Beach and Yorktown -Lake. The actions of combining the original projects into one is necessary to provide the Redevelopment Agency the ability to expand its financial and statutory authority. The five projects include a total of 619 acres or about 3.5 percent of the City acreage. The project will enable the Agency to continue to facilitate: 1) economic development activities, 2) infrastructure improvements, 3) commercial rehabilitation activities, 4) provision of market rate and affordable housing opportunities, and 5) provision of housing rehabilitation programs and elimination of blight. Redevelopment Acres Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses Project (Assisted by Merged Project) Huntington Center 160 Retail, Office 530 Single Family Commercial Commercial (Huntington Homes Beach Mall) 80 Multiple Family Units Huntington Beach Oakview 68 General Commercial, Medium & High Density Mall Refurbishment Residential 600 Hotel/Time Share Talbert -Beach 25 Low, Medium & High Density Residential, Rooms General Industrial 260,000 square feet of Yorktown -Lake 30 Medium Density Residential, Public Commercial Use Pi AG-2 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler Main -Pier 336 Retail, Tourist, 3,000 square feet of Recreational, Public, Industrial Use Residential Under the Policy Scenario, which SCAG reviewed in 1995, the Huntington Beach Comprehensive General Plan Update (adopted May 13, 1996) has the potential to allow the following increases during the period 1990-2010: 18,500 Residential Dwelling Units 3,165,000 Commercial Retail Square Feet 1,570,000 Commercial Office Square Feet 2,505,000 Industrial Square Feet 2,200 Rooms for Overnight Accommodations H. Rl TRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS The document that provides the primary reference for SCAG's project review activity is the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). The RCPG chapters fall into three categories: core, ancillary, and bridge. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility (being a summary of the 1994 Regional Mobility Element), policies in the Air Quality chapter, along with the Hazardous Waste Management and Water Quality chapters constitute the core chapters. These core chapters respond directly to federal and state planning requirements'. The core chapters constitute the base on which local governments ensure consistency of their plans with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The Air Quality and Growth Management chapters contain both core and ancillary policies, which are differentiated in the comment portion of this letter. Ancillary chapters are those on the Economy, Housing, Human Resources and Services, Finance, Open Space and Conservation, Water Resources, Energy, and Integrated Solid Waste Management and portions of the Air Quality chapter. These chapters address important issues facing the region and may reflect other regional plans. Ancillary chapters, however, do not contain actions or policies required of local government. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region. Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links between the Core and Ancillary chapters of the RCPG. ' See Endnote. 3 AG-2 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler Each of the applicable policies related to the proposed project are identified by number and reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the consistency of the project with those policies. M. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CORE CHAPTERS OF THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE A. The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) includes both core and ancillary policies that are particularly applicable to this project. The GMC policies relate to the three RCPG goals: to improve the regional standard of living, to maintain the regional quality of life, and to provide social, political, and cultural equity. To achieve these goals, SCAG encourages the development of urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing, minimize public and private development costs, and that enable the private sector to be more competitive, thereby strengthening the regional economy. Attaining mobility and clean air goals is also critical in enhancing the quality of life in the region and can be achieved through the development of urban forms that accommodate a diversity of lifestyles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities. Lastly, SCAG encourages the development of urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies is intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers. 1. Core Growth Management Policies 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phaties of implementation and review. SCAG staff comments: The GMC contains forecasts of population, housing and employment growth at the subregional level that are currently anticipated by the public entities within each of the subregions. As SCAG has designated subregions, the City of Huntington Beach is located within the Orange County Subregion. In order to foster the implementation of this policy, SCAG staff disaggregated the subregional growth projections to the City level for use by the City of Huntington Beach in the development of its General Plan, on which the Redevelopment Project is based. However, it should be noted that SCAG's projections were adopted by the Regional Council as policy at the regional, county and subregional levels only. The analysis of these projections in the Draft EIR for the Draft Comprehensive General Plan Update has revealed certain inconsistencies between the projections used in the General Plan and those obtained from 4 AG-2 AG-3 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler SCAG staff. The section of the Draft EIR that addresses population and housing contained the following discussion: "SCAG projects the City of Huntington Beach population to increase from 181,519 in 1990 to 205,699 by 2010, or an increase of 13.3 percent ('straight-line' average increase of 0.67 percent annually). The estimated population growth occurring as a result of full implementation of the Draft General Plan would represent a 27,771 resident increase above the SCAG population projected for the year 2010. However, it should be noted that the population growth figures submitted by Huntington Beach to SCAG have been revised and SCAG has not yet amended the Regional Comprehensive Plan to reflect the changes. " Likewise, the Draft EIR addressed the differences between the City's housing projections and those of the regional plan in this way: "Both the Policy Plan and Theoretical Buildout of the Land Use Plan will increase the housing stock within the City limits by 18,500 new units by the year 2010. The total number of units anticipated or buildout capacity (existing units + estimated future units) for the City is 92,679. The 92,679 anticipated units exceed SCAG's 2010 housing forecast of 75, 872. " With respect to employment, the Policy Scenario is estimated to generate 22,413 new jobs within the City, for a buildout capacity estimate of 82,282 jobs. This compares with SCAG's unofficial 1994 projection of 89,551 jobs within the City by 2010. From this analysis, it is apparent that the inconsistencies in growth projections that have developed during the plan formulation process are being addressed and that efforts are currently underway to resolve these inconsistencies. The combined redevelopment project does not propose any changes in land use or zoning designation, or policies that would result in any increase in population within the City of Huntington Beach. The project will primarily allow for increased funding opportunities for infrastructure improvements, commercial rehabilitation, and assisted housing projects, which may facilitate development in the area; however, the scale and type (i.e. land use) will be consistent with that projected in the General Plan. AG-3 AG-4 3.03 The timing, financing, and location ofpublicfacilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the regions growth policies. I AG-5 5 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler SCAG staff comments: The City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency have recognized the need for infrastructure capacity upgrades to meet the needs of the combined redevelopment project. These agencies have programmed the construction of various infrastructure programs to correspond with the combined Programmed improvements include: storm drainage, street improvements, library construction, and waterfront improvements. 2. Ancillary Growth Management Policies 3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions' efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. SCAG staff comments: The project does not address the matter of achieving a balance between types of jobs and housing projects. Providing empolyment opportunities is a primary objective of the Amend mentlMerger. Job creation will be within the employment projections outlined in the General Plan. Affordable replacement housing at all levels must be available within four years of displacement according to City and Agency policy. 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. S A Q staff comments. The design of the Merged Project Area makes maximum utilization of existing infrastructure (streets, water, sewer and other utilities) and essential public services (police, fire, emergency medical, libraries, public health care services, existing parks and recreational facilities). The City of Huntington Beach has plans to improve their utility services to the City, which in turn will benefit the Merged Project Area. 3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic strategy to maintain the economic vitality of the subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, and other economic incentives, which support attainment of .suhregional goals and policies. SCAG staff comments. The General Plan contains policies designed to provide for the economic needs of the City's residents including (1) retail shopping opportunities and services, (2) local -serving office development, and (3) orderly and controlled industrial growth. The Project will enable the Redevelopment Agency to finish out the redevelopment programs begun by the agency by continuing the Agency's financial and statutory authority to alleviate conditions of blight, revitalize commercial areas, protect AG-5 AG-6 AG-7 AG-8 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler residential uses and neighborhoods, construct additional public improvements and facilities, and develop affordable housing. These efforts will benefit both the City of AG-8 Huntington Beach and the Orange County Subregion. 3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by local jurisdictions to attract housing growth in job rich subregions and job growth in housing subregions. 2 SCAG staff comments. The City of Newport'Beach is housing rich jobs poor, while the AG-9 Subregion is jobs rich -housing poor. The Project would allow the jobs/housing ratio to improve at the City level, resulting in a more balanced community. 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infll and redevelopment. 3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points AG-10 along the regional commuter rail, transit systems and activity centers. 3.15 Support local jurisdictions' strategies to establish mixed -use clusters and other transit oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. SCAG staff comments. The General Plan policies demonstrate that the land use policies of the Plan have been closely correlated with the transit and rail service policies in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the GMC. 3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation node corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. SCAG staff comments. The City's five redevelopment project areas have been merged AG-11 in this Project. The objectives of the Merged Project are fully consistent with this policy, where recycling and redevelopment activities are concerned. 3.17 Support and encourage settlIment patterns which encourage a range of urban densities. AG-12 SCAG staff comments. The Land Use Element of the General Flan, on which the 7 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler Merged Project is based, adequately provides for a range of urban densities for the City. 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. SCAG staff cam-_ enis. Policies related to the equitable provision of services have been adequately reflected in the General Plan, which have been incorporated by reference into the Merged Project. B. The Regional Mobility Chapter (RMCI also has policies, all of which are core, that pertain to the proposed project. This chapter links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption. promoting transportation -friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among the relevant policies in this chaptf-r are the following: 4.01 Promote Transportation Demand Management {TDM) programs along with transit and ridesharing facilities as a viable and desirable part of the overall mobility program while recognizing the particular needs of individual subregions. 4.03 Support the extension of 7DM program implementation to non -commute trips for public and private sector activities. 4.04 Support the coordination of land -use and transportation decisions with land -use and transportation capacity, taking into account the potential for demand management strategies to mitigate travel demand if provided for as a part of the entire package. 4.27 Urban form, land -use and site -design policies should include requirements for safe and convenient non -motorized transportation, including the development of bicycle and pedestrian friendly environments near transit. SCAG staff comments: The Merged Project incorporates several General Plan policies speak to the need for a Transportation Demand System. The policies highlight the various strategies which should be pursued including: provision of employee incentives for utilizing alternative transportation modes, encouragement of flex -time, staggered work hours, etc., use of multiple -occupancy vehicles for non -work trips, support and promotion of ridesharing, encouragement of TDM Plans for major new non-residential E2 AG-13 AG-14 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler development, and encouragement of technologies which optimize safe traffic flow and manage traffic congestion. These TDM measures appear to be adequate in view of the character of development that the Plan seeks to achieve within the City. The City has also adopted a Transportation Demand Management ordinance, established a Capital Improvement Program, and a Level of Service Deficiency Plan. The City's TDM regulations apply to any discretionary permit for commercial, industrial, institutional, or other uses that are determined to employ 100 or more persons. The General Plan also calls for expanded bicycle routes which link with pedestrian trails and bus routes as well as other cities. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As described above the Draft EIR for Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project appears to be generally consistent with the pertinent policies and objectives of the Regional Mobility and Growth Management Chapters of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. However, the growth projections proposed by the General Plan differ to some degree with the projections that resulted from previous consultation efforts between the City and SCAG. Efforts have been underway to resolve these differences. E AG-1a AG-15 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Roles and Authorities THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS is a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, the Association is designated as it Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Among its other mandated roles and responsibilities, the Association is: + Designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §134(g)-(h), 49 U.S.C. §1607(0-(g) ct seq., 23 C.F.R. §450. and 49 C.F_R. §613. The Association is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080. 0 Responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b)-(c). The Association is also designated under 42 U.S.C_ §7504(a) as a Co -Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District. • Responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans and Programs to the State Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U_S.C. §7506. • Responsible, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2. for reviewing all Congestion Management Plaits (CAfPs) for consistency with regional transportation plans required by Section 65080 of the Government Code. The Association must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such programs within the region. R The authorized regional agency for Inter -Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A-95 Review)_ + Responsible for reviewing, pursuant to Sections 15125(b) and 15206of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Impact Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans. • The authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) • Responsible for preparation of the Regional Ilousu+g Needs Assessment, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). • Responsible (along with the San Diego Association of Governments and the Santa Barbara County/Cities Arca Planning Council) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Afanagemeat Plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25135-3. a..,...,.—Y It_ 1"s H_ FNIPLOYMFNTGP3 10 STATE OF CAUFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY pETE WILSON. Gownmor DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, ®� AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES 245 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 475 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802-4455 (310)590-5311 TELEFAX (3101 590-5301 August 15, 1996 Stephan V. Kohler Project Manager CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Department of Economic Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: DEIR for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange SCH #96041075 The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the comments submitted in the subject DEIR. After reviewing the document's impact and mitigation measures, the Division does not have any additional comments to make at this time. DOG-i Please contact R. K. Baker or Edward Santiago in the Long Beach office, if you have any questions regarding the Division's laws or regulations, or if any amendments to the existing document may require additional Division review. Our address and phone numbers are located in the letterhead above. sincerely, :Richard K. Baker District Deputy orange County Vector Control District DISTRICT OFFICE • 13001 GARDEN GROVE BLVD., GARDEN GROVE, CA 92643 MAIUNG ADDRESS • P.O. BOX 87, SANTA ANA, CAUFORNIA 92702 PHONE (714) 971-2421 • FAX (714) 971-3"0 BOARD OF TRUSTEES -19% PREStDF.NT . FLOR£HCE CAML£ER VICE-PRESrD£HT • LARRY A. HERMAN SECRETARY . YOLLIAM OWA ANAHEIM LEONARD J- LAVVICID BREA KARL H_ FANNING BUENA PARK L41CIVZL DAVIS COSTA MESA WILLLAM BANDARUK CYPRESS LINCOLN CASTRO DANA POINT ROBERT D_ CARR FOUNTAIN VALLEY LAURMNN COOK FULLERTON FLORENCE CAVILEER GARDEN GROVE T:gµAS L- PETROSINE HUNTMGYON BEACH ROBERT J. EGA+N UMNE ROSEMARY DUGARD LAGUNA BEACH GRANT McCOMBS LAGUNA IIn.LS OR PHILIP D- HANF LAGUNA NIGUEL VACANT LA HABRA VACANT LAKE FOREST JEAN D. JAMBON LA PALMA LARRY A. HERMAi LOS ALAMITOS VACANT MISSION VtEJO SYD GORDON NEWPORT BEACH PEGGY DUCEY ORANGE FRED L BARRERA PLACENTIA NORMAN Z ECKENROOE SAN CLEMENTE GLENN EOwA.RO ROY SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO VACANT SANTA ANA WILLIAM L- BOYNTON SEAL BEACH FRANK IASZLO STANTON DON MARTVeET TUSTIN FABNE KAY COMBS VILLA PARK WALLAM OLNA WESTMINSTER FRANK FRY. JR YORBA LINDA JAW HELF COUNTY OF ORANGE R. PAUL WEBB DISTRICT MANAGER GILBERT L CHALLET August 5, 1996 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen V. KohIer, Project Manager AUG - 8 1996 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street DEPARTMENT OF Huntington Beach, California 92648 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RE: Vector Control Evaluation for Draft EIR No. 96-2 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Kohler: I have reviewed the above project site and do not anticipate any significant vector problems. Hantavirus associated illness has been confirmed in California and it has been determined that most of the human cases have been linked to exposure to virus - infected deer mice, Peromyscus manicularus, a species found throughout the state. In Orange County, deer mice are common in canyons, foothills, and coastal bluffs. Hantavirus infected mice have been collected from several sites in the county. State and local agencies have developed protocol for dealing with rodents and Hantavirus. Risk of Hantavirus infection is low for persons who do not have direct rodent contact or do not live in dwellings heavily contaminated with rodent droppings Information on Hantavirus is enclosed. During the landscape phase of the project, plants such as Algerian ivy, bougainvillea, oleander, palm trees, etc. should be avoided. A list of alternate types of ground cover is enclosed. In addition, after the Iandscape phase is completed, an effort should be made to eradicate rats or ground squiirels that may attempt to reestablish themselves in berms or slopes. These animals can cause erosion, damage property, and carry disease abei,Ls such as those flhai cause plague. VC-1 Also, all project sites should be graded for proper runoff to avoid standing water that could breed mosquitoes. Furthermore, off-street drains should be designed VC-2 to carry runoff water into catch basins, retention basins, or directed toward existing natural drainage. Thank you for allowing our comments on this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Gary Reynolds Biologist GR/cs Eric. A voClor PS any insect Or Other arlhr000d, rodent or other animal of public health sfgniflCence Capable of Causing human dlscomfor% ;n)ury, Or capable of hart>Orin9 Or tran3mitimo the Causative agents 01 human disease. HANTAVIRUS INFORMATION SHEET DEER MICE Peromyscus maniculatus Hantavirus associated illnesses have been confirmed in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Nevada, California, Louisiana, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, and North Dakota. It has been determined that most of the human cases have been linked to exposure to a virus -infected deer mouse species (Peromyscus maniculatus) that is found throughout the State of California and has been collected frequently from numerous canyon and foothill localities in Orange County. Studies continuing since 1993 have shown that there is evidence that the virus currently exists in approximately 10 percent of the deer mice population in Orange County. The California Department of Health Services recommends that homes with heavy deer mice infestations be cleaned thoroughly where deer mice droppings have accumulated. Asa precaution, the droppings should be misted from above with a mixture of one part household bleach to five parts water and wet to the point of just being damp but not soaked. They should then be cleaned up, placed in a double plastic bag, and then disposed of. Dry droppings should not be swept or otherwise handled because of the possibility of dust particles being inhaled; dust masks and rubber gloves are recommended. Deer mice should be controlled in cabins and other structures through exclusion, trapping, and use of approved rodenticides. House mice and rats and their droppings should also be treated with the same precautions. ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT 13001 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92843 • Mailing Address: P. O. Box 87. Santa Ana. CA 92702 (714)971-2421 • 1-800-734.2421 1996-N HANTAVIRUS ILLNESS AND HOW TO AVOID IT COMMON QUESTIONS AND THEIR ANSWERS The recent confirmation of eight fatal cases of Hantavirus infection in California has heightened interest in this disease and how its transmission may be prevented. The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide available information and to answer common questions. Q: What is Hantavirus? A: Hantaviruses are a family of four previously identified viruses found in rodents. These viruses have caused serious health problems in other parts of the world (mainly the Far East and Scandinavia). The virus responsible for the recent U.S. deaths is a fifth Hantavirus strain that is apparently unique to North America. This new strain attacks the lungs, instead of the kidneys as the other strains did, resulting in the disease termed Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Q: How is this virus transmitted? A: The virus is believed to be principally carried by a common rodent, the deer mouse. This mouse is found throughout North America and in every California county. Infected rodents shed live virus in saliva, feces, and urine. Humans are infected when they encounter and inhale aerosolized microscopic particles that contain dried rodent urine or feces. In other parts of the world, rodent bites have caused human infection with related Hantaviruses. Insects and mites have not been studied extensively to determine their role in Hantavirus transmission. Q: How dangerous is this virus? A: This strain appears to be extremely dangerous to those who are infected with it. More than half of those known to be infected by the virus have died. While dangerous to individuals, its means of transmission is so unusual that most people are very unlikely to encounter the virus; it poses little threat to the general California population. Q: Can people infect each other? A: There is no evidence of human -to -human transmission of Hantaviruses. No one believes the virus will start an epidemic. No health care workers have been infected while caring for infected patients. Q: flow long does it take to develop symptoms after exposure? A: Typically one to two weeks, but the range may be as wide as a few days up to six weeks. Q: What are the symptoms? A: Typical cases of ARDS initially seem similar to the flu: high fever, muscle aches, cough, and headache. After several days, respiratory problems worsen rapidly. The lungs fill with fluid and victims die of respiratory failure. Q: Is there any treatment? A: At the moment, it appears there is no generally effective treatment for this Hantavirus. Physicians have been administering ribavirin, an antiviral drug, experimentally to suspected victims. Too few people have been treated to draw any conclusions about its effectiveness. Q: Is Hantavirus disease (ARDS) present in California? A: Yes, Six Californians have died between 1984 and 1995 from Hantavirus ARDS. All of these people had close contact with rodents, including deer mice in California. Q: Are California deer mice and other rodents infected with Hantavirus? A: Yes. Twenty counties have records of Sin Nombre Virus (SNV) positive deer mice; 12.2 percent seropositive statewide. Harvest mice and meadow mice have been found positive for related Hantaviruses that have not been associated with human disease. Q: Do rodents in urban areas carry the Hantavirus? A: Again, very little is known about the extent and distribution of the virus at this time. However, all known cases of human Hantavirus infection have been acquired in rural locations. Q: Are deer mice the only animals that carry the disease, and how do I tell deer mice from other mice? A: Deer mice are the most abundant, widely distributed, and probably the most common carrier of the virus. It is difficult to properly identify mice. All rodents should be avoided. Q: What do I do if I am going into a cabin or rural home with rodent droppings in it? A: Dwellings with evidence of severe infestation (e.g., substantial collections of rodent droppings or dead animals present) should fust be aired -out while unoccupied. Rodent debris should be thoroughly wetted with a household disinfectant or a 1 to 5 dilution of household bleach in water to reduce formation of dust aerosols. Debris should then be WIPED UP and placed in double plastic bags for disposal, together with any cleanup materials such as paper towels, etc. DO NOT use vacuum cleaners or sweep with brooms, which will create air -borne dust. Use of gloves, dust mist masks, long-sleeved clothing, and protective eyewear may help prevent personal exposure. Debris and dead animals should be soaked in disinfectant (e.g., the diluted bleach solution or phenol -based cleaning solution) and buried or disposed of as directed by local health officials. Rodent -proofing measures should be applied to dwellings to prevent animal entry. Keep children and pets away from the area until it has been disinfected and completely cleaned. Q: What do I do if I find a dead rodent in my house or cabin? A: Disinfect, remove, and discard it as described above. Q: Should I set out traps to catch the mice? A: Mice and rats should not be allowed in buildings. Snap traps (not cage traps) can be used, but direct contact with the animal and its droppings should be avoided. Follow the precautions described above. Traps should be disinfected following use or disposed of with the dead animal. After eliminating rodents from a building, the conditions that attracted them there (e.g., food sources, overstuffed furniture, etc.) should be corrected. Q: Is it safe to go camping? A: Yes, but it is always important to avoid contact with animals, their burrows, nests, and especially their droppings. Q: Is it all right to take my pets along on my camping trip? A: It is always better to leave pets at home or in a kennel for their own safety and yours. If pets must be taken, they should always be confined or on a leash. Because of the danger of pets acquiring or transmitting other wildlife -associated diseases to their owners, pets should always be vaccinated for rabies and regularly treated for fleas (carriers of bubonic plague) and ticks (carriers of Lyme disease and relapsing fever). Q: What special measures should 1 take if 1 do go camping? A: Avoid areas with high rodent activity (e.g., burrows) or where rodent feces are evident. Store all food in containers sealed with lids. Do not feed chipmunks or other wild animals. Wear an insect repellent. With prudent precautions and behavior, undue worry can be avoided. Enjoy your trip. Q: Are children, pregnant women, and the elderly at higher risk than the general population? A: The ARDS Hantavirus illness is so rare that a greater susceptibility in these groups cannot be detennined. Proximity to and contact with rodents and their urine and feces appears to be the most important factor in determining who becomes ill with Hantavirus. Q: Will the "fume bombs" sold over-the-counter kill the virus? A: Probably not. The virus is best inactivated by contact with a liquid disinfectant such as diluted household bleach, as previously described. Q: Whom should I contact for mor- information? A: Call your County Health Depar merit listed in the Government Section at the front of your telephone directory. If you feel ill and are concerned, contact your personal physician, who will work with your County Health Department and the State Health Department. Please do not call the State Health Department directly. (Modified from California Department of Health Services Bulletin) ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT 13001 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove. CA 92843 • Mailing Addtess= P. O. Box 87. Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714)971.2421 • 1-800-734-2421 1996 PEST CONTROL BULLETIN NO. 49 ALTERNATIVE GROUND COVER TO ALGERIAN IVY Algerian Ivy, a popular ground cover in Orange County, is known to harbor roof rats. For this reason the Orange County Vector Control District in cooperation with the California Department of Health, has developed a list of substitute ground covers not attractive to rats. The list is accompanied by a brief description of each species named. When purchasing these plants, check with your nurseryman for more specific information regarding your location. 1. Ajuga, Bronze (Ajuga reptans atropurpurea) This plant has bronze colored leaves with blue flowers, grows from 2 to 4 inches and is considered to be a hardy species. Good in sun or shade, planted 6 to 12 inches apart. 2. Giant Ajuga (Ajuga crispa) A large ajuga plant, this species is very hardy, has metallic colored leaves with blue flowers and will grow to 9 inches in height. May be planted in sun or shade, space 12 to 18 inches apart. 3. Camomile (Anthemis nobihs) A deep turf is produced by this plant and it can be mowed. Grows to a 6 inch height if not cut. Good around stepping stones and walkways. Produces a pleasant fragrance when leaves are crushed. Plant in sun, 6 to 12 inches apart. 4. Creeping Speedwell (Veronica repens) Dense green leaves with blue spring flowers. This hardy plant grows to a height of 6 inches. Prefers sun or light shade, plant 12 to 18 inches apart. 5. Creeping Thyme (Thymus serphyllum) Small, light green leaves with lavender, white or pink flowers. Reaches 4 inches in height, prefers sunny areas and should be planted at 10 inch intervals. 6. Dichondra (Dichondra repens) Familiar lawn plant can also be used as ground cover. Grows to 3 inches in height and with- stands moderate traffic. 7. Germander (Teucrium chamaedrys) Bright green foliage, resembling mint. Spreads well. Lavender flowers appear in spring. Prefers sun and warm climate, spreads rapidly. Reaches 10 inches in height and should be planted at 10 to 12 inch intervals. 8. Goldmoss Stonecrop This ground cover is a hardy, succulent evergreen which will do well in sun or shade. They will grow to 3 inches in height and should be planted 6 to 12 inches apart_ 9. Hahns Ivy (Hedera helix) Good ground cover for erosion control. Grows well in sun or shade to a height of 12 inches. Should be spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. 10. Needle Point Ivy This subspecies of Hahns Ivy has the same characteristics, except the leaves are pointed. Plant the same as Hahns Ivy. 11. Mondo Grass (Ophiopogon japonicum) Evergreen and grass -like, this plant will reach 10 inches in height. Plant's appearance improves with age, and is very hardy. Space 6 to 8 inches apart. 12. Sand Strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis) Popular ornamental plant in Orange County. Very hardy and rapid. spreading. Reaches a height of 8 inches. Plant 12 to 14 inches apart. 13. Snow -in -Summer (Cerasdum tomentosum) A low spreading perennial with grayish foliage. Does well in hot, dry areas. Grows to 6 inches in height and should be spaced 18 to 24 inches apart. 14. Spring Cinquefoil (Potentilla versa) Has attractive palmate, strawberry -like foliage, dark green in color. Sprcads rapidly and produces a bright yellow flower. Grows to 6 inches in height and should be spaced a foot apart. Very hardy. 15. Trailing African Daisy (Osteospermum fruticosus) A good erosion control ground cover, this popular plant blooms through spring and summer. It will reach a height of 18 inches and is very hardy. Plant 12 to 18 inches apart. 16. Wooly Yarrow (Achillea tomentosa) Olive green foliage, spreads rap:"I and is good for erosion control. Produces yellow flowers in the spring and is hardy. Grows to 9 inches high and should be planted 6 to 12 inches apart. ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT 13001 GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD GARDEN GROVE, CA 92643 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 87, SANTA ANA, CA 92702 (714) 971-2421 - 1 (800) 734-2421 The Gas Campanya annge Coast Region July 31. 1996 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach. CA 92648 Attention_ Mr. Stephen V. Kohler. Project Manager RECEIVED AUG - 5 1996 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Subject:— DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT No. 96-2 FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project. but only as on information service_ Its inteni is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Cos service to the project could be served from existing mains without any signifianl impact on the environment The service will be in accordance with the company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements ore made. The ovailobilily of na[ural gas service. as set forth in this letter. is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility. the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply qr the condition under which service is available. gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) single—family Multi —family units Yearly 750 therms/year/dwelling unit 475 therms/yeor/dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1985 and it should not be implied [hat any particular home. apartment or tract or homes will use these amounts of energy. We hove developed several programs which ore available. upon request, to provide ossis[once in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for o particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy programs. please contact this office at 1(800)427-2000. for assistance - Sincerely. ^ . Robert S_ Worlh Technical Supervisor KRC oltochment 1 soumern C4firprnia Gan Company ,1,1a;1,nq.4Cdrrj1.- 80r M4 Anah,tim. CA 92dOI-M4 GS-1 EIRRES.DOC ATTACHMENT A REVISED DRAFT EIR SECTION 4.13 9/26/96-1 \RSG630ViiR'&L%PON5F DOO, 4.13 SCHOOLS 4.13. I JDaSTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Merged Project Area is currently served by one high school district and three elementary school districts. The Huntington Beach Union High School District (HBUHSD) includes the entire City of Huntington Beach, as well as portions of the cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Seal Beach, and Westminster, and portions of unincorporated territory in Orange County.' 'Me Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD), Westminster School District (WSD), and Ocean View School District (OVSD) also provide educational services to the Merged Project Area. Figure 4.13.1 identifies the location of the schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Each site name in Figure 4-13.1 is followed by its school district designation. There are no schools located within the Merged Project Area; however, one elementary school (Oak View Elementary) is located directly adjacent to Oakview. High Schools The HBUHSD operates four high schools serving the Merged Project Area. They are the Huntington Beach High School, Westminster High School, Marina High School, and the Ocean View High School. Each facility serves grades 9-12_ The District does not have any schools that are on a year-round schedule. "fable 4.13.A provides information on the existing enrollments and capacities for each of the four high schools that serve the Merged Project Area. The number of portables indicated is in addition to the number of classrooms identified. MiddlelVementary Schools Huntington Beach City School District The HBCSD has 13 facilities within the City of Huntington Beach, four of which serve the Merged Project Area. Of the four schools, two arc elementary schools (Kettler Elementary and Smith Elementary) and two are middle schools (Dwyer Middle and Sowers Middle). The grades served, capacities, and enrollment for the schools serving the Merged Project Area are listed in Table 4.13.A. The school district boundaries were set by the State Department of Edu- cation prior to the determination of the City boundaries, and were not changed to coincide with City boundaries. 912"6«1-URSG6W..tRISECT4.13-WPD» 4.13-1 SEAL B._AC'ld T = d Westminster High Stacey wS� ediate �? (HBUHSD) ( ) o ! �. Cleggg Elem. �'t�ST�!!NSTER (4VSD) ■ BOLSA xt� Schroeder Elem.A w x (WSD) S • �. EJc:GEa Marina Hrggh (HBUHSD} A Sun View Elem. Spring View Middle Oak VresvElem. (OVSD) _ (0VSD) ■ (OVSD) ` I f+4w Y. Redewlop«r..r Aral •\ j Golden View Elem. 2 =— NaFw`a rOUNTr_I?i ` VALLEY Marine Vint Middle ■ (OVSI) 1 I E S (OVSD) _�__. _ E SLATE:-. '� ) i ,A Ocean Vine High u,. Hope Vier Elem_ ■ (HBUHSD) "gyp,, (OVSD) Mesa View Middle — ' T:�E-ERT ORANGE (OVSD) •� 201. SA Curt,} 1 4 LEGEND �•'� City Boundary Redevelopment Areas High School ■ Middle School Elementary School 6119r96(RSG 630) N LSA Scale in Miles O 05 r - s ELLIS ? z 1 n � ' I i S� Huntington Beach High ( l i (HBUHSD) _ I tli`7RSf0:i` c I It, 4^ Di.yerMiddle �� Smith Elem. I f% (HBCSD) \ 1 I (NBCSD) i Sowers Middle ! (1lBCSl)) •t Jut..?CUS . I Kehler Eli jr (NBCSD) f f1 . k\! I:: err COSTA 1 ►'=_SA Figure 4.13.1 Schools Serving the 4 13 Redevelopment Project Area Table 4.13.A - Schools Serving the Merged Project Area Number of Student Current Remaining Percentage Classrooms Name of School Capacity Enrollment Capacity of Capacity (Portables) 11igb Scboots (9.12) Huntington Beach High School 2,266 2,145 121 95% 80(0) (HBUIISD) Ocean View High School (HBUHSD) 1,989 1,640 349 8296 53(16) Manna High School (HBUHSD) 2,367 2,055 312 87% 75(7) Westminster High School (HBUHSD)) 2,563 2,322 241 91% 89(0) Total 9,185 8,162 1,023 89% Afiddle Scbools (6-8) Mesa View .Middle School (OVSD) Spring View Middle School (OVSD) Manne View Middle School (OVSD) Stacey Intermediate School (WSD) Dwyer Muddle School (I-IBCSD) Sowers Middle School (IiBCSD) Total h7ementary Schools (K-S) Oak View Elementary School (OVSD) Sun View Flementary School (OVSD) Hope View Elementary School (OVSD) Golden View Elementary School (OVSD) Clegg Elementary School (WSD) Schroeder Elementary School (WSD) Kettler Elementary School (HBCSD) Smith Elementary School (HBCSD) Total 740 701 39 95% 24(4) 850 826 24 97% 26(3) 800 703 97 88% 25(7) 764 709 55 93% 30(1) 1,080 870 210 81% 45(0) 1,110 1,146 (36) 103% 31(10) 5,344 4,955 389 93% 617 617 0 100% 19(6) 470 440 30 94% 15(2) 620 593 27 96% 23(3) 620 561 59 90% 22(3) 420 481 (61) 115% 16(2) 420 449 (29) 107% 15(2) 690 686 4 99% 22(3) 690 770 (80) 112% 23(6) 4,547 4,597 (50) 101% .Source Huntington Beach City School Distnct, Development 1 oe f-'indirsgs Report, ?March 14, 1996.; Huntington Beach Union 1 iigh School District, Development Fee Findings Report, February 27, 1996; personal communication with Ocean View School District and Westminster School District - Ocean View School District 9f2W)6«I:VtSG630\E1R\SECI-4-13 WPU» 4-13-3 There are approximately 641 residences within the Merged Project Area served by the OVSD. The District has six schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of the six schools, four are elementary schools (Oak View Elementary, Sun View Elementary, Hope View Elementary, and Golden View Elementary) and two are middle schools (Mesa View Middle and Spring View Middle). Table 4.13,A iden- tifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers. Westminster School District There are no residences within the Merged Project Area served by the WSD. The District has three schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of the three schools, two are elementary schools (Clegg Elementary and Schroeder Elemen- tary) and one is an intermediate school (Stacey Intermediate). Table 4.13.A identifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers. 4.13.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE A significant impact to public schools would occur if the anticipated future student population generated by the Amendment/Merger exceeded the antici- pated capacity of school facilities located within the affected district, and the overcrowding resulted in some other related physical impact, that caused a significant effect on the environment. 4.13.3 PROJECT .IMPACTS Based upon Section 15131(a) of CEQA and recent court interpretations, the analysis of environmental impacts resulting from a project must focus on the physical effects of the project. For schools, this means that potential classroom overcrowding and the potential cost of constructing new classrooms are not in themselves adverse environmental effects- CEQA applies only to activities that will cause a physical change in the environment. A project's social and eco- nomic effects can be relevant to an EIR's analysis if they are shown to lead to physical impacts on the environment. In response to the claim that increased student enrollment is a significant envi- ronmental impact, the court in Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of the University of California noted that in prior court decisions it was the need for construction of new schools, not increased enrollment or potential overcrowd- ing, that triggered detailed CEQA review. Student overcrowding is not a change in the physical environment and, therefore, should not be treated as an impact on the environment_ Increased enrollment can cause a significant environmen- tal impact under CEQA where a change in physical conditions, such as classroom or new school construction, will occur. In other words, there must be a chain of events caused by a project or program that causes a physical change to the environment. Overcrowding by itself is not an environmental impact. Because increased enrollment is not an environmental impact, the court held the Regents had no duty under CEQA to commit additional funds to mitigate student enroll- ment increases. 9l26/96«1.1RSG630\EIRSEC7'4.13 WPD» 4. 13-4 High Schools Recently passed SB1287 amended State law to limit a public agency's ability to levy fees, charges or dedication against a development project for the construc- tion or reconstruction of school facilities. Under this amended State law, only fees that can be established to help finance school facilities are the developer fee funding, described below, and community facilities district financing. The current State statutory development fees levied for residential development is $1.84 per square foot and $0.30 per square foot for commercial development. The elementary school districts (grades K-8), including EIBCSD, OVSD, and WSD, receive 61 percent of the developer fees. The high school district, HBUI-ISD, receives the remaining 39 percent. This E1R describes the options for responding to increased student enrollment. This EIR analysis also recognizes that the school district will decide which solu- tion to implement. It is not the purpose of this document to dictate policy to the school districts to select a specific implementation program to address needs created by the students generated by the Amendment/Merger or to suggest that the districts employ a particular mitigation approach. As the Merged Project Area is developed and student numbers increase, it is anticipated that the school districts will make decisions regarding the placement of the students on the basis of policies then in effect on and current circumstances and options. Each subse- quent project within the Merged Project Area subject to CEQA will be assessed to determine whether there is a significant impact on schools. The analysis that follows concentrates on the predicted student population generated from pro- jected development within the Amendment/Merger, possible measures that could be implemented to provide adequate facilities for that population, and the potential adverse impacts that could result from those choices. Huntington Beach Union High School District HBUHSD uses a student generation factor of .1159 per dwelling unit. This is based on an average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell- ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000 square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should he increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 4,500 square feet, to account for additional bedrooms. Huntington Beach High School According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FMP), 1IBHS has a total capacity of 2,266 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,145 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 121 students. As indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at HBYIS is 80, with no portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular 912"6"1 \ASG630\EM5FCT4-13 wpo- 4.13-5 academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,400 to 2,640 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 255 to 495 students. HBHS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put 1-IBHS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Yorktown -lake and Main -Pier are within the attendance area of I-1131-IS. There are no planned residential areas associated with redevelopment actions within Yorktown -Cake; however, based upon the anticipated redevelopment actions in Main -Pier, 563 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .1159 results in an increase of approximately 65 students to HBHS. This addition to HBIIS will not signifi- cantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capac- ity. Ocean View High School According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FMP), Ocean View High School (OVI IS) has a total capacity of 1,989 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 1,640 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 349 students. As indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent class- rooms at OVI-IS is 53, with 16 portable classrooms. When the number of perma- nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,070 to 2,277 students. 'there- fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 81 to 288 students. OVI-IS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put OVHS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Oakview and Talbert -Beach are within the attendance area of OVHS. There are no planned residential units associated with redevelopment actions within Oakview; however, based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in Talbert - Beach, 43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .1159 results in an increase of approxi- mately five students to OVHS. This addition to OVHS will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capacity. Marina High School According to the District's 1995 FM11, the Marina High School has a total capacity of 2,367 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,055 sru- dents, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 312 students. As indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at MI IS is 75, with 7 porta- 9/26,96«1:\RSG63T,r.[R',S[:C7'4.13- %PIT, 4.13-6 ble classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,460 to 2,706 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 93 to 339 students. Marina High School is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put Marina High School on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center; therefore, no additional students will be generated upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to Marina High School from additional students generated by the project. Westminster High School According to the District's 1995 FMP, the Westminster High School has a total capacity of 2,563 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,322 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 241 students. As indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at Westminster High School is 89, with no portahle classrooms. When the number of perma- nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,670 to 2,937 students. There- fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 107 to 374 students. The school is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put it on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center; therefore, no additional students will be generated, upon implementation of the Amend ment/,NIcrger. "Mere is no impact to Westminster High School from additional students generated by the project. Middle Schools Huntington Beach City School District The HBCSD uses a student generation factor of .3095 per dwelling unit. This is based on an average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell- ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000 square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 4,500 square feet, to account for additional bedrooms. 912(96« t-\RSG 63W tt's rcT4.13.wp DD 4.13-7 Dwyer Middle School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in March, 1996, Dwyer Middle School (DMS) has a total capacity of 1,080 students. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 870 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 210 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of per- manent classrooms at DMS is 45, with no portable classrooms. When the num- ber of permanent classrooms is multiplied by the classroom Ioading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity increases to 1,350 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 270 students. DMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put DMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no planned residential areas within Yorktown -Lake; therefore, no additional students will be generated, upon implementation of the Amend- ment/Merger. There is no impact to DMS from additional students generated by the project. Sowers Middle School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in March, 1996, Sowers Middle School (SMS) has a total capacity of 1,110 students. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 1,146 students, leaving an approximate capac- ity deficit of 36 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of perma- nent classrooms at SMS is 31, with 10 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 1,230 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students. SMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put SMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A small segment of Main -Pier is within the Sowers Middle School attendance area; however, this segment is composed of a neighborhood commercial strip. There are no residential projects included in this area; therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementation of the Amendmentlivlerger. There is no impact to SMS from additional student generated by the project. Westminster School District Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of Stacey Intermedi- ate School (SIS), the area is not anticipated to generate additional students to SIS. Currently, the area does not have any residential areas nor does it propose any. Therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementation of the Amendment/Nierger. 'I"here is no impact to 9/2fv%6 IARSGG30�EMSECT4-13•wPD» -1.13-8 SIS from additional students generated by the project; however, a discussion on the total capacity at SIS is provided below. Stacey Intermediate School According to the District, total student capacity at Stacey Intermediate School (SIS) is 764 students. Currently, SIS has a student enrollment of 709 students, with a surplus capacity for 55 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at SIS is 30, with 1 portable classroom. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class- room loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 930 students. There- fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 166 students. SIS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put SIS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated, Huntington Center neither has nor proposes any residential land uses. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in no impact to Stacey Intermediate School. Ocean View School District OVSD uses a student generation factor of .30 for single family dwelling units and .04 for multifamily dwelling units. Mesa View Middle School According to the District, total student capacity at Mesa View ?diddle School (MUMS) is 740 students. Currently, MUMS has a student enrollment of 701 students, with a surplus capacity of 39 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at MUMS is 24, with 4 portable class- rooms. The District has indicated that new development in the School District would result in the addition of 55 students to the District's facilities, which they indicate are at capacity. However, when the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34 students, the total student capacity is increased to 952 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 212 students. MVMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put MUMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A portion of Oakview and all of Talbert -Beach are within the attendance area of MUMS. As stated earlier, redevelopment actions within Oakview will not result in new housing units. However, based upon anticipated redevelopment in "Talbert -Beach, 43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .30 results in an increase of 9l2&96«l.\RSG6301EIR\SECT4- L3.WPD» 4.13-9 approximately 13 students to hiVMS. The addition to MUMS will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the addi- tional students using either method of calculating the surplus capacity. There- fore, the number of students to MUMS resulting from projected development within Talbert -Beach is incremental and considered less than significant. Spring View Middle Scbool According to the District, total student capacity at Spring View Middle School (SUMS) is 850 students. Currently, SVMS has a student enrollment of 826 stu- dents, with a surplus capacity of 24 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at SVMS is 26, with 3 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 986 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 136 students. SVti1S is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put SVMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of SUMS, the area is not anticipated to generate any additional students, to SVMS. "There arc no existing or planned residential areas within this area; therefore, no additional students will be generated by projected development within the Amend- ment/Merger. There is no impact to SV?vIS from additional students generated by the. project. Elementary Schools Huntington Beach City School District As identified above, the FIBCSD uses a student generation factor of .3095 per dwelling unit. Kettler Elementary School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in March, 1996, Kettler Elementary School (KES) has a total capacity of 690 stu- dents. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 686 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity of four students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classroom at K]S is 22, with 3 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 750 students, with an available capacity of 64 student spaces. 9,2696-1 vtsG65Oj-iEZ;r%Eci,4-13-IXTD» 4.13-10 KES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put KES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A portion of Main -Pier (the area southeast of 1st Street) is within the attendance area of Kettler Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in this part of the area, approximately 350 residential units arc expected with the Waterfront Project. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .3095 results in an increase of approximately 77 students to KES. 'this addition to KES will not significantly affect the school's facilities since capacity exists to serve 64 of the additional 77 students when the maximum allowable classroom loading capacity District is used. At most, one additional portable would be needed at the school, or other arrangements as discussed earlier in this section would need to be implemented to provide additional capacity to handle the anticipated growth. Because the overage is a very small number, 13 students, the impact to KES is considered less than significant. Smith Elementary School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in March, 1996, Smith Elementary School has a total capacity of 690 students_ Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 770 students, leaving an approximate surplus deficit of 80 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of perma- nent classrooms at Smith Elementary is 23, with 6 portable classrooms. when the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class- room loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 870 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 180 students. Smith Elementary is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put Smith Elementary on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A portion of Main -Pier (the area north west of 1st Street) is within the attendance area of Smith Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in this part of the area, approximately 213 residential units are expected (150 with the Chevron Project and 63 with the "Third Block West Project). Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .3095 results in an increase of 66 students to Smith Elementary. This addition to Smith Elementary will not significantly affect the school's facilities since adequate capacity exists to serve the additional students when the maximum allowable classroom loading capacity specified by the District is used_ Therefore, the impact to Smith Elemen- tary is considered less than significant. Westminster Schoot District Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of both Clegg Ele. mentary School (CES) and Schroeder Elementary School (SF.S), Huntington Center will not generate any additional students to CES or SF.S_ Currently, the 9116/96«1.\ASG630T.IWSECI'4•13 WPD,, 4.13-11 area neither has nor proposes any residential land uses. Therefore, no addi- tional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementa- tion of the AmendmentlIvierger. 'There is no impact to CES or SES from addi- tional students generated by the project; however, a discussion on the schooI's capacities is provided. Clegg Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Clegg Elementary School (CES) is 420 students. Currently, CES has a student enrollment of 481 students, with a surplus deficit for 61 students. As- indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at CES is 16, with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 540 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students- CES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put CES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated, Huntington Center includes no residential land uses. The Amendment/Merger proposes no change in land use for Huntington Center. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in no impact to Clegg Elementary School. Schroeder Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Schroeder Elementary School Schroeder Elementary is 420 students_ Currently, Schroeder lilementary has a student enrollment of 449 students, with a surplus deficit for 29 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at Schroeder Elementary is 15, with 2 portable classrooms. )lien the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 510 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 90 students. Schroeder Elementary is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put Schroeder Elementary on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity mould increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated, the Amendment/Merger proposes no residential land uses for Huntington Center. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in no impact to Schroeder Elementary School. Ocean View School District As identified above, OVSD uses a student generation factor of -30 for single family dwelling units and -04 for multifamily dwelling units. 9aii96«tARSG630\FMSrc74-t3 WPI> 4.13-12 Oak View Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Oak View Elementary School (OVES) is 617 students. Currently, OYES has a student enrollment of 617 stu- dents, with no surplus student capacity available. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at OVES is 19, with 6 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 850 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 233 students, resulting in a surplus student capacity. OVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put OYES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no planned residential uses within Oakview; therefore, no additional students will be generated upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to OYES from additional students generated by the project. Sun View Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Sun View Elementary School (SVES) is 470 students. Currently, SUES has a student enrollment of 440 stu- dents, with a surplus capacity of 30 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at SVES is 15, with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 578 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 108 students. SVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put SVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of SVES, the area is not anticipated to generate any additional students to SVES_ Currently, the area does not have any residential land uses, nor does it propose any. Therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon imple- mentation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SVES from addi- tional students generated by the project. Hope View Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Hope View Elementary School (IIVES) is 620 students. Currently, I-IVES has a student enrollment of 593 Stu- dents, with a surplus capacity of 27 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at LIVES is 23, with 3 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 9f2&96«1 W5G6301EJR%SECT4.13_WPD» 4.13-13 884. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 264 stu- dents. FIVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put FIVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Talbert -Beach is within the attendance area of I-iVE-S. Based upon the proposed redevelopment actions in this area, 43 new housing units are projected. Multi- plying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .30 results in an increase of approximately 13 students to HUES. This addition to FIVES will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capacity. Golden View Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Golden View Elementary School (GVES) is 620 students. Currently, GVES has a student enrollment of 561 students, with a surplus capacity of 59 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at EVES is 22, with 3 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 850. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 230 -% u- dents. GVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District -Acre to make the decision to put GVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated, residential land uses associated with redevelopment actions are not proposed. `therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in no impact to GVES Summaryof Impacts In summary, the potential impacts to schools serving the Merged project Area are considered less than significant. Table 4.13.A indicates student enrollment approaching and sometimes exceeding the student capacity at several schools, as stated by the school districts. However, the districts did not calculate their potential student capacity by multiplying the number of classrooms and portables by the classroom loading capacity, and may have inadvertently under- stated actual capacity. When student capacity is calculated, the student capacity figure increases substantially. Based upon this method of calculation, implementation of projected develop- ment within the Amend ment/Merber will not generate students beyond the total student capacity at any school. Therefore, there appears to be adequate space available to serve additional students. When a year-round school schedule and 9/2"6«1ARSG6301,EIR\5EC 4-13_VVPD» 4.13-14 increased usage of portable classrooms are considered, adequate capacity is assured. In regard to potential project demands for school facilities, the districts collect school impacts fees to the maximum amount permitted by law. With the excep- tion of the establishment of community facility districts for specific develop- ments, no other mitigation measures to meet increasing school enrollments are possible, pursuant to State law (SBA 1287). In addition, the districts will receive Average Daily Attendance financing to fund district teacher salary and other general education expenses. Furthermore, school districts will be entitled to a share of the tax increment revenue generated by the Merged Project. AS discussed in the Project Descrip- tion, Section 3.0, the Amendment/Merger will amend the !Merged Plan as such; therefore, statutory payments provided by Section 33607.7 will be remitted to any affected taxing agency with whom the agency has not entered into a pass through agreement prior to January 1, 1994; the Agency will continue to remit payments in accordance with such pass through agreement in lieu of statutory payments. Such statutory and pass through payments are designed to alleviate any financial burden or detriment that the affected taxing agencies may incur as a result of the Amendment/Mcrger. Because there: is no physical impact to any of the schools and because construc- tion of a new school is not justified, there are no physical consequences that result from the Amendment/Merger. Impacts to the schools serving the Merged Project Area are considered less than significant. 4.13.4 CUMLEATIVE IMPACTS Although the General flan Update FIR identifies that a cumulative increase in the number of students generated would result in cumulative impacts to all of the school districts and their facilities that serve the City of Huntington Beach, the number of additional students resulting from projected development within the Amendment/Merger does not exceed any affected school's existing facilities and capacities. IIBCSD will experience an increase of 143 students as result of the Amendment/Merger; however, this amount is only slightly higher than the student growth projections for HBCSDt. Using the maximum allowable class- room loading capacity specified by HBCSD, the number of students does not exceed HBCSI)'s capacity. Therefore, as previously stated, there arc no physical consequences that result from the Amendment/Merger; therefore, there is no physical impact to any of the schools and construction of a new school or a portion of a school is not justified. Therefore, there are no cumulative impacts resulting from the Amendment/ Merger. Community Systems Associates, Inc_, Development Fee Findings Report, March 14, 1996. 9f2"6«t-Vt5G630\EIR\SFC"I'4-13 WPD- 4.13-15 4.13. S GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Land Use Element and the Public Facilities and Public Services Element of the General Plan Update that will lessen impacts to the affected school districts. The policies are listed below: • Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Ele- ments of the General Plan) (Policy LU2.1.1). • Require that the type, amount, and location of development be corre- lated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and ser- vices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Fle- ments) (Policy LU2.1.2). • Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities (Policy LU 2.1.7). • Require that the proposed annexation areas generate a sufficient tax base or other revenue base to pay for their required or necessary City services (Policy LU3.1.4). • Require that the infrastructure and service prevision to the proposed annexation areas will not create a burden on existing City services and infrastructure (Policy LU3.1.5)- • Accommodate the development of parks, sports facilities, schools, librar- ies, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar community -serving uses in all residential areas, provided that they are compatible with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by the City and other appropriate agencies (Policy LU9.4.1). • Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin one another in order to maximise the use of property, minimize the cost of develop- ment, and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community (Policy LU 9.4.3). • Consider reinstating after -school and summer programs on school play- grounds and fields (Policy RCS 1.1.7). • Continue the dialogue between the City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts regarding the review of measures to alleviate school overcrowding in some areas and available capacity in schools in other areas (Policy PF4.1.1). • Continue communication and cooperation efforts between City officials and the local school districts, especially in the areas of population pro- jections, funding sources, and through annual monitoring of develop- 9/2"&1ARSc6301EIRI5ECr4-13 XTD» 4.13-16 men[ activities, in order to promote a better quality of life for existing and future residents (Policy PF 4.2.1). • Require new development projects to pay appropriate school impact fees to the local school districts (Policy PF 4.2.2). • Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities (Policy PF 4.2.3). • Create, establish, and implement shared responsibility agreements be- tween the City of I luntington Beach and the local school districts for the maintenance and operation of properties and facilities where public recreation activities occur at local school sites (Policy PF 4.3.3)• • Require, in areas where noise levels exceed an exterior Ldn of 60 dB(A) and an interior Ldn of 45 dB(A), that all new development of "noise sensitive" land uses, such as housing, health care facilities, schools, librar- ies, religious facilities, include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits (Policy N 1.2.1). Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the acceptable limits of the City noise ordinance (Policy N 1.2.5). Implementation Programs Development Impacts on Educational Facilities Develop a review process that would require that development impacts be reviewed by the City with the developer and with the school districu prior to project review for determination of necessary mitigations to school impacts. Require developers to meet with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to project approval by the permitting City authority (Program I-,LU 2i�. Improve and Upgrade Services and Facilities The City will: cooperate with the school districts in formulating plans and programs to enhance and upgrade the school facili- ties used by the community for parks, recreation, and educational purposes; and, k. expand the communication and dialogue between the City and the school districts to better understand, coordi- nate, and effectively utilize limited financial and property 9/26/9&c1ARSG630\Eir15ECT4-13-WPtr> 4 .13-17 Fees resources of the City and school districts, in order to max- imire the improvement and upgrading of school facilities within the City (Program I-PF2). New development shall be required to contribute fees to cover the cost of additional facilities and capital improve- ments in accordance with State Nexus legislation (e.g. Governmental Code 65996) and with the needs of each applicable school district. b. Continue to require persons requesting building permits to pay the appropriate school fees to the local school districts prior to issuance (Program I-PF3). Development Review "Through the development review process, review com- ments on development from the school districts (Pro- gram I-PF 7). Interagency Coordination d. The City shall continue to establish meetings with the local school districts to discuss issues of mutual concern and interest. "Ihe City and the local school districts shall utilize consis- tent population projections based on existing, new and proposed development within the City. "Ihe City shall meet with local school districts to develop and implement a shared maintenance and operations agreement for the: a) use of school facilities for public recreational activities; and b) use of City parks for educa- tional purposes (Program I-PF I2). Feasibility Study 'Ihe City will conduct a study evaluating: d. the financial advantages and disadvantages to the City and the community of using closed school sites or operating school sites for public services (Program I-PF 13). 9f26i96« L\RSG630\EttriSLCT'4.13 -WPD,, 4.13-1 s Funding Sources The City shall cooperate and coordinate with the school districts in iden- tifying and soliciting funding from additional sources to support the expansion and development of school facilities in order to enhance the educational opportunities, activities, and programs offered by the school districts, and to address issues facing the school district which affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community (Program I-PF 14). Development Impacts on ,Educational Facilities Develop a review process that would require that development impacts be reviewed by the City with the developer and with the school districts prior to project review for determination of necessary mitigations to school impacts. Require developers to meet with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to project approval by the permitting City authority (Program I-PF 15). Special Studies/Reviews Determine each school's recreational and sports field contribution and determine alternate recreational re- sources available to the neighborhood in the event of school closure. In addition, establish alternative recre- ational options including the leasing and/or acquisition of school facilities (Program I -RCS 7) Interagency Participation and Coordination C. The City will work with and coordinate its earthquake and other emergency response plans with each school district as the school districts prepare earthquake educa- tion programs and develop their own earthquake and other emergency response plans (Program I -EH 2). Emergency Contingency I'lans d_ Coordinate with local school districts in the preparation of emergency contingency plans, including early warning procedures, evacuation plans, emergency facility and shelter utilization, and emergency services availability (Program I-F.H 13). 4.13.6 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation ineasures are not warranted. W269& I 1RSt; 6301r: t R5S ECT+ t 3 WP1> 4.13 -19 4.13.7 LEVEL OF DIPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION In regard to potential project demands of projected development on school facilities, expected increases in students are consistent with the General Plan Update. In addition, pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et. seq, statutory and pass through payments to school districts are con- sidered adequate mitigation for financial burden and detriment incurred as a result of the Amendment/Merger. No unavoidable adverse impacts to schools are expected to result from the project. With implementation of the General Plan policies identified above, the addi- tional demands associated with projected development within the school dis- tricts that serve the City of Huntington Beach will be lessened to a level below significance. 9R6/9&,1A LSG630\r1R1SECT4-13-WPD�> 4.13-20 ATTACHMENT #3 Huntington Center Owner Participation Agreement Joint Public Hearing City Council/Redevelopment Agency October 2, 2000 Item D-1 Huntington Center's Decline 0 The Center was placed in a Redevelopment Project Area in 1984 due to area's decline. ® JC Penney abandoned Center in 1994. 0 Since 1995 Burlington Coat Factory has occupied only two floors of same building. • The Broadway closed its doors in 1996. e Most small retailers have closed their doors since. Deterioration of Huntington Center 0 Huntington Center has been one of Orange County's poorest performers since 1982. v Huntington Center's assessed values have declined from $94 million in 1994 to $45 million today. * Large numbers of shoppers have abandoned the Center (OC Register reported a 7.1 % net loss between 1994 and 1995) . Deterioration of Huntington Center Q0 The Center's deterioration and decline is further documented by the following studies and reports: • Excerpts for the 1996 Plan Amendment • Edinger Corridor Economic Study • Five Year Implementation Plan (Red. Agency) OA Community Clamors for Its Redevelopment eThe City Council and City staff constantly receive comments from City residents indicating the need to do something about the Center's condition. Broad Criteria and Objectives for OPA QP In 1998 Agency established a set of broad criteria and objectives by which proposals were to be measured and shaped. Q1 This Criteria and Objectives were utilized when negotiating with Macerich in 1998 and 1999. 3 Broad Criteria and Objectives for OPA The same Criteria and Objectives was utilized to negotiate the Owner Participation Agreement with Huntington Center Associates, LLC (Ezralow). Owner Participation Process e The purchase of the Center in 1999 by Ezralow triggered the Agency to initiate the Owner Participation process. Agency Board reaffirmed its desire to redevelop and reposition the Center into a high -quality, well integrated retail/entertainment center under unified ownership. 4 Owner Participation Process The redevelopment of the Center implements the redevelopment goals of the Agency and the Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1984 and subsequently amended in 1996. a The Agency needed to to encourage comprehensive transformation to the structural and tenant composition of the Center to achieve its redevelopment. Owner Participation Process aThe Agency believes that the unified development of the Center will allow for the oversight and site control necessary to to effectively redevelop and maintain the Center. s Owner Participation Process March 3, 2000, Agency issues Request For Proposals (RFP) for the entire Center. Of the three proposals submitted only the Ezralow proposal meets the criteria and documentation required by the RFP letter. Ezralow's proposal offered detailed plans, submitted complete financial information, project pro-formas and proposed to redevelop the entire Center. Owner Participation Process On June 19, 2000, Agency Board directed staff to negotiate with Huntington Center Associates, LLC, on an Owner Participation Agreement. 6 Consultants Recommend Unified Development Agency expert economic and financial consultants confirm that the unified development of Center will attract the combination of high caliber tenants to reposition the Center. a Unified development and tenants will attract the necessary financing to reposition the Center. Huntington Center Sedway Group Redevelopment Opportunity a Freeway visibility and access a Strong demographics . 19% of county population within 5 miles • Average household income is $74,700 • 60% of household income > $50,000 Center History 0 JC Penney relocated to Westminster Mall ® Broadway closed, never retenanted ® Increasing vacancy levels • Partial repositioning as value center • Losing market share 8 Sales Performance QP Declining sales volume overall • Certain retailers performing well, showing redevelopment potential v Anchors have mixed performances . Mervyn's: within industry standards . Wards & Burlington: 60% - 70% below Mervyn's Alternative Redevelopment Scenarios a Scenario A: Wards and Burlington Scenario B: Wards; no Burlington Q Scenario C: Neither Wards or Burlington 9 Description of Scenarios W = Montgomm Ward% B = Burlington Coat Factor, Incremental Sales Tax Revenue a Task: Identify scenario which maximizes sale tax revenues a Scenario C generates: . $1 million more than Scenario A (107%) • $600,000 more than Scenario B (43%) 10 Repositioning Needed a Huntington Center's perception is "failed mall" 0 New tenants required for repositioning a Siting and orientation of existing tenants influence repositioning options 0 Retailers' co -tenancy requirements not consistent with current anchors • Wards and Burlington are under -performing v Opportunity to capture untapped sales potential from residents and surrounding communities Assistance Structure e Agency does not have funds with which to assist developer. ® Developer will advance the funds to carry out the project. * Agency will owe developer this assistance. a Agency will repay the developer solely from a portion of the property taxes (Tax Increment) and the sales taxes earned by the City over a 20 year period. Owner Participation Agreement Key Points a Key purpose of OPA is to assist the developer in filling the financial gap necessary to redevelop the Center in accordance with the Agency's criteria and objectives. • Agency's economic consultants, indicate that Agency needs to provide $16.75 million in assistance. Q0 If Montgomery Ward is not included in the project, the Feasibility Gap will be smaller — $15 million in assistance. Assistance Structure a 70% of the net property tax increment based on the assessed value of the Center in excess of $52, 153,000. a 70% of the sales tax revenue earned by the City in excess of $890,000. 12 Assistance Structure Q0 If the Montgomery Ward property is not included in the project, the Agency will only owe the developer $15 million. QD 60% of the property tax increment generated from the Center from assessed values in excess of the current assessed value of $43,228,000. Assistance Structure 60% of the sales tax revenues in excess of $750, 000. The repayment amounts will have an interest rate not -to -exceed 8%. The Agency's obligation does not begin until the new Center is opened. Agency Participation Benefits Agency will also receive 20% of the of Adjusted Gross Project revenues after the developer receives 12% cumulative return on costs, for a maximum period of 20 years. Developer has the right to buyout the Agency's participation after 5 years. Agency Participation Benefits a Buyout is at a capitalization rate of 10% for the years 6 through 10, with a minimum buyout payment of $3 million. a Years 11 through 20 will be at Net Present Value discounted at the Treasury Rate plus 3%, calculated on prior year's actual rental income plus anticipated rental increases for the next 12 months. 14 Community Facilities District a The City/Redevelopment Agency could consider forming a Community Facilities District (CFD). • The purpose is to finance eligible public improvements needed by the Center. • Any difference in the reduced interest rate generated by the CFD bonds will be split 50%-50% between City/Agency and Developer if rate is below the 8% developer advance. Environmental Review a The environmental impacts of the OPA have been evaluated by Environmental Assessment No. 00-1 0. QP The OPA is found to be in accordance with the EIR 96-02 for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. A The EIR contemplated the redevelopment of the Center with larger amounts of square footage than proposed by this project. 15 Agency Recommended Actions QD Adopt Resolution No. 313 approving environmental findings related to the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC. Agency Recommended Actions Adopt Resolution No. 314 approving the Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC, for the redevelopment of the Huntington Center; authorize the Chairman and Agency Clerk to execute the Owner Participation Agreement. Agency Recommended Actions Approve the Cooperation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Huntington Beach, and authorize the Agency Chairman and Agency Clerk to execute such Cooperation Agreement. City Council Recommended Actions Q0 Adopt Resolution No. 2000-94 approving environmental findings related to the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC. 17 City Council Recommended Actions e Adopt Resolution No. 2000-95 approving the Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC, for the redevelopment of the Huntington Center. City Council Recommended Actions Approve the Cooperation Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such Cooperation Agreement. 18 Additional Agency Recommended Action SAuthorize the Executive Director or his designee, the Director of Economic Development, to initiate and conduct negotiations with: Additional Agency Recommended Action a a) Huntington Center Associates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc., a California corporation, for the acquisition of the real property currently occupied by Burlington Coat store and located within the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area, and Additional Agency Recommended Action b) Montgomery Ward Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for the acquisition of Montgomery Ward's real property located within Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. The End 20 Request for City Council/Redevelopment Agency Action Owner Participation Agreement AT 11 Ui`I11IG TON The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC (An Affiliate of the Ezraiow Company) October 2, 2000 Item D-1 f5k,J j-]-o, 1i -z8-O' NOTICE OF A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REGARDING THE POTENTIAL PROPOSED SALE, IF ANY, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO HUNTrNGTON CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND ON THE PROPOSED OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION PER"RAINING THERETO The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (City Council) and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (Agency) will conduct a joint public hearing on Monday, October 2, 2000, at 7:00 p-m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code )3 33000, et seq.), for the purpose of considering the potential proposed sale, if any, of certain property in the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project area to Huntington Center Associates, LLC (Participant). The potential proposed sale, if any, of property to the Participant would be made subject to and in accordance with the California Redevelopment Law and the terms and conditions precedent of the Owner Participation Agreement between the Agency and Participant subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions necessary to carry out the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. The property which is the subject of this joint public hearing (Property) is located in the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area and consists of portions of the shopping center commonly known as the Huntington Center, which is illustrated and designated as the Site on the Site Map in the proposed Owner Participation Agreement. The joint public hearing will be held to consider: The environmental documents referred to below in this Notice with respect to the proposed redevelopment under the Owner Participation Agreement; 2. The potential proposed sale, if any, of the Property in the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project area by the Agency to Participant for redevelopment by Participant of a commercial development; and The proposed Owner Participation Agreement submitted to the Agency, which provides for the proposed sale, if any, of the Property to the Participant. The following documents are available for public inspection and copying during regular office hours at the offices of the City Clerk and Economic Development Department at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648: Page l A copy of the proposed Owner Participation Agreement; 2. A summary report which describes and specifies: The costs to be incurred by the Agency under the Owner Participation Agreement; 2. The estimated value of the interests to be sold, if any, pursuant to the Owner Participation Agreement, determined at the highest and best uses permitted under the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; 3. The estimated value of the interests to be sold, if any, pursuant to the Owner Participation Agreement, determined at the use and with the conditions, covenants, and development costs required by the sale; 4. The sale price which the Participant will be required to pay pursuant to the Owner Participation Agreement; 5. Other pertinent economic analyses and an explanation of the sale price; and 6. An explanation of why the potential sale, if any, of the Property will assist in the elimination of blight within the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project area. A summary economic report which examines alternative redevelopment plans for the Huntington Center shopping mail, in which the Property is located. As the public entity responsible for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, the Agency has previously prepared and certified the following environmental document: The Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, certified by the Agency on November 18, 1996 by Resolution No. 279, and the findings and resolutions relating to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan (AEIR 96-2"). Among the implementation activities whose environmental impacts are assessed in the above referenced EIR 96-2 is the redevelopment proposed to be accomplished under the Owner Participation Agreement. In connection with its consideration of the proposed Owner Participation Agreement, the Agency has prepared an Initial Study which indicates that the EIR 96-2 prepared for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project encompasses the proposed redevelopment under Page 2 the Owner Participation Agreement, and that no supplemental or subsequent environmental impact report is required therefor. ELR 96-2 and the Initial Study will be considered by the City Council and Agency at the time of the joint public hearing on the Owner Participation Agreement. Copies of the Initial Study and E1R 96-2 are available for public inspection and copying during regular office hours at the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Department in the places and at the times specified above. At any time before the date and time set forth above for the joint public hearing by the City Council and Agency, any written comments on or objections to the potential proposed sale, if any, of the Property or to the proposed Owner Participation Agreement may be filed with the City Clerk/Agency Clerk. Comments may also be submitted during such period on the Summary Report, Initial Study, and other documents referred to in this Notice. All persons wishing to question, comment, object to, or be heard on such matters at the joint public hearing will be given an opportunity to appear and be so heard. Publish: September 14, 2000 September 28, 2000 W%cenicemnIicchcanng Page 3 Connie Brockway City Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of funtington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) i am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: September 14, 2000 September 28, 2000 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 28 2000 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature NOTICE OF A JOINT the proposed Ownerl anvironmental docu- PUBLIC HEARING BY Participation Agree- f ment- THE CITY COUNCIL ment . i The Environmental OF THE CITY OF The joint public hear- I Impact Report for the HUNTINGTON BEACH n9 will be held to con- 1111 Huntington Beach Re - AND THE RE- srdet_ development Project, DEVELOPMENT I- The environmental certified by the Agency AGENCY OF THE CITY documents referred to on November Is, 79% OF HUNTINGTON below in this NotiOe w1Ut by Resolution No. 279. BEACH REGARDING . respect 10 the proposed and the findings and res- THE POTENTIAL redevelopment under oludorts relating to the PROPOSED SALE, IF the Owner Participation adoption of the Re - ANY, OF CERTAIN Agreement, development Plan (AEIR PROPERTY IN THE 2 The potential 96.2-')- HUNTINGTON BEACH I proposed sale, it any, of Among the imalemen- R E D E V E L O P M E N T me Property in die Hunt- tation activities whose PROJECT AREA TO ington BBeach Re- environmental impacts HUNTINGTON CEN- development Project are assessed in the TER ASSOCIATES, area by the Agency to above referenced EIR LLC, AND ON THE Participant for re- 96.2 is the redevelop - PROPOSED OWNER development by Panx-t- merit proposed 10 be ac. PARTICIPATION pant of a oommerual de- complished under the AGREEMENT AND veloprnent and Owner Participation ENVIRONMENTAL IN- . 3 The proposed Agreement. In connec. FORMATION PER- Owner Participation (ion with its conSidera. TAINING THERETO Agreement submated to tion of the proposed The City Council of the the Agency. which Owner Participation City of Huntington provides for the Agreement, the Agency Beach (City Council) and the Redevelopment ' proposed sale. if any. of ' cite Property 10 the Par- has prepared an Initial Study which indicates Agency of the City of ticsp ant. that the EIR 96-2 Huntington Beach The lollowin doctt- Prepared for the Hunt. writ (AgertLry OOCX ct a n1ents are available for ington Beach Re. joint public hearing on plc inspection and co- development Project Monday, October 2, pYng during regular of- encompasses the 2000. at 7:00 p-m-, or as lice hoi,rs at the offices proposed redevelop - soon thereafter as the of the City Clerk and Ec- j ment under the Owner matter may be hoard. in onomrc Development Participation Agree - the Council Chambers. Department a1 2000 meet, and that no sup Civic Center. 2000 Main Main Street, Huntington plemental or subsequent Street, Huntington Beach, California 92SQ- environmental impact Beach, pursuant to the f A copy or the report is required there. California Community Prdposad Owner Panip- for EIR 96-2 and the in. Redevelopment Lew Patron Agreement-. rtial Study will be con- µeM and Sad"Code 2-A summary report sidered by the City 3300d et ) for which describes and Counts! and Agency at the purpose of oonsrder- specifies- the time of the joint pub ing the potential I- The Costs to be tic hearing on the Owner proposed sale, it any. of incurred by the Agency Participation Agree. certain property in the under the Owner Part,a- mont- Copros of the In. Huntington Beach Re- pation Agreement; itjal Shidy and EIR 96.2 development Project 2. The estimated are available for public area tO Hun rigton ter Associates. LLC value of the interests to inspection and copying ;Participant)- The be sold. it any. pursuant to the Owner Part"c'- during regular office potential proposed Sala. i1 any, of •Patron Agreement, do- hours at the Offices Of the City Clerk and Plan - property to the PartiCl- be I termned at 11te highest and bast uses penndfed ning Department in the tines pant would made under the Redevelop- places and at Use subject to and in aC- merit Plan !IX the Hunt- specified above COrdance with the Cali- forma Redevelopment inglon Beach Re- At any time before the date and time set form Law and the temts and development Project: above for the Joint public conditions precedent of 3- The estimated Owner Participation value Of the irAlmasts to hearing' by Vie City the be sold. if arty, pursuant Council and Agency. Agreement between the Agency and Participant to the Owner Partici- any written comments on or objections 10 the subject to the cove_ palion Agreement. de- tornvrteo at the use and potMUal Hants. cortdipns and re with the conditions, oov- d arry, of the Property or Slr1ai0n9 necessary IO = enants. and develop -participation to the proposed Owner carry Out t� ment costs required by Agreement merit Plan for the Hunt- the safe. may be filed with the City inglon Beach Re- 4- The sale price Clork/Agency Clerk - development Project which the Participant wit Comments. may also be The property which rS submitted during such the Of dti5 Dflt Suaea 1 hearing su required to pay pun- silent t0 the Owner Pat- p0ncd on the Su Public (Property) ticipation Agreement; Report Initial StuOy�and is boated m the Hunh S. Outer pertnneM other documents re. ington Beach Re economic analyses and ferried to in this 11 ce- development Protect an explanation at the All persons wishing t0 Area and consists of sale price. and question. Comment, ob- portions of Use shopping 6- An explanation sect to. or be heard on center commonly krtorrtt d'v� ilia potential fie' such matters at me jomt as the Huntington Can- if any, of the property public heannq will be let, which is illustrated and designated as the will assist In the Blau"- given an Opportunity to appear and be so heard Site On the Site Map inH n of blight rih the BOdc11 - COnnts Brockway, Huntington development Project � Clerk and E><-officlo Clerk of the area 3- A sumary eco- City Council of the Cintyy MIMIC remport which ex- of Huntington Sea.% and Clerk of the Ro- amines alterative re- development plans to me Huntington Center of the City of Htutt- inglon Beach, C4WIfor- sihopping mall, in ~ nlPublishad the Property is IOCalOd- Hunun ton As the Pub entity r0 Beach -Fountain Valley sponsible for carrying Independent September out the Redevelopment Plan for the Hunfngton t4, 28, 2r100 092-024 Beach Redevelopment-- PrOlect. the Agency has previously prepared and certified the following SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WRITER'S DIRECT LINE (213) 617-5565 )curds gsmrh com HAND DELIVERED FORTY-EIGMTI. FLOOR 333 50U7H HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071-1448 TELEPHONE 1213Y 620-1780 FACSIMILE 1213) 620-1399 October 2, 2000 Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 OUR FILE NUMBER 42X-76194 RECEIVED FROM "d �d� �!Al AND MADE APART OF THE RECORD AT E �l•G� COUNCIL MEETING ICE OF THE - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK Re: City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board of City Qf Huntington Beach Joint Public Hearing on Monday, October 2, 2000, Agenda Item_ No_ D-1. to. Consider Approval of an Owner Participation Agreement with_ Environmental Findingsl_and_ a Cooperation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Huntingion Beach with Huntington Center Associates, LLC Honorable Mayor Garofalo and Members of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach: This firm represents Montgomery Ward, LLC ("Ward"), which is the owner of approximately 13.47 acres of real property (the "Ward Pro e=") located in what is commonly known as the "Huntington Center Mall" ("Huntington Center" or the "Site"). Our client has requested our assistance in connection with the proposed approval by the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Qjt�") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") of the proposed Owner Participation Agreement (the "OPA") beimeen the Agency and Huntington Center Associates, LLC (Huntington Center Associates, LLC, the Eaalow Company and all of their affiliates and related entities are collectively referred to as "HCA"), including all actions related thereto, regarding the contemplated redevelopment of the Huntington Center. Ward has previously submitted numerous letters to the City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"), the City Council, the City and the Agency setting L 0 5 A N G E L E 5 • 0 R A N G E C O U N T Y 0 5 A N 0 1 E G O ■ 5 A N F R A N C I S C 0 SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON LL- Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 2 forth detailed objections to, and comments on, the Agency's and the City Council's actions in connection with the redevelopment process for Huntington Center, including a letter dated June 19, 2000 from this firm to the AgencyY Ward again requests that these objections, comments and concerns be addressed and action taken to ensure appropriate redevelopment of the entire Huntington Center. In particular, as stated in the June 19, 2000 letter, Ward's vast expertise, experience and financial commitment to redevelopment coupled with the fact that Ward is one of the two major land owners of the Huntington Center lend itself to making Ward uniquely qualified to carry out the success of the redevelopment of the Huntington Center. In addition, throughout the RFP process (as defined below), as well as at the numerous City meetings and hearings regarding the RFP process and Specific Plan No. 13, entitled "The Crossings at Huntington Beach" (the "Specific Plan"), Ward has repeatedly expressed its interest in, plans for and willingness to participate in the renovation of the Ward's department store on the Ward Property (the "MW Store") within the development guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan. Notwithstanding these facts, in the RFPs that were sent out by the City and the Agency on or about March 3, 2000, the RFPs contained a "unified ownership" requirement for the redevelopment of Huntington Center. The Agency contends that "unified ownership of the Site will allow for the oversight and control necessary to effectively redevelop and maintain the Site, without the problems often associated with fragmented ownership." However, despite our requests for some explanation, facts or other information to support such a requirement, the Agency has failed to provide us with any response. In fact, there is absolutely no need or reason for Huntington Center to be See Exhibit "A" for an abridged list of correspondence, documents and other materials previously submitted by Ward in connection with the contemplated redevelopment of Huntington Center. Each of the correspondence, documents and other materials referenced or referred to herein, as well as all other documents and materials relating to the redevelopment process, the Specific Plan and/or Huntington Center on file with the City or the Agency or otherwise considered records of the City or the Agency are hereby incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of this hearing and the record by this reference. SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON LLc Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 3 under some type of "unified" ownership or control and, with respect to major anchor stores such as Ward, this belief is contrary to the common and typical ownership and management structure of successful, major retail and entertainment venues across the United States. Accordingly, Ward hereby requests that the City Council and the Agency (i) reject the proposed OPA as it relates to the Ward Property and (ii) instruct Agency staff to assure that Ward will be permitted to redevelop the Ward Property with a newly remodeled MW Store. If the proposed OPA is approved and the Agency staff is not instructed to negotiate a separate OPA with Ward for the redevelopment of the Ward Property, then in order to protect Ward's nghts as a property owner and operating business, we submit the foIIowing comments and objections as to the OPA, the R-FP, the process and procedures related thereto and the other matters set forth below. Moreover, Ward reiterates and restates each and every comment and objection that it has previously made to the RFP and the Specific Plan, including without limitation those submitted in writing and made at the City Council, Agency and Planning Commission hearings on the RFP and the Specific Plan, as well as all legal claims set forth in the Amended Petition (as defined below). SUMMARY OF CQMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS IF THE OPA 1S NOT REJECTED AND Ward 1S NOT _CHOSEN AS THE "DEVELOPER" FOR THE Ward PROPERTY The Agency Has Not Complied with the California Community Redevelopment Law. A. Overview of the California Community Redevelopment Law. B. The Agency Failed to Provide Ward with a Reasonable Opportunity to Participate in the Redevelopment of Huntington Center. II. The OPA is Inconsistent with the City's Redevelopment Plan and Proposes to Implement a Specific Plan That Violates State and Local Law. SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 4 A. The OPA is inconsistent with the Land Use and Zoning Standards in the Redevelopment Plan. B. The OPA is Inconsistent with Section 627 of the Redevelopment Plan. C. The OPA Cannot be Approved Until the Validity of the Specific Plan is Determined. III_ The Agency's and City's Actions Would Violate Equal Protection, Substantive Due Process and Procedural Due Process as Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. IV. The Financing Mechanisms Provided in the OPA Violate Article XVI, Section 6 of the California Constitution. V The Approval of the OPA Would Violate the California Environmental Quality Act. A. Overview of CEQA. B. The Initial Study Included an Overly Narrow and Inadequate Project Description Which Precluded Meaningful Environmental Analysis and "Split" the Project. 1. The Initial Study Failed to Provide an Adequate Description of the Project. 2. The City Unlawfully "Split" the Project for Purposes of CEQA Review. 3. The Initial Study Failed to Describe or Consider Numerous Components of the Project. C. The initial Study Contained No Environmental Discussion or Analysis at All. SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment .Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 5 D. The Initial Study Failed to Analyze the Cumulative Impacts Associated with the OPA and Its Implementation. E. The Initial Study Failed to Provide an Adequate Description of the Project's Environmental Setting- F. The Approval of the OPA Would Unlawfully Defer Environmental Review. G. The City and the Agency Erroneously Rely upon EIR No. 96-2 for the Project Instead of Preparing a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. 1. Substantial Changes are Proposed in the Redevelopment Project Which Require Major Revisions in the EIR No. 96-2. 2. Substantial Changes Have Occurred with Respect to the Circumstances under Which the Redevelopment Plan is Undertaken Which Require Major Revisions in EIR No. 96-2. 3. New Information, Which Was Not Known and Could Not Have Been Known at the Time EIR No. 96-2 Was Certified As Complete, Is Now Available. H. Even If the Conditions Requiring the Preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Have Not Occurred, the Agency Must Prepare an Addendum to the EIR. BACKGROUND FACTS Ward has owned and operated its 18 1, 110 square foot department store and 27,000 square foot automotive center at the Ward Property since approximately 1966. The Ward Property is owned in fee by Ward and constitutes a substantial portion of Huntington Center. In addition, Ward has certain easement and other rights, including site plan approval rights, over the balance of Huntington Center pursuant to that certain SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER b, HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 6 Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement, dated July 19, 1965, as amended. Huntington Center is part of the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment _Plan"), which was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City on or about December 16, 1996 pursuant to Resolution No. 3343_ "Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project," dated August 1996 (the "Owner Participation Rules"), were adopted as required by the California Community Redevelopment Law, to govern the participation of property owners in connection with redevelopment under the Redevelopment Plan. As noted above, the Ward Property is owned by Ward. The balance of the real property (the "HCA Property") constituting Huntington Center is owned by HCA. HCA acquired the HCA Property on or about November 16, 1999. Prior to that time, the HCA Property had been under a variety of ownerships, as generally discussed in the Agency's staff report for the Agency Board's June 19, 2000 public hearing. Portions of the HCA Property have been allowed to deteriorate over the years by HCA and its predecessors. In fact, it is our understanding that many leases for portions of the HCA Property were allowed to lapse and not renewed, and tenants and businesses were evicted. These actions and inactions have harmed Ward and prevented it from redeveloping and upgrading its facilities. The Agency, by letter dated March 3, 2000, allegedly requested from Ward, HCA and others a "Statement of Interest and Request for Proposal for Redevelopment of Huntington Center within the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area" (the "RFP"). Within the time required by the RFP, Ward submitted to the Agency its Statement of Interest and Response to the RFP, which was later clarified and supplemented by letter dated June 16, 2000 (collectively, "Ward Response"). HCA also submitted a response to the RFP by a letter from their attorneys, Whitman Breed Abbott & Morgan LLP, dated May 2, 2000 (the "HCA Response"), which included as its alleged redevelopment concept the Specific Plan. Prior to HCA submitting the HCA Response, HCA submitted an application to the City for the establishment of the new Specific Plan as the zoning for the entire Huntington Center. This application was SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON ,.v Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 7 dated March 31, 2000, but, oddly, acknowledged in the "Official Use Only" box as received by the City on March 30, 2000 and distributed by the City on March lb, 2000 The City's Planning Commission held study sessions on May 9, 2000 and May 30, 2000 to consider the Specific Plan, and a formal Planning Commission hearing was held on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, which was continued to a special Planning Commission hearing on June 20, 2000. The formal written notice of the PIanning Commission hearing on Tuesday, June 13, 2000 was, at least for the undersigned's notice, meter stamped on June 1, 2000 and postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service on Friday, June 2, 2000. HCA is referenced as the "applicant" for the Specific Plan on this notice. However, on June 9, 2000, we received a facsimile and a copy of the staff report for the Planning Commission hearing which revealed that Ray Silver, City Administrator and Executive Director of the Agency, had unilaterally declared, in a memorandum dated June 5, 2000, that the City and Agency were the "applicants" for the Specific Plan because it was a "city -initiated project". The RFP that was sent to Ward does not mention the Specific Plan and, rather, requests that any submission in response to the RFP provide for a redevelopment concept for the site which includes a "[djescnption of proposed uses and the arrangement of these uses." In the introduction to the RFP, the Agency describes its intent as follows: "The Agency intends for the Site to be rehabilitated and repositioned into a high -quality, well -integrated retail and entertainment center under unified ownership. The Agency believes unified ownership of the Site will allow for the oversight and control necessary to effectively redevelop and maintain the Site, without the problems often associated with fragmented ownership. The revitalized Site is intended to serve the region and to provide new jobs and economic opportunities to residents of the region. In addition, the location of the Site as a major gateway to the City of Huntington Beach, as well as the excellent visibility and accessibility from the 405 Freeway, calls for a superior quality redevelopment that will significantly enhance the image of the community and set the standard desired for future high -quality development in the Edinger Corridor." SHEPPARD. MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON Lw e _ Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 8 We also note that, for whatever reason, neither the City, the Agency nor HCA ever contacted Ward in connection with the development of the draft Specific Plan. In fact, it was only after Ward received the UP that it had any knowledge that some type of "planning" for the Huntington Center was already in process. Furthermore, despite discussions with, and inquiries to, representatives of the City, the Agency and HCA, Ward only found out about the draft Specific Plan after receiving documents from the City and the Agency in response to a Public Records Act request. These documents (including a draft of the Specific Plan) were received at or about the time that Ward received the official notice of the Planning Commission hearing on the Specific Plan that was set for June 13, 2000. On July 5, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Specific Plan. Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution 2000-68, which approved the Specific Plan. In connection with the approval and adoption of the Specific Plan, the City relied on the certified Final EIR No. 94-1 prepared for the General Plan, which was approved and adopted by the City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 96-35. On July 7, 2000, the City filed a Notice of Determination (the "NOD") for the Specific Plan with the County Clerk of the County of Orange, which was posted by the County Clerk on July 7, 2000. Subsequently, on August 4, 2000, Ward filed a Verified Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate against the City, as respondent, and the Agency and HCA, as real parties in interest, seeking, among other things, to set aside the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 2000-68 based upon the City's failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("C QA").z' On August 7, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing to reconsider the Specific Plan that it had approved on July 5, 2000 pursuant to Resolution No. 2000-68. Following the public hearing, the City Council re -adopted the Specific Plan pursuant to ti Ward filed a First Amended Verified Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate (the "Amended Petition") on September 5, 2000 against the City, the Agency and HCA seeking among other things, to set aside the City Council's adoption of Resolution Nos. 2000-68 and 2000-80, based upon the City's continuing failure to comply with CEQA and violation of California's Community Redevelopment Law. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER S HAMPTON ALP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 9 Resolution No. 2000-80, which included modifications to allow drive -through bakery on - site with certain design and development standards and adopted Resolution 2000-80, which re -adopted the Specific Plan, as changed. The RFP expresses the Agency's intent that the Huntington Center be renovated under "unified ownership". As stated above, Ward was surprised as to the Agency's stated belief that "unified ownership of the Site will allow for the oversight and control necessary to effectively redevelop and maintain the Site, without the problems often associated with fragmented ownership." Certainly, with respect to major anchor stores such as Ward, this belief is contrary to the common and typical ownership and management structure of successful, major retail and entertainment venues across the United States. In our letter to the Agency dated April 28, 2000, Ward requested an explanation of the meaning of this belief, all facts supporting and justifying this belief and the exact nature of the perceived problems associated with "fragmented" ownership. In addition, we stated in our letter that "until we hear from you, we will assume that this 'unified ownership' requirement was just part of a form letter that was sent to many small landowners and businesses, and that it was not intended to apply to major anchor stores such as Montgomery Ward." As of today, we have not received any explanation, facts or other information to support any type of "unified ownership" requirement. Furthermore, as will be discussed below, the proposed OPA contains various provisions that essentially eliminate the "unified ownership" required for the Site by allowing the Agency or HCA to terminate the OPA as it relates to the Ward Property at any time within one year of the execution of the OPA (purportedly, even after acquisition of the Ward Property by the Agency or HCA). If this termination election is made, the Ward Property is removed from the legal description of the Site and from the Scope of Development (as defined in the OPA). If the Agency is so concerned with the unified ownership of Huntington Center to allegedly ensure the effective redevelopment of Huntington Center, why is it a party to an agreement that essentially provides a vehicle for a substantial portion of Huntington Center to eventually be excluded from the redevelopment of Huntington Center? SHEPPARD. MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 10 1. THE AGENCY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE C, LIFORNIA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW. A. Overview of the California Community Redevelopment Law. The California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Sections 33000 et seg., the "Redevelopment Law") was established to provide local officials with the ability to form redevelopment agencies that would be responsible for the planning and implementation of programs designed to rehabilitate blighted areas in American cities. The fundamental document governing a redevelopment agency's activities is the redevelopment plan. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the redevelopment plan should be a very general document, providing the redevelopment agency with great flexibility to accommodate changing market conditions, development opportunities and the desires and needs of owners to participate in the redevelopment program. County of Santa Cruz v. Ci1y of Watsonville, 177 Cal. App. 3d 831 (1985); see also, In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal. 2d 21 (1964)_ As noted in County of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville, i ra, at 841: "By exercising certain of its powers to implement redevelopment, a redevelopment agency may induce private investment in an area. The success of any redevelopment project is dependent upon whether private lenders, developers, owners, and tenants can be persuaded to participate in the process. Thus, a redevelopment agency is unique among public entities since in order to achieve its objective of eliminating blight it must rely upon cooperation with the private sector. Redevelopment is also a process which occurs over a period of years. These realities dictate that a redevelopment plan be written in terms that enhance a redevelopment agency's ability to respond to market conditions, development opportunities and the desires and abilities of owners and tenants." SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RIOTER & HAMPTON L01 Huntington Beach City. Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page I 1 B The Apency Failed to Provide Ward with a Reasonable O ortuni to Participate in the Redevelopment of the Huntington Cent. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33339, a redevelopment plan must include a provision for participation by owners conditioned upon their agreeing to develop or rehabilitate their property in conformance with the redevelopment plan. Health and Safety Code Section 33339 provides, in relevant part: "Every redevelopment plan shall provide for participation in the redevelopment of property in the project area by the owners of all or part of such property if the owners agree to participate in the redevelopment in conformity with the redevelopment plan adopted by the legislative body for the area." ; Moreover, while a redevelopment plan is not required to have provisions granting priority to current business owners of the property subject to redevelopment, the redevelopment agency is required to adopt rules for owner participation and for preferences to businesses prior to the adoption of the redevelopment plan. Health and Safety Code section 33339.5. Health and Safety Code section 33339.5 provides, in relevant part: "Every redevelopment agency shall extend reasonable preference to persons who are engaged in business in the project area to reenter in business within the redeveloped area if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by the redevelopment plan." Here, the Agency has failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for Ward to participate in the redevelopment of the Huntington Center, despite the fact that Ward 3i In addition, Health and Safety Code Section 33380 provides that "[a]n agency shall permit owner participation in the redevelopment of property in the project area in conforrruty with the redevelopment plan adopted by the legislative body for the area." Cal. Health and Safety Code § 33380. SHEPPARD. MULLIN, RICHTER S HAMPTON ,o Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 12 requested a right to participate in the redevelopment of the Huntington Center. On March 3, 2000, the Agency sent out its RFP to Ward, HCA and others. The deadlines for the owners and tenants to submit a Statement of Interest and Development Proposal in response to the RFP were April 17, 2000 and May 2, 2000, respectively. In accordance with the time limits set forth in the Agency's RFP, on April 14, 2000, Ward submitted its response, in which Ward expressed its interest in participating in the redevelopment of Huntington Center and outlined its proposed renovation of the MW Store. Prior to and during this time, however, the City and the Agency were having meetings with HCA regarding HCA's specific development proposal and, apparently, developing an elaborate plan and schedule to exclude Ward and others, but at the same time give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Law and its own Owner Participation Rules. For example, beginning on March 30, 2000 (one day prior to the date on HCA's application and more than a month prior to the HCA Response to the UP), City staff was having meetings with HCA regarding its RFP -- specifically, the proposed Specific Plan -- without any written notice to Ward. Thus, at least two weeks before the Agency had received any other Statements of Interest or Development Proposals and prior to the expiration of the Agency's self-imposed deadline for those documents, the Agency was already implementing a plan with HCA for HCA's development of Huntington Center and the taking of the Ward Property. This plan was likely developed or first confirmed on or about November 15, 1999, when the Agency had a "Closed Session" pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 8, allegedly for the purpose of giving instructions to the Agency's negotiators and regarding negotiations with Brian Ezralow and Doug Gray "for the terms of a proposed Purchase, Sale or lease of property at 7777 Edinger Avenue." (_See Council/Agency minutes of November 15, 1999.) HCA acquired the HCA Property the very next day, which means that HCA likely received assurances as to its proposed plan and the Agency's commitment to exclude Ward from redevelopment and condemn the Ward Property, because there was certainly no legitimate reason to discuss the purchase, sale or lease of the HCA Property which HCA acquired the next day. Not only was this Closed Session contrary to the Brown Act, it undermined Ward's owner participation rights. The Redevelopment Law may not require "an absolute requirement of owner participation." However, the Redevelopment Law does require that, once owner participation is invited, the Agency has a legal du1y to treat all project applicants, SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER S HAMPTON LLo e _ Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 13 including current owners, with "reasonableness" and "in good faith". In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal. 2d 21, 60 (1964). The Agency's aforementioned actions were neither reasonable nor in good faith because the Agency precluded, at the outset, any opportunity for Ward to redevelop the Ward Property. These actions were especially egregious because, while the RFP was vague in its requirement for a development concept, we now know that HCA and the City were actively working together to formulate and prepare the Specific Plan prior to the preparation of the RPF. However, the existence of the Specific Plan was never disclosed or made public until after a formal Planning Commission hearing had been noticed. Furthermore, the Agency's so-called "unified ownership" requirement lends additional support to the fact that the Agency's actions have reflected nothing but favoritism and bias towards HCA, while simultaneously failing to give all property owners a reasonable and good faith opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the project area, as required by Health and Safety Code Sections 33339 and 33339.5. Despite requests for information and support, there is absolutely no evidence in the record for having this aggregation requirement for development, which is completely contrary to typical mall development and ownership, and completely contrary to Ward's substantial redevelopment experience with the substantial renovation of over 76 stores and plans for the substantial renovation of at least 45 additional stores by the end of 2001. As a large property owner and operating business, Ward certainly has the financial capabilities and experience to redevelop its portion of Huntington Center. The unified ownership requirement effectively precluded any participation by Ward or others in the redevelopment of Huntington Center_ By implementing an arbitrary and unsubstantiated "unified ownership" requirement, the Agency has effectively eliminated all of HCA's competition to the detriment of redevelopment goals and laws, which also precludes the Agency from having the benefit of considering alternatives to HCA's pre - negotiated "proposal". Moreover, as will be discussed in greater detail below, certain provisions of the OPA that allow for the termination of the OPA by either HCA or the Agency as it relates to the Ward Property underscore that the "unified ownership" requirement was designed to eliminate all of HCA's competition during the redevelopment process, and that the Agency did not treat all the project applicants with the "reasonableness" and "good faith" that is required by law. In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, supra, at 60. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLv Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 14 While claiming a need for unified ownership of Huntington Center, the Agency and HCA have created a vehicle whereby a significant portion of Huntington Center (i.e., the Ward Property) can be excluded from area covered by the OPA and its development requirements and sold to a third party which would be under no obligation to develop the property in compliance with the standards set forth in the OPA. Based on the foregoing, it appears that the Agency and the City colluded with HCA for HCA to take the Ward Property through the Agency's power of condemnation, and thereby allow HCA to redevelop the entire Huntington Center. This collusion apparently commenced behind closed doors when the City Council privately met in "closed session" based on an alleged Brown Act exemption on November 15, 1999, just one day before HCA became the owner of the HCA Property. These actions are in direct violation of State and local law and should not be further condoned by the Agency Board and the City Council. lI. THE OPA DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PROPOSES TO IMPLEMENT A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT VIOLATES THE CITYS GENERAL PLAN AND ESTABLISHED LAW. A. The OPA is Inconsistent with the Land Use and_Zoning Standards in the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Law includes numerous requirements that must be satisfied with respect to the amendment of a redevelopment plan (California Health and Safety Code Sections 33450 et seq.), including without limitation the following: (a) the redevelopment agency must hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment prior to recommending approval of such amendment (Section 33451); (b) the redevelopment agency must provide public notice of such public hearing (Section 33452); (c) the planning commission must consider any substantial changes in the redevelopment plan recommended by the redevelopment agency and make a recommendation to the legislative body (Section 33453); SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 15 (d) the legislative body must hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment and provide public notice of such hearing (Section 33454), (e) the planning commission must consider any further substantial changes proposed by the legislative body and make a recommendation to the legislative body regarding the same, and the legislative body must consider any changes proposed by the planning commission at a public hearing reopened for that purpose (Section 33455); (f) the redevelopment agency and the legislative body may hold a joint public hearing on the proposed amendment in lieu of separate hearings (Section 33458). (g) the reports and information required by Section 33352 of California Health and Safety Code must be prepared and made available to the public prior to the public hearing on the proposed amendment, to the extend warranted by the proposed amendment (Section 33457.1); and (h) the legislative body must adopt an amendment pursuant to an ordinance that contains -the findings required by Section 33367 of the California Health and Safety Code, to the extent warranted by the proposed amendment (collectively, the "Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements"). Section 708 of the Redevelopment Plan provides in part that "[t]he type, size, height, number and use of buildings within the Project Area will be controlled by the applicable City land use regulations and requirements as they now exist or may hereafter be amended from time to time." Section 713 of the Redevelopment Plan states that "[t]he limits on building intensity, type, size and height, shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan and the zoning ordinances, as they now exist or are hereafter amended." In addition, Section 714 of the Redevelopment Plan states in part that "[djesign of all proposed new signs shall be submitted prior to installation to the appropriate governing bodies of the City and/or the Agency for review and approval pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City and the procedures permitted by this Plan." By adopting the Specific Plan, the City Council attempted to amend the Redevelopment Plan because (i) the Specific Plan amended the zoning standards for the. Site with respect to the type, size, height, number and use of buildings and the permitted SHEPPARD. MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON up _e _ Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 16 signage thereon'', (ii) by its terms, the Specific Plan became the zoning document for the Site, and (ii) as set forth above, under the terms of the Redevelopment Plan, those zoning amendments were purportedly automatically incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan with respect to the Site. Pursuant to the OPA, including without limitation Sections 401 and 402 thereof and Attachment No. 4 thereto, the redevelopment of Huntington Center must comply with the requirements of the Specific Plan, including the land use and zoning standards set for',h therein_ However, the land use and zoning standards contained in the Specific Plan cannot, and were not, incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan because the City failed to satisfy any of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment Requirements in connection with the City Council's adoption of the Specific Plan. As a result, the land use and zoning standards applicable to Huntington Center are the applicable standards set forth in the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, which were incorporated by reference into the Redevelopment Plan when it was adopted in 1996, not the standards contained in the Specific Plan. Therefore, the OPA is inconsistent with the Redevelopment Plan because the OPA provides that the redevelopment of Huntington Center will be governed by the land use and zoning standards set forth in the Specific Plan, which are inconsistent with the applicable land use and zoning standards contained in the Redevelopment Plan. B_ The OPA Is Inconsistent with Sections 608 and 627 of the Redevelopment Plan. Section 627 of the Redevelopment Plan provides in relevant part: "All purchasers or lessees of property from the Agency shall be obligated to use the property for the purposes designated in this Plan, to begin and complete improvements of such property within a period of time which the Agency fixes as reasonable, and to comply with other conditions which the Agency deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Plan. During the period of redevelopment in the Project Area, the Agency shall ensure that all provisions of this Plan, - See Exhibit "B" (List of Specific Plan Modifications to the Land Use and Zoning Standards). SHEPPARD. MULLIN, RICHTER S HAMPTON ,,p Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 17 and other documents formulated pursuant to this Plan, are being observed and that development of the project Area is proceeding in accordance with applicable development documents and time schedules. All development, whether public or private, must conform to this Plan and all applicable federal, State, and local laws, including without limitation the City's planning and zoning ordinances, building, environmental and other land use development standards." Here, Sections 702.1(b) and 702.2(c) of the OPA provide a mechanism by which either HCA or the Agency can terminate the OPA as to the Ward Property at any time within one year after the effective date of the OPA. As a result, the Ward Property could be acquired by the Agency and sold to HCA, but then removed from the legal description of the Site and the Scope of Development (as defined in the OPA) and no longer be bound by the development requirements set forth in the OPA and the Specific Plan. Given that the Redevelopment Plan requires that all development conform to the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan and all other applicable development documents, Sections 702.1(b) and 702.2(c) of the OPA, which essentially provide the means by which a substantial portion of Huntington Center can be acquired by HCA and then will be excluded from development and the applicable development standards, are in direct violation of the express intent, purpose and restrictions set forth in the Redevelopment Plan, including Sections 608 and 627, and cannot be approved by the City Council and the Agency. C. The OPA Cannot Be Approved Until the Validity-Qf the Specific Plan Is Determined. Ward has previously commented at public hearings and submitted numerous letters to the Planning Commission, the City Council and the Agency setting forth the unlawful nature of the Specific Plan, including, without limitation, the following: (1) that the Specific Plan violates a variety of State and local laws, including, but not limited to, the City's General Plan, the City's Municipal Code (the "Cade"), CEQA and SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLF Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 18 Section 65451 of the California Government Code, (ii) that the Specific Plan constitutes unlawful discriminatory spot zoning, and (m) that the Specific Plan institutes an unlawful amortization procedure with respect to nonconforming uses and structures. Some of these violations of law are the subject of the Amended Petition. The City Council and the Agency cannot now approve a proposed OPA that requires development in accordance with an unlawful Specific Plan. To do so would result in the Agency contracting with HCA to undertake unlawful acts, and the Agency cannot contract to undertake unlawful acts. Co ell v. Hart, 74 U.S. 542 (1868) (every contract stipulating for the performance of an illegal act or founded upon an illegal consideration, is rendered void by the power, and to conserve the policy, of the law). Moreover, it is well established that there are limits to a city's contracting power. Domar Electric, Inc_ v. City of Lgs Angeles, 9 Cal. 4th 161, 172 (1994) Certainly, if the Agency enters into the OPA, it will be acting in an arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable manner as a result of these unlawful acts, which provides additional grounds of violation of each of the principles and laws set forth in Section III• below. III. THE AGENCY'S ACTIONS ARE IN` VIOLATION OF EOUAL PROTECTION. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND PROCEDURAL DLJE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals against government deprivations of property without due process of law. U.S. Const., 14°i Amend. and Cal. Const., Art. I § 7. If a governmental action is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, such action will be declared unconstitutional and a violation of substantive due process. Village of EuchA v_. Ambler Reap Co., 47 S. Ct. 114 (1926); 5g& also, Lockary_v.Kgyfetz, 917 F.2d 1150 (9' Cir. 1990) [government conduct that is malicious, irrational or plainly arbitrary will not be sustained]. The premise behind the equal protection clause is that no person shall be denied the same protection of law that is enjoyed by another person in similar circumstances. Hawn v. County of Ventura. 73 Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1977). Here, as set forth in detail above, by engaging in negotiations with HCA and considering HCA's Specific Plan before receiving any other development proposals, by SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RIGHTER & HAMPTON L.LP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page I9 "hiding the ball" that the Specific Plan was actually a "city -initiated project," by pursuing an improper RFP process to give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Law and the Agency's own Owner Participation Rules, by including arbitrary and unsupported "unified ownership" and other requirements under the RFP, and by approving an OPA with HCA that includes the Ward Property, the Agency will unfairly discriminate against Ward and deny Ward a reasonable opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of Huntington Center. -See, Hawn v County of Ventura, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1977). These actions are malicious, irrational and plainly arbitrary in clear violation of the equal protection and substantive due process protections provided by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, insufficient notice of these actions and the lack of ability to participate also constitute a denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. See. S., Carey v_ Pinhus, 98 S. Ct. 1042 (1978). These actions in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment should not be condoned or allowed to continue by the City or the Agency. IV. THE FfNANCfNG MECHANI MS PROVIDED M THE OPA VIOLATE ARTICLE XVI. SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. part: Article XVI, Section 6 of the California Constitution provides, in relevant "The Legislature shall have no power ... to make any gift or authorize the making of any gift, of any public money or thing of value to any individual, or other corporation whatever ...." Cal. Const., art XVI, § 6. Webster's Dictionary defines "gift" as "something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation." Under the current circumstances, the Agency (under the terms of the OPA) and the City (under the terms of the proposed Cooperation Agreement between the City and the Agency) is committing itself to give S 15 million to $16.75 million to HCA, depending on whether or not the Ward Property is part of the redevelopment, for a redevelopment project that has yet to be proposed. Regardless of the fact that neither the City nor the Agency has received a formal project application SHEPPARD, MULLiN, RICHTER S HAMPTON LLo Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 20 for the redevelopment of Huntington Center, so that neither has any concrete evidence as to how the funds will be used, the City and the Agency are providing HCA with millions of dollars of public funds for the development of an undefined project. However, in order to comply with the constitutional provision, the public funds must be used for a legitimate public purpose. See Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Luehring, 4 Cal_ App. 3d 204 (1970). As noted above, at this time, there is allegedly no development project for Huntington Center under consideration by the City and/or the Agency. The OPA does not mandate any particular development other than it be in conformance with the Specific Plan, which itself does not include any specific or binding master plan, project description, floor plan or circulation plan. Thus, no one knows what public benefit or purpose will truly be obtained by the City or the Agency in return for its commitment of funds. Accordingly, until such time as a definitive "project" and its corresponding purpose and benefits to the public can be known, the financial mechanisms contained in the OPA constitute an unlawful gift of public funds in violation of Article XV1, Section 6 of the California Constitution and should not be approved by the Agency Board or the City Council. V. THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WILL VIOLATE THE CALIFQRNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. A. Overview of CEOA. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CE A") was enacted in response to the well -documented failure of state and local governmental agencies to consider fully the environmental implications of their actions. Selmi, The Judicial Develo ment of the California Environment uali A (" ehni"), 18 U.C.D. L. Rev. 197, 202 (1984) (e= Exhibit I hereto).!' The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that CEQA must be interpreted liberally "to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Laurel Heights The State Office of Planning and Research has promulgated guidelines to implement CEQA. 14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et M. (the "Guidelines"). SHEPPARD. MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 21 Improvement Assn. v. The Regents of the Universi1y of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 390 (1988). Two of the central purposes of CEQA are to inform governmental decision - makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project and to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. Guidelines §§ 15002(a) and (b) CEQA provides for a three -tiered environmental analysis. First, the lead agency determines whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. Guidelines § 15061. if the lead agency concludes that the project is not exempt from CEQA, the lead agency then conducts an initial study to ascertain whether to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration in connection with the project. The lead agency may only adopt a "negative declaration" when an initial study concludes that "there is no substantial evidence ... that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" and further CEQA review is unnecessary Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(1). If a court determines that a lead agency has failed to prepare a CEQA document in the manner required by law, then the agency's approval of the CEQA document and the project must be set aside. The trial court "may not exercise its independent judgment on the omitted material by determining whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been affected had the law been followed." Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council, 143 Cal. App. 3d 1013, 1023 (1983); see aI , Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Invo ("Bishov"), 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 167-68 (1985). B. The Initial Study Included an Overly Narrow and Inadequate Project Description Which Precluded Meaningful Environmental Analysis and "$21it" the Project. An initial study must include an adequate description of the project, including its location. Guidelines § 15063(d). The term "project" has been broadly defined under CEQA as "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment .. .." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065; see aL5k Guidelines § 15378(a) ("project" means "the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a SHEPPARD. MULLIN, RIGHTER & HAMPTON LL- Hunnngton Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 22 physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly ..."). An accurate project description "is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity." McQueen v. Board of Directors, 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1143 (1988). All phases of the project planning, implementation and operation must be considered in the initial study. Guidelines § 15063(a)(1). In their rush to consider the OPA, the City and the Agency have utterly failed to comply with these requirements in connection with their preparation of the "Environmental Checklist Form, City of Huntington Beach, Planing Department, Environmental Assessment No. 00-10," which oddly lists the City as the "lead agency" (the "Initial Study"). Not only does the project description in the Initial Study fail to identify any specific terms of the OPA and development provided for thereunder, the City and the Agency have impermissibly "chopped up" the project by omitting any description or discussion of either the Specific Plan or the "follow-up" projects and permits known by the City and the Agency that will "implement" the OPA. I. The initial Study Failed to Prgvide an Adequate Description of the Protect. The Initial Study describes the project as following: "The project, which is the subject of this Environmental Assessment, is the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project and its implementation through the proposed Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC, which will include the redevelopment, refurbishment and economic repositioning of the existing Huntington Center shopped mall with a proposed retail and entertainment center of approximately 1 mullion square feet." The Initial Study then describes the OPA as merely "a legal document that provides the developer the opportunity to seek financing, to redevelop the existing Huntington Center shopping mall with a proposed retail and entertainment center of approximately 1 million square feet." Thereafter, there is one reference to the City SHEPPARO, MULLIN, RICHTER S HAMPTON LLp _e _ Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 23 Council having approved of the Specific Plan "to guide any future development of the Huntington Center shopping mall_" There is absolutely no other description of the alleged project to be analyzed under CEQA. The project is merely described as the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project and its implementation through the proposed OPA. The public is left to guess as to the true nature of the project or attempt to determine it by trying to obtain relevant documents from the City and the Agency. There is also no description as to the OPA or how it relates to the Huntington Breach Redevelopment Project. The OPA financing is not described. The extent or the nature of the redevelopment of the Huntington Center is not described. The potential uses or mix of uses are not described other than as proposed to be a retail and entertainment center. There is also no description as to the potential configuration of the site, the extent of demolition versus remodeling, potential ingress and egress points, project phasing, or any other clues that would provide the reader with a basis for determining whether any potential environmental impacts could occur with the project. As a result, the reader can only guess as to whether potential impacts were truly already analyzed in EIR No. 96-2 that was prepared for the Redevelopment Plan in 1966. Section 15063(f) of the Guidelines provides that a sample form for an applicant's project description is contained in Appendix H of the Guidelines. The information for the project description on that form that is not included in the Initial Study includes the following: site size, square footage (exact), number of Boors of construction, amount of off-street parking, plans, proposed scheduling, associated projects, anticipated incremental development, whether it is a neighborhood or city or regionally -oriented commercial use, square footage of sales areas, amount of loading facilities, environmental setting and a description of surrounding properties. The Initial Study also does not address the other matters and questions presented in Appendix H, including the relationship of the OPA to other "projects". 2. The City Unlawfullylit" the Pr ect for P=oses of QE0A Review. Under CEQA, a project must be fully analyzed in a sin environmental document. An agency (or agencies) may not split a project into two or more segments with mutually exclusive environmental documents. Bishoy 172 Cal. App. 3d at 165. Similarly, an agency cannot overlook a project's cumulative impacts "by separately SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LIP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 24 focusing on isolated parts of the whole" McQueen v. Board of Directors, 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1144 (1988). In Bishop, the county divided the required approvals for a proposed shopping center into two groups, the first of which included two general plan amendments and a zone reclassification and the second of which included a tentative tract map, road abandonment and variance. The county prepared two separate initial studies, and adopted two separate negative declarations, for the general plan amendments and the rezoning. The county then prepared a third initial study and adopted a third negative declaration for the second group of approvals. Bishop, 172 Cal. App. 3d at 156-58. The Court overturned all of the negative declarations and project approvals, concluding that the county had unlawfully prepared mutually exclusive environmental documents for portions of the same project. "This approach is inconsistent with the mandate of CEQA that a large project shall nol be divided into little ones because such division can improperly submerge the aggregat_environmental considerations of the Vital project." Id. at 167 (emphasis added). The Court then held that the county's abuse of discretion was prejudicial because the county had subverted CEQA by failing to consider the environmental effects of the overall project. Id. The Court also noted that, because the county had failed to comply with CEQA requirements, "we cannot exercise our independent judgment on whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been different had CEQA been properly implemented because such a decision is for the discretion of the agency." Id. at 167-68. The City and the Agency are committing the same textbook violation of CEQA by only purporting to analyze each action as it occurs. The project splitting is even more egregious here because the City and the Agency are relying upon different environmental analyses prepared under environmental impact reports prepared many years ago. Initially, the City relied upon the final EIR No. 94-1 prepared for the General Plan in 1996 (the "General Plan EIR") in connection with its approval of the Specific Plana' 6i To the extent the City and/or the Agency are relying in whole or in part - for approval of the QPA and any other related actions on EIR No. 94-1 that was prepared for the General Plan, Ward objects on each and every ground set forth in its Amended Writ of Mandate, which is incorporated herein by this reference. (continued...) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLv Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 25 Now, with respect to the OPA that provides for the redevelopment of the Huntington Center in accordance with the Specific Plan, the City and the Agency are relying upon EIR No. 96-2, but there is absolutely no discussion in the Initial Study as to how to make any sense out of their reliance, which makes it extremely difficult for the public or the decision -making bodies to understand the overall impacts of the project. The City and the Agency certainly recognize that the OPA is a project within the meaning of CEQA by preparing the Initial Study. However, it is further segmenting the project by attempting to characterize in the Initial Study that the OPA is not a "development project" so that any environmental analysis would occur at the time of the development project. Not only is this not the case, the OPA specifically recognizes that the purpose of the OPA is "providing for the rehabilitation and construction of improvements on certain real property in the Project Area . Piecemeal environmental analysis is not permitted under CEQA and should not be condoned by the City and the Agency 3 _ The Initial Study Failed to Describe or Consider Numerous Components of the Project. Not only did the Initial Study fail to include any description or analysis of the project, it failed to describe or analyze other components of the project itself. These components include, but are not limited to, project planning, potential condemnation, relocation impacts, phasing and the operation of the project. Absolutely no consideration is given to other permits that may be required, whether local, state or federal, other than to recognize that they will be required from "Planning, Building and Safety, Fire and Public Works Departments." C. The Initial Study Contained No Environmental Discussion or Analysis a All. One of the purposes of an initial study is to provide documentation of the factual basis to determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used for a project. Guidelines § 15063(c)(7). In 5undstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, V (...continued) SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RIGHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 26 305-06 (1988), the Court struck down a "naked" checklist, in which almost all of the checklist items were checked "no" without any explanation, because the public agency had failed to demonstrate an "objective, good faith effort" to comply with CEQA. Thereafter, in 1994, the Resources Agency amended the Guidelines to clarify that the use of a checklist, without supporting factual data and/or explanation, is inadequate under CEQA. Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, pp. 197-205 (1999 [Tenth] Edition). The initial study checklist form attached as Appendix G to the Guidelines requires lead agencies to explain and/or disclose the factual support for "No Impact" answers in an initial study: "A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A'No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A 'No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on roJect-s ecific factor5 as well as general standALds (eg, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific analysis)." Guidelines, Appendix G, "Evaluation of Environmental Impacts" (emphasis added); see also, Guidelines § 15063(f) (sample forms for an applicant's project description and a review form for use by the lead agency are contained in Appendices G and H. When used together, these forms would meet the requirements for an initial study "provided that the entries on the checklist are briefly explained"). Under the current circumstances, as set forth in the Initial Study, the City and the Agency are relying upon Public Resources Code Section 21090 that no further environmental review is required under CEQA because none of the events in Public Resources Code Section 21166 have allegedly occurred. As a result, the relevant analysis under the Initial Study is to determine whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 This necessarily means that the Initial Study should determine whether any of the events have occurred since the preparation and certification of EIR No. 96-2. However, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER S HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 27 the Initial Study provides absolutely no explanation as to whether any of these events have occurred. Rather, each and every discussion under the Initial Study merely concludes that "potential impacts were already analyzed in EIR No. 96-2 and the OPA does not result in any significant environmental impacts beyond that which was already analyzed_" There is absolutely no discussion as to the impacts that were evaluated in EIR No. 96-2 and those impacts potentially arising from or in connection with the OPA project, which precludes any meaningful understanding as to whether any of the events under Public Resources Code section 21166 have occurred. Furthermore, the wholesale reference to EIR No. 96-2 without summary or explanation deprives the public and the decision -making body of any meaningful opportunity to understand the environmental consequences of the OPA and its implementation. See Emmet' n v. Solano Coun1y Redevelopment Agency, 195 Cal. App. 3d 491, 501-03 (1987). In EmmingIgn, the redevelopment agency prepared a five -page initial study for a redevelopment plan involving approxinately 10,350 acres of largely undeveloped land. The initial study concluded that 19 previously prepared EIRs and planning documents, containing well over 2,000 pages, adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the redevelopment plan. Id. at 502. The court rejected the initial study, concluding that neither the procedure followed by the redevelopment agency nor the opportunity for citizen input was sufficient to comply with CEQA requirements. The court's analysis is compelling: "The initial study makes no attempt to summarize the anticipated environmental effects of the redevelopment plan nor does it make an attempt to cite specifically where this information can be found. An interested citizen is faced with laboriously sorting through over 2,000 pages of raw data and then drawing his or her own conclusions about which information is pertinent to this project's likely effect on the environment. . .. at a very minimum they should have compiled 'all the relevant environmental data into a single SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER S HAMPTON up Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 28 format report, a procedure which would facilitate both public input and the decisionmaking process."' Id. at 502-03, ucuootin Russian Hill Improvement Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals, 44 Cal. App. 3d 158, 168 (1974) (emphasis in original). The Court concluded that: "The initial study in this case provided the public with no meaningful opportunity to learn the environmental consequences of this redevelopment project. If anything, the sheer bulk of material an interested citizen was referred to, without any guidance on how to proceed, served to discourage rather than encourage participation in the public review process." 1d. at 503. The City and the Agency did the same thing here. Each checklist item in the Initial Study references the entire EIR No. 96-2, which consists of approximately 365 pages of text, including appendices. EIR No. 96-2 itself incorporates by reference portions of the General Plan EIR prepared in 1994, which includes approximately 430 pages of text. The relevant portion of EIR No. 96-2 with respect to each Checklist item is neither summarized nor described. There is not even a reference to specific pages in EIR No. 96-2. Instead, the reader is faced with laboriously sorting through approximately 755 pages of data and drawing his or her own conclusion about what information is pertinent as to whether any of the events requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. Additionally, the Initial Study failed to comply with any of the procedures for incorporation by reference of EIR No. 96-2. As previously discussed, none of the incorporated information from this EIR was summarized or described, as required by Guidelines Section 15150(c). In addition, the Initial Study did not state where General Plan EIR No. 94-1 (portions of which are incorporated by reference in EIR No. 96-2) was available for inspection, as required by Guidelines Section 15150(b). Finally, the General Plan EIR No. 94-1 was distributed through the State Clearinghouse, but the Initial Study did not disclose the identification number as required by Guidelines Section 15150(d). SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON w- Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 29 D. The Initial Study Failed to Analyze the Cumulative Impacts Associated with the OPA and its Implementation. An initial study must include an analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with a project. CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance and, therefore, the preparation of an EIR where "[t]he possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.... 'Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b); Guidelines § 15065(c). guidance: The definition of"cumulative impacts" in the Guidelines provides additional "The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related tasks, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." Guidelines § 15355(b). The evaluation of cumulative impacts plays a crucial role in the CEQA process because environmental damage often occurs incrementally, with no one project appearing to cause sigruficant adverse effects, but "which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Co., 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-84 (1975). The seminal case of San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City ana County of San Francisco, 151 Cal. App. 3d 61(1984), illustrates these principles. In that case, the Court rejected EIRs for four proposed high-rise office buildings in downtown San Francisco, all of which had been approved in May, 1982. 151 Cal. App. 3d at 68-70. The court held that each of the E1Rs had failed to adequately analyze the cumulative effects of the other three office buildings and other related and reasonably foreseeable projects. Id_ at 72-79. SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON pia Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 30 The Court noted that the projects excluded from the cumulative analysis "could easily have been ascertained by the Commission from its own records" and "there was no practical or reasonable barrier to their disclosure and inclusion in the analyses." Id. at 74. The Court went on: "The only reason we can infer for the Commission's failure to consider and analyze this group of projects was that it was more expedient to ignore them. However, expediency should play no part in an agency's efforts to comply with CEQA." Id. The Court also found it "illogical that an EIR should carefully evaluate the direct impacts of one project which Wunder environmental review,' but completely ignore the cumulative impacts of that project's siblings in the same category." Id. at 75. The Court further noted that: "[T]he development of downtown San Francisco generally occurs bit by bit. No one project may appear to cause a significant amount of adverse effects. However, without a mechanism for addressing the cumulative effects of individual projects, there could never be any awareness of or control over the speed and manner of downtown development. Without such control, piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the urban environment." Id. at 76-77; see also, San ,Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. Countyf Stanislaus, 27 Cal. App_ 4th 713, 740 (1994) (the court rejected an EIR for a residential development which failed to address the cumulative impacts associated with two other major development projects which were considered at which the EIR was certified). The Initial Study did not include any cumulative impact analysis at all. The City responded "Less Than Significant" to the Checklist question of whether the project will have environmental impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. However, the Checklist did not cite any source for that conclusion other than a reference to EIR No. 96-2, which was certified years ago. An assumption is also made that "[a]ny development that may occur would be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code and the analysis and information contained in EIR No. 96-2," even though it is known that zoning has changed for the Site by the adoption of the Specific Plan. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October.2, 2000 Page 31 E_ The Initial Study Failed to Provide an Adequate Description of the Project's Environmental Setting. An initial study must include an identification of the project's environmental setting. Guidelines § 15063(d), Lee also, Christward Minisn v. Superior Court, 184 Cal. App. 3d 180, 197 (1986). The Initial Study omitted any discussion of the project's environmental setting, and instead generally referenced EIR No. 96-2. This was improper for several reasons. First, as discussed above, the City and the Agency have failed to comply with any of the procedural requirements for incorporation by reference of EIR No 96-2. Second, the general environmental setting in the City has evolved considerably between the time the City prepared the draft EIR No. 96-2 in 1996 and the City's and the Agency's consideration of the OPA Project. Third, the general environmental setting for the City and, in particular, the project site has significantly changed since the preparation of EIR No. 96-2 as a result of the City Council's adoption of the Specific Plan, which itself significantly altered &,e City's development strategies for the Huntington Center. The Initial Study's failure to identify the project's environmental setting violated CEQA F_ The Approval of the OPA Would Unlawfully D f r Environmental Review. CEQA requires that environmental review and the formation of appropriate mitigation measures occur at the earliest feasible state in the planning process. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21003.1. The case of Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988), illustrates this principle. In Sundstrom, the public agency approved a use permit for a motel and restaurant that included a private sewage treatment plant. The initial study did not analyze the environmental impacts of the treatment plant, but instead required that the developer prepare a hydrological study after the approval of the negative declaration. The study was to provide a basis for establishing additional mitigation measures for the project. SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 32 The Court held that the public agency violated CEQA by including a condition that contemplated revisions to the project after the final adoption of the negative declaration_ The court further held that the deferral of environmental review for the treatment plant ran counter to CEQA policy, which required environmental review at the earliest feasible time in the planning process. The Court also noted that any mitigation measures added by the administrative staff as a result of this study would be exempt from public scrutiny since the public agency had already approved the negative declaration. Approval of the OPA would be an unlawful deferral of environmental review_ A defective initial study has been prepared for the OPA to allegedly analyze whether any of the conditions requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, but this defective study apparently ignores the "development" project to be undertaken because the OPA is allegedly merely a "legal" document. The City and the Agency appear to be saying in the Initial Study that true environmental review will be done at the time of the "development" project, which must be the environmental review that will allegedly be done at the time of site plan review by the Planning Director as part of the "site plan review" process established in the Specific Plan, which review is privately done and exempt from public scrutiny under the Specific Plan. As a result, neither the impacts nor the proposed conditions for mitigation are analyzed, including those for or relating to uses, light, glare, noise, aesthetics, traffic and circulation, geotechnical, hazardous waste, air quality, parking, flooding, construction and utilities, and each are deferred to another day. This complete deferral of environmental review is particularly suspect because the City, the Agency and FICA have already identified the probable redevelopment scenario for Huntington Center. Sedway Group has prepared an Evaluation of Huntington Center Redevelopment Alternatives dated September, 2000 (the "Sedwav Report"). In addition, Keyser Marsten Associates Inc. has prepared a Huntington Crossings Reuse Analysis dated September 12, 2000 (the "Keyser Marsten Report"). Both of these reports are attached to the staff report for tonight's joint public hearing. The Sedway Report and the Keyser Marsten Report indicate that the most likely and intensive redevelopment scenario would result in the construction or rehabilitation of approximately 948,000 square feet and is obviously based on a specific building configuration and tenant mix on the Site. Both of these reports contemplate that the redevelopment of Huntington Center would result in a significant increase in the occupancy factor at Huntington Center and significantly increase the number of shoppers attracted to Huntington Center. This contemplated significant increase in sales activities SHEPPARD. MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment ,Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 33 will in turn generate significant traffic, air quality, noise and other environmental impacts which, as discussed below, were never evaluated in EIR No. 96-2, the General Plan EIR or any other CEQA document. This type of deferral of environmental review and mitigation is not permitted under CEQA or the Guidelines G. The City and the Agency Erroneously Rely Upon EIR No. 96-2 for the Project Instead of Preparing a Supplemental_ or Subsequent EIR. Public Resources Code Section 21090 provides, in relevant part: "[A]11 public and private activities and undertakings pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a redevelopment plan shall be deemed to be a single project. However, further environmental review of any public or private activity or undertaking pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a redevelopment plan shall be conducted if any of the events specified in Section 21166 have occurred." Cal. Pub_ Res. Code § 21090; see also, Guidelines § 15180. Here, as set forth in the Initial Study, the Agency is relying on Section 21090 to exempt the redevelopment of Huntington Center through the proposed OPA (the "Project") from additional environmental review by claiming that "[b]ecause the redevelopment proposed by the OPA is an activity pursuant to and in furtherance of a redevelopment plan, the OPA may rely on the [EIR] prepared for the redevelopment plan, and a supplemental or subsequent EIR will not be required for the OPA unless the events in PRC Section 21166 occur." However, in certain situations, changes to a proposed project or its surrounding circumstances necessitate the preparation of either a supplemental or subsequent EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21166; Guidelines §§ 15162, 15163. See also, Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa. Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association, 42 Cal. 3d 929, 937-38 (1986). SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON up Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 34 Section 21166 provides, in relevant part: "When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project ..., no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible party, unless one more of the following events occurs: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available." Cal_ Pub. Res. Code § 21166, see also Guidelines §§ 15162, 15163.2' Under the current circumstances, all three events have occurred, each of which necessitates the preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. Substantial Changes Are Proposed in the Redevelopment. Project Which Require Major Revisions in the EIR No. 96-2. In Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa_ Inc., supra, the Court found that an increase from six to ten acres in size of proposed theater in fairgrounds area, a 200% increase in seating capacity, and acoustic effects of moving stage to face single-family dwellings north of fairgrounds were "substantial changes" requiring filing of subsequent environmental impact report to assess environmental effects. Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa. Inc., supra. at 937. 71 S & also, Guidelines § 15162. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLa Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 35 Similarly, here, the OPA, which is intended to implement the Redevelopment Plan relies upon the Specific Plan. In Mn, the Specific Plan represents a wholesale departure from the existing type, size, height, and proposed use of buildings for Huntington Center when compared to the plans, policies and regulations under the Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan and applicable zoning at the time EIR No. 96-2 was adopted. As more particularly set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the Specific Plan has or will significantly modify the previously applicable zoning and redevelopment standards and allowed for increased intensity of development and use of the Site by (a) eliminating numerous previously permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the "CG" Zoning District, and (b) allowing uses that were previously prohibited or conditionally permitted in the "CG" Zoning District, including without limitation "Food Markets," "Movie Theaters" and "Car Stereo and Alarm Installation." Moreover, the Specific Plan imposes strict aesthetic and architectural standards regarding the proposed "Italian Village" theme, while eliminating all of the otherwise applicable development and construction standards and procedures set forth in the Zoning Code. In addition, at the time EIR No. 96-2 was prepared, a significant portion of the 960,000 square feet of improvements that comprise Huntington Center were unoccupied and the number of shoppers had dropped dramatically. Of the 74 in -line shops, 50% were vacant. Around that time, the approximately 150,000 square foot Broadway store also closed its doors. Following the certification of the EIR No_ 96-2, numerous other tenants left Huntington Center. The remaining occupants at Huntington Center, which include Ward, Burlington Coat Factory, Circuit City, Barnes and Noble, Mervyn's and Macaroni Grill, currently occupy only approximately half of the existing improvements. As a result, the redevelopment of Huntington Center with approximately 1,000,000 square feet of frilly -occupied improvements will, at a minimum, approximately double the traffic, air quality, noise and other impacts associated with the operation of Huntington Center. Also, given the new theme and mix of uses of this new entertainment and retail center, the intensity of uses will be greatly expanded. Both Sedway Group and Keyser Marsten have determined in their reports that the redevelopment of Huntington Center will substantially increase the number of shoppers at Huntington Center. As a result, EIR No. 96-2 will require major revisions to address these substantive changes. For example, the traffic impacts associated with Huntington Center will dramatically SHEPPARD, MULUN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City- Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2,. 2000 Page 3 6 increase and points of ingress and egress will likely change. New significant environmental impacts will also occur with respect to air quality and fugitive dust. As set forth on pages 4.5-9 through 4.5-12 of EIR No. 96-2, new significant environmental air quality impacts clearly will result after computation of emissions in accordance with the tables. Further, EIR No. 96-2 states (at page 4.5-20) that air quality emissions were not even considered for any augmented vehicle trips associated with the "refurbishment of Huntington Beach Mall," let alone a substantial reconstruction as being proposed under the OPA. That is presumably true with respect to most of the other environmental analysis in EIR No. 96-2. EIR No. 96-2 also contains no analysis regarding the substantive changes in the applicable redevelopment and zoning regulations or the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated therewith. Given that the OPA and the Specific Plan propose an entirely new development not previously contemplated by EIR No. 96-2, a supplemental or subsequent EIR must be prepared in accordance with CEQA. 2 Substantial Changes Have Occurred with Respect to the Circumstances Under nder Which the Redevellgs2ment Plan is Undertaken Which Require Ma}or Revisions in EIR No. 96-2. Numerous substantial changes have also occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Redevelopment Plan is being undertaken which also required major revisions in EIR No. 96-2. First, as explained fully above, the Specific Plan has now been adopted by the City, which substantially changes the manner under which the Huntington Center will be redeveloped. Second, there will be substantial demolition rather than mere refurbishment. Tltis not only creates new environmental impacts not previously analyzed, but the seventy of the environmental impacts previously identified will be worse. This includes traffic, air quality, noise and construction -related impacts. Other new impacts not previously analyzed for the Huntington Center include liquefaction (given the Site will be redeveloped in a different configuration). Further, as noted in the Rosenow Spevacek Group report of August, 1996, which was prepared after EIR No. 96-2, Huntington Center had to be constructed on pylons because of the underlying expansive soils. Now, since SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 37 the Huntington Center will not merely be refurbished, new engineering and other work will have to be performed to analyze this impact_ Third, since EIR No. 96-2 was prepared, the freeway on -ramps and off - ramps immediately adjacent to the Site are now being proposed to be reconfigured and/or rebuilt This will significantly affect traffic and circulation, as well as generate substantial construction impacts. Fourth, the Citizens' Infrastructure Advisory Committee has now submitted a report to the City as to the City's infrastructure needs." This report reveals that there is over S1.3 billion in City infrastructure needs over the next 20 years as a result of accumulated deferred maintenance. This report highlights that there are extreme deficiencies in infrastructure and that there is a huge funding gap to fund the required infrastructure work. This report certainly represents a substantial new circumstance 3_ New Information. Which Was Not Known and Could Not Hav_t Been Known at the Time EIR No; 96-2 Was Certified As Complete, Is Now Available. Guidelines Section 15162 provides that a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared if any "(nJew information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete..., shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR ... ; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR." Guidelines §§ 15162(a)(3)(A) and (B). Although not expressly set forth in the OPA, the Initial Study, the Sedway Report and the Keyser Marsten Report all indicate that HCA intends to construct or rehabilitate approximately 1,000,000 square feet of new and existing improvements on the Site that will be fully occupied and significantly increase the amount and intensity of retail activities at Huntington Center. Neither the Initial Study nor EIR No. 96-2 analyze any All reports and other information from the Citizens' Infrastructure Advisory Committee are hereby incorporated into this letter by this reference. SHEPPARO, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON ALP Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 38 of the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with this major redevelopment. It is also important to note that EIR No. 96-2 was largely based on the environmental analysis in the General Plan EIR, significant portions of which were incorporated either directly or by reference into EIR No. 96-2. However, the General Plan EIR analyzed ci de environmental impacts based on buildout under the General Plan. As a result, EIR No. 96-2 also, for the most part, analyzes citywide environmental impacts and does not focus on the environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment of the project area encompassed by the Redevelopment Plan. The incorporation of the General Plan EIR's citywide analysis underscores that EIR No. 96-2 did not evaluate any environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment of Huntington Center contemplated by the OPA and the Specific Plan. In addition, as discussed above, the OPA requires development in accordance with the Specific Plan. However, the Specific Plan represents entirely new zoning for the Site, the effects of which have never been analyzed in any environmental documents, including the Initial Study and EIR No. 96-2. The Specific Plan proposes a substantially different project from the one contemplated in EIR No. 96-2. The Redevelopment Plan EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of a project that only conceptually contemplated the "refurbishment of Huntington Center". The Redevelopment Plan included only the remodeling of existing tenants' stores. The OPA and the Specific Plan, on the other hand, propose, among other things, the demolition of several hundred thousand square feet of existing improvements, the construction, rehabilitation and alteration of several hundred thousand square feet of new and existing improvements on the Site, and a dramatic increase in the number of shoppers and sales activities at the Site. These changes and their corresponding potentially adverse impacts were never analyzed in EIR No. 96-2 and, to date, the Agency has failed to perform any meaningfiil environmental review to determine what the potentially new significant adverse effects will be in connection with the implementation of these substantial changes to the project. Furthermore, as described above, there certainly will be new significant effects associated with the OPA and its implementation that were not discussed in the previous EIR, and others that were discussed will be substantially more severe than shown SHEPPARD, MULLIN. Ric HTER S HAMPTON ,o- Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 39 in EIR No. 96-2. Accordingly, a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared to make EIR No. 96-2 adequate for the proposed OPA and all activities undertaken pursuant thereto. Guidelines §§ 15162, 15163. H. Even if the Conditions Requiring Pre arati n of a Sub a uent or Supplemental EIR Have Not Occurred, the Agency Must Prepare an Addendum to the EIR. Should the City Council and the Agency determine that neither project changes, the altered circumstances nor the new information warrants the need for a subsequent or supplemental E1R, which they should not, at a minimum, an addendum to EIR No. 96-2 must be prepared. Guidelines § 15164. Section 15164 provides in relevant RM. "The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." As discussed above, there are substantial changes to the project previously described in EIR No. 96-2 that mandate additional environmental analysis including, but not limited to, the project description, the design and development standards and the zoning requirements. Notwithstanding this, even if subsequent or supplemental EIR was not required under CEQA, at a minimum, the City and the Agency should prepare an addendum and should include "a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to section 15162." Guidelines § 15164(c). VI. CONCLUSION. Given Ward's expertise, experience and financial commitment to redevelopment, and given that Ward is one of the two major landowners of the Huntington SHEPPARD. MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON ,,- Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Huntington Beach October 2, 2000 Page 40 Center, Ward hereby "requests that the City Council and the Agency reject the proposed OPA as it relates to the Ward Property. for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON Lip LA-LCCLET,42?C,70212554_ 2 cc: Mr_ Ray Silver Mr. Howard Zeiefsky Mr. David C. Biggs Mr. Gustavo A. Duran Gail C. Hutton, Esq. Mr. Spencer H. Heine Mr. Loren H. Hohman Corey E. Light, Esq. Jack H. Rubens, Esq. Sean O'Connor, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP EXHIBIT "A" 1. Statement of Interest and Request for Proposal for Redevelopment of the Huntington Center from Ward to the City of Huntington Beach Economic Development, dated April 14, 2000 2. April 28, 2000 letter from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP ("SMRH") to the Redevelopment Agency regarding Proposed Redevelopment of Huntington Center. 3 Public Records Request dated May 5, 2000 from SMRH to the Agency and the City Council. 4. June 13, 2000 letter from SMRH to the Planning Commission regarding June 13, 2000 Public Hearing. 5. June 13, 2000 letter from Ward to the Planning Commission regarding June 13, 2000 Public Hearing. 6. June 16, 2000 letter from SMRH to the Planning Commission regarding June 20, 2000 Public Hearing. 7. June 16, 2000 letter from Ward to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Economic Development regarding a supplemental to the Statement of Interest and Request for Proposal for Redevelopment of Huntington Center within the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. 8. June 19, 2000 letter from SMRH to the Redevelopment Agency regarding June 19, 2000 Public Hearing. 9. June 28, 2000 letter from SMRH to the City Council regarding the July 5, 2000 Public Hearing. 10. July 5, 2000 letter from SMRH to the City Council regarding July 5, 2000 hearing. I]. August 7, 2000 letter from SMRH to the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency regarding August 7, 2000 hearing. 12. Public Records Request dated July 20, 2000 from SMRH to the Redevelopment Agencv, the City Council and the Planning Commission 13- Photographs of remodeled stores (included in July 5, 2000 staff report). SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER & HAMPTON LLa 14 Articles regarding success of Ward's stores (included in July 5, 2000 staff report)_ SHEPPARD. MULLIN, RICHTE~R & HAMPTON 10P EXHIBIT "B" (Partial List of Specific Plan Modifications to Zonmg Code and General Plan) (a) Section 4.3.1 of, and Exhibit 13A to, the Specific Plan (A) prohibit numerous permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the TG" Zoning District, which are set forth in Section 211.04 of the Zoning Code, including "Vehicle Equipment Repair," and (B) permit uses that are prohibited or conditionally permitted in the "CG" Zoning District, including "Food Markets," "Hotels, Motels," "Movie Theaters," "Restaurants with Outdoor Dining, Alcohol Sales and Live Entertainment and Dancing," "Car Stereo and Alarm [nstallation," "Public Safety Facilities" and "Utilities and Communication Facilities." (b) Section 211.06 of the Zoning Code provides that the minimum lot area for nonresidential development is generally 10,000 square feet, while Exhibit 14 to the Specific Plan states that no minimum lot size is required for any nonresidential development on the Project Site- (c) Section 211.06 of the Zoning Code provides that the minimum lot width for nonresidential development in the "CG" Zoning District is 100 feet, while Exhibit 14 to the Specific Plan states that no minimum lot frontage is required for nonresidential development on the Project Site. (d) Section 211.06 of the Zoning Code provides that the maximum height of nonresidential structures in the "CG" Zoning District is 50 feet, while Section 4.3.3 of and Exhibit 14 to, the Specific Plan state that the maximum building height is 75 feet and a maximum of four stories, provided that special themed architectural structures or elements may be allowed up to 120 feet. (e) Table LU4 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan includes a height limitation of four stories with respect to the Site, while Section 4.3.3 of and Exhibit 14 to, the Specific Plan state that the maximum building height is 75 feet and a maximum of four stories, provided that special themed architectural structures or elements may be allowed up to 120 feet. (f) Section 211.06 of the Zoning Code provides that the maximum floor area ratio for nonresidential development in the "CG" Zoning District is 1.5, while Exhibit 14 to the Specific Plan states that the maximum floor area ratio for nonresidential development on the Project Site is 0.5. (g) Section 211.06 of the Zoning Code provides minimal building design standards for nonresidential development in the "CG" Zoning District, while the Design SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP _e _ Guidelines set forth in Section 3 5 of the Specific Plan require the development of the Project Site with the character and theme of an "Italian Village" and include detailed guidelines and policies regarding site planning, common areas, the required "Entry Plaza," "Village Strada," "Plaza" and "Courtyard and Colonnade," architectural treatments, tenant storefronts, landscaping and signage. (h) Section 212.14A of the Zoning Code includes detailed development and construction standards for nonresidential development in the "CG-FP2" Zoning District, which denotes an area of specific flood hazard, in order to mininuze the potential flood hazard. However, the Specific Plan eliminated all of those developments and construction standards. (1) Chapter 233 of the Zoning Code sets forth detailed signage standards that generally apply to all proposed signs in the City. However, Appendix C to the Specific Plan sets forth detailed signage standards for the Project Site that significantly differ from the signage standards set forth in Chapter 233 of the Zoning Code. 0) Section 2.3 of the Specific Plan provides that "Site Plan Review" is to be undertaken solely by the City's Planning Director, without any public hearing or notice and is appealable to the Planning Commission only by the applicant submitting the Site Plan Review application. This strips the Planning Commission and the City Council of their respective rights to review such development proposals and severely limits public participation. (k) Policy LU 2.1.1 of the General Plan provides for the planning and constructing of public infrastructure and serve improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan and Policy LU 2.1.3 limits the type, location and/or timing of development where there is inadequate public infrastructure to support the proposed land development. Notwithstanding these policies. the Specific Plan generally establishes a master development plan without creating, reviewing or analyzing any plans for the constriction, reconstruction, replacement and relocation of existing and new onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements which will be required in connection with the redevelopment of the Site.9i 9' See Sections 2.3, 2.6, 3.3.9, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.5.4C and 4.1.3 of the Specific Plan. 19�6 ( G/a�.ces�`e� 9a� Bezc� , f T rot! 3r JF c CA Oc 7 i I k } I FIA L./ FROM Q`TIi� )F T SE RECORD AT THE �E CITY CLERK ;Kr`6ITY Cl rkAK 1