The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021 Closed Session Agendas 2000 Man Su". Huntinoon Bea&.CA City of Huntington Beach 92W File 0: 21-960 MEETING DATE: 12/7/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) Agency designated representatives: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager. Employee Organizations: Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT). .. ,. Pnnteo on 12/1/2021 --16 _egista'"' 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA City of Huntington Beach 92646 ` YJ File #: 21-1009 MEETING DATE: 12/21/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, one (1). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 12)1712021 ❑o•xereat7i Legistac- 2000 Main Street. Huntington Beach.CA City of Huntington Beach 92648 File #: 21-993 MEETING DATE: 12/14/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, one (1). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 12113r2021 po W by Legn;tar' 2000 Main Street. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach File#: 21-953 MEETING DATE: 12/7/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, two (2). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1 2/112 0 2 1 P,—i*Leg itar- 2000 Main Street. Huntington Beach.CA City of Huntington Beach 92648 File *: 21-954 MEETING DATE: 12/7/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Robert Handy v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-20-0296. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of Printed on 1211/2021 :xwe.ec a _eg s'ar" 2DD0 Main Street Huntington Beach. CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach File#: 21-955 MEETING DATE: 12/7/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Jose Aranda v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COH13-20-0006. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Pnnted on 12/1/2021 po«er *le9ml- 2000 Main Street. Huntington Beall.CA 92W City of Huntington Beach File N: 21-956 MEETING DATE: 12/7/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Albert Zuniga v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-20-0022. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Pnoled on 12/1t2021 pw iMl*Leg,",- 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach. CA City of Huntington Beach 92648 File#: 21-957 MEETING DATE: 12/7/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Donald Drakev. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-18-0258; COHB16-0142. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 121112021 .,.,..«:U -egwa,- 2000 Main Street. Huntington Beach.CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach File#t: 21-958 MEETING DATE: 12f7l2021 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Gov. Code section 54957(bx1).)Title: Interim City Manager. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 12/1/2021 ry t,fi IA'_ey.Va1*- 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 9264E City of Huntington Beach File*: 21-959 MEETING DATE: 12r712021 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Gov. Code section 54957ftl).)Title: City Manager. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 12/112021 a�weeA1�.egistar" 2000 Main Street. Huntington Beach CA City of Huntington Beach 92648 File!!: 21-943 MEETING DATE: 12/1/2021 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Gov. Code section 54957(bHl).)Title: Interim City Manager. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11 W2021 x..«ea di,e ,t.-" 2000 Main Street. Huntington Beach,CA City of Huntington Beach 92648 File#: 21-944 MEETING DATE: 12/1/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, one (1). City of Hwwwon Beach Pape 1 of 1 Printed on 11/7W2021 v�ti LegWar" City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-854 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Kennedy Commission, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach (Beach-Edinger Corridor); OCSC Case No 30-2015-00801675. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1 111 0/2 0 2 1 poweredl•3 Legistar°" City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-864 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Tater (Michael George), Staniskis (Kyla Skye) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; USDC Case No. 8:20-cv-01772-JVS (JDEx) City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1 111 0/2 0 2 1 oowereot4 Legisrar"" City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-865 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation; USDC Case No.: 1:17md2804. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/10/2021 ooweredt5 Legislar° City of Huntington Beach #z File #: 21-887 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: City of Huntington Beach v. Surf City Beach Cottages, et al.; OCSC Case No. 30-2016-00874885. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/10/2021 powered!§ Legistar- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-872 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2021 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Gov. Code section 54957(b)(1).) Title: Interim City Manager. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/10/2021 poweredE/Legistar*- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-873 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2021 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Gov. Code section 54957(b)(1).) Title: City Manager. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/10/2021 Powered VA Legislarm {_ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-888 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2021 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Gov. Code section 54957(b)(1).) Title: Police Chief. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/10/2021 powereclq Legatar"' 11 City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-867 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) Agency designated representatives: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager. Employee Organizations: Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA), Fire Management Association (FMA), Police Management Association (PMA), Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA), Management Employees' Organization (MEO) and Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/10/2021 oowerec2Q Legistar'• City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-897 MEETING DATE: 11/16/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, two (2)• City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Pnnted on 11110f2021 oowerecZ: LepstaP" City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-811 MEETING DATE: 11/2/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Californians for Homeownership, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01107760. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/27/2021 aowereol4 Legatar" 4 _ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-812 MEETING DATE: 11/2/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund/THDT Investment, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No.: 30-2020-01140855. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/27/2021 nowereot5 Leoistar'° City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-813 MEETING DATE: 11/2/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: City of Huntington Beach v. State of California (SB35, et al.); OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01044945. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/27/2021 pmeredl6 Legis;ar" F_ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-814 MEETING DATE: 11/2/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) Agency designated representatives: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager. Employee Organizations: Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA), Fire Management Association (FMA), Police Management Association (PMA), Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA), Management Employees' Organization (MEO) and Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1 0/2 712 0 2 1 uowerec V;Lepsar- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-818 MEETING DATE: 11/2/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Sheibe (Donna Mae) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No.: 30-2020-01143653. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/27/2021 ooweredl8 Legistar" (_ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-819 MEETING DATE: 11/2/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Jauregui (Roberto) v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No. 30-2020-01130558. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Pnnted on 10/27/2021 powe,eclq Legisw7- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-820 MEETING DATE: 11/2/2021 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT OF CITY MANAGERIEMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 54957.) Name/Title: Oliver Chi, City Manager. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/27/2021 oowerec2Q Leg,slar'. (_ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-821 MEETING DATE: 11/2/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Unrepresented Employee) Government Code section 54957.6. Name/Title: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Designated Representative: Kim Carr, Mayor City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/27/2021 oowerec2lL LeoistarT" 7C f-00 ..title CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, one (1). ( _ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-765 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 Mayor Carr to Announce: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council takes this opportunity to publicly introduce and identify designated labor negotiators: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager, who will be participating in today's Closed Session discussions regarding labor negotiations with: Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA), Fire Management Association (FMA), Police Management Association (PMA), Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA), Management Employees' Organization (MEO) and Huntington Beach Municipal Teamster (HBMT) City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/132021 Powered by Legislar" City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-782 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 Mayor Carr to Announce: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council takes this opportunity to publicly introduce and identify designated labor negotiators: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager, who will be participating in today's Closed Session discussion of the public employment of the Police Chief City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1 0/1 31202 1 xv:ered 5y Legista,- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-766 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) Agency designated representatives: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager. Employee Organizations: Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA), Fire Management Association (FMA), Police Management Association (PMA), Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA), Management Employees' Organization (MEO) and Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT) City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/13/2021 bowerec by Legis;ar'° City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-767 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Bob Guzman v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case Nos. 1) COHB-20-0333, (2) COHB-19-0169, (3) COHB-15-0294, and (4) COHB-13- 0053. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/13/2021 Powered by Legistaru (_ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-768 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Brian Schrieber v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-20-0341. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/13/2021 nowereo by Legistar'- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-769 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Larry Pitcher v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-19-029. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/13/2021 powered by Legisrari° E City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-770 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Robert Dalton v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-18-0341. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Pnnted on 1 0/1 312 0 2 1 bo•serec by Legis;ar1° City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-776 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund/THDT Investment, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No.: 30-2020-01140855. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1011312021 ocwered by Leois:arl^ Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 4:57 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW 10.15.21 Stahl/Gelfand Letter to Mayor Carr and City Council re Closed Session Items 8 and 9 [IWOV-iManage FID10350101 Attachments: 2021-10.15 Stahl-Gelfand Letter to Mayor Carr and City Council.pdf SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: From: Karen Irias <karen.irias@msrlegal.com> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 4:33 PM uudd�x To: Carr, Kim <Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org>; Delgleize, Barbara <Barbara.Delglei ^WRY%_, <Erik.Peterson @surfcity-hb.org>; Posey, Mike <Mike.Posey@surfcity-hb.org>; Kalmick, Dan <Dan.Kalmick@surfcity- hb.org>; Moser, Natalie<Natalie.Moser@surfcity-hb.org>; Bolton, Rhonda <Rhonda.Bolton@surfcity-hb.org>; Fillies, Cathy <CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>; Estanislau, Robin<Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org>; Ken Stahl <ken.Stahl@msrlegal.com>; 'matt@caforhomes.org' <matt@caforhomes.org>; Vikashni Pooni <vikashni.pooni@msrlegal.com>; Karen Wigylus<karen.wigylus@msrlegal.com> Subject: 10.15.21 Stahl/Gelfand Letter to Mayor Carr and City Council re Closed Session Items 8 and 9 [IWOV- iManage.FID10350101 This email is sent on behalf of Kenneth A. Stahl and Malthew Gelfand. Replies mat'be directed to .Vfr. Stahl at Ken.Stahl�r mstle gaf l.corn. Thank NOu. Please include the attached letter and this e-mail with the agenda materials for closed session items 8 and 9 on the October 19, 2021 City Council meeting agenda. Dear Mayor Carr and Members of the City Council We write on behalf of the petitioners in the above-referenced cases THDT Investment, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund. and Californians for Homeownership As you are aware. the court recently ruled in these cases that the City violated the Housing Accountability Act ('HAX) by denying THDT's proposal to build 48 homes at 8041 Ellis Avenue. and the City will be required to reconsider the project consistent with the HAA We are eager to work in collaboration with the City to ensure that the project is approved, and encourage the City to reconsider the project in the spirit of cooperation THDT is committed to providing a safe, high-quality development that will offer much needed housing and contribute positively to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan area If the City chooses to continue litigating the matter. however, we wish to inform you of some of the obstacles the City will face In short. if the City appeals this ruling. the City will likely be wagering a staggering sum of its residents' tax dollars on a very slim chance of success Under the HAA in order for the City to appeal the superior court decision, it is required to post a bond representing the applicant's projected damages from the delay caused by the appeal Gov. Code § 65589.5(m) In a recent HAA case, the court found that the City of Los Altos illegally denied a 15-unit apartment building The city attempted to file a notice of appeal. but the superior court then required the City to post an appeal bond in the amount of $7.000,000 00 (A copy of the court order is attached) The City chose to withdraw the notice of appeal rather than post the bond, but the I Court still ordered the City to pay nearly $500.000 in damages for the delay caused by the notice of appeal plus attorney fees In this case. THDT projects that its damages from the delay likely to be caused by an appeal will be in a very similar range to the $7 000,000 00 ordered in Los Altos If the City appeals and loses, which is very likely, the entire bond amount will then be paid to the applicant as damages In addition. if the City loses the appeal. the HAA requires the City to pay all of the petitioners court costs and attorney fees for the entire litigation including the appeal Gov Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i). The City odds on appeal are not good The HAA has been amended numerous times in recent years to limit the ability of cities to deny housing projects like this one and so far every final court decision addressing the HAA has favored the applicants/petitioners In the recent case of California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v City of San Mateo. for example the appellate court ruled that the HAA was constitutional as applied against charter cities. and then found that the charter City of San Mateo violated it in denying a 10-unit housing project The City of San Mateo recently settled the case and agreed to pay the petitioners $450,000 in attorney fees Keep in mind that the City has already incurred substantial costs on this case To date. the City has incurred over $80,000 in expert witness fees, thousands of dollars in court costs, and dozens of hours of staff time In addition, pursuant to the HAA, the petitioners are entitled to recover court costs and attorney fees. which we estimate will match or exceed the $80,000 the City has already paid for the expert reports Of course, if the City chooses to appeal. it will likely incur far more substantial costs than what it has already incurred For that reason. we encourage the City to forego the appeal and work with the applicant to approve the project Very truly yours. MILLER STARR REGALIA Kenneth A Stahl Very truly yours. CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP >� --C-- Matthew Gelfand KAS kli Attachment September 2, 2020 Los Altos Court Order cc Michael Gates, City Attorney [michael gates@surfcity-hb org] Robin Estanslau, City Clerk [Robin Estanislau@surfcity-hb org] 2 01 his //www losaltosonllne com/news/state-law-ludoes-order-forces-council-approval-of-5-story-proiect-for- downtown/article b9le734d-el85-5ee3-a9ce-3567bc8dd814 html. 2 https://www.smdailyiournal.com/news/local/san-mateo-won-t-appeal-housing-ruling/article eb01606a-2d4b-11ec- 9639-2bdOb5af5af9.htm1 Karen Was I Miller Starr Regalia Assistant to Kenneth A. Stahl 1331 North California Boulevard, Fifth Floor,Walnut Creek, CA 94596 t 925 935 9400 1111 925 942 4541 1 f 925.933 41261 karen.inas(rDmsdeoal corn I www msrlenal com MILLER STARR REGALIA MILLER STARR REGALIA CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION This electronic mail message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee(s)named above and may contain information that is privileged, Confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law If you are not an intended recipient.or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this a-mail to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited If you received this email message in error.please immediately notify the sender by replying to this message or by telephone Thank you Ill https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/state-law-iudges-order-forces-council-approval-of-5-story-proiect-for- downtown/article b91e734d-e185-5ee3-a9ce-3567bc8dd814.html. I'I https://www.smdailviournal.com/news/local/san-mateo-won-t-appeal-housing-ruling/article eb01606a-2d4b-11ec-9639- 2bd0b5af5af9.html. 3 MILLER STA R R 1331 N California Blvd T 925 935 9400 REGALIA Fitth Fbor F 925 933 4126 Walnut Creek CA 94596 www msnegal tom Kenneth A Stahl Direct Dial 949-688-2980 ken stahl®msnegal wm October 15, 2021 VIA E-MAIL Mayor Kim Carr Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E-Marl:City.Council@surfcity-hb org Kim Carr@surfcity-hb org barbara.delgleize@surfcity-hb.org erik peterson@surfcity-hb org mi ke.posey@su rfcity-h b-org Dan Kalmlck@surfcity-hb.org Natalie.Moser@surfcity-hb org Rhonda.Bolton@surfcity-hb.org CFikes@surfcity-hb org Re. California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund. et at v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No 30-2020- 01140855-CU-WM-CJC Californians For Homeownership. Inc v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC Dear Mayor Carr and Members of the City Council We write on behalf of the petitioners in the above-referenced cases, THDT Investment. California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, and Californians for Homeownership As you are aware. the court recently ruled in these cases that the City violated the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA") by denying THDT s proposal to build 48 homes at 8041 Ellis Avenue, and the City will be required to reconsider the project consistent with the HAA We are eager to work in collaboration with the City to ensure that the project is approved, and encourage the City to reconsider the project in the spirit of cooperation. THDT is committed to providing a safe. high-quality development that will offer much needed housing and contribute positively to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan area CRLA-5722012512592 2 Offices Walnut Creek i San Francisco I Newport Beach Mayor Kim Carr Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach October 15. 2021 Page 2 If the City chooses to continue litigating the matter, however. we wish to inform you of some of the obstacles the City will face. In short. if the City appeals this ruling. the City will likely be wagering a staggering sum of its residents' tax dollars on a very slim chance of success Under the HAA, in order for the City to appeal the superior courts decision it is required to post a bond representing the applicants projected damages from the delay caused by the appeal Gov Code § 65589 5(m). In a recent HAA case. the court found that the City of Los Altos illegally denied a 15- unit apartment building The city attempted to file a notice of appeal. but the superior court then required the City to post an appeal bond in the amount of $7.000,000 00 (A copy of the courts order is attached) The City chose to withdraw the notice of appeal rather than post the bond, but the Court still ordered the City to pay nearly $500.000 in damages for the delay caused by the notice of appeal, plus attorney fees In this case. THDT projects that its damages from the delay likely to be caused by an appeal will be in a very similar range to the $7.000.000.00 ordered in Los Altos If the City appeals and loses. which is very likely. the entire bond amount will then be paid to the applicant as damages In addition, if the City loses the appeal, the HAA requires the City to pay all of the petitioners court costs and attorney fees for the entire litigation including the appeal Gov Code § 65589 5(k)(1)(A)(ii) The City's odds on appeal are not good. The HAA has been amended numerous times in recent years to limit the ability of cities to deny housing projects like this one, and so far every final court decision addressing the HAA has favored the applicants/petitioners In the recent case of California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v City of San Mateo, for example. the appellate court ruled that the HAA was constitutional as applied against charter cities, and then found that the charter City of San Mateo violated it in denying a 10-unit housing project The City of San Mateo recently settled the case and agreed to pay the petitioners $450,000 in attorney fees.' Keep in mind that the City has already incurred substantial costs on this case To date. the City has incurred over $80.000 in expert witness fees. thousands of dollars in court costs and dozens of hours of staff time. In addition, pursuant to the HAA. the petitioners are entitled to recover court costs and attorney fees which we estimate will match or exceed the S80.000 the City has already paid for the expert reports ' https//www.losaltosonhne com/news/state-law-iudges-order-forces-councd- approval-of-5-story-project-for-downtown/article b91e734d-e185-5ee3-a9ce- 35671bc8dd814.html. 2 https //www smdailviournal com/news/local/san-mateo-won-t-appeal-housing- ruling/article eb01606a-2d4b-11ec-9639-2bdOb5af5af9 html. CRLA-5722012512592 2 Mayor Kim Carr Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach October 15. 2021 Page 3 Of course, if the City chooses to appeal, it will likely incur far more substantial costs than what it has already incurred For that reason we encourage the City to forego the appeal and work with the applicant to approve the project Very truly yours. MILLER STARR REGALIA Kenneth A Stahl Very truly yours. CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP Matthew Gelfand KAS kh Attachment September 2. 2020 Los Altos Court Order cc Michael Gates. City Attorney [michael gates@surfcity-hb org[ Robin Estanslau, City Clerk [Robin Estanlslau@surfcity-hb org] CRtA-5722012512592 2 Attachment 1 KLI-9999912081488.1 1 2 ILE ® 3 4 SEP — 2 2020 5 Clerk the CI u Supettor COW oI CC A County I58 re 6 BY_ d Ald Kdnn u'ry 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11 40 MAIN STREET OFFICES, LLC, Case No. 19CV349845 (Lead case, consol. with Case No. 19CV350422) 12 Petitioner, 13 vs. 14 CITY OF LOS ALTOS, et al., 15 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL(Govt. Code, § 65589.5, 16 Respondents. subd. (m).) 17 CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL 18 ADVOCACY & EDUCATION FUND, et al., 19 Petitioners, 20 vs. 21 CITY OF LOS ALTOS, et al., 22 23 Respondents, 24 25 The motion of petitioner 40 Main Street Offices, LLC for an order setting the amount of 26 the bond or undertaking on appeal to be posted by respondents the City of Los Altos, the City of 27 Los Altos City Council, and the City of Los Altos Community Development Department 28 (collectively,the City, who are appellants on appeal) under Government Code section 65589.5, I ORDER SFTTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL I subdivision (m) came on for hearing before the Honorable Helen E. Williams on August 21, 2 2020, at 9:00 am. in Department 22 of the court. Daniel R. Golub and Genna Yarkin of Holland 3 &Knight appeared for petitioner and project applicant 40 Main Street Offices, LLC(Developer); 4 Emily L. Brough of Zaeks,Freedman & Patterson appeared for petitioners California Renters 5 Legal Advocacy &Education Fund, San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, Victoria 6 Fierce, and Sonja Trauss (collectively, Renters); Arthur J. Friedman of Sheppard Mullin Richter 7 & Hampton LLP appeared for respondents, the City.The Court having carefully considered the 8 papers filed by the parties, the matters of which the Court takes judicial notice,the arguments of 9 counsel, and the applicable law, Court finds and orders as follows. 10 Renters and Developer(collectively,petitioners) alleged in their ultimately consolidated 11 petitions for relief in mandate that the City had unlawfully denied Developer's building project 12 proposal in violation of the applicable streamlining statute (SB 35, Govt. Code, § 65913.4), the 13 Housing Accountability Act(Govt. Code, § 65589.5), and the Density Bonus Law(Govt. Code, 14 § 65915). Based on these allegations,petitioners each sought writs of mandate compelling the 15 City to approve Developer's streamlined application for development. 16 On April 27,2020, the Court granted the consolidated petitions by written Order. In the 17 Order, the Court concluded, among other things, that the City had violated the Housing 18 Accountability Act. On May 13, 2020,the Court entered Judgment in favor of petitioners and 19 directed the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the City to take certain 20 actions consistent with the Order and Judgment.The writ as issued by the Clerk of the Court 21 directed the City to file an initial return within 60 days of service of the writ. In its Judgment, 22 and as reflected in the writ, the Court retained jurisdiction for various purposes,including 23 determining further remedies as necessary under the Housing Accountability Act. 24 After service of the writ, the City did not comply its directives or file a return as directed. 25 But on July 8, 2020, the City appealed from the judgment. (See Sixth District Court of Appeal 26 docket no. H048270.)The City apparently took the position that the appeal itself automatically 27 stayed the Judgment and writ without any affirmative stay or undertaking. The City did not seek 28 a stay of the Judgment or the writ from the trial court or the Court of Appeal.Nor did the City 2 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL I seek to have the Court set the amount of the bond "to the benefit of the [petitioner] if the 2 [petitioner] is the project applicant"as required by the Housing Accountability Act. (Govt. Code, 3 § 65589.5, subd. (m).)Nor did the City otherwise attempt by agreement or otherwise to post a 4 bond or undertaking on appeal, which bond is expressly required under these circumstances. 5 (Ibid.) Accordingly,at least to the extent the Judgment and the commands of the writ adjudicate 6 and direct relief under the Housing Accountability Act, those adjudications and directives do not 7 appear to be currently stayed on appeal and the City has not complied with them. 8 As a consequence, Developer, as project applicant, has moved the Court to set the 9 amount of the bond on appeal to be posted by the City under Government Code section 65589.5, 10 subdivision (m). Developer ultimately requests that the bond be set in the amount of 11 $13,836,324.00,which amount it argues is supported by the Declarations and Supplemental 12 Declarations it filed in support of the motion and which include expert opinion testimony on 13 claimed monetary impacts or consequential damages Developer is asserted to already have 14 sustained and is likely to sustain during the pendency of appeal, assuming the Judgment is 15 ultimately affirmed. (See Declarations of Gary Herbert and Theodore G. Sorenson filed July 30, 16 2020, and Supplemental declarations of Gary Herbert and Theodore G. Sorenson filed August 17 14, 2020.) In this regard, Developer contends that the period of appeal—during which it is likely 18 to sustain such impacts or damages—sbould be estimated at 30 months for purposes of setting 19 the bond amount. (See Declaration of Daniel R. Golub.) 20 The City, while now seeming to acknowledge that such a bond is statutorily required to 21 stay the Judgment on appeal, challenges the admissibility of large swaths of Developer's 22 declarations offered in support of the motion.' The City further contends that 17 months is the 23 24 In this regard, the City has submitted 36 pages of objections to Developer's proffered 25 evidence with multiple bases of objection set out for each portion of challenged testimony but just one box for the Court to indicate its single ruling on the multiple bases of objection 26 interposed. While the Court understands the need for a party to preserve evidentiary objections, 27 the Court declines to individually rule on every single one made here by the City, which the Court considers a burdensome and excessive exercise in the context of this motion. But,as 28 reflected in this Order,the Court wilt rule on objections or general categories of objection that it deems are material to the disposition of the motion. 3 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF POND ON APPEAL I appropriate estimated duration of the appeal, and it urges that the bond amount be set in the 2 range of$100,000. 3 As noted, Government Code section 65589.4,subdivision (m)provides in pertinent part 4 that"[i]f the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court,the local agency shall post a 5 bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the [petitioner] if the 6 [petitioner] is the project applicant,"as Developer is here. The statute itself contains no express 7 measure or specific criteria to be taken into account in the setting of the bond. But legislative 8 history materials (of which the Court takes judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452 on 9 Developer's request) include the following statements: "This bill adds fines and an appeals bond 10 requirement to the enforcement provisions of the Anti-NIINIBY Law. Affordable housing 11 developers have found that, even if they are successful in an anti-NI 1BY court action against a 12 local government, they often lose their projects as a result of increases in costs, loss of permits or 13 land, or other consequences of the amount of time it took to get through the Iegal process. This 14 bill originally gave courts the option of awarding actual damages to successful developer 15 plaintiffs to make up for these losses, increase the likelihood of the project actually being built, 16 and create a disincentive to local governments to force a case into court. As a result of 17 negotiations between the interested parties, this bill now authorizes the assessment of fines on 18 local governments that are found to have acted in bad faith in disapproving a project'and failed t 19 carry out the court's order or judgment within 60 days. This bill also allows a court to vacate the 20 action of a local government and deem a project approved with court-appointed standard 21 conditions if the community has failed to comply with a court order within 60 days." (Ass. Floor 22 Analysis of Sen. Bill 575, as amended Aug. 18,2005, Ex. B to Declaration of Daniel Golub.) 23 In the absence of specified criteria to be considered in determining the amount of an 24 appeal bond under Government Cade section 65589.5,subdivision (m), the Court also notes the 25 provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 917.9. At subdivision (a)(2), this statute 26 analogously provides for the discretionary requirement of a bond on appeal to stay the 27 enforcement of a judgment or order requiring an appellant to perform an act for the respondent's 28 benefit. The Judgment and writ do exactly that here but the setting and posting of a bond on 4 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL I appeal is mandatory under the Housing Accountability Act, not discretionary. Under Code of 2 Civil Procedure section 917.9, subdivision(b), the "undertaking shall be in a sum fixed by the 3 court and shall be in an amount sufficient to cover all damages which the respondent may sustain 4 by reason of the stay in the enforcement of thejudgment or order."Subdivision(c) provides that 5 the undertaking"shall be conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order appealed 6 from or payment of the sums required by the judgment or order appealed from, if the judgment 7 or order is affirmed or the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed, and it shall provide that if the 8 judgment or order appealed from or any part of it is affirmed, or the appeal is withdrawn or 9 dismissed,the appellant will pay all damages which the respondent may sustain by reason of the 10 stay of enforcement of thejudgment."Under subdivision(d), " `damages' means ... [r]easonable 11 compensation for the loss of use of the money or property ... [or] payment of costs awarded to 12 the respondent a Under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.9,a bond or undertaking so required 13 as a matter of discretion guarantees an unsuccessful appellant's eventual performance of the 14 commands of the appealed judgment or order, and protects the respondent from damages 15 resulting while the appealed judgment or order is stayed by the discretionary undertaking. (See 16 Estate ojMurphy(1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 564, 568 [when there is a risk of loss of benefits during 17 an appeal,"Equity demands that, as between respondent and appellant, the appellant who seeks 18 the stay should assume the risk."].) 19 In connection with this motion, and as noted, the Court grants Developer's request for 20 judicial notice of the Assembly Floor Analysis of amendments to Government Code section 21 65offered as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Daniel R. Golub. The Court denies the same request 22 with respect to Exhibit A—the Los Altos press release dated July 8, 2020--on the basis of lack 23 of relevance.; 24 25 a Developer's motion and this Order setting the amount of bond on appeal do not take into account costs of suit or an award of attorney fees for which petitioners have now moved to 26 be included as part of the Judgment. It may be that a second bond on appeal will be required to 27 stay execution of what ultimately may be a money judgment. But those issues are not now before the Court. 28 a On its own motion, the Court further takes judicial notice of the relevant pages of the Judicial Council of California Court Statistics Reports from 2017, 2018, and 2019. These pages 5 ORDER SETTING AMOLTNT OF BOND ON APPEAL I The Court next turns to the City's many objections to evidence. First, the Court denies 2 the City's wholesale request to strike the Supplemental Declarations of Theodore G. Sorenson 3 and Gary Herbert filed with Developer's reply brief These declarations are merely responsive to 4 the City's objections to evidence interposed with its opposition to the motion; the Supplemental 5 Declarations raise no new theories or arguments and they may be viewed as supplying 6 information that was claimed to be foundational gaps in what was offered in the original 7 Declarations filed with the moving papers on July 30, 2020,just as permissible curative opinion 8 testimony would be allowed in live testimony in court to overcome evidentiary objections. The 9 City offers no opinion evidence of its own as to matters relevant to the bond amount and it leaves 10 many factual premises of the Developer's proffered expert opinions undisturbed. Further, many 11 of the objections do not technically go to admissibility of evidence but rather to its weight. And 12 the City shows no prejudice. (Professional Engineers in California Government v. Brown (2014) 13 229 Cal.AppAth 861, 874-875 (trial court retains discretion to consider evidence, including that 14 submitted on reply];Savea v. YRC Inc. (2019) 34 Cal.App.Sth 173, 182 [.supplemental request 15 for judicial notice submitted on reply raised no new arguments or theories and was merely 16 responsive to opposition to first request].)Finally, in some sense, it is the City's burden as 17 appellant under Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision(m) to perfect the required stay 18 on appeal by posting the mandatory bond in an amount to be set by the Court. Yet the City took 19 no steps to initiate that setting, forcing Developer to pursue this motion as the moving party. For 20 all these reasons,the Court denies the City's motion to strike the Supplemental Declarations. 21 To the extent the City objected to evidence from any source of Developer's claimed "past 22 damages,"meaning those claimed to have been suffered between denial of project approval in 23 24 show in tables and graphs generated from immediately prior years the time from notice of appeal 25 to the filing of opinion in civil cases for all six of the State's District Courts of Appeal and the Summary of Filings and Dispositions. Taking into account the time periods shown for the Sixth 26 District Court of Appeal,and adding 45 to 60 days for the issuance of a remittitur(assuming no 27 review by the California Supreme Court),two to two and one-half years for the life of this appeal, or 30 months as argued by Developer, is a reasonable estimate,particularly in view of the 28 fact, also judicially noticed,that that Court has a recent judicial vacancy that will take some time for the Governor to fill. 6 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL 1 2019 and the time in July 2020 when the City was supposed to have complied with the Judgment 2 and writ, the Court sustains those objections on the basis of relevance.This period of time is 3 outside the relevant period for purposes of a bond or undertaking on appeal from the Judgment 4 entered in May 2020 and directing compliance by the City within 60 days. The Court likewise 5 sustains the City's objections to evidence from any source in support of dollar amounts 6 representing the claimed risk of a"black swan"economic-loss event that could entirely wipe out 7 Developer's project during the life of the appeal, on the basis that these amounts and opinions on 8 the claimed risk are speculative and conclusory, and based on conjecture more than reliable, 9 accepted,or established facts. 10 The Court further sustains the City's objections to paragraphs 6(g),7(g), and 9-23 of the I 1 Declaration of Theodore G. Sorenson; paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Daniel R. Golub and 12 Exhibit A thereto;and paragraphs 3(g)and 4(g) of the Supplemental Declaration of Theodore G. 13 Sorenson, all on the basis of relevance, 14 The balance of the City's evidentiary objections are overruled, specifically the 15 foundational, hearsay, and "best evidence"objections to evidence that is not already excluded 16 per the above rulings. For foundational purposes as to portions of the declarations not already 17 excluded above, the Court considers each declarant's two declarations together as a whole and 18 finds them sufficient to support the opinions expressed. (Sorenson and Herbert Declarations and 19 Supplemental Declarations.) Many of the foundational objections in any event go to the weight 20 of the evidence, which the Court will assess and subscribe. As to many of the hearsay objections, 21 an expert may rely on hearsay in forming an opinion and may relate that he or she did so in 22 general terms to the trier of fact. (People v. Sanchez (2016)63 Cal.4th 665, 685-686.) Moreover, 23 many of the matters objected to here on the basis of hearsay are not"case-specific" facts required 24 to be independently proven by competent evidence or covered by a hearsay exception. (Id. at p. 25 686.)And the Legislature repealed the "best evidence rule"in 1998. (See Evid. Code, § 1500, 26 repealed by Stats. 1998,ch. 100, § 1.)Under the modem secondary evidence rule, "[tlhe content 27 of a writing may be proved by an otherwise admissible original(Evid. Code, § 1520) or by 28 `otherwise admissible secondary evidence"(Evid. Code, § 1521. (See, e.g., Molenda v. Dept. of 7 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL I Motor Vehicles(2009) 172 Cal.AppAth 974, 994 (discussing relationship between secondary 2 evidence rule and hearsay rule]; Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, Inc. (2018) 3 29 Cal.App.5th 1, 14.) Of import here too is that the secondary evidence rule is not applicable to 4 the extent testimony pertains to operative facts and not the contents of a writing, even if a writing 5 exists as an alternate source of the same facts. To the extent the City here objects to financial 6 information contained in documents and referenced in declarations, this information need not 7 necessarily be proven through writings memorializing these operative facts. (See,e.g., Crinella 8 v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co. (1927) 85 Cal.App. 440,446 (secondary evidence rule not 9 implicated).) 10 Having considered the admissible evidence and operative legal principles,the Court in its 11 discretion sets the amount of the bond on appeal to be posted by the City under Government 12 Code section 65589.5, subdivision (m) at$7,000,000.00. The bond must be posted within 10 13 business days from service of this order. 14 15 1T ISO ORDE 16 17 Date: September 2, 2020 18 HELEN E. N Lb6IS Judge of the Superior Court 19 \ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL (_ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-777 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Californians for Homeownership, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach (RPI THDT Investment, Inc.); OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01107760. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/13/2021 powereo by Leais;ar'' Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 4:57 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: 10.15.21 Stahl/Gelfand Letter to Mayor Carr and City Council re Closed Session Items 8 and 9 [IWOV-iManage.FID10350101 Attachments: 2021-10-15 Stahl-Gelfand Letter to Mayor Carr and City�ryaci (MENTAL COMMUNICATION From: Karen Irias<karen.irias@msrlegal.com> 1 Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 4:33 PM Agend9Item No.. To: Carr, Kim <Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org>; Delgleize, Barbara <Barbara.Delgleize@surfcity-hb.org>; a erso <Erik.Peterson@surfcity-hb.org>; Posey, Mike<Mike.Posey@surfcity-hb.org>; Kalmick, Dan <Dan.Kalmick@surfcity- hb.org>; Moser, Natalie <Natalie.Moser@surfcity-hb.org>; Bolton, Rhonda <Rhonda.Bolton @surfcity-hb.org>; Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>; Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org>; Ken Stahl <ken.stahl@msrlegal.com>; 'matt @cafo rho mes.org' <matt@caforhomes.org>; Vikashni Pooni <vikashni.pooni@msrlegal.com>; Karen Wigylus<karen.wigylus@msrlegal.com> Subject: 10.15.21 Stahl/Gelfand Letter to Mayor Carr and City Council re Closed Session Items 8 and 9 [IWOV- iManage.FID10350101 This email is sent on behalf of Kenneth A. Stahl and Matthew Gelfand Replies may he directed to Mr. Stahl at Ken.Stahldmsrle gad I.com. Thank you. Please include the attached letter and this e-mail with the agenda materials for closed session items 8 and 9 on the October 19, 2021 City Council meeting agenda. Dear Mayor Carr and Members of the City Council We write on behalf of the petitioners in the above-referenced cases THDT Investment, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund and Californians for Homeownership. As you are aware, the court recently ruled in these cases that the City violated the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA ) by denying THDT s proposal to build 48 homes at 8041 Ellis Avenue.. and the City will be required to reconsider the project consistent with the HAA We are eager to work in collaboration with the City to ensure that the project is approved. and encourage the City to reconsider the project in the spirit of cooperation THDT is committed to providing a safe. high-quality development that will offer much needed housing and contribute positively to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan area If the City chooses to continue litigating the matter. however. we wish to inform you of some of the obstacles the City will face In short, if the City appeals this ruling. the City will likely be wagering a staggering sum of its residents tax dollars on a very slim chance of success Under the HAA in order for the City to appeal the superior courts decision. it is required to post a bond representing the applicants projected damages from the delay caused by the appeal Gov Code § 65589 5(m) In a recent HAA case. the court found that the City of Los Altos illegally denied a 15-unit apartment building The city attempted to file a notice of appeal, but the superior court then required the City to post an appeal bond in the amount of $7.000,000 00 (A copy of the court order is attached) The City chose to withdraw the notice of appeal rather than post the bond, but the I Court still ordered the City to pay nearly $500,000 in damages for the delay caused by the notice of appeal, plus attorney fees ' In this case THDT projects that its damages from the delay likely to be caused by an appeal will be in a very similar range to the $7 000,000 00 ordered in Los Altos If the City appeals and loses, which is very likely, the enure bond amount will then be paid to the applicant as damages In addition. if the City loses the appeal. the HAA requires the City to pay all of the petitioners court costs and attorney fees for the entire litigation including the appeal Gov Code § 65589.5(1k)(7)(A)(ii) The City s odds on appeal are not good. The HAA has been amended numerous times in recent years to limit the ability of cities to deny housing projects like this one. and so far every final court decision addressing the HAA has favored the applicants/petitioners In the recent case of California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v City of San Mateo. for example the appellate court ruled that the HAA was constitutional as applied against charter cities, and then found that the charter City of San Mateo violated it in denying a 10-unit housing project. The City of San Mateo recently settled the case and agreed to pay the petitioners $450.000 in attorney fees I': Keep in mind that the City has already incurred substantial costs on this case To date the City has incurred over $80,000 in expert witness fees, thousands of dollars in court costs. and dozens of hours of staff time In addition, pursuant to the HAA. the petitioners are entitled to recover court costs and attorney fees which we estimate will match or exceed the $80,000 the City has already paid for the expert reports Of course, if the City chooses to appeal. it will likely incur far more substantial costs than what it has already incurred For that reason we encourage the City to forego the appeal and work with the applicant to approve the project Very truly yours. MILLER STARR REGALIA )�� .CJt(.t Kenneth A. Stahl Very truly yours. CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP Matthew Gelfand KAS kli Attachment September 2, 2020 Los Altos Court Order cc Michael Gates. City Attorney (michael gates@surfaty-hb org) Robin Estanslau, City Clerk (Robin Estanislau@surfcity-hb org] 2 I'I https://www.losaltosonline com/news/state-law-judges-order-forces-council-approval-of-5-story-project-for- downtown/article b91e734d-e185-5ee3-a9ce-3567bc8dd814 html. 2 https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/san-mateo-won-t-appeal-housing-ruling/article eb01606a-2d4b-11ec- 9639-2bd0b5af5af9.htmI Karen Irias I Miller Starr Regalia Assistant to Kenneth A Stahl 1331 North California Boulevard, Fifth Floor,Walnut Creek, CA 94596 1. 925.935.9400 1 d: 925.942.4541 1 f: 925 933.4126 1 karen.inasCalmsrleaal com I www msrleaal.corn MILLER STARR REGALIA MILLER STARR REGALIA CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION This electronic mail message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addresseeis)named above and may contain information that is privileged confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law If you are not an intended recipient.or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this a-mad to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited It you received this a-mad message in error please immediately notify the sender by replying to this message or by telephone Thank you l'l https://www.loSaltoSonIine.Com/news/state-law-iudges-order-forces-council-approval-of-S-story-project-for- downtown/article b91e734d-e185-5ee3-a9ce-3567bc8dd814.html. hl https://www.smdallyioUrnal.com/news/local/san-mateo-Won-t-appeal-housing-ruling/article eb01606a-2d4b-11ef-9639- 2bd0b5af5af9.html. 3 ri MILLER STARR 1331N California Blvd T 925 935 9400 REGALIA Ffth Flcor F 925 933 4126 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 vrww msnegal corn Kenneth A Stahl Dvect Dial 949-686-2960 ken stahlarnsrlegal con, October 15. 2021 VIA E-MAIL Mayor Kim Carr Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E-Mail City Council@surfCiy-hb org Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org barbara delgleize@surfcity-hb org enk peterson@surfcity-hb org mike posey@surfcity-hb.org Dan Kalmick@surfcity-hb org Natalie Moser@surfcity-hb.org Rhonda Bolton@surfcity-hb.org CFtkes@surfcity-hb org Re: California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund, et al v. City of Huntington Beach. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020- 01140855-CU-WM-CJC Californians For Homeownership, lnc. v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC Dear Mayor Carr and Members of the City Council We write on behalf of the petitioners in the above-referenced cases, THDT Investment. California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund and Californians for Homeownership As you are aware the court recently ruled In these cases that the City violated the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA") by denying THDT's proposal to build 48 homes at 8041 Ellis Avenue. and the City will be required to reconsider the project consistent with the HAA We are eager to work in collaboration with the City to ensure that the project is approved. and encourage the City to reconsider the project in the spirit of cooperation THDT is committed to providing a safe. high-quality development that will offer much needed housing and contribute positively to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan area. CRLA-57220Q512592 2 Offices Walnut Creek l San Frandsco l Newpon Beach Mayor Kim Carr Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach October 15, 2021 Page 2 If the City chooses to continue litigating the matter, however. we wish to inform you of some of the obstacles the City will face In short, if the City appeals this ruling. the City will likely be wagering a staggering sum of its residents tax dollars on a very slim chance of success Under the HAA. in order for the City to appeal the superior court's decision, it is required to post a bond representing the applicant's projected damages from the delay caused by the appeal Gov Code § 65589 5(m) In a recent HAA case the court found that the City of Los Altos illegally denied a 15- unit apartment building. The city attempted to file a notice of appeal. but the superior court then required the City to post an appeal bond in the amount of $7,000.000.00 (A copy of the courts order is attached) The City chose to withdraw the notice of appeal rather than post the bond but the Court still ordered the City to pay nearly $500,000 in damages for the delay caused by the notice of appeal, plus attorney fees ' In this case. THDT projects that its damages from the delay likely to be caused by an appeal will be in a very similar range to the $7.000.000.00 ordered in Los Altos If the City appeals and loses. which is very likely, the entire bond amount will then be paid to the applicant as damages In addition, if the City loses the appeal. the HAA requires the City to pay all of the petitioners' court costs and attorney fees for the entire litigation including the appeal Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii) The City s odds on appeal are not good The HAA has been amended numerous times in recent years to limit the ability of cities to deny housing projects like this one, and so far every final court decision addressing the HAA has favored the applicants/petitioners In the recent case of California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v City of San Mateo, for example, the appellate court ruled that the HAA was constitutional as applied against charter cities, and then found that the charter City of San Mateo violated it in denying a 10-unit housing project The City of San Mateo recently settled the case and agreed to pay the petitioners $450,000 in attorney fees Keep in mind that the City has already incurred substantial costs on this case. To date, the City has incurred over $80.000 in expert witness fees. thousands of dollars in court costs. and dozens of hours of staff time In addition. pursuant to the HAA, the petitioners are entitled to recover court costs and attorney fees, which we estimate will match or exceed the $80.000 the City has already paid for the expert reports ' https.//www.losaltosonline com/news/state-law-Judges-order-forces-council- approval-of-5-story-project-for-downtown/article b91e734d-e185-5ee3-a9ce- 3567bc8dd814 html. 2 https//www smdadyloumalcortVnews/locaVsan-mateo-won-t-appeal-housing- ruling/article eb01606a-2d4b-llec-9639-2bdOb5af5af9.html. CRLA-57220\2512592.2 Mayor Kim Carr Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach October 15, 2021 Page 3 Of course, if the City chooses to appeal, it will likely incur far more substantial costs than what it has already incurred For that reason we encourage the City to forego the appeal and work with the applicant to approve the project Very truly yours. MILLER STARR REGALIA ) .3&a Kenneth A Stahl Very truly yours, CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP Matthew Gelfand KAS:kIi Attachment September 2, 2020 Los Altos Court Order cc. Michael Gates, City Attorney (michael gates@surfcity-hborg] Robin Estanslau. City Clerk [Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb org] CRLA-57220Q512592 2 Attachment 1 KLI-99999Q081488.1 I 2 3 I L E D 4 SEP - 2 2020 5 Clerk of theE� Superior Co1�u'n^ofr,C,A,County I Se 6 BY-----�+�+�1JW UTY 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11 40 MAIN STREET OFFICES, LLC, Case No. 19CV349845 (Lead case, consul. with Case No. 19CV350422) 12 Petitioner, 13 vs. 14 CITY OF LOS ALTOS,et al., 15 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL(Govt. Code, § 65589.5, 16 Respondents. subd. (m).) 17 CALIFORNIA RENTERS LEGAL 18 ADVOCACY & EDUCATION FUND, et al., 19 Petitioners, 20 vs. 21 Crl'Y OF LOS ALTOS, et al., 22 23 Respondents. 24 25 The motion of petitioner 40 Main Street Offices, LLC for an order setting the amount of 26 the bond or undertaking on appeal to be posted by respondents the City of Los Altos, the City of 27 Los Altos City Council, and the City of Los Altos Community Development Department 28 (collectively,the City, who are appellants on appeal)under Government Code section 65589.5, 1 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL I subdivision (m) came on for hearing before the Honorable Helen E. Williams on August 21, 2 2020,at 9:00 am. in Department 22 of the court. Daniel R. Golub and Genna Yarkin of Holland 3 &Knight appeared for petitioner and project applicant 40 Main Street Offices, LLC (Developer); 4 Emily L. Brough of Zacks,Freedman&Patterson appeared for petitioners California Renters 5 Legal Advocacy&Education Fund,San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, Victoria 6 Fierce, and Sonja Trauss (collectively, Renters); Arthur J. Friedman of Sheppard Mullin Richter 7 & Hampton LLP appeared for respondents, the City. The Court having carefully considered the 8 papers filed by the parties,the matters of which the Court takes judicial notice,the arguments of 9 counsel, and the applicable law, Court finds and orders as follows. 10 Renters and Developer (collectively,petitioners)alleged in their ultimately consolidated i 1 petitions for relief in mandate that the City had unlawfully denied Developer's building project 12 proposal in violation of the applicable streamlining statute (SB 35, Govt. Code, § 65913.4), the 13 Housing Accountability Act(Govt. Code, § 65589.5), and the Density Bonus Law(Govt. Code, 14 § 65915). Based on these allegations,petitioners each sought writs of mandate compelling the 15 City to approve Developer's streamlined application for development. 16 On April 27,2020, the Court granted the consolidated petitions by written Order. In the 17 Order, the Court concluded, among other things, that the City had violated the Housing 18 Accountability Act. On May 13, 2020,the Court entered Judgment in favor of petitioners and 19 directed the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the City to take certain 20 actions consistent with the Order and Judgment.The writ as issued by the Clerk of the Court 21 directed the City to file an initial return within 60 days of service of the writ. In its Judgment, 22 and as reflected in the writ,the Court retained jurisdiction for various purposes, including 23 determining further remedies as necessary under the Housing Accountability Act. 24 After service of the writ, the City did not comply its directives or file a return as directed. 25 But on July 8, 2020, the City appealed from the judgment. (See Sixth District Court of Appeal 26 docket no. H048270.)The City apparently took the position that the appeal itself automatically 27 stayed the Judgment and writ without any affirmative stay or undertaking. The City did not seek 28 u stay of the Judgment or the writ from the trial court or the Court of Appeal.Nor did the City 2 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL 1 seek to have the Court set the amount of the bond "to the benefit of the (petitioner] if the 2 [petitioner] is the project applicant"as required by the Housing Accountability Act. (Govt. Code, 3 § 65589.5,subd. (m).)Nor did the City otherwise attempt by agreement or otherwise to post a 4 bond or undertaking on appeal, which bond is expressly required under these circumstances. 5 (Ibid.) Accordingly,at least to the extent the Judgment and the commands of the writ adjudicate 6 and direct relief under the Housing Accountability Act, those adjudications and directives do not 7 appear to be currently stayed on appeal and the City has not complied with them. 8 As a consequence, Developer, as project applicant, has moved the Court to set the 9 amount of the bond on appeal to be posted by the City under Government Code section 65589.5, 10 subdivision(m). Developer ultimately requests that the bond be set in the amount of 11 $13,836,324.00,which amount it argues is supported by the Declarations and Supplemental 12 Declarations it filed in support of the motion and which include expert opinion testimony on 13 claimed monetary impacts or consequential damages Developer is asserted to already have 14 sustained and is likely to sustain during the pendency of appeal, assuming the Judgment is 15 ultimately affirmed. (See Declarations of Gary Herbert and Theodore G. Sorenson filed July 30, 16 2020, and Supplemental declarations of Gary Herbert and Theodore G. Sorenson filed August 17 14, 2020.) In this regard, Developer contends that the period of appeal—during which it is likely 18 to sustain such impacts or damages—should be estimated at 30 months for purposes of setting 19 the bond amount. (See Declaration of Daniel R. Golub.) 20 The City,while now seeming to acknowledge that such a bond is statutorily required to 21 stay the Judgment on appeal, challenges the admissibility of large swaths of Developer's 22 declarations offered in support of the motion.' The City further contends that 17 months is the 23 24 In this regard, the City has submitted 36 pages of objections to Developer's proffered 25 evidence with multiple bases of objection set out for each portion of challenged testimony but just one box for the Court to indicate its single ruling on the multiple bases of objection 26 interposed. While the Court understands the need for a party to preserve evidentiary objections, 27 the Court declines to individually rule on every single one made here by the City, which the Court considers a burdensome and excessive exercise in the context of this motion. But,as 28 reflected in this Order,the Court will rule on objections or general categories of objection that it deems are material to the disposition of the motion. 3 ORDER SETTLNG AMOUNT OF POND ON APPEAL I appropriate estimated duration of the appeal, and it urges that the bond amount be set in the 2 range of$100,000. 3 As noted, Government Code section 65589.4,subdivision (m)provides in pertinent part 4 that"[i]f the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court,the local agency shall post a 5 bond,in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the [petitioner] if the 6 [petitioner] is the project applicant,"as Developer is here. The statute itself contains no express 7 measure or specific criteria to be taken into account in the setting of the bond. But legislative 8 history materials (of which the Court takes judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452 on 9 Developer's request) include the following statements: "This bill adds fines and an appeals bond 10 requirement to the enforcement provisions of the Anti-NLMBY Law. Affordable housing 11 developers have found that, even if they are successful in an anti-NIMBY court action against a 12 local government,they often lose their projects as a result of increases in costs, loss of permits or 13 land, or other consequences of the amount of time it took to get through the legal process. This 14 bill originally gave courts the option of awarding actual damages to successful developer 15 plaintiffs to make up for these losses, increase the likelihood of the project actually being built, 16 and create a disincentive to local governments to force a case into court. As a result of 17 negotiations between the interested parties, this bill now authorizes the assessment of fines on 18 local governments that are found to have acted in bad faith in disapproving a project'and failed t 19 carry out the court's order or judgment within 60 days. This bill also allows a court to vacate the 20 action of a local government and deem a project approved with court-appointed standard 2I conditions if the community has failed to comply with a court order within 60 days." (Ass. Floor 22 Analysis of Sen. Bill 575, as amended Aug. 18,2005,Ex. B to Declaration of Daniel Golub.) 23 In the absence of specified criteria to be considered in determining the amount of an 24 appeal bond under Government Code section 65589.5,subdivision(m), the Court also notes the 25 provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 917.9. At subdivision(a)(2), this statute 26 analogously provides for the discretionary requirement of a bond on appeal to stay the 27 enforcement of a judgment or order requiring an appellant to perform an act for the respondent's 28 benefit. The Judgment and writ do exactly that here but the setting and posting of a bond on 4 ORDER SFITING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL I appeal is mandatory under the Housing Accountability Act,not discretionary. Under Code of 2 Civil Procedure section 917.9, subdivision(b), the "undertaking shall be in a sum fixed by the 3 court and shall be in an amount sufficient to cover all damages which the respondent may sustain 4 by reason of the stay in the enforcement of the judgment or order." Subdivision(c) provides that 5 the undertaking"shall be conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order appealed 6 from or payment of the sums required by the judgment or order appealed from, if the judgment 7 or order is affirmed or the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed, and it shall provide that if the 8 judgment or order appealed from or any part of it is affirmed, or the appeal is withdrawn or 9 dismissed,the appellant will pay all damages which the respondent may sustain by reason of the 10 stay of enforcement of thejudgment."Under subdivision(d), " 'damages' means ... [r]easonable 11 compensation for the loss of use of the money or property ... [or] payment of costs awarded to 12 the respondent?Under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.9,a bond or undertaking so required 13 as a matter of discretion guarantees an unsuccessful appellant's eventual performance of the 14 commands of the appealed judgment or order, and protects the respondent from damages 15 resulting while the appealed judgment or order is stayed by the discretionary undertaking. (See 16 Estale ojMurphy(1971) 16 Ca1.App.3d 564, 568 [when there is a risk of loss of benefits during 17 an appeal,"Equity demands that, as between respondent and appellant, the appellant who seeks 18 the stay should assume the risk."].) 19 In connection with this motion, and as noted, the Court grants Developer's request for 20 judicial notice of the Assembly Floor Analysis of amendments to Government Code section 21 65offered as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Daniel R. Golub. The Court denies the same request 22 with respect to Exhibit A—the Los Altos press release dated July 8, 2020—on the basis of lack 23 of relevance.' 24 25 Developer's motion and this Order setting the amount of bond on appeal do not take into account costs of suit or an award of attorney fees for which petitioners have now moved to 26 be included as part of the Judgment.It may be that a second bond on appeal will be required to 27 stay execution of what ultimately may be a money judgment. But those issues are not now before the Court. 28 'On its own motion, the Court further takes judicial notice of the relevant pages of the Judicial Council of California Court Statistics Reports from 2017,2018, and 2019. These pages 5 ORDER SET ,,JG AMOUNT Of BOND ON APPEAL i The Court next turns to the City's many objections to evidence. First,the Court denies 2 the City's wholesale request to strike the Supplemental Declarations of Theodore G. Sorenson 3 and Gary Herbert filed with Developer's reply brief.These declarations are merely responsive to 4 the City's objections to evidence interposed with its opposition to the motion; the Supplemental 5 Declarations raise no new theories or arguments and they may be viewed as supplying 6 information that was claimed to be foundational gaps in what was offered in the original 7 Declarations filed with the moving papers on July 30,2020,just as permissible curative opinion 8 testimony would be allowed in live testimony in court to overcome evidentiary objections. The 9 City offers no opinion evidence of its own as to matters relevant to the bond amount and it leaves 10 many factual premises of the Developer's proffered expert opinions undisturbed. Further,many 11 of the objections do not technically go to admissibility of evidence but rather to its weight. And 12 the City shows no prejudice. (Professional Engineers in California Government Y. Brown (2014) 13 229 Cal.AppAth 861, 874-875 [trial court retains discretion to consider evidence, including that 14 submitted on reply];Savea v. YRC Inc. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 173, 182 [supplemental request 15 for judicial notice submitted on reply raised no new arguments or theories and was merely 16 responsive to opposition to first request].)Finally, in some sense, it is the City's burden as 17 appellant under Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision(m) to perfect the required stay 18 on appeal by posting the mandatory bond in an amount to be set by the Court. Yet the City took 19 no steps to initiate that setting, forcing Developer to pursue this motion as the moving party. For 20 all these reasons,the Court denies the City's motion to strike the Supplemental Declarations. 21 To the extent the City objected to evidence from any source of Developer's claimed "past 22 damages,"meaning those claimed to have been suffered between denial of project approval in 23 24 show in tables and graphs generated from immediately prior years the time from notice of appeal 25 to the filing of opinion in civil cases for all six of the State's District Courts of Appeal and the Summary of Filings and Dispositions. Taking into account the time periods shown for the Sixth 26 District Court of Appeal, and adding 45 to 60 days for the issuance of a remittitur(assuming no 27 review by the California Supreme Court), two to two and one-half years for the life of this appeal, or 30 months as argued by Developer,is a reasonable estimate, particularly in view of the 28 fact, also judicially noticed,that that Court has a recent judicial vacancy that will take some time for the Governor to fill. 6 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL 1 2019 and the time in July 2020 when the City was supposed to have complied with the Judgment 2 and writ,the Court sustains those objections on the basis of relevance. This period of time is 3 outside the relevant period for purposes of a bond or undertaking on appeal from the Judgment 4 entered in May 2020 and directing compliance by the City within 60 days. The Court likewise 5 sustains the City's objections to evidence from any source in support of dollar amounts 6 representing the claimed risk of a"black swan"economic-loss event that could entirely wipe out 7 Developer's project during the life of the appeal, on the basis that these amounts and opinions on 8 the claimed risk are speculative and conclusory, and based on conjecture more than reliable, 9 accepted,or established facts. 10 The Court further sustains the City's objections to paragraphs 6(g), 7(g),and 9-23 of the 11 Declaration of Theodore G. Sorenson; paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Daniel R. Golub and 12 Exhibit A thereto; and paragraphs 3(g) and 4(g)of the Supplemental Declaration of Theodore G. 13 Sorenson, all on the basis of relevance. 14 The balance of the City's evidentiary objections are overruled, specifically the 15 foundational, hearsay, and "best evidence"objections to evidence that is not already excluded 16 per the above rulings. For foundational purposes as to portions of the declarations not already 17 excluded above, the Court considers each declarant's two declarations together as a whole and 18 finds them sufficient to support the opinions expressed. (Sorenson and Herbert Declarations and 19 Supplemental Declarations.) Many of the foundational objections in any event go to the weight 20 of the evidence, which the Court will assess and subscribe. As to many of the hearsay objections, 21 an expert may rely on hearsay in forming an opinion and may relate that he or she did so in 22 general terms to the trier of fact. (People v. Sanchez (2016)63 Ca1.4th 665, 685-686.) Moreover, 23 many of the matters objected to here on the basis of hearsay are not"case-specific" facts required 24 to be independently proven by competent evidence or covered by a hearsay exception. (Id. at p. 25 686.)And the Legislature repealed the "best evidence rule"in 1998. (See Evid. Code, § 1500, 26 repealed by Stats. 1998,ch. 100, § 1.) Under the modem secondary evidence rule, "[t]he content 27 of a writing may be proved by an otherwise admissible original(Evid. Code, § 1520) or by 28 `otherwise admissible secondary evidence"(Evid. Code, § 1521. (See, e.g., illolenda v. Dept. of 7 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL I Motor Vehicles(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 974, 994 [discussing relationship between secondary 2 evidence rule and hearsay rule]; Copenborger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, Inc. (2018) 3 29 Cal.App.5th I, 14.) Of import here too is that the secondary evidence rule is not applicable to 4 the extent testimony pertains to operative facts and not the contents of a writing, even if a writing 5 exists as an alternate source of the same facts. To the extent the City here objects to financial 6 information contained in documents and referenced in declarations, this information need not 7 necessarily be proven through writings memorializing these operative facts. (See,e.g., Crinella 8 v. Northwestern Pac. R Co. (1927) 85 Cal.App.440, 446 [secondary evidence rule not 9 implicated].) 10 Having considered the admissible evidence and operative legal principles, the Court in its 1 I discretion sets the amount of the bond on appeal to be posted by the City under Government 12 Code section 65589.5, subdivision (m)at$7,000,000.00. The bond must be posted within 10 13 business days frorn service of this order. 14 15 IT IS-fkO OR4upperior 16 17 Date: September 2, 2020 18 HELEN E. V Judge oJtheurt 19 \ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON APPEAL City of Huntington Beach �\ ._,,,l File #: 21-778 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Merz (Michael) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; USDC Case No.: 8:21-cv-00105-CJC (KEXx). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 10/13/2021 p ered by LepStar" City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-779 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, two (2). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1011312021 gowerea by Legiscar° (_ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-780 MEETING DATE: 10/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) The City Council shall recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiator, Oliver Chi, City Manager; also in attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager to discuss the public employment of the Police Chief. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1 011 3/2 0 2 1 powered by Legis;ar"' 0 City of Huntington Beach File#: 21-731 MEETING DATE: 10/5/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) Agency designated representatives: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager. Employee Organizations: Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA), Fire Management Association (FMA), Police Management Association (PMA), Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA), Management Employees' Organization (MEO) and Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT) K/i�h�/716f/7t� /� rv- I d1 rum(T7 LJ City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Primed on 9292021 pow ,"U Leg sal- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-732 MEETING DATE: 10/5/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Bob Guzman v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case Nos. 1) COHB-20-0333. (2) COHB-19-0169. (3) COHB-15-0294, and (4) COHB-13- 0053. lv17h?,wr cuj-?v 757qq� Cen�k& - ti-exi City of Huntington Beads Page 1 of 1 Pnnted on W 2021 oowele %�Leg star- 0 City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-733 MEETING DATE: 10/5/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Brian Schrieber v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-20-0341. V17�-i MUrxi_)`�� d.4Q &4r�J City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 929/2021 . -ai _--: , City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-734 MEETING DATE: 10/5/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Larry Pitcher v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-19-029. u��lhdratUxl �nm Crin�J-�d�w�t� City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Pnnted on 9292021 .cwe,eAr1 ,ea va, - City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-735 MEETING DATE: 10/5/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Robert Dalton v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-18-0341 . Gcj,'/Y 1Gflwar� City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Pnnted on 9R912021 _."ea5.eo s.a, title Potential Litigation - recent Oil Discharge from pipeline off the coast of Huntington Beach y/C>A-) /-4 TC- l City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-684 MEETING DATE: 9/21/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) Agency designated representatives: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager. Employee Organizations: Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA), Fire Management Association (FMA), Police Management Association (PMA), Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA), Management Employees' Organization (MEO) and Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT) City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/1512021 oowered*Legisar- _ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-599 MEETING DATE: 9/7/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9 (d)(1).) Name of case: Kennedy Commission, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No.: 30-2015-00801675. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 911/2021 ooweredl6 Leo,s;arl- (_ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-601 MEETING DATE: 9/7/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9 (d)(1).) Name of case: City of Huntington Beach v. State of California (SB35, et al); OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01044945. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/1/2021 ooweredt7;Lepistar- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-646 MEETING DATE: 9/7/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) Agency designated representatives: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager. Employee Organizations: Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA), Fire Management Association (FMA), Police Management Association (PMA), Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA), Management Employees' Organization (MEO) and Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 911/2021 po•nereot8 Legistarr° ( _ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-532 MEETING DATE: 8/3/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Lathus (Shayna) v. City of Huntington Beach; USDC Case No.: 8:21-cv- 00808-SB (DFMx). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/28/2021 wo eredt0 Legisar4- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-568 MEETING DATE: 8/3/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Kennedy Commission, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No.: 30-2015-00801675. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of t Printed on 7/28/2021 p weredt3,Legtstar'm {_ 'F City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-569 MEETING DATE: 8/3/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: City of Huntington Beach v. State of California (SB35, et al); OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01044945. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/28/2021 ooweredlt2 Legistar'• City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-573 MEETING DATE: 8/3/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: City of Huntington Beach v. State of California (AB68); OCSC Case No. 30 -2020-01140874. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/2M021 powere lr3 Lepis,C- (_ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-521 MEETING DATE: 7/20/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, three (3). City of Huntington Beach Page i of 1 Printed on 7/14/2021 noweredlG Legisearr _ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-527 MEETING DATE: 7/20/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9 (d)(1).) Name of case: Gonzalez (Joshua) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; USDC Case No.: 8:18-cv-00953-DOC (DFMx). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 711412021 oowered LL Leois:ar:. ( _ ! City of Huntington Beach � r File #: 21-547 MEETING DATE: 7/20/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Initiation of Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4)) Orange County Council of Governments v. Gustavo Velasquez, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District Case No. 21STCP01970 City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/14/2021 oowereoV Legis;ar° City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-505 MEETING DATE: 7/6/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Gonzalez (Joshua) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; USDC Case No.: 8:18-cv-00953-DOC (DFMx). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/30/2021 Dowerea to Legistar'm J` City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-510 MEETING DATE: 7/6/2021 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 54957.) Name/Title: Oliver Chi, City Manager. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/30/2021 xweredt0 Legistar�w City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-462 MEETING DATE: 6/15/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Rodriguez (Christian A.) v. City of Huntington Beach; Pamela Joyce Garrett; OCSC Case No.: 30-2020-01131129. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 519/2021 powered'&Legistar" City of Huntington Beach n. .f! File #: 21-466 MEETING DATE: 6/15/2021 THREAT TO PUBLIC SERVICES OR PUBLIC FACILITIES: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, Consultation with Julian Harvey, Acting Police Chief for the City of Huntington Beach Police Department. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Pnnted on 6/9/2021 o ereal0 Legismr" City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-473 MEETING DATE: 6/15/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Lathus (Shayna) v. City of Huntington Beach; USDC Case No.: 8:21-cv- 00808-SB (DFMx). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/9/2021 poweredU Legismr" (97ROCity of Huntington Beach File #: 21-423 MEETING DATE: 6/1/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Brewster (Terri Lynn) v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No. 30-2020 -01160094. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/26/2021 noweredl-3 Lerstar7- f4 _ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-430 MEETING DATE: 6/1/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) The City Council shall recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiator, Oliver Chi, City Manager; also in attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager to discuss the public employment of the Police Chief. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/26/2021 oowe,eotQ Legisw Tu ( _ City of Huntington Beach 77;, File #: 21-443 MEETING DATE: 6/1/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, one (1). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/27/2021 nowered15 LegtstaC° City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-404 MEETING DATE: 5/17/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Chris Hartman vs City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-14-0306. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/1 212 0 2 1 poneredIG Legismr'• City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-405 MEETING DATE: 5/17/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: John Domingo vs City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-19-0097. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/12/2021 p eredlll Legismcu 9�1 City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-406 MEETING DATE: 5/17/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Rodney Besuzzi vs City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-19-0280. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/12/2021 powereaV Leg,swr- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-407 MEETING DATE: 5/17/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 (Deciding Whether to Initiate Litigation): Number of cases, one (1): 17511 Griffin Lane #7, Huntington Beach, California. (Note: Corrected street number from 17211 to 17511 Griffin Lane #7) City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/13/2021 �e,eal3 Legis=7- _ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-311 MEETING DATE: 4/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Brewster (Terri Lynn) v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No. 30-2020 -01160094. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/14/2021 p were0 tq Legi Slap° ( _ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-332 MEETING DATE: 4/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Chris Hartman v. City of Huntington Beach, Worker's Comp. Case No. COHB-14-0306. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/14/2021 poweredl4 Legistari• i City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-348 MEETING DATE: 4/19/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Moore (Neal) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No. 30-2019- 01071686. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 411412021 powereol:,,Leoislar" { _ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-286 MEETING DATE: 4/5/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, one (1). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/31l2021 10 powered by Legistar" (_ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-244 MEETING DATE: 3/15/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 (Deciding Whether to Initiate Litigation): Number of cases, one (1) - File lawsuit re Appeal of Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology for the Sixth Housing Element Cycle. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/10/2021 ooweied by Legistar'" Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:36 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: HB Council Meeting 3/15/21 Agenda Item 21-44 Litigation of SCAG Assessment From: Donna Dillon <donnadillon214@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:07 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Chi, Oliver<oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org>; Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: HB Council Meeting 3/15/21 Agenda Item 21-44 Litigation of SCAG Assessment Honorable Mayor Carr and City Council Members, In my opinion, local control of development means keeping the character of our city and protecting the interests of our residents while managing and encouraging growth. Huntington Beach will lose control if we do not appeal the SLAG final RHNA methodology for the 6`^ Housing Element Cycle. I urge you to authorize our city attorney to file a lawsuit to appeal this assessment. Let's keep this description of our city accurate (excerpt from the City website). Do not let SCAG dictate and enforce RHNA numbers based on questionable methodology. Huntington Beach offers residents a charming community with ideal weather, a diversified economy overflowing with good jobs, a wide variety of housing, an excellent educational system, boat marinas, numerous parks, and exemplary health core. Thank you. Donna. Dd lott donnadillon214@aol.com 22102 Jonesport Ln, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 "There1waynevera-nig4t,tor lope." -Bernard Williams SUPPLEMENTAL 170MMUNICATION M"tN �)Rm._ 3/rs/z I Agenda rem No.. t Switzer, Donna From: Steven C. Shepherd, Architect <steve@shepherdarchitects.com> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:01 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Supplemental Communications: Public Comment - Agenda Item 21-244 RE: Agenda Item 21-244 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Dear City Council, Enough is enough! Our city has already wasted way too many resources and emotions on nonsensical lawsuits attempting to sidestep and otherwise shirk our responsibility as a regional partner. The fact that "anticipated litigation" is even being considered (AGAIN!!!) would be comical if it wasn't so dangerous. Huntington Beach's recent history of failed litigation has resulted in overt reputational damage to our community, and perhaps worst of all, has garnered absolutely nothing in return. There's been money spent, man-hours wasted with nothing to show for it beyond international scorn and mockery. Where we were once known across the world as a premier surfing destination, we are now more notable as "California's Florida": a dysfunctional haven for nutjob, kooks, and malcontents. You'd think that a city trying to reenergize its struggle tourist industry would want to be viewed more favorably by others, but alas, our past legal actions have only served to make potential tourists think twice about coming to our city. YIKES! I'm not sharing these insights to make a political statement or bolster my "cred" with the woke community. This is simply my experience as a resident who has received numerous communications from friends, family and acquaintances across our state, our country, and across the world asking: "What the hell's going on in HB?" We need to do better, and doing better doesn't involve ongoing legal battles with the State and our regional partners of SCAG. - Doing better involves being a credible partner in addressing the critical issues confronting southern California. - Doing better involves shaping a constructive vision for Huntington Beach's future. - Doing better involves showing leadership and making decisions aimed at ensuring a vibrant future for our community. I beg you to embrace "Doing Better" and reject another wasteful and counterproductive foray into the fruitless world of frivolous litigation. We can do better, and this would be an excellent moment to start doing better for the sake of our community and our future. Regards, Steve Shepherd Huntington Beach 92646 SUPPLEMENTAL OMMUNICATION Meeting I)ate �_05/ / Agenne hero No.;, `�l � I — _)LI LA t City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-185 MEETING DATE: 3/1/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.): The City Council shall recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiator, Oliver Chi, City Manager; also in attendance Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager, to discuss the recruitment / appointment of the Chief of Police City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/24/2021 Dowered Legwa,- City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-190 MEETING DATE: 3/1/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: City of Huntington Beach v. Surf City Beach Cottages, et al.; OCSC Case No. 30-2016-00874885 City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/24/2021 poweredV2 Legmar'w / 1y of City of Huntington Beach '`tea '*e' ♦ V File #: 21-142 MEETING DATE: 2/16/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Kennedy Commission, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No. 30-2015-00801675. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/10/2021 powered L%LegistarT°^ City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-143 MEETING DATE: 2/16/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Wilson (Carrie) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No. 30- 2019-01094238. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/10/2021 poweredla LegistarTI ° City of Huntington Beach f File #: 21-144 MEETING DATE: 2/16/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d) (1).) Name of case: Rodriguez (Christian A.) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No.: 30-2020-01131129. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 2/10/2021 powered1bl LegistarT'1 ..title CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, one (1). City of Huntington Beach File #: 21-086 MEETING DATE: 2/1/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (4) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Number of cases, one (1) - Appeal of Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology for the Sixth Housing Element Cycle. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1/27/2021 powered q LegistarTA1 rt City of Huntington Beach y r �y File #: 21-087 MEETING DATE: 2/1/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Brewster (Terri Lynn) v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No. 30-2020-01160094. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1/27/2021 poweredtb LegistarTM 5 City of Huntington Beach t4 c, File #: 21-088 MEETING DATE: 2/1/2021 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) Agency designated representatives: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager. Employee Organizations: Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT) and Management Employees' Organization (MEO). City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 1/27/2021 poweredtI LegistarT" 04* c/ -Ikn� ,,, / &t� ..title CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— Name of case: City of Huntington Beach v. State of California, et al; OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01044945 wd'ek �.ZI/Z/1