Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/1984 "~-~".~' . .. . ß1? MINUTES REGULAR MEETING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAY 15, 1984 The Regular Meeting of the Conununity Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana was called to order by Chairman Luxembourger at 5:45 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. After the Pledge to the Flag and the Invocation given by Chairman Luxembourger, roll was called: PRESENT ABSENT John Acosta Gordon Bricken Daniel Griset, Vice Chairman P. Lee Johnson Robert Luxembourger, Chairman Patricia McGuigan Dan Young Others in Attendance: Robert C. Bobb, City Manager Rex Swanson, Executive Director Edward J. Cooper, City Attorney David N. Ream, Conununity Development Director Thomas E. Hanunill, Assistant Director Redevelopment & Real Estate Laura Juarez, Secretary EXECUTIVE SESSION At 5:46 P.M., the Redevelopment Agency adjourned to an executive session to discuss legal matters. The meeting was reconvened at 6:00 P.M., with the same members present. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE FASHION SQUARE COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT Mr. Don E. Smith, Councilman, City of Orange, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, addressed the Agency by stating that he was here tonight on behalf of the entire City Council of the City of Orange. He stated that the City of .. . . . , ' Orange was disappointed that the members of the City Council and Redevelo¡;:rnent Agency of the City of Santa Ana did not begin discussions on this project many months ago. He further advised that they will take all necessary steps to protect the citizens and residents from the adverse impacts of this project. His concerns addressed Santa Ana receiving revenues and Orange receiving the problems consisting of destruction of the residential life style and the creation of additional traffic. Councilman Smith requested that the Council delay final action for two weeks. Robin Leiter, Assistant City Manager, City of Orange, was next to address the Agency. Ms. Leiter stated that the City of Orange has submitted a letter dated May 15, 1984, (which is attached as a part of these Minutes) outlining the concerns of the City of Orange. Ms. Leiter commented upon some of the matters addressed in the City of Orange's letter, including the matter of residential neighborhood traffic: notification to neighborhood: plan of site develo¡;:rnent: Transportation System Improvement Program Agreement (TSIP): traffic signals: widening of certain streets; and freeway ramps. Next to address the Agency was Mr. Arnold Simon, c/o Richards, Watson, Dreyfus & Gershon, 33th Floor, 333 S. Hope Street, Los Angeles, California 90064, representing KLST Partnership, Ltd. He stated that there was a letter agreement on the Agency agenda for action and if acted upon favorably they would have no objections to the EIR or the Sale Agreement, and in fact were very much in favor of the proposed expansion of Fashion Square. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Acosta, seconded by Mr. Young to adopt Resolution 84-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE FASHION SQUARE COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT. Mr. Bricken requested that two items be added to the motion: 1. That staff be instructed to proceed swiftly to bring the project to full force from this point forward: and 2. That Staff be instructed to enter into the necessary discussions and other arrangements necessary to work with the City of Orange in order to address the concerns that they have expressed, and further be instructed to see that the decisions that were made between the two cities relative to the general planning of their neighboring areas be carried forward. -2- . . 'Co . . . Chairman Luxembourger then asked Mr. Acosta if he wished to amend his prior motion. Mr. Acosta responded that he would be glad to amend his motion and incorporate those statements made by Mr. Bricken. Therefore, a motion was made by Mr. Acosta, seconded by Mr. Young and carried by the following roll call vote to: 1. Adopt Resolution 84-10: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT SANTA ANA CERTIFYING IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CENTER PROJECT; A RESOLUTION OF THE AGENCY OF THE CITY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL FASHION SQUARE COMMERCIAL 2. That Staff be instructed to proceed swiftly to bring the project to full force from this point forward; and 3. That Staff be instructed to enter into the necessary discussions and other arrangements necessary to work with the City of Orange in order to address the concerns that they have expressed, and further be instructed to see that the decisions that were made between the two cities relative to the general planning of their neighboring areas be carried forward. AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Johnson, Luxembourger, McGuigan, Young None None NOES: ABSENT : JOINT PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE THE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH SANTA ANA VENTURE FOR THE FASHION SQUARE COMMERCIAL CENTER Chairman Luxembourger announced that this was the time and place for the Joint Public Hearing of the Community Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Santa Ana for the proposed sale of property known as the Fashion Square Commercial Center by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana to Santa Ana Venture. The site is bounded on the north by the Garden Grove Freeway, on the West by the Santa Ana Freeway, on the south by Owens Drive, and on the east by Main Street. Chairman Luxembourger reqúested that staff identify the property or issues and give staff recommendation. The Assistant Director Redevelopment & Real Estate identified the property using a map on display in the Council Chambers. -3- . Mr. Joseph F. Johnson, Senior Vice President, Federated Department Stores introduced Mr. John Boorn who presented a slide show to the Agency. Mr. Johnson then introduced Mr. Robert C. Little, Vice President and Regional Director to address the Agency. Mr. Little described the proposed developnent and stated, "there are two questions which I would like to respond to for the record in regard to the project. First is why we need the flexibility to add the additional space in the future; the office building and hotel. A retail project of this type cannot support the land cost in this area on its own. It must have a greater density and that is supported through the office buildings and the hotel facilities plus it adds to the mix and makes the center a much stronger center economically and it produces greater revenues. The second question is why is this particular site the most appropriate site for developnent of this size and scope. This is probably one of the very few projects in the country which is served basically by three freeways. The Santa Ana freeway, the Garden Grove freeway and the Orange freeway which is just off to the right of this plan. Also the access to Main Street; the circulation road around the project and the future transportation plans for Main Street contribute to the location. It is already an established retail location with Bullocks and the existing Fashion Square shops which will continue in operation during the entire construction period and it is also an established location for office space located on Main Street and both KLST buildings and the other buildings that are located on the other side of the freeway and the City of Orange. The Santa Ana freeway also gives access to the O:>sta Mesa freeway and the 57." . . The o:>nununity Developnent Director stated: "In summary, the Fashion Square expansion project represents the largest private sector developnent undertaken in the City. While the project will have certain significant effects on the environment, we feel that the benefits of the project far outweigh the environmental effects. Some overriding considerations include: 1. The project will stimulate future private redevelopnent in the area, which is consistent with the goals established in the Redevelopnent Plan. 2. Additionally, the developnent of this area will provide the link between the northern retail portion of the City and the downtown central core. . 3. The viability of the existing center will be substantially enhanced by this new developnent. The center is presently under-utilized and does -4- not meet the shopping needs of residents in the area, which causes them to shop and spend their money in other cities, thereby decreasing the City's sales tax revenue base. . 4. The expansion will provide additional employment opportunities. Upon completion of the total permitted development, there is estimated to be in excess of 8,000 jobs created by this project. 5. The Project will result in a significant increase in tax revenues to the City by way of retail sales taxes, food and beverage sales taxes, and transient occupancy taxes generated by the hotels planned. Assuming the completion by the year 1990 of the rehabilitation of Bullocks, 370,000 square feet of new retail space, three new major department stores, 350,000 square feet of office space and a 400-room hotel, the project will generate approximately $1 million per year in retail sales tax; food and beverage sales tax of $70,000+ per year; and bed taxes of over $700,000 per year. . These revenues may increase significantly over the years should the developer proceed with the maximum permitted development. In addition to the above, after loan payoff, the Agency will receive in excess of $2.6 million per year in tax increment revenues. The revenues generated by this project will further enable the City to better carryout its governmental responsibili- ties for the benefit of the public. Staff is recommending the adoption by the Agency the proposed agreement, and the adoption of the proposed budget and authorization of its implementation by the Redevelopment Commission. . Chairman Luxembourger announced that the Agency would now like to hear from those people who desire to address the Agency on this issue. He added that if anyone desires to address the Agency, they should step forward to the podium, give their name and address and limit their comments to five minutes. Chairman Luxembourger requested to hear from those persons in agreement and disagreement with the proposed sale. There being none, he asked if there were any additional comments from staff, or if the Agency members had any questions. -5- :,. . . . The City Attorney stated that the Agency members had before them an amended Exhibit C to the staff report that should be made part of the record. Chairman Luxembourger closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Griset, seconded by Mr. Young and carried by the following roll call vote to: 1. Adopt Resolution 84-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND SANTA ANA VENTURE. 2. Approve the conceptual development plans proposed by Santa Ana Venture for the project site. 3. Adopt the proposed budget and authorize its implementation by the Redevelopment Cbmmission. AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Johnson, Luxembourger, McGuigan, Young None None NOES: ABSENT : Mayor Luxembourger stated that the chair would now entertain a motion of the City Cbuncil regarding the proposed sale. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Griset, seconded by Councilmember Young and carried by the following roll call vote to adopt Resolution 84-61: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PURSUANT TO A PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND SANTA ANA VENTURE FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE SANTA ANA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THAT AGREEMENT AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Johnson, Luxembourger, McGuigan, Young None None NOES: ABSENT: RECESS At 7:03 P.M., Chairman Luxembourger recessed the meeting. At 7:10 P.M., the meeting was reconvened with the same members present. -6- . . . JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED SALE BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO CM PLAZA (A-3 SITE/OLD COURTHOUSE PLAZA) A motion was made by Mr. Acosta, seconded by Mr. Bricken and carried unanimously to continue the joint public hearing until June 19,1984. AGREEMENT WITH KLST PARTNERSHIP A motion was made by Mr. Bricken, seconded by Mr. Young and carried unanimously to approve the terms outlined in the letter agreement with KLST and authorize staff to proceed with preparation of the appropriate form of agreement. EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE TO THE BARRATT CORPORATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE A-12 SITE A motion was made by Vice Chairman Griset, seconded by Mr. Young and carried by a 6:0 vote (Mr. Bricken - conflict of interest) to grant a 90-day exclusive right to negotiate to the Barratt Corporation for developnent of the A-12 site, subject to the developer's payment of a $15,000 good faith deposit. PROPOSED SANTA ANA AUTO CENTER A motion was made by Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. Johnson and carried unanimously to: L financing plan for the proposed auto Approve center; the 2. Approve the consultant Consultants, Inc.; with Urban agreement 3. Authorize staff to issue Requests for Proposals for bond counsel and underwriting services; and 4. Authorize site. staff to proceed with appraisals of the REJECTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR SITE/AUTHORITY TO SOLICIT NEW PROPOSALS LA BONITA THE A motion was made by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Vice Chairman Griset to reject all proposals submitted for the La Bonita Site and to authorize staff to solicit new proposals for residential developnent. -7- .c.. MINUTES . A motion was made by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mrs. McGuigan and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on April 17, 1984. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- A-2 SITE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE The Cbmmu~ity Development Director stated that he had just received a letter from the law office of Raphael Louis Rosingana representing the Ferrante/Walder Cbmany (which is attached as part of these Minutes). A motion was made by Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. Johnson and carried unanimously to award the Carley Capital Group/ California Cbast Development Group a 90-day exclusive right to negotiate for the development of the A-2 site as a major high rise office building to exceed thirty (30) stories of mixed use development including hotel, office and governmental use, subject to the developer's submission of a $15,000 good faith deposit. ADJOURNMENT . There being no further business to come before the Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 7:27 P.M. ~~ /~~ Robert Luxembourger Chairman Executive Director . -8- ~. , ¿, / A :,' " ',-~,> - , . Incorporated 1188 office 01 city ~ger ('/14)~ '~ay 15, 1984 ;2g ~ Santa Ana City Council/ Community Redevelopmen~~gency ci ty Hall - - ;$ T<,¡enty civic Center Plaza, '-.ö -< Santa Ana, California 92701 V1 RE: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL P1PACT REPORT, ~ PROPOSED P.»'R"'ICI:"E'ION AGREEMENT AND (.j f:~T~:': f)J"' REAL PROPERTY REGARDING PROPOSED - !'<;'lION SQUARE COM.\ŒRCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT Dear Mayor Luxembourger, and Agency Members: . This letter is submitted on behalf of the City of Orange ("Orange") in connection with the scheduled May 15, 1984, joint hearing of the Community Redevelopment Agency ("CRA",) and City Council of the City of Santa Ana concerning the proposed Fashion S~uare Commercial Center Development (the "Proposed Development"). At that hearing, the CttA is expected to consider the certification of the ~inal Environ~ental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the proposed Development and the approval of a proposed participation Agreement between the CP~ and the developer for the period, and the 'City Council is expected to consider the approval of the sale of real property in connection with the Development. The City of Orange urges the Agency not to certify the EIR as complying with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQI',"). For the reasons',iscussed below, the EIR fails in nU!Tlerous respects to meet the full disclosure mandate of CE~A. The EIR should not be certified, and the Proposed Development and proposed sale of real property should be rejected. 1. INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW A..~D COMME'-T UPON THE FWAL EIR e. The interest of the City of Orange in the ?roposed Fashion Square Project is well known. The basis for Orange's interest is equally well known -- traffic, residential neighborhood, and other impacts associated with the Proposed Development would ?roduce significant, ?ermane~t and ~ . . . Santa Ana City Council/ Community Redevelopment Agency May 15, 1934 Page Two negative L~?acts in the City of Orange. (See, e.g., final EIR at pages 108-110, especially last paragraph page 110). As a result, the City of Orange has been actively involved in the planning process for the pro- posed redevelopment of Fashion Square for more than a decade. Notwithstanding this history of active involvement in the Proposed Development, Orange as well as the residents of Orange residing in areas adjacent to the proiect area, were provided inadequate notice and opportunity to review and comment during the EIR process. The only "notice" to Orange or its residents was the standard oublished notice to the public. Even that published notice was provided only fifteen days pr'ior to the hearing on 'the Final EIR. The inadequate notice afforded Orange has impaired its ability to conduct a comprehensive reviel' and to submit exhaustive comments on the proposed Final EIR. The City of Orange, therefore, requests an additional two weeks in which to review and comment upon this critical document concerning a project of great importance and, we believe, equally great peril to the residents of both Santa Ana and Orange. At the present time Orange would like to submit the following preliminary comments. II . INADEQUATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION The "conceptual" project description contained in the Final EIR does not provide sufficient detail needed to conduct the legally mandated analysis of the enviro~~ental consequences associated with the Proposed Development. If, as we under- stand, tentative site plans have been prepared, those plans should be disclosed, and the resulting environmental consequences analyzed, in the Final EIR. The City of Orange has previously submitted oral and written comments at the scooing and draft EIR stages of the environ- mental review process. Bernie W. Dennis, the Traffic Engineer for ùrange, testified at a public hearing at Santa Ana with respect to the scoping of the EIR. Robin Leiter, Assistant City Manager, wrote a letter dated April 19,1983, to Rex Swanson, Executive Director of the Santa Ana Community Redevelopment Agency! presenting comments on the Draft EIR. Orange's views were also presented at the public hearing on the draft EIR. Rather than repeating the previous comments and objections, Orange incorporates its prior comments by this reference as though fully set forth herein. \0 Santa Ana City Council/Community Redevelopment Agency May 15, 1984 Page Three . It is no answer to this concern to suggest that environmental review can be supplemented when these plans are finalized at a later date. CEQA requires complete disclosure and con- sideration of the environmental consequences now -- before the Agency has effectively committed itself to the project. This fundamental precept of CEQA doctrine applies with particular force to redevelopment projects such as this, which are intended to be subjected to a single environmental review. (Public Resources Code Section 21090.) By certifying this EIR and approving the Participation Agreement, the CRA and the Citv'Council would authorize the immediate commencement of acquisitions expected to total $27.5 million. After having made such a major commitment, any additional environmental review would undoubtedly be influenced by potentially serious adverse economic consequences of reversing the prior decision to proceed with the project, Especially where, as here, additional detail concerning the proposed development is currently available to the Agency decision-makers, such detail must be disclosed and analyzed in the EIR. . I II. IMPROPER RELIANCE ON TRANSPORTATION SYSTE!IS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Final EIR is predicated upon the operation of the Trans- portation Systems Improvement Program ("TSIP") entered into' by the City of Orange and Santa Ana in the spring of 1981. In particular, the funding of many of the key mitigation measures is supposed to be derived from the TSIP. (See draft Resolution No. 84-11 (dated May 1, 1984) at page 2.) The improvements noted and prioritized in phase II of the TSIP have not been approved by the City Council of Orange. Further, the TSIP documents, although liberally referenced throughout the EIR, have not been incor~orated therein and, therefore, cannot be relied upon in this' procedure. . The EIR fails to disclose that serious questions exist concerning whether or not the TSIP is currently in full force and effect. It appears that Santa Ana has materially breached the TSIP on several occasions. Indeed, it is not even clear if Santa Ana ever appointed its two members to the Joint Planning Review Committee. Nor is there any indication whether Santa Ana has collected, on other projects in this area, the one percent assessment of base construction costs imposed by the TSIP. \\ , . Santa Ana City Council/ Community Redevelopment Agency May 15, 1984 Page Four . Most important, Santa Ana has failed to submit the Proposed Development to the Joint Planning Review Committee, as . required by Section 4.0(B) (6) of the TSIP. Under those circumstances, the TSIP may not be available to implement and fund mitigation measures associates with the Proposed Development. The removal of this linchpin to the matrix of mitigation measures proposed by the EIR would render the EIR fatally defective. The EIR should be restudied and revised forthwith to determine the environmental consequences, and to formulate mitïgation measures relatin~ to, the Pro?osed Development without the TSIP. IV. IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF MEASURES REQUIRING THE CONCURRENCE OF OTHER AGENCIES The Proposed Development and mitigation measures include several critical items that require the concurrence of the City òf Orange. The EIR is deficient in that it fails to consider the feasibility of those items; i.e., the possibility that Orange may decline or be unable to implement any or all of these items. . Traffic mitigation measures of the Proposed Development requiring the concurrence and participation of the City of Orange include the following: . . 1. The restriping of Bedford Road to four lanes; 2. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Bedford Road and La Veta; 3. 4. Restriping of Main Street at La Veta Avenue; Widening of Main Street within the jurisdiction of the City of Orange; 5. Reconstruction of the median and develooment of left turn pocket on Town and Country Roåd at Uain Street; 6. Modification of the traffic signal and phasing at the intersection of Main Street and Town and Country Road; 7. Modification of interchange and construction of bridge at Lawson Way, La Veta Avenue and the Garden Grove Freeway: and 8. Construction of Flower Street ramp connection to the Orange Freeway. \1... . . . Santa Ana City Council/ Community Redevelopment Agency May 15, 1984 Page Five Needless to say, the City of Orange is gravely concerned about the impact of the Proposed Development on the residents of Orange. No guarantee of blanket acceptance of the measures contained in the EIR can be made. Each and every item requiring the concurrence of Orange must and will be scrutinized to determine the impact of that item on Orange's residents and our responsibilities. A pre-requisite to any of the above traffic.measures is a study and plan for implementing a neighborhood protection program against adverse traffic impacts. Under these circumstances, the EIR must consider the environ- mental consequences -- and propose additional mitigation measures -- premised upon the inability or unwillingness of Orange to implement the eight measures listed above. Without such analysis of the feasibility of the proposed mitigation measures, the EIR fails to address the actual consequences of the Proposed Development. Similar concerns exist regarding measures, such as the con- struction of proposed freeway ramps and use of the parking structure, that require the concurrence of Cal Trans and/or the United States Government. There is no guarantee that such concurrence -- or the necessary funding for such projects -- will be forthcoming. The EIR must disclose this possibility and evaluate the consequences of the Proposed Development .if- such related projects are not constructed or approved. v. INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF PARKING ISSUES The project is estimated to generate over 57,000 daily automobile trips. (Final EIR page 89). Despite this enormous volume of traffic, the EIR "analyzes" the question of finding sufficient parking for those vehicles by stating (1) that the amount of parking will be determined by reference to Santa Ana's formula for calculating the minimum amount of required parking and (2) that such requirements (as they existed at the time the EIRwas prepared) would ensure that adequate parking would be supplied. This non-sequiter does not beqin to address whether the facility would contain sufficient parking. Initially, it should be noted that the amount of parking required by Santa Ana has decreased since the time the EIR was prepared. This change undermines the EIR's conclusion concerning the adequacy of parking, and requires that the portions of the EIR. concerning parking (as well as related portions, such as trafflc \~ , ',' . . Santa Ana City Council/Community Redevelopment Agency May 15, 1984 Page Six and circulation, noise, and air quality) be revised in light of the current parking requirements. When revised, the EIR should disclose precisely how many parking spaces will be required. The Final EIR fails to do so. The EIR should also disclose ~~e location of the parking. The ~ocation of parking is closely related to, and is a necessary predicate for, analysis of the traffic consequences of the proposed project. The proposed Final EIR currently contains no such disclosure. The EIR should also disclose the relationship between the phasing of the redevelopment of Fashion Square and the construction of additional parking. For example, will there be occasions during construction when parking will be inadequate to meet the existing needs? The EIR ignores this issue. VI. INADEQUATE DISCUSSION OF TRAFFIC As discussed above, the EIR's cursory examination of parking issues flaws its consideration of traffic issues. The EIR cannot begin to consider the impact of the project on the traffic in the surrounding areas without g~eater detail concerning-where the Fashion Square traffic will be directed and from whence it will come. Moreover, the traffic analysis is inadequate in light of its startling premise that the number of vehicles using the facility can be reduced twenty percent through use of ride sharing. This assumption is manifestly exaggerated for the proposed mixed-use facility. The purported basis for this figure is goals for ride sharing that have been established for other projects in Southern California. To set goals is one thing, but to demonstrate that those goals have been met is another. The EIR contains no empirical basis to support this critical TSM assumption. As a result the EIR's projections of traffic levels and accompanying environmental degradations on surrounding freeways, arteries, and residential streets are all grossly underestimated. 4IÞ VII. INADEQUATE DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACT The EIR's consideration of only six orojects in its cumulative impact analysis is grossly deficient. In addition to the project examined in the EIR, theEIR should consider the cumulative impacts associated with major developments proposed, which will impact common transportation facilities as well as air quality, noise, and availability of public services. Some \L\ , , Santa Ana City Council/Community Redevelopment Agency Hay 15, 1984 Page Seven . of the major proposed developments include but are not limited to Anaheim Stadium Center, Main Street Mixed- Use Corridor, Santa Ana Downtown Redevelopment Program, and other such developments generally located in the Orange, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Anaheim area. VIII. INADEQUATE DISCUSSION OF GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS . The Final EIR also fails to adequately disclose growth- inducing impacts associated with the Proposed Development. The EIR recites as 'one of the primary justifications for the development the desire to encourage the improvement of the Main Street commercial cooridor connecting Central Santa Ana with the North Main area. (See Final EIR at page 25.) However, the EIR's cursory consideration of growth-inducing impacts completely ignores the redevelopment of existing nearby development to more intense commercial and office'uses and the resultant adverse environmental consequences that would be associated with such additional redevelopment. For example, the impact of such redevelop- ment on nearby freeways, arteries, and residential streets is completely ignored. The same is true with respect to the impact of such development on land use, noise, air quality, public services and utilities, police and fire, and other ,environmental impacts. The EIR must contain an analysis of each of these inevitable, substantial impacts. IX. INADEQU."TE CONSIDERATION OF NOISE The EIR's inaccurate calculation of the amount of traffic that can be anticipated to be generated by the proposed development also infects the EIR's analysis of noise. Traffic levels in excess of those predicted in the EIR will necessarily create noise levels above those predicted by the EIR. x. INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES . The EIR also fails to adequately analyze feasible alternatives to the proposed development. First, the alternatives section of the EIR should consider locating all or a portion of the proposed development, such as the hotel, on Main Street south of the Santa Ana Freeway. Such development would meet the CRA's desire to facilitate the development of North Main without aggravating the already acute traffic problems north of the Santa Ana Freeway in the \5" Santa Ana City Council/Con~unity Redevelopment Agency May 15, 1984 Page Eight . area of Fashion Square. It would also accelerate the desired redevelopment of the portion of Main Street between Central Santa Ana and Fashion Square. Development south of the Santa Ana Freeway should ,be analyzed both separately from, and together with, a more modest redevelopment, or a different mix of development, at the Fashion Square area. Moreover, the EIR should consider efforts to improve the existing retail facilities at Fashion Square. XI. THE EIR DOES NOT CONSIDER THE PROPOSED PHASING OF THE PROJECT . We understand that the CRA will consider approving the proposed project on the condition that development of the property is limited to 1,000,000 square feet of retail or office space and 600 hotel rooms unless and until certain additional freeway ramps are installed. This limitation -- and the consequences associated with the development of the project up to that level without construction of the freeway ramps -- are not disclosed in the EIR. The con- sequences of such a development on traffic and circulation, noise, air quality, and other environmental resources must be disclosed in the EIR. At a minimum, the 1,000,000 square foot/ 600 hotel room scenario should be considered as an alternative. XII. INADEQUATE DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ON MUNICIPAL SERVICES The EIR's consideration of the effect of the Proposed Develop- ment on fire protection is inadequate. Incredibly, the EIR fails to disclose that the firs~ due engine and truck company is located in the City of Orange. Pursuant to the Mutual Aid Agreement between the cities of Orange and Santa Ana, the first station that would respond to any call for Fashion Square is located at Maple Avenue and Main Street in the City of Orange. The ability of this station to provide adequate fire protection to the proposed development must be analyzed in the EIR. . Moreover, the impact on the City of Orange's paramedics, parking control, police services, traffic control, emergency access to major hospitals, is not analyzed or mitigated in the EIR. \1.0 r . Santa Ana City Council/Community Redevelopment Agency May 15, 1984 Page Nine . XIII. . XIV. XV. . Moreover, .the EIR by way of mitigation measures, finds that the City of Santa Ana will be recipient of significant tax revenues to offset increased municioal services. However, the City of Orange will derive-no additional revenue to offset its increased costs for municipal services in the impacted area of Orange. - FAILURE TO CONSIDER RAMIFICATIONS OF PROJECT IN THE CITY OF ORANGE . In response to the significant adverse impacts of the Proposed Development, the City of Orange can be expected to consider the following measureS designed to mitigate the consequences of the traffic generated by the project: 1. Prohibit through traffic on Bedford Road at the city limits; 2. Prohibit through traffic on Lawson Way at the city limits; 3. Prohibit through traffic on Parker Street at the city limits; and 4. Failure to execute cooperative agreement with Cal Trans regarding the proposed freeway ramps into the City of Orange. The EI~ must consider the consequences of each of these measures. INADEQUATE CONSIDEP~TION OF FLOODING ISSUE The EIR fails to disclose that the Proposed Development is located in the flood plain. The EIR should disclose this fact and the size of a storm (e.g., 100 year) that can be expected to result in flooding. THE FINDINGS RE CERTIFICATIOr OF THE EIR ARE INADEQUATE Proposed Resolution No, 84-10 concerning certification of the Final EIR is inadequate. The proposed resolution fails to contain legally mandated findings concerning the basis for the Agency's conclusion that the EIR complies with CEQA, and fails to provide any indication of the analytical path that the Agency took to that conclusion. \1 . '. Santa Ana City Council/ Community Redevelopment Agency May 15, 1984 Page Ten . XVI. THE FINDINGS RE APPROVAL OF THE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT ARE INADEQU~TE The findings concerning approval of the Proposed Participation Agreement contained in Proposed Resolution No. B4~11 are also inadequate. The findings reveal nothing about the extent of the unmitigable adverse environmental consequences associated with the project. For example, the findings state that there will be "increased traffic in the surrounding area". Proposed Resolution No. 84-11 (at page 4). How much of an increase will occur? What level of traffic will result? What "surrounding areas" will be affected? The findings offer no answers to these questions. As a result, there is no indication that .the,CRA is aware of the actual consequences of any approval of the Proposed Development. . Similarly, the findings give no indication of the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. For example, standards are imposed to "minimize adverse shadow and glare effects". Are these standards measurable? To what extent will they be effective? Again, the findings offer no indication of the answer to this question. Finally, there is no basis in the record before the CR~ to conclude, as does Proposed Finding No.3, that the Proposed Development will be viable from an economic point of view. Without any basis for this conclusion, the statement of overriding considerations also fails for want of supporting evidence. XVII. INADEQUATE NOTICE TO AFFECTED PERSONS In violation of CEQA an1 the State EIR Guidelines, official notice of matters concerning this EIR was not provided to City of Orange City Clerk, Cal Trans, the United States Department of Transportation, and Orange residents in the vicinity of the Proposed Development. Accordingly, proper notice must be provided those persons and the EIR recirculated for comment and review. . XVIII. INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT The EIR analysis should have included traffic, noise, police and fire protection, air quality, housing, light and shadow, view, trash management, crime, privacy and enjoyment of residential life style, parking management, and impacts associated with construction. The Final EIR also fails to discuss mitigation measures designed to preserve the residential character of the surrounding neighborhoods. \ß r . ':., " '". Santa Ana City Council/Community Redevelopment Agency May 15, 1984 Page Eleven . INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF RESIDENTI~ NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT XVIII. (Continued) XIX. . xx. XXI. . The EIR does not specifically deal with the continued use and enjoyment of the property of the neighborhood residents in conjunction with the proposed development. Not only the failure to notify these residents but more importantly the failure to analyze or mitigate the impact of this proposed development is vol~tive of CEOA and its fundamental purposes. INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF GEOLOGY AND SUBSIDENCE ISSUES The area of the Proposed Development is subject to subsidence. See "Preliminary Review of Geologic Soils Conditions in Area of the General Plan," City of Orange, April 10,1971, F. Beach Leighton & Associates. The impacts of this condition must be addressed in the Final EIR. The failure of the Final EIR to analyze the stability of the earth is especially significant in light of proposed under- ground parking and multi-story commercial office development adjacent to residential areas, INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Final EIR fails to provide adequate responses to the comments 'on the draft EIR. None of the City's,concerns are adequately answered. Moreover, no response at all is given to Cal Trans' disclosure that there is no funding for additional freeway ramps. The Response to Comments should have been recirculated in light of the new information presented in the co~~ents and responses. CONCLUSION In light of the aforementioned concerns, the City of Orange respectfully requests the following procedures for the further consideration of the Fashion Square project. 1. Additional details should be provided forthwi'_h concerning plans for the Proposed Development; 2. The EIR should be supplemented to analyze the environmental consequences associated with the development in light of this additional detail; the EIR should also be supplemented in light of the concerns addressed in this letter; 3. \<1 . , , :.", . '. Santa Ana City Council/ Community Redevelopment Agency May 15,1984 Page Twelve . XXI. CONCLUSION (Continued) 4. At a minimum, the City of Orange should be afforded an additional two weeks in which to comment on the proposed Final EIR. These comments are submitted without waiving the City of Orange's right to object to the Final EIR's adequacy on other grounds if such grounds should be discovered. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. . fi', ïJ~:--~ J. William Little City ~anager Jh'L: s j c . ~O ':',: ,\, ,,- FASHION SQUARE EXPANSION COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS . New New Retail New Sales New Occupancy New Tax 'fear- Squar-e Footage Ta>< Revenue Hotel Rooms Ta>< Incr-ement -------------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------- 1984 0 0 0 0 100,000 1985 0 0 0 0 102,000 1986 618,000 784,860 0 0 764,040 1987 0 784,860 0 0 779,321 1988 20,000 814,860 0 0 1,096,907 1989 0 814,860 0 0 1,118,845 1990 143,000 ,957,860 400 569,400 1,673,022 1991 103,000 1,112,360 0 569,400 2,086,483 1992 0 1,112,360 0 569,400 2,128,212 1993 0 1,112,360 400 1,138,800 2,910,777 1994 0 1,112,360 0 1,138,800 2,968,992 1995 0 1,112,360 0 1,138,800 3,028,372 1996 0 1,112,360 0 1,138,800 3,548,939 1997 0 1,112,360 400 1,708,200 4,009,918 1998 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,090,117 89 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,171,919 -, ,0 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,255,357 2001 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,340,464 2002 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,427,273 2003 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,515,819 2004 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,606,135 2005 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,698,258 2006 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,792,223 2007 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,888,068 2008 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 4,985,829 2009 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 5,085,546 2010 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 5,187,256 2011 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 5,291,002 2012 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 5,396,822 2013 0 1,112,360 0 1.708,200 5,504,758 2014 0 1,112,360 0 1,708,200 5,614,853 ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- 884,000 30,853,940 1,200 37,011,000 108,167,527 ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- . EXHIBIT C ~\ ; r . - :'"r ". ..' , . . . . . ~þ\,yc==,::;:,::= RAPI-jAJ;L LOUIS ROSINGANA Þ PPO¡:::¡;sso'"Þ - CC P:CORft TC' , 401 Cv<c C,c"r D--", 'W", Se",53C Soo'o Aoo, CoLfe-- 09"2701 (714) 547-33 i May 15, 1984 GITY OF SAHTA AN,. M.~y 1 5 1984 Redevelopment Agency City of Santa Ana Civic Center Santa Ana, California 92701 COMMUNITY DEVEluPMENT l!~!'ARrMfNT HAND DELI VERED A-2 Site; 4th and Ross Streets Santa Ana, California Dear Sirs: RE: Please be ádvised that this office represents the Ferrante/Walder Company. They informed me that at 4:45 p.m. they were advised at their Los Angeles offices of a meeting of the Redeveloment Agency at 5:30 p.m. in Santa Ana. They were further advised that under consideration is a staff recommendation to grant Carley Capital Corporation and Carley Pacific Corporati on excl us i ve negot i at ing ri ghts wi th regards to the above referenced redevelopment site. Since representat i ves of the Ferrante/Wal der Company were not able to attend this meeting in person, they requested that the agency be informed that the Ferrante/Wal der Company has a joi nt development agreement with Carley Pacific Corporation regarding the above referenced site. Some negotiations have taken place with the city and altHough additional negotiations were to take place pursuant to the previously awarded exclusive negotiating agreement which includes Ferrante/Walder Company as a co-developer, my clients were subsequently informed that the staff desired to change the entire concept regarding the manner in which this parcel was to be developed. -The staff has recently informed my clients that Carley Pacific Corporation and Carley Capital Corporation would negotiate a good faith solution with my client to this matter and that these reprsentations would be made in writing to the city. a~ r - "., : '. ~.. . .. ' ,< RAPf-iAfL LOUiS ROSNGA'JA , ... . . Therefore, on behalf of my clients, these offices request that any actions taken to grant exclusive negotiating rights to Carley Pacific Corporation and Carley Capital Corporation include either (i) Ferrante/Walder Company as a co-developer; or (ii) that Carley Pacific Corporation and Carley Capital Corporation reach an amiable solution in writing with Ferrante/Walder Company regardi'lg their rights. It is requested that any such award be conditional on one of the above. I am certain that the agency can appreciate the fact that my clients have spent a tremendous amount of time and money in regard to this site and simply want to be treated fairly in the resJlution thereof. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, ~ffi"~~- Attorney 2f~ RLR/av J.~ ,~