Loading...
93-242 RESOLUTION NO. 93R-242 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OVERRULING WRIt'FEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAXING ENTITIES AND OVERRULING SUCH WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission (the "Commission") has prepared the Redevelopment Plan for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project (the "Plan") and has filed its Report on the Plan with the City Council of the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.: "CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000, et seq.: the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and procedures adopted by the Agency relating to enviromental evaluation of public and private projects; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Commission on August 18, 1993, for the sole purpose of soliciting public comments to the draft EIR, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 1993, a duly noticed joint public hearing on the proposed Plan and the final EIR was conducted by the City Council, the Commission and the Agency, and said hearing was continued to December 14, 1993; and WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Plan, or the regularity of the proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written comments prior to the commencement of or at the joint public hearing, or to give oral testimony at the joint public hearing, and show cause why the proposed Plan shoukl not be adopted; and WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 et seq.) requires the City Council to make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity, addressing such objections in detail and giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the Agency staff to respond to written objections received from affected property owners and taxing entities, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions, and the City Council has reviewed such responses; and WHEREAS, although not required by Section 33363 of the Community Redevelopment Law, the City Council has also directed the Agency staff to respond to written objections received from those who do not own, or levy a property tax upon, property located within the Project Area and therefore are not affected property owners and taxing entities as defined in Section 33353.2 of the Community Redevelopment Law, giving reasons for not accepting these objections and suggestions, and the City Council has also reviewed these responses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and considered all evidence, both written and oral, presented in support of and in opposition to the adoption of the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds that all persons have had the opportunity to be heard or to file a written objection to the proposed Plan for and the regularity of the proceedings with respect to the proposed Plan. SECTION 2: Having heard and carefully reviewed all oral objections presented at the joint public hearing on the Plan, the City Council hereby finds and determines that compelling reasons exist in the record of the joint public hearing (including, without limitation, testimony presented by Agency staff in response to such oral objections) to justify adoption of the Plan as proposed, notwithstanding such oral objections, and such oral objections are, accordingly, overruled. SECTION 3: Having heard and carefully reviewed all written objections presented by each affected property owner or taxing entity, the City Council hereby makes the required written findings and responses to such written objections, as set forth in Exhibit A. attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and determines that there are compelling reasons to justify adoption of the Plan as proposed, notwithstanding such writ'ten objections. SECTION 4: Having heard and carefully reviewed written objections presented by those who neither own property, nor levy a property tax upon property, located within the Project Area, the City Council hereby makes the written findings and responses to such written objections, as set forth in ~, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and determines that there are compelling reasons to justify adoption of the Plan as proposed, notwithstanding such written objections. SECTION 5: The City Council, the Commission and the Agency have duly complied with all the provisions, requirements and procedures of the Community Redevelopment Law relating to the preparation and adoption of the Plan. Pu~L:9722_l13361B2621.43 2 12/13/93 SECTION 6: The City Council, accordingly, overrules any and all objections to the adoption of the Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 14thday of December, 1993: ATTEST: - City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: PU~L:9722_lI336]B2621.43 3 12/13/93 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 93R-24~ was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council held on the 14th day of December, 1993, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution No. 93R-242 on the 15th day of December, 1993. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand ;and affixed the official seal of the City of Anaheim this 15th day of December, 1993. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (SEAL) I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 93R-242 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim on December 14, 1993. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND RESPONSES TO WRITFEN OBJECTIONS MADE PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363 RELATING TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1. Letter (11/27/93) from Adolf Philip Miller (affected property owner) Comment No. 1 Mr. Miller stated that he and his father have been able to keep all of their South Anaheim Boulevard properties rented and did not want South Anaheim Boulevard redeveloped unless approved by secret ballot of the property owners. Response No. 1 The City Council, the Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission and the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency have followed the redevelopment plan adoption procedures as defined by the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.: "CRL"). These procedures do not provide for a secret ballot of project area property owners to approve the adoption of a redevelopment project. However, the referendum process provided in the CRL is available to anyone who would wish to challenge the adoption of a redevelopment plan and the referendum voting would be by secret ballot. Comment No. 2 If the residential neighborhoods surrounding the South Anaheim Boulevard were upgraded first, then the owners of business properties along South Anaheim Boulevard would upgrade their property without redevelopment. Furthermore, that improving the business district would not reverse the decline in the surrounding residential areas upon which the businesses depend. Response No. 2 The Project Area boundaries were selected to include commercial and industrial properties to provide the Redevelopment Agency with the ability to comprehensively address the problems and needs of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor and the industrial area along East Street. However, housing is addressed in the CRL. Section 33334.2 of the CRL requires that not less than 20 percent of the property tax increment revenues generated from the Project Area be used by the Redevelopment Agency for the purposes of increasing, improving and preserving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing, at affordable housing cost, to persons of low and moderate income. As part of the Plan adoption process and permitted by CRL Section 33334.2(g), the City Council and Redevelopment Agency have each adopted a resolution which permits the Redevelopment Agency to use these funds both inside and outside the Project Area. Therefore, these special housing funds could be utilized to improve and preserve the residential areas surrounding the Project Area, as Mr. Miller suggests. However, these housing funds would not be available without the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. However, improving the surrounding residential areas alone will not address the numerous problems along South Anaheim Boulevard identified in the "Report to City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project.~ Therefore, a number of programs and public improvements are discussed in the Report to City Council that will benefit all of the commercial properties along South Anaheim Boulevard. Also, specific programs have been identified for the rehabilitation and expansion of existing businesses in the Project Area. Furthermore, it is possible to initiate redevelopment efforts aimed at commercial/industrial areas inside the Project Area and housing efforts outside of the Project Area at the same time so that upgrading the business district is not dependent on improving the adjoining residential neighborhoods or vice versa. Finding and Disposition The City Council of the City of Anaheim finds that the foregoing response provides a good-faith, reasoned analysis of the foregoing written objections to the Redevelopment Plan and gives reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; such written objections are hereby overruled. 2. Letter (11/17/93) from Evelyn C. Bevins (affected property owner) Comment Ms. Bevins stated that she was opposed to the creation of the Redevelopment Project along South Anaheim Boulevard and the inclusion of her property in such a project. Response Ms. Bevins' objection is noted. Ms. Bevins did not provide a reason for her opposition for inclusion in a redevelopment project. However, her son, speaking on her behalf at the public hearing on the proposed Project, did provide reasons for her objections which will be addressed in staff's oral response to oral comments, and staff's oral response is incorporated herein by reference. Finding and Disposition The City Council of the City of Anaheim finds that the foregoing response prbvides a good-faith, reasoned analysis of the foregoing written objections to the Redevelopment Plan and gives reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; such written objections are hereby overruled. PUBL:9723_l13361B2621.43 2 12/13/93 3. Letter (8/6/93) from Irene Kerlin (affected property owner) Comment Ms. Kerlin requested that she be excluded from the Project Area. She stated that her reasons for wanting to be excluded were: 1) that the economy is such, now or in the foreseeable future, that more government intervention is unnecessary to improve the area; 2) that the apartment complex behind her property (outside of the proposed Project Area) was in her opinion certainly more blighted than her property; and 3) that several blocks near Valencia Avenue appear to have no buildings on either side of Anaheim Boulevard included in the Project Area, and since no properties behind hers are included, excluding her property would not create an exception. Response The current economic conditions of the Project Area as evidenced in the Report to City Council do indicate that government intervention is necessary and has indeed been requested by the community. The land use controls of the Redevelopment Plan will be in effect for 35 years. This long term planning will effectuate redevelopment in the area regardless of the current and near-term projections of a lackluster California economy. Also, redevelopment activities can be implemented to respond to fluctuating economic conditions. The Project Area boundaries were selected to include commercial and industrial properties to provide the Redevelopment Agency with the ability to comprehensively address the problems and needs of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor and the industrial area along East Street. The properties Ms. Keriin noted as outside of the Project Area are residential and part of the adjacent neighborhoods. Therefore, their inclusion is not necessary to facilitate redevelopment of the commercial and industrial properties. However, as mentioned in the response to Adolf Philip Miller, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency have each adopted a resolution which permits the Redevelopment Agency to use special housing funds both inside and outside the Project Area. Therefore, these special housing funds might be available to improve the apartment complex which Ms. Kerlin believes is more blighted than her property. Unlike the residential properties adjoining the Project Area, Ms. Kerlin's commercial property on South Anaheim Boulevard is an integral part of the commercial frontage of the boulevard and for this reason inclusion of her property in the Project Area is considered necessary to effectuate the comprehensive redevelopment of the Project Area and her property will benefit from overall redevelopment of the Project Area. Finding and Disposition The City Council of the City of Anaheim finds that the foregoing response provides a good-faith, reasoned analysis of the foregoing written objections to the Redevelopment Plan and gives reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; such written objections are hereby overruled. PUBL:9723_I 1336l B2621.43 3 12/13/93 4. Letter (12/1/93) from Thomas L. Spencer (affected property owner) Comment No. 1 Overall, Mr. Spencer supports the proposed Project and the potential improvements to his property. However, he believes the documents for the Project have two basic flaws. First, that the documents leave room for abuse by the Redevelopment Agency. His concerns here are that existing owners, particularly small property owners, be given every consideration in participating in any redevelopment activity (he believes the documents imply a preference for large scale developers), and that the use of eminent domain be exercised only as absolutely necessary and in accordance with standards and requirements that exceed state statutory limits. Response No. 1 Section 33339.5 of the CRL requires that the Agency extend reasonable preference to persons who are engaged in business in the Project Area if they otherwise meet the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan. On November 10, 1993, the Anaheim Redevelopment Commission adopted "Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants in the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Projectu. These rules provide the same opportunities for participation in redevelopment activities for property owners and business regardless of size. The CRL and Code of Civil Procedures defines specific rules for the use of eminent domain. This includes a mandatory public hearing when the use of eminent domain is being considered. Also, as note by Mr. Spencer, a 4/Sths vote of approval by the City Council is required before eminent domain proceedings can be initiated. In addition, the Agency must demonstrate that the use of eminent domain is absolutely necessary and is a last resort measure. Furthermore, the Agency must demonstrate that it has negotiated with the property owner in good faith to come to mutually acceptable agreement on the purchase of the property. When condemnation is determined to be absolutely necessary, the law protects property owners by requiring that and specifying how, fair market value is to be determined. Also, the Agency must find alternative affordable and comparable relocation property. Comment No. 2 A second weakness Mr. Spencer sees with the documents is that they contain no specific incentives to the existing property owners; there is no information or example of how the Plan might operate to benefit the individual property owner. He suggests that the Plan be more specific about what are the proposed improvements that will be funded by the Redevelopment Plan and asks for specific landscape/streetscape improvements. Also, he suggests that the Redevelopment Plan specify the types of improvements that will qualify for reimbursement to individual property owners and whether tax increment funds will be available to such property owners on a pro-rata basis. If no funds will be available, then eminent domain should be further restricted. Finally, he suggests that the procedures for amending the Redevelopment Plan be PUBL:9723_D3361B2621.43 4 12/13/93 included in the Plan, as well as the criteria as a basis for approval or denial of proposed amendments. Response No. 2 As was noted by the California Supreme Court nearly thirty years ago, a redevelopment plan contemplates "a comprehensive method or scheme of action; a way proposed to carry out within the essential framework of the law a particular project of redevelopment." Io re the Matter of the Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, (1964) 61 Cal.2d 20, 52. The Redevelopment Plan provides a valuable land use and planning tool and financing mechanisms for addressing conditions of blight within the Project Area. As implementation of the Plan progresses, there will be opportunities for Project Area owners and businesses to participate in the formulation of those specific projects aimed at alleviating such blighting conditions. Exhibits C-1 and C-2 of the Redevelopment Plan provide lists of specific public improvements and their locations proposed for the Project Area. Some of the public improvements proposed immediately adjacent to Mr. Spencer's property include sewer and water system improvements and Anaheim Boulevard landscaping. Additionally, his property will benefit from other traffic improvements along Anaheim Boulevard such as street lighting, signal upgrades, and other improvements. In addition to public improvements, the Redevelopment Plan allows funding for private property improvements through commercial site assembly and rehabilitation programs. Each owner participating in these programs would enter into a separate agreement with the Agency. The CRL provides the legal authority for the Redevelopment Agency to assist owner participants. Under the CRL, there is no legal authority for the Redevelopment Agency to simply disburse tax increment funds to Project Area property owners on a pro-rata basis. Finally, the specific detailed procedures for amending a redevelopment plan already exist in the CRL. The CRL also provides very specific criteria under which a redevelopment plan may be amended, including findings which must be made and time limits on redevelopment plans and project financing limits that cannot be exceeded or amended. Finding and Disposition The City Council of the City of Anaheim finds that the foregoing response provides a good-faith, reasoned analysis of the foregoing written objections to the Redevelopment Plan and gives reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; such written objections are hereby overruled. [No written objections were received from an affected taxing entity] PUBL:9723_l13361B2621.43 5 12/13/93 EXHIBIT B FINDINGS AND RESPONSES TO OTHER WRITYEN OBJECTIONS (Not Required by Health and Safety Code Section 33363) 1. Letter from Don Bankhead (Fullerton resident), dated December 7, 1993. 2. Letter from Robert E. Ward (Fullerton resident), dated December 7, 1993. 3. Letter from Gary A. Chalupsky, Executive Director, Fullerton Redevelopment Agency, dated December 7, 1993, (writing on behalf of the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency) Comment These letters are each variations of the other. Each writer objects to the certification of the Environmental Impact Report CEIR") for and approval of the Commercial/Industrial RedeYelopment Project, and each believes the Project will have negative environmental and economic impacts on Fullerton. Each writer believes the ~ is legally inadequate for the reasons set forth in the comments and objections raised by the City of Fullerton in its letters of September 10, 1993 and December 7, 1993, and each incorporates those comments and objections into his letter by reference. Response Objections and opinions so noted. Each writer states that the basis for his opinion is set forth in the City of Fullerton letters of September 10, 1993 and December 7, 1993. Therefore, the responses to the City of Fullerton letter of September 10, 1993, set forth in the Final FIR, are adopted by Anaheim and incorporated herein by reference, and the responses to the City of Fullerton letter of December 7, 1993, set forth below, are incorporated herein by reference. Finding and Disposition The City Council of the City of Anaheim f'mds that the foregoing response provides a good-faith, reasoned analysis of the foregoing written objections to the Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Redevelopment Plan and gives reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; such written objections are hereby overruled. problems such as this are normally addressed at the individual project level by requiring provision of adequate sewer capacity-prior to occupancy of new structures. The City of Anaheim has every intent of cooperating with the City of Fullerton to ensure that any project in this area has adequate sewer service. This mitigation measure was included in the Final EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project. Whether or not a sewer deficiency is ~igniftcant depends on (1) the extent of the deficiency, and (2) the feasibility of mitigation, and (3) the inclusion of mitigation of impacts in the proposed project. In this case, it is reasonable to expect that mitigation will be the requirement for replacement or supplement of existing sewer lines ff a specific project eventually proposed for development in this area would exceed the capacity of the exisfmg sewer system serving the area. Because this measure is included in the mitigation for the Redevelopment Plan, project impacts are considered to be less than significant as identified in the EIR. Comment 8. 3. The Final EIR includes additional information relating to Fullerton~s ability to provide fire service to the project area. The Final EIR now acknowledges, as the Draft EIR failed to do, that "any use that would increase the number of persons served or the number of vehicles moving in and out of the area would have a serious effect on the fire department." See Response No. 3.125 (emphasis added). Although the Final EIR does not state a conclusion regarding the signiftcance of this impact, it implies the impact is insigniftcant because Anaheim provides primary responsibility for fLre protection in the area. Id. This assertion is false. According to the independent jointly-funded regional Fire Dispatcher's Office, between January 1 and October 20, 1993, there were a total of 166 f'tre department responses to the portion of Anaheim north of the Riverside Freeway between Lemon and Raymond. Fullerton provided 140 or 84% of those responses. Clearly, primary responsibility for f~re protection in this area does not fall on Anaheim. This project will signiftcantly impact Fullerton's ability to provide ftre service to this area. Response 8, The City of Fullerton asserts that because Fullerton responds to ftres in the project area that Fullerton has primary responsibility for fire proteqtion in the project area. This assertion is false. The City of Anaheim has primary and ultimate responsibility for provision of f'u'e protection within the City Limits of the City of Anaheim. Through a coeperative arrangement with other f'Lre departments throughout the region, each f'tre department provides actual response to t'tre calls based on the proximity of stations to each location. Because parts of the project area are closer to Fullerton's fire stations than Anaheim's, this area frequently receives f~rst response from FulleRon. However, Fullerton does not have primary or ultimate responsibility for provision of adequate f'tre protection to this area. The City of Anaheim Fire Department has explicitly stated that Anaheim has primary responsibility for providing f'tre protection to this area. ~'U~L:9724_113361B2621.43 7 12/I4/93 The addition of new or replacement industriM space to the project area is not expected to result in significant effects on the City of Fullerton's Fire Department. New industrial space would be required to have fire suppression systems in accordance with current requirements. New streets would be required to provide adequate access for fire equipmere and adequate water flow and pressure in accordance with current standards. In the unexpected event that a new proposed use would have a major impact on Fullerton's fire service, the agreement for service to this area can be reviewed and necessary changes made. Comment 9. 4. The Final EIR includes substantial new analysis that was not included the Draft laiR. For example, the Final EIR includes an analysis of impacts to Fullerton schools resulting from the increase in employment from the redevelopment project. See Response to Comment numbers 3.35, 3.92 and 3.93. The Final EIR's analysis concludes that impacts to Fullerton schools are insignificant claiming that the potential costs of housing new students will be mitigated. Fullerton disagrees with this conclusion and has provided ample evidence to suggest that any impacts to schools are significant given the fact that FullertoWs schools are already f'mancially and physically overburdened. The impact to Fullerton schools fwm the redevelopment project is significant; the EIR should be recirculated to allow the public sufficient time to evaluate the analysis in the Final EIR. Response 9. The additional analysis of school impacts in the Final ErR was included at the specific request of the City of Fullerton. The conclusion of that analysis was that (1) the impacts of potential new housing constructed to house employees generated by the project would be very small in relation to the current student population, (2) any such growth in student population would be balanced by standard school financing methods intended to deal with normal student growth, including developer fees, state financing for school construction and rehabilitation, and property tax income from new development, and (3) such housing would only be developed in Fullerton if it is the City of FullertoWs policy that such housing should be developed, and (4) only the City of Fullerton can determine what housing is to be developed in that City, subject to requirement that market demand must exist if the City desires that housing be constructed. Contrary to the statement in the comment, the City of Fullerton presented no evidence that these impacts would be significant or would not be mitigated to the same extent as those of any other housing constructed in Fullerton. Comment 10. 5. The Final EIR contains employment projections that are substantially higher than the employment figures in the Draft EIR. New development in the project area could provide 4,436 jobs (a 37% increase) under the General Plan alternative, and up to 3,929 jobs (46% increase) under the Alternative Use alternative. Despite this significant increase in ~,w1.:9724_113361B2621.43 8 12/14/93 employment, the traffic analysis remains unchanged. Clearly the traffic analysis should have been revised to incorporate the new jobs projections. Response 10. Employment projections for areas within the project area are somewhat higher than those in the Draft FaIR for two reasons. These are (1) elimination of some fully developed areas of the project area for which the average intensity of development and resulting employment was expected to decline over the long project life and (2) reduction in the area of commercial retail land use by eliminating the commercial land use alternative north of the Riverside Freeway and its replacement with industrial and business park land use, as recommended by the City of Fullerton in its comments on the Draft ErR. The change in land use, while increasing the employment density of some areas of the project area, does not result in increases in traffic. In fact, eliminating the Commercial land use alternative (thereby leaving in place the existing industrial and business park land use) results in substantial reductions in traffic impacts. This is evident in the comparison of the two scenarios in the Draft FIR. The Alternative Use Scenario, although it had a substantially smaller increase in nonresidential square footage in the project area than the General Plan Development Scenario, had substantially greater traffic impacts. The greater traffic impacts resulted primarily from the retail commercial use. Elimination of this retail commercial use north of the Riverside Freeway substantially reduces tnfffic impacts on the City of Fullerton to a level similar to the General Plan Development Scenario. This change to the project was made specifically to reduce traffic effects on the City of Fullerton identified in the Draft FIR. Comment 11. 6. The Final FIR includes important new information that had been left out of the Draft FIR. An evaluation of the Draft FIR's analysis of water, sewer, and solid waste service was simply not possible since the Draft FIR failed to include tables depicting impacts to these services. See Responses numbers 3.94, 3.97, 3.101, and 3.104. Since these data were made available to Fullerton only four days before the hearing on this project, Fullerton staff have not yet had an opportunity to evaluate the water service, sewer and solid waste impacts. The FIR should be recirculated to provide this opportunity. Response 11. As discussed in the Final FIR, the tables showing the method of calculating water, sewer, solid waste impacts were inadvertently replaced by cumulative impact tables, which had different titles and were clearly not the correct tables, as the City of Fullerton correctly noted in its comments on the Draft FIR. However, the impact estimates provided in the text of the Draft FIR were based on the correct tables, which were included in the Final FIR. None of the impacts discussed was a significant effect of the proposed project. The potential for significant effects in these each is typically mitigated on a project-by-project basis through PUBL:9724_l13361B2621.43 9 12/14/93 the City's standard development approval procedures or through citywide programs currently in effect. Cormnent 12. 7. The Final EIR includes numerous new mitigation measures several of which are proposed to allegedly mitigate the project's significant impact on Fullerton's roadway system. See Response to 3.78 page 3.9-28 of the Final EIR. Recirculation is necessary to allow sufficient time to evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigation measures. In addition to the traffic measures, mitigation measures have also been introduced in the Final EIR for impacts relating to the project's flood hazard and drainage system, sewer service, electricity, aesthetics and cultural and historic resources. See DEIR at 3.3-7 and 3.11-9 and Response Numbers 3-16, 3.46 and 3.109. Response 12. Additional information was provided in response to Fullerton's concern (Final EIR, Comment 3.43 of City of Fullerton, page 6-32). This information indicated some specific mitigation measures that could be utilized to mitigate traffic impacts in the City of Fullerton resulting from the anticipated development in the Project Area as well as cumulative development in Fullerton and throughout the region. Because these intersections are located in the City of Fullerton, the feasibility and appropriateness of these mitigation measures cannot be determined by the City of Anaheim. The City of Anaheim continues to believe that the most appropriate mitigation measures for this traffic impact can only be determined through a focused area traffic study. Because the City of Fullerton has sole jurisdiction over many of the roadway mitigation measures to be considered, both cities need to be involved in this study. Because many of the conventional mitigation measures typically used in such cases are not feasible because of the limited right- of-way, solutions involving use of alternate parallel streets, parking restrictions, computerized control and other methods are likely to be necessary. Both cities face existing circulation problems in this area. The bulk of the anticipated growth in traffic on these intersections comes from other sources, particularly the City of Fullerton, not the proposed project. The analytical situation is further complicated by the current General Plan revision in progress in the City of Fullerton. If the City of Fullerton further exacerbates these traffic problems by proposing additional growth in traffic on these streets, additional mitigation measures may be needed. The EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan include those mitigation measures known to be feasible, and includes the policy of the City of Anaheim to contribute its fai~ share to measures to be developed in the future through such a study and mitigation program. The long-term nature of the Redevelopment Plan means that impacts of the project will not be immediate. Any site-specific project proposed in the short term which has significant project-specific impacts will be required to provide project mitigation measures. In the long term, if regional mitigation measures such as improvements in transit, jobs-housing balance P~JaL:9724_113361 B2621.43 10 12/14/93 and transportation demand management are effective, some of these roadway improvements may not be necessary. The success o£ these measures cannot be determined today, and they were not assumed to be effective in the traffic analysis conducted for this project. Conunent 13. B. The EIR Fails to Adequately Respond to Comments In responding to comments, CEQA requires that when the lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments, these comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. CEQA Guidelines at 15088 (b). Very few, if any, of the responses provided in the Final EIR comply with this CEQA requirement. In most instances, the Final EIR simply provides cursory responses to Fullerton's comments. For example, Fullerton stated that the EIR should be revised to reflect the fact that the project is located adjacent to Fullerton and that Fullerton already suffers from excessive traffic congestion, poor air quality, a severely constrained school system, and heavily used recreational and fu'e suppression facilities. The Final EIR's response to this comment was simply to insert one sentence in the text of the Draft EIR stating that "The North Central portion of the Project Area is adjacent to the City of Fullerton." Final EIR Response 3.2 and page 2-1. Other examples of the most glaring deficiencies in the Final EIR's response to comments are described below. Respome 13. As was noted at the outset to Anaheim's response to Fullerton's comments on the Draft EIR, Fullerton's comments significantly and extensively exceeded the scope prescribed by CEQA Section 21153 and Section 15096(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Nevertheless, Anaheim responded to all comments with responses which (even a cursory review would show) were not cursory. The EIR provides specific information regarding the conditions in the City of Fullerton where such information is relevant to analysis of significant effects of the project. Where the project has no such significant effects, detailed analysis of conditions is not necessary. The project's location adjacent to the City of Fullerton was clearly illustrated on maps in the Draft EIR. Adjacent land uses in the City of Fullerton are illustrated in Figure 7A and were so illustrated in the Draft EIR. The City of Fullerton does not have unique air quality characteristics that different'hate it significantly from the Anaheim monitoring station data reported in the EIR. Analysis of school, recreation and fire suppression factors was expanded in the Final EIR and additional background information was included regarding the conditions related to these factors in the City of Fullerton. These issues axe discussed specifically where raised below. PUBL:9724_I [3361 B2621.43 1 l 12/14/93 Comment 14. 1. The Final EIR fails to provide an analysis of the project's consistency with Fullerton's General Plan despite the fact that Fullerton requested this analysis. $~ Response No. 3-2. The development associated with the redevelopment plan will have far reaching effects on Fullerton. Fullerton's General Plan is currently in the process of being updated. Fullerton has expended extensive effort to ensure that its public services and specifically its roadway network are not over burdened by Fullerton development. The substantial increase in industrial or office/retail development contemplated as a part of Anaheim's redevelopment project could overwhelm the ability of Fullerton to provide efficient public services. Response 14. As stated in the responses to comments in the Final EIR, the City of Fullerton has no jurisdiction over the areas in the Project Area, and therefore the Project is neither consistent nor inconsistent with the Fullerton General Plan. To the extent that the Fullerton General Plan makes statements about what is acceptable or not acceptable in another City outside the City of Fullerton, those statements are of no effect. The City of Fullerton is part of an urbanized region, and its General Plan should consider its circulation system part of a regional network which provides service throughout that region. Fullerton must consider regional growth projections to identify needed levels of traffic service in the City, not just development within the City of Fullerton. If the City of Fullerton's General Plan only considers development within the City in anticipating future traffic needs, then its circulation analysis is deficient. The City of Anaheim considered regional projections and regional growth in anticipating needs both within and outside the Project Area. Most of the growth in traffic on intersections in Fullerton came not from growth within the Project Area, but from growth anticipated within the City of Fullerton, as outlined in the traffic report prepared for the project. The portion of the Project Area for which Fullerton provides a share of public services through cooperative agreements is a small portion of the total area served by the City of Fullerton, and development of part of this area to a level consistent with its prior level of development before the previous use was demolished would not be expected to be overiy burdensome to the City of Fullerton. As stated numerous times in the glR and the responses to comments, the City of Anaheim has had and continues to bear primary responsibility for providing police, fLre and other public services to this area. To the extent that provision of supplementary services to this area is overly burdensome on the City of Fullerton, the agreements which govern the cooperative service can be reviewed to ensure a fair allocation of service, facilities and costs. Comment 15. 2. The Final EIR fails to provide information or an 'impact analysis on the nature or extent of groundwater contamination and its effect on development despite Fullerton's request for such an analysis. S~ Response Numbers 3.4 and 3.23. PUI~L:9724_I 13361 B2621.43 12 12/14/93 Response 1~. The requested detailed analysis is not relevant to the environmental effects of the proposed project: the adoption of a redevelopment plan. The Northrop site is currently in the process of cleanup under the jurisdiction of Orange County. While the existence of groundwater contamination may be a current constraint to development and a blighting influence on the sites north of the Riverside Freeway, the proposed project will not adversely affect this existing condition. Any proposed project will be conditioned to prevent interference with the necessary monitoring and treatment wells required to clean up this existing contaminated ground water. Based on the situation that exists at other sites over contaminated ground water basins, once site remedialion is complete, the site should be able to be developed as is any other site in the project area. New development will be subject to current standards for storage and disposal of materials, preventing significant adverse impacts on groundwater. Comment 16. 3. The Final FIR fails to provide an analysis of public health effects resulting from the potential use of hazardous materials despite Fullerton's request for such an analysis. See Draft FIR at 3.7-3 and Response No. 3.11. 4. The ErR fails to provide a health risk assessment claiming that it is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Fullerton requested such an analysis. See Response No. 3.12) Response16. As stated in the FIR, new uses are subject to regulation of hazardous air contaminants by the South Coast Air Quality Management_ District. The City of Anaheim does not consider it practical, necessaxy, feasible or appropriate to duplicate this jurisdiction with an independent air pollution authority operated by the City of Anaheim. There are no known specific new uses for the project area which are known at this time, so health risk analysis of the potential hazardous chemicals used by these possible uses would be totally speculative. There is no unique or unusual aspect of the proposed project or its location that would require unique or unusual measures applicable to this project area. An objective of the proposed project is to replace existing uses which cause contamination with newer uses which are less polluting and which must meet current standards. Comment 17. 5. Fullerton requested that the RIR provide the assumptions relating to the FIR's cumulative land use analysis. The Final FIR responds by stating that because the commentor refers to secondary impacts of land use changes it has no obligation to respond to this comment. See Response No. 3.50. CEQA requires an lair to focus and identify direct and indirect effects of the project. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(A). The EIR should provide this analysis. ~'UBL:9724-113361B2621 '43 13 12/14/93 Response 17. The response in the Final FaIR (assumed to relate to Comment 3.50 of City of Fullerton, page 6-36) simply states that the commentor is referring to the secondary impacts of land use changes (such as air quality and traffic impacts) as land use impacts. In the EIR, land use effects are narrowly construed to be effects on land use (existing land use, future land use, or land use plans and regulations). Cumulative impacts on land use (that is, total changes in land use of the cumulative projects list, or induced changes in existing land use or induced development) impacts were not considered significant because any such development must be consistent with regional and local plans. The secondary effects of such land use changes may be significant even though the land use changes themselves are not considered significant. The secondary effects (traffic; air quality, etc.) of those changes are dealt with in other parts of the FAIR, not the Land Use section. Comment 18. C. The EIR's Impact Analysis Is Inadequate Fullerton supports Anaheim's decision to process the redevelopment plan EIR as a tiered or program EIR. As Fullerton indicated in its September 10, 1993 letter, the level of environmental analysis in the Draft EIR is severely deficient to inform decision-makers and the public of the environmental impacts of specific development projects that will be implemented as a part of the redevelopment plan. Although the Final EIR identifies important new information, it too fails to provide the level of analysis necessary to approve specific development projects. Respome 18. The City of Anaheim does not intend to utilize the Redevelopment Plan EIR as the sole environmental document for approval of specific development projects where additional environmental analysis and documentation at the individual project level would be required by law. Where such subsequent specific development projects would have significant effects not considered in the Redevelopment Plan EIR, or where significant new information is available, additional environmental analysis would be required in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Comment 19. Fullerton remains concerned, however, that Anaheim's basic approach to impact analysis is flawed. In numerous impact sections, the Final EIR implies that further environmental review will occur at the project development stage. Yet the EIR also states that no further analysis is necessary where impacts have already been considered in this EIR. This language provides no assurance that the numerous significant impacts will be identified, analyzed and mitigated. The following scenario of the EIR's analysis of light and glare impacts provides an example of the EIR's bewildering evaluation of environmental impacts. The Draft g~R states that PUBL:9724_l13361B2621.43 14 12/14/93 although the project will result in a substantial increase in light and glare, a study of the specific impacts will be undertaken once specific development projects are identified. Draft EIR at 3.5-2. The Final FaIR then states that this later study will determine that impacts will be less than significant because the project-specific review will ensure that the significance thresholds will not be exceeded. Se~ Response 3.18.' This hodge-podge of information leaves the public and decision-makers with no assurance that adequate environmental review will even take place in the context of site specific projects since the EIR has predetermined that this impact is and will continue to be insignificant. Similar if not identical problems continue to exist for other impact sections including but not limited to air quality, water, noise, land use, transportation, public services, utilities and all of the cumulative impact sections. A few of the most egregious examples are provided below. Response 19. Fullerton is purporting to f'md an inconsistency where none exists. CEQA requires environmental review of all non-exempt projects prior to approval by public agencies. By stating such review is required, Anaheim is neither avoiding review today nor indicating that additional significant effects will not be considered. Future review at the project's specific level may consider the availability of previous environmental documentation, to the extent such documentation adequately addresses the relevant issues. Mitigation measures for light and glare sufficient to minimize environmental effects are included in the FaIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan because potentially significant impacts were identified. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan includes requirements that each development project have project-specific mitigation for light and glare impacts. Specific mitigation features (shielded light fixtures, visual buffers) are identified for inclusion and monitoring at the project-specific level. Because the nature of specific developments is not known at this time, the specific mitigation needed cannot be determined. It is the Agency's view that this mitigation is sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level for the type of projects anticipated in the project area. If this mitigation is not provided, project- specific environmental review will identify that fact. Similar mitigation measures are provided for the other effects listed. The Agency considers this relation between the overall Redevelopment Plan mitigation and project-specific design and environmental review to be appropriate considering that project-specific details cannot be known at this time. Comment 20. 1. Traffic The Final EIR continues to mistakenly include highway improvements contemplated in Anaheim and Orange County's master plans in its base case 2010 analysis. There is no assurance that these projects will be implemented given the Final l~11~'s own statement that these improvements are considered "non-committed" projects. See Final EIR at 3.9-21. Furthermore, the Final EIR makes clear that it considers these master plan improvements as mitigation in which the applicant will be required to contribute its fair share. Id. Absent an analysis that includes only those improvements that are committed (i.e., secure funding and a PUllc:9724_l 1336 ] B2621.43 1 5 12/14/93 specified date of completion), the public and decision-makers are simply not able to determine the project's actual effect on the roadway system. This flaw in the traffic analysis leads one to believe that the intensive development associated with the redevelopment project wLll actually result in a tremendous improvement at project area intersecf~ons. While the Final EIR depicts approximately 50 intersections that will operate over capacity under the 2010 (no~project) scenario, only 20 intersections will operate over capacity under buildout of the General Plan alternative. Final 171R at Table 15 and page 3.911. Response 20. A mitigation measure has been added to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan to deal with titis issue of the inability to determine whether master planned improvements will be available at the tune they are needed to mitigate specific effects. This measure provides as follows: The Redevelopment Agency will monitor the progress of implementaf~on of master planned improvements assumed to be available to provide traffic improvements as outlined in the traffic analysis. This monitoring will consist of the following: (1) 5-Year Traffic Impact Review. Every f~ve years, or whenever an individual development project of greater than 500,000 square feet is proposed, the Agency will conduct a comprehensive analysis of the anticipated traffic impacts of remaining development in the Project Area and the contribution of the Project to cumulative effects on the local transportation system. This review will include a review and updating of the list of master planned improvements to determine whether each improvement should be included as an assumed improvement in long-term impact analysis based on the likelihood of the completion of that improvement over the development period in the analysis. (Such analysis need not be conducted if a recent Citywide or project-specific analysis has been conducted which provides the Agency with equivalent information.) (2) Major Project Traffic Review. For each project of greater than 200,000 square feet (or any other project determined by the Agency to be likely to have project-specific traffic impacts requiring project-level mitigation), the Agency will require or will prepare a traffxc analysis of the speciftc impacts of that project. To the extent that satisfactory intersection performance at intersections significantly effected by the project depends on master planned improvements which have not yet been constructed, the City will require: a. That such improvements be constructed prior to project occupancy, or b. That the project contribute to the construction of such improvements for construction within 5 years of project occupancy, or ~'UBL:9724_l 13361 B2621.43 16 12/14/93 c. The project adopt project-specific mitigation measures to reduce or offset project impacts sufficiently to reduce the project-specific significant effect on that intersecf~on to a less-than-significant level. d. The City will make a good faith effort, including commitment of a fair share of project funding, to ensure that needed feasible mitigation measures in other jurisdictions are completed. The EIR has indicated that certain mitigation measures are infeasible and that significant adverse traffic impacts will result from the project. Corm-nent 21. In addition, the Final EIR continues to erroneously assume that several Fullerton intersections are located within Anaheim. Specifically, four of the six intersections for which the Final FaIR idenfifies specific improvements are fully or partialiy located in Fullerton. These intersections are (1) Lemon and Orangethorpe; (2) Lemon and Commonwealth; (3) Raymond and Orangethorpe; and (4) State College and Orangethorpe. The importance of this cannot be downplayed since the EIR concludes that these intersections will be mitigated to an insignificant level despite the fact that Anaheim has either no authority or partial authority over these intersections. Furthermore, the EIR fads to acknowledge the infeasibility of these improvements because at least one improvement at Lemon and Orangethorpe requires the condemnation of existing buildings. Response 21. While the major part of the street right-of-way for the identified intersections lies in the City of Fullerton, three of these intersections lie along the boundaries of the City of Anaheim, which has jurisdiction over the property adjacent to the right-of-way and would share responsibility if additional right-of-way is needed in order to make specific improvements. The specific conditions for these intersections are as follows: (1) The intersection of Lemon and Orangethorpe has its west side in the City of Fullerton and its east side in the City of Anaheim. (2) The intersection of Lemon and Commonwealth is located entirely in the City of Fullerton and is shown on Table 15, Table 17 and in the text on page 3.9- 12 as being located in the City of Fullerton. The text reference to the six intersections listed on page 3.9-26 as being all in the City of Anaheim is not correct-- the intersection of Lemon and Commonwealth should be considered to be located in the City of Fullerton. (3) The intersection of Raymond and Orangethorpe has its west side in the City of Anaheim and its east side in the City of Fullerton. PUI~L:9724_113361 B2621.43 17 12/14/93 (4) The intersection of State College and Orangethorpe has its southeast quadrant in the City of Anaheim and its other quadrants in the City of Fullerton. Comment 22. 2. Risk of Upset The Final FaIR fails to include an analysis of public health impacts resulting from development that could generate or use hazardous materials, The Final EIR simply identifies a mitigation measure that, if adopted, would assess exist~ contamination. Furthermore, despite the fact that the AIR concludes that the location of potentially hazardous facilities could result in a significant impact to sensitive receptors such as schools, the EIR fails to identify let alone analyze the effects of these hazardous facilities. Response 22. New development is not expected to expose sensitive uses to significant effects resulting from use of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials use is regulated by the Anaheim Fire Department, and response plans are required of all users. Use of toxic air pollutants is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. No unique or unusual use of hazardous materials is anticipated in the project area. Comment 23. 3. Cumulative Impacts The FaIR fails to include an adequate cumulative analysis because it does not assume the completion of the Disneyland Resort in its 2010 analysis. As depicted in Table 35--List of Cumulative Projects, the Draft EIR failed to include the 4.2 million square feet of development associated with the Disneyland project. In response to Fullerton's query on this issue, the Final E1R simply responds by stating that the numerical table has been changed to reflect the development of the Disneyland project. See Response 3.81. Response 23. Although the square footage of the Disneyland Resort project was not included in the totals in the cumulative projects listing, it was included in the impact analysis of cumulative effects, as stated in the Final EIR. The Walt Disney Company has as yet not announced whether it will in fact go forward with development of the Disneyland Resort. Comment 24. Upon review of the traffic analysis, there is no indication that traffic from the Disneyland project was included in the trip generation assumptions. In fact, it appears that no projects outside of the redevelopment area were included in the cumulative traffic analysis. The Final EIR states that it relied on long range demographic projections prepared by the County of PUBL:9724_l1336[B2621.43 18 12/14/93 Orange but the EIR only includes trip generation figures for development within the project area. See Final EIR at Table 16. The failure to consider the massive Disneyland project in its cumuhtive impact analysis throws into question the integrity of the remainder of the EIR. Response 24. The future no project case considers growth projections made by Orange County for development throughout the region. Limiting the cumulative analysis of traffic effects to only those projects in the cumulative projects list would have resulted in a significant underestimation of future traffic growth on the street network. Comment 25. D. The EIR Fails to Adequately Incorporate by Reference The EIR fails to adequately incorporate documents by reference. CEQA Guidelines § 15150. For example, the Final EIR incorporates noise standards by reference but fails to (1) make the document available for public inspection or state where the document is available for inspection; and (2) summarize the applicable noise standards. See Response No. 3.37. Response 25. Noise standards are not incorporated in the EIR by reference. The EIR states that the Anaheim General Plan adopts the State Noise Standards by reference. The noise standards in the City's General Plan are summarized on page 3.4-1 of the Final EIR. Comment 26. E. Alternatives As Fullerton stated in its comment letter on the Draft EIR, the EIR is inadequate because it fails to identify and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d). The Final EIR also fails to include an alternative, other than the "no project" alternative, that results in less environmental impact than the proposed project. Response 26. The EIR considered a range of alternatives typically considered by mrs for redevelopment plans. The EIR includes a project alternative (Alternative 3) calling for inclusion of only the South Anaheim Boulevard subarea in the Redevelopment Project Area. Regarding Alternative 3, the EIR concluded that "[t]he overall environmental impacts of this alternative are less than impacts of the project. ~ PUBL:9724_II3361B2621.43 1 9 12/14/93 Comment 27. F. Conclusion Based on the inadequacies described above, the Redevelopment Project FIR is not sufficient for purposes of approving the proposed project. Response 27. Each of the comments of the City of Fullerton have been addressed above through clarifications and reference to the Final FIR. These comments do not raise significant new issues not addressed in the Final FIR, and do not raise new issues of significant environmental effect. Comment 28. II. General Plan Issues A. Introduction B. Anaheim's General Plan is Legally Inadequate In Ways Which Implicate the Redevelopment Project Anaheim proposes to approve the redevelopment project under a general plan that was adopted in 1984. With the exception of a revised housing element (adopted in 1989) and a growth management element (adopted in 1992), Anaheim's General Plan has not been updated. Because Anaheim has experienced considerable development since 1984, its General Plan no longer provides an adequate framework to guide future land use development. The numerous deficiencies in the General Plan as it relates to the redevelopment project are set forth below. Response 28. The City of Anaheim General Plan is in compliance with State Planning Law (Government Code Section 65300 et seq.). The Anaheim General Plan sets forth development policies and includes diagrams and text which outline the City's objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. Anaheim would note that development and land uses in the portion of the Project Area north of the Riverside Freeway which is the focus of Fullerton's objection have remained essentially unchanged since 1984 despite development elsewhere in Anaheim. PUBL:97'24_I[3361B2621.43 20 12/14/93 Comment 29. 1. Land Use Element Government Code section 65302(a) requires that the land use element include the general distribution and general location and extent of land uses, and a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the area covered by the General Plan. The Land Use Element fails to contain standards of building intensities for its commercial and industrial areas. As the court found in Twain Harte v. Homeowners Association v. Tuolumne County, 138 Cal. App. 3d 664 (1982) intensity should be def'med for each of the various land use categories in the plan; general use captions such as "neighborhood commercial" and "service industrial" fail to provide an adequate measure of intensity. Anaheim's General Plan suffers from this same defect. It simply identifies categories of commercial and industriM uses but fails to establish quantifmble standards of building intensity that would determine the amount of physical development allowed within each commercial and industrial land use designation. Because the Land Use Element does not specify building intensities under its industrial and commercial designations, it fails to provide any guidance regarding the level of development intensity appropriate for the proposed redevelopment site. Therefore, Anaheim cannot make a f'mding that the redevelopment project is consistent with the General Plan since the Plan is silent on building intensities for the area. The redevelopment project includes two alternatives, one of which would result in a substantial intensification of industriM use while the second alternative would result in a substantial increase in office and retail use. Dg~IR at 1-11 Table 2 and 3.6-11. Anaheim's General Plan provides no indication that it contemplated this dramatic intensification of either industrial or office/retail development in this area. In addition, although the Land Use Element contains standards of population density, these standards are of little use since the Element itself is outdated, The General Plan states that "Population studies are essentiM to understanding the number, composition, and spaciM distribution of present and future residents of the community. These studies provide a basis for determining the types, locations, and quantities of community facilities such as schools, parks, libraries, streets, and utilities to be provided in accordance with standards adopted by the various public agencies responsible for maintaining adequate levels of service." General Plan at 17. Yet the most recent projections contained in the General Plan are at least a decade old having last been updated in 1983. The General Plan does not contain current population or employment forecasts and thus the types, locations and quantities of public facilities for the redevelopment site cannot be determined. Respome 29. The City of Anaheim Land Use Element complies with Government Code Section 65302(a). The General Plan is implemented through Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, wherein PUBL:9724_11336[ Ii2621.43 21 12/14/93 land use and site development standards, including land use regulations and setback, parking and height requirements are set forth, thereby establishing a defined building envelope. Development is also monitored though implementation of the Growth Management Element of the General Plan (the Growth Management Element was adopted in February, 1992). Each development proposal is assessed relative to its compliance with the Growth Management Element. The Growth Management Element ensures that growth and development are balanced with the City's ability to provide an adequate ckculation system, public facilities and services. The Growth Management Element contains specific goals and policies which are used by the City at the development project level in order to maintain adequate service levels. The Growth Management Element also contains an updated existing conditions and future outlook analysis as an update to the 1984 General Plan to assist in forecasting the facility, infrastructure and service needs of the City. Specific standards by which the Growth Management Element plans for land use intensity are identified below: The Comprehensive Phasing Program (CPP) links building permit issuance to transportation and public facilities/services phasing for new communities in the Hill and Canyon Area. The CPP is required to include an overall buildout plan demonstrating the ability of infrastructure to support development and f'mancing mechanisms to fund improvements. Projects that are not subject to a phasing program are required to implement improvements within three years of building permit issuance or five years from the first grading permit for each approved phase, with bonding to ensure fair share contributions. The Growth Management Element contains policies to assess impacts of proposed development and/or intensification of existing land use and requires mitigation measures to provide adequate levels of service (LOS) and infrastructure. Said policies are implemented through the CPP which requires that buildout be commensurate with the ability to provide adequate infrastructure capacity. The Growth Management Element includes policies to ensure LOS standards of E along Interstate/State Routes/Super Streets (unless already LOS F), and D along the balance of arterials in the Circulation Element that are measurably impacted by new development (i.e., greater than or equal to 100 peak hour trips). Developments under the jurisdiction of the City are required to provide improvements/funding to maintain adequate LOS (per standards outlined above) for project plus existing conditions. Large scale projects are required to establish an approved development phasing program which phases development commensurate with required improvements to maintain roadway capacities. I'UI~L:9724_l 13361 B2621.43 22 12/14/93 Specific standards of building intensity have also been incorporated into the major General Plan revisions that have occurred in the Hill and Canyon Area, the Anaheim Stadium Business Center, the Downtown Area and other major activity areas. These revisions included analysis of public facilities/services and infrastructure needs based on the intensity of land use planned for the area. The result has been the implementation of required public facility plans through Community Facilities Districts, Benefit Area Assessments and other programs to ensure that adequate service levels are maintained. The City of Anaheim continually evaluates its General Plan and updates it as appropriate. Contrary to Fullerton's assertion, approximately 132 amendments to the General Plan have been adopted since 1984. Further, revisions/updates to the Housing and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Elements have been completed along with the adoption of the Growth Management Element. The Growth Management Element updates the population density standards in the General Plan and indicates that population density has increased from 2.61 to 2.81 persons per household. The Anaheim General Plan relates population density to dwelling units per acre in the Land Use Element. This population information is updated on a regular basis through an annual land use survey, building permit records in addition to Census and Department of Finance data. Comment 30. 2. Circulation Element Government code section 6530209) requires that the circulation element consist of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the general plan. Anaheim's Circulation Element is inadequate because it is not correlated with the Land Use Element. Correlation between the circulation system and the Land Use Element is not possible because the Land Use Element lacks adequate standards of commercial and industrial building intensities. Because the Land Use Element contains only vague indications of future land uses, it is not possible to assess the impact of future development on Anaheim's roadway system. In fact, Anaheim only recently completed a citywide transportation model to assess impacts of development and associated transportation improvements. See City of Anaheim's Growth Management Element at 47. In addition, correlation is not possible because the Circulation Element fails to set forth "standards" and "proposals" respecfmg any change in demands on the various roadways or transportation facilities as a result of changes in uses of land contemplated by the General Plan. Twain Harte 138 Cal. App.3d 701 (1982) This statutory correlation requirement is designed in part to prohibit a general plan from calliug for unlimited growth in its land use element, without providing in its circulation element, 'proposals' for how the transportation needs of the increased population will be met. General Plan Guidelines at 84. PuI~L:9T24_ 113361 B2621.43 23 12/14/93 The absence of correlation between the Land Use and Circulation Elements makes it impossible to assure that the additional development contemplated by the redevelopment project will not overwhelm Anaheim's (or Fullerton's) roadway network. In fact, the redevelopment project EIR demonstrates that under either alternative numerous intersections within Anaheim will be severely congested. Draft EIR at 3.9-11 and 3.9-12. Yet, the Circulation Element does not contain policies and programs to assure that a massive redevelopment project such as this can be accommodated by Anaheim's roadway network without resulting in unacceptable traffic conditions. Neither the redevelopment project EIR nor the General Plan propose effective mitigation to offset these severe traffic impacts. Response 30. The Anaheim Land Use Element sets forth plan level designations for the City's planning area. Contrary to Fullerton's claim, the Growth Management Element coordinates the Land Use Element with the Circulation Element to ensure that adequate service levels are maintained. Further, as a required implementation measure of the Growth Management Element, the City has completed a Citywide Mitigation/Transportation Fee Program for new development. This implementation measure ensures that new development and intensification of existing land uses provide fair share contributions towards cumulatively needed arterial improvements. Another implementation measure of the Growth Management Element, the Performance Monitoring Program, provides an annual evaluation of compliance with development phasing allocations established pursuant to this element. This program provides that transportation improvements or funding are actually provided in order for development to continue. This program also provides a biannual evaluation of the maintenance of transportation LOS. Comment 31. 3. Noise Element Government Code section 65302(0 requires that a noise element be adopted which quantifies current and projected noise levels for transportation, industrial and other stationary sources. Noise contours must be shown for these sources stated in terms of community noise equivalent level CCNEL"). Moreover, the element must contain implementation measures to address existing or projected noise problems. Anaheim's Noise Element is inadequate in at least three ways. First, the Element is outdated and vague and thus fails to provide adequate documentation of existing noise levels. Second, the Element fails to analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels for industrial plants and other stationary sources. Third, the Element does not contain an adequate noise contour map showing current and projected noise levels for these sources. Absent the identification of noise levels and the establishment of noise contours for industrial and other stationary sources, Anaheim is not able to identify and appraise existing noise problems in the community nor can it practice effective land use planning that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. PUnL:9724_l13361B2621.43 24 12/14/93 4. Letter from the City of Fullerton, dated December 7, 1993. (Comments set forth in the City of Fullerton's letter are copied below, followed by Anaheim's response to each comment.) Conunent 1. This letter is submitted for consideration by the City of Anaheim City Council, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and the Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission (hereinafter "Anaheim") at your December 7, 1993 hearing on the proposed Commercial/ Industrial Redevelopment Project ("redevelopment project" or "redevelopment plan"). This letter is presented by the City of Fullerton in its capacity as a substantially adversely affected neighboring city, as a responsible agency and as the owner of property within Anaheim in close proximity to the project area (Assessor's Parcel No. 271-082-21 and 26). Response 1. Anaheim disputes Fullerton's conclusory statement that it is "a substantially adversely affected neighboring city" since the statement begs the question at issue here: whether Fullerton will indeed be adversely affected by the Redevelopment Project to the extent it claims. Although Fullerton may be a "responsible agency" for purposes of approving certain mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and located within its jurisdiction, Fullerton has no discretionary approval power over the Project; it is not a "responsible agency" for purposes of adopting the Redevelopment Plan. Fullerton does not claim to either own property, or levy a tax upon property, within the Project Area. The property Fullerton refers to within Anaheim "in close proximity to the project area" consists of water production wells northwest of the Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue intersection. The property lies approximately one-half mile south of the Riverside'Freeway and west of the southern portion of Sub-area 1. Fullerton nowhere objects to the inclusion of that portion of Sub-area 1 south of the Riverside Freeway in the Redevelopment Project Area. Although Fullerton urges Anaheim to delete from the Project Area that portion of Sub-area 1 north of the Riverside Freeway, (see Fullerton's Comment 37 below) Fullerton nowhere explains how its property within Anaheim south of the Riverside Freeway is adversely impacted by the inclusion of the area north of the Riverside Freeway in the Project Area. Comment 2. The purpose of this letter is: (1) to inform Anaheim that the environmental impact report for the proposed redevelopment project is inadequate to approve the project; (2) to request that Anaheim delay further action on the project until such time as a legally adequate EIR is prepared which fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq; (3) to inform Anaheim that its General Plan is legally inadequate and that the redevelopment project cannot be approved in the absence of a legally adequate General Plan; and (4) to inform Anaheim that the redevelopment plan fails to comply with the Community Redevelopment Law. The remainder of this letter sets forth the legal and factual bases for Fullerton's position. ~UBL:9724_l13361 B2621.43 2 12/14/93 Response 2. The above four summary statements are subsequently elaborated on in the text of Fullerton's letter. Anaheim's detailed responses tc~ each of these four statements are set forth below following Fullerton's specific comment. Conunent 3. Use of this EIR as the basis for project approval would violate both the letter and spirit of CEQA. The Final EIR together with the Draft EIR (hereinafter "FAIR") fails to adequately describe the environmental setting, provides insufficient detail on project impacts, impermissibly defers the analysis of potentially significant effects as well as the development of mitigation measures until after project approval, and fails to adequately consider alternatives capable of mitigating the project's significant effects. In addition, the Final EIR fails to adequately respond to the comments raised on the Draft Response 3. The above five summary statements concerning the EIR are subsequently elaborated on in the text of Fullerton's letter. Anaheim's detailed responses to each of these statements are set forth below following Fullerton's specific comment. Corament 4. Beyond these substantive deficiencies, Fullerton remains disturbed that Anaheim is thwarting the environmental review process by failing to make public the Final EIR until December 1, 1993 despite having provided notice on November 17th that the Final EIR was available. This allows only four working days to review a lengthy environmental document for a project which is of fundamental importance to Fullerton. Response 4. Fullerton's claim that it was left with only four working days to review the Final EIR discloses a basic misunderstanding of the EIR review process and the proper focus of a review of a final EIR. Anaheim would call Fullerton's attention to Section 15089 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 1500 et seq.) which states: (b) Lead Agencies may provide an opportunity for review of the f'mal EIR by the public or by commenting agencies before approving the project. The review of a Final EIR should focus on the responses to comments on the draft EIR. (Emphasis added.) The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (the author of the State CEQA Guidelines) states, in the discussion following Section 15089, that: PUBL:9724_I[3361B2621.43 3 12/14/93 This section specifies that agencies need not provide a separate review period for the f'mal FIR .... In order to save time, the CEQA process provides only a once-around review system. It requires public review only at the draft FIR stage. As required by CEQA Section 21092.5, Anaheim's response to the comments of the City of Fullerton on the Draft FIR was provided to the City of Fullerton more than 10 days prior to the certification of the Final FIR; in fact, the responses were provided more than 10 days prior to the opening of the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan. The Final FIR was also provided to the City of Fullerton more than 10 days prior to certification. Thus, Anaheim has gone well beyond what is legally required and can hardly be accused of attempting to thwart the environmental review process. Comment 5. I. CEOA Issues A. The FIR Should Be Recirculated CEQA requires that an FIR be recirculated for public review whenever "significant new information" is added or other "substantial changes" are made to the project or the report. Public Resources Code, § 21092.1; Sutter Sensible Planning. Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 122 Cal. App. 3d 813, 822 (1981). Recirculaf~on is required under these circumstances in order to protect the integrity of the CEQA process, which includes public comment and written responses as crucial components. Recirculation is required not only when significant new impacts are found, but also when significant new informaf~on is added to the report. The 'public must have an "opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the data and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom." Supra. Response 5. Fullerton misconstrues both the recirculation requirement and relevant case law, as is apparent from its emphasis upon impacts and information. On the contrary, recirculation is triggered when significant new impacts/information is added to the EIR. The FIR need not be recirculated when the changes and additional information do not substantially change the conclusions of the FIR. The Final FIR does not identify significant new impacts not already discussed in the Draft FIR in detail, and does not significantly change the factual information presented in the Draft FIR. In the case of traffic impacts where the Final FIR concludes that trafftc impacts in the City of Fullerton are significant, this change was made specifically in deference to the comment of the City of Fullerton on the Draft FIR, and was not based on changes to the underlying facts in the FIR, but changes to the interpretation of those facts as requested by the City of Fullerton. PUBL:9724_II3361B2621.43 4 12/14/93 Comment 6. There is little question that the Redevelopment Plan Final FIR contains significant new information. The report contains a new project description, additional impact analyses, the identification of significant impacts that had previously been disclosed as insignificant, and numerous new mitigation measures. This significant new information is described below. 1. The Final FIR contains a revised project description that differs dramatically from the project analyzed in the Draft FIR. A substantial amount of industrial development was removed from the North Central Subarea and the South Anaheim Boulevard Subarea. Final EIR at i. The Final glR also identifies the following additional changes to the redevelopment project: (1) areas have been redesignated Multiple-Family with an alternate land use designation of General Industrial; (2) a proposed park has been redesignated to an Alternate Land Use designation; (3) an area has been redesignated from General Commercial to General Industrial; (4) an area has been redesignated to General Industrial with an alternate designation of General Commercial from Public; and (5) under the Alternative Use alternative, total square footage of nonresidential uses would increase by approximately 736,000 square feet. Final FIR at 1-5, 1-6 and 1-13. The Final ELR provides no analysis of impacts resulting from these substantial changes in the project description. Response 6. Changes to the project description are relatively minor and can hardly be considered "dramatic." The changes to the project description outlined by the City of Fullerton are primarily as a result of (1) the elimination of certain specific properties from the proposed project area, and (2) the elimination of commercial development as an alternate land use north of the Riverside Freeway in order to mitigate potential effects of the project, partly in response to comments of the City of Fullerton on the Draft FIR. As Fullerton's own Associate Planner, George Buell, acknowledges elsewhere (see memorandum dated December 1, 1993) "Deletion of properties is not an uncommon practice in effectively establishing a Redevelopment Project Area." The changes in general result in reductions in the potential environmental effects of the proposed project, particularly with regard to traffic impact on the City of Fullerton, and were adopted for that reason. The comment implies that the project outlined in the Final h'TR has substantially greater development proposed than the project outlined in the Draft FIR. The quoted change of 756,000 square feet from existing development for the alternate land use plan is not an amount of change from the amount in the Draft FIR. In fact, the alternate land use plan (Table 2 of Final FIR, page 1-12) shows an increase in square footage compared to existing development of 736,000 square feet, compared to an increase of approximately 539,000 square feet for this scenario discussed in the Draft gIl~, a difference of 196,000 square feet, or approximately 2 % of the total nonresidential square footage at buildout for this scenario. It is important to note that the alternate land use scenario does not represent the maximum change in development considered in the EIR. The maximum potential change in square footage results from the General Plan Scenario, with an increase compared to existing development of 1,304,000 square feet in the Final l:TR. This is a reduction of 1.5% from PUBL:9724_It3361B2621.43 5 12/14/93 the amount of new nonresidential development and 0.2% from the amount of total nonresidential development assumed in the Draft FIR for this scenario. Thus the maximum development potential has been reduced when compared to the project considered in the Draft FIR. As indicated in the Draft FIR and Final FIR, the two development scenarios presented in the project description are intended to present different ends of a range of potential development that might result from the proposed project. Considering the long life of the proposed project, it is difficult to predict with certainty the precise development that might take place in the project area, and the EIR attempted to consider this range. The elimination of a large area of commercial use from the Alternate Land Use Scenario and its replacement with industrial use simply narrows that range and makes the Alternate Land Use Scenario more closely resemble the General Plan Scenario which was also considered in the Draft ErR. The area eliminated from Sub-area 1 of the project area is primarily an area of existing industrial development with scattered vacancies that was not expected to undergo substantial change in use over the life of the project. The exclusion of this area does not substantially change the effects of the proposed project. The other changes listed were on very small parcels of land and result in very small changes in project land use totals, as discussed in the project description in the Final FIR. Comment 7. 2. The Final FIR revises a conclusion set forth in the Draft FIR regarding the ability of Fullerton to provide sewer service to the project area. The Draft FIR erroneously concluded that Fullerton's sewer system could handle any increase in wastewater volume. The Final concludes that Fullerton's sewer system may be insufficient to accommodate the increased volume resulting from the redevelopment project, but fails to draw a conclusion on significance. See Response No. 3.99. A deficiency in the sewer system proposed to serve the redevelopment project certainly constitutes a significant impact. Response 7. The information in the Draft EIR was based on information provided by staff of the City of Fullerton in response to an inquiry by the Agency's FIR consultant. In response to the comment of the City of Fullerton on the Draft EIR, the Agency's consultant again contacted the City of Fullerton staff, and was told that problems existed in the area, but that there was not sufficient staff time available to identify the specifics of the problems in the area. Absent cooperation from the City of Fullerton at the level of attempting to analyze the overall impacts of the long-term development of this area, the City of Anaheim cannot identify the specific problems that exist in the area of the project that is served by Fullerton's sewer system. However, it is reasonable to expect that these problems can be adequately addressed in the normal project approval process for site-specific projects because (1) the area was previously developed as a major industrial and research and development facility that was provided sewer service by the City of Fullerton before it was demolished, and (2) VUBL:9724_l13361B2621-43 6 12/14/93 In addition, because the Noise Element is inadequate, noise impacts at and adjacent m the redevelopment project area cannot be ascertained, nor can existing or potential noise problems be addressed. Specifically, residential uses (which are considered noise-sensitive) are located adjacent to both the northern and southern portions of the project areas, and 25 dwelling units are located within the project area. DElR at 3.4-1. In sum, the Anaheim General Plan is legally inadequate in ways which implicate the redevelopment project. Therefore, the State Planning and Zoning Law and the Community Redevelopment Law prohibit Anaheim from adopting the proposed redevelopment project. Respome31. The Anaheim Noise Element complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65302(I). Figure 9 contained in the Noise Element identifies noise sensitive locations within the City. The Element contains existing and projected noise contours resulting from transportation activity. An examination of Figure 9 reveals that land uses sensitive to noise are not located in proximity to industrial areas. Further, a noise survey (Appendix I of the Element) did not indicate that significant industrial noise impacts exist where residential areas are adjacent to industrial land uses. The Element also contains mitigation measures for the various sources of community noise and as implementing measures, the City has adopted a noise ordinance (A.M.C. 6.70, Sound Pressure Levels) and Council Policy 542 to ensure that noise sensitive land uses are protected. The redevelopment of that portion of Sub-area 1 north of the Riverside Freeway to replace the industrial uses lost since 1984 would in fact return this area to the way it existed at the time the General Plan was adopted. Comment 32. III. Redevelopment Law Issues A redevelopment agency can only exercise jurisdiction over areas that are blighted as defined in Health & Safety Code section 33030. Unblighted areas may be included under limited circumstances if their inclusion is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part." Health & Safety Code § 33321. Fullerton is particularly concerned about the portion of sub-area one that is north of the Rivemide Freeway. Anaheim's blight analysis, contained in the Report to the City Council ("Report"), fails to demonstrate that conditions of blight exist in this area. Moreover, there is no evidence that the inclusion of this area is necessary for the effective redevelopment of allegedly blighted areas south of the Riverside Freeway. In fact, the Riverside Freeway acts as a barrier between the area north of the Riverside Freeway and the remainder of sub-area one and thus provides an appropriate bouncla~ for the project area. Respome 32. The area north of the Riverside Freeway is affected by a number of physical, social and economic blighting factors described in the Report to City Council. Some of the physical blighting characteristics include toxic contamination associated with the former Northrop ~'UBL:9T24_l 13361 B2621.43 25 12/14/93 facility and the deterioration, age and obsolescence of the Anaheim Drive-In (which is now a swap meet and an example of a shifting use). Also, of the 11 parcels that compose the area north of the freeway, six are of irregular shape and/or inadequate size. Furthermore, there are public improvement deficiencies in this area, the most notable being the inadequate street system which provides minimal access to the former Northrop site from Orangethorpe Avenue and Durst Street (narrow dead-end street). Crime is an indicator of social maladjustment and is prevalent in the North Central Area (which includes the area north of the Riverside Freeway). The crime data provides a very good indication of the types of crimes being committed and crime trends in the area. Crime date was reported in the aggregate for the North Central Area so it is not possible to isolate crime relative to the 11 parcel area that the City of Fullerton insists should be deleted from the Project Area. However, because crime as well as economic conditions effect larger areas, this information would not be more accurate or illustrative on a per parcel basis. The crimes reported by the Anaheim Police Department occurred over the four year period from 1989-1992. For comparison purposes these same crimes were reported Citywide. Both personal and property crimes are prevalent in the North Central Area. Assaults increased over 15 percent in the North Central Area over the four year period compared to a five percent increase Citywide. During this period personal robberies increased 36 percent compared to 12 percent Citywide and rape was up 199 percent in the North Central Area compared to 4 percent Citywide. Property crimes have also increased in the North Central Area. Commercial robberies were up 69 percent compared to 6 percent Citywide and commercial burglaries were up 14 percent compared to 6 percent Citywide. Also, automobile burglaries were up 12 percent while there was a 3 percent decrease Citywide. In addition, automobile thefts were up 9 percent in the North Central Area while increasing 5 percent Citywide. There are obvious indicators that the area north of the Riverside Freeway is suffering from economic maladjustment. The former Northrop facility has been demolished, resulting in the loss of 5,000 jobs. The former Anaheim Drive-In, which includes approximately 23 acres, now functions as a weekend swap meet site. Also, unsecured assessed value in the Project Area decreased by a total of $23,269,144, of which $2,776,817 is the result of decrease in unsecured assessed value on the former Northrop site. Finally, it is irrelevant that a portion of the Project Area is north of the Riverside Freeway. Even if the area were noncontiguous it would still qualify for inclusion in a redevelopment project. Also, for the reasons stated in these responses and elsewhere in the record (for example, Fullerton's own acknowledgment that this area will be substantially impacted by CalTrans improvements to the Riverside Freeway) it makes sense to incorporate all of the North Central Area, rather than to arbitrarily exclude a portion of Sub-area I on the sole basis that it is north of the Riverside Freeway. PUaL:9724_l 13361 I12621,43 26 12/14/93 Comment 33. Under Health and Safety Code section 33030, an area is blighted only if it constitutes a serious physical, social, or economic burden on the community which cannot be alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. Anaheim's blight analysis concentrates almost exclusively on physical conditions of blight, with little discussion of economic or social conditions of blight. However, even the analysis of physical blight is inadequate. As Orange County stressed in its Report to the Fiscal Review Committee, "the project area does not appear to be sufficiently blighted to justify the proposed redevelopment project." Report, Exhibit 1 to Part XII. R~pome33. The City of Fullerton's assertion that the blight analysis concentrates almost exclusively on physical conditions of blight, with little discussion of economic or social conditions of blight, is entirely incorrect. As stated in Anaheim's response to Comment 32, there are physical, social and economic blighting factors which have inhibited private sector development in the area and have caused an increased need for City services (e.g. police protection) in an area where tax revenues to support this increased level of services have decreased. A detailed discussion of the existing blight conditions and resulting burden to the City is provided in the Response to the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee incorporated herein as Exhibit A. This includes a specific response to the comments submitted by Orange County in the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee. Orange County's bald assertion in the context of the Fiscal Review process demonstrates nothing and is understandable as an example of the ust~al posturing affected taxing entities generally feel compelled to engage in during the Fiscal Review process. Anaheim would note that the Legislature, effective January 1, 1994, has entirely eliminated the byzantine and ineffectual Fiscal Review process. For the record, Orange County presented no oral or written objections to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Comment 34. The analysis of physical blight in the area north of the Riverside Freeway is especially inadequate. Fullerton planning staff conducted an independent analysis of this area and concluded that there was no substantial evidence of physical blight. See Attachment. The fundamental problem with the analysis of physical blight is that it purports to analyze the conditions in the entire sub-area one but actually focuses almost exclusively on the conditions south of the Riverside Freeway. For example, the plates contain no photographs of physical blight in sub-area one north of the Riverside Freeway. The area north of the freeway is different than the area south of the freeway. It contains only 7 of the 140 buildings in sub-area one; few, if any, irregular-shaped lots; larger, more appropriately-sized lots; and few, if any, buildings in poor condition. See Attachment. In light of the last-minute deletion of the majority of the project area north of the freeway, the blight analysis needs major revisions. As it stands, there is no substantial evidence to support the inclusion of the remaining area north of the Riverside Freeway in the project area. PUBL:9724_I [ 336 [ B2621.43 27 12/I4/93 Response 34. In a memorandum to Barry Eaton, Chief Planner, City of Fullerton, dated November 29, 1992, Mr. Buell submitted a field survey of the parcels north of Riverside Freeway in the Project Area. The scope of the survey included an assessment of the land uses and identification of blighting characteristics. Although not stated in the memorandum, the intent of the survey appears have been to refute the findings of the field survey prepared for the proposed Redevelopment Plan. By way of an introduction, Mr. Buell reiterates property blighting characteristics as der'reed in recently passed legislation (AB 1290). Also, Mr. Buell states that three of the currently vacant parcels surveyed will be substantially changed by improvements to the Riverside Freeway. Mr. Buell incorrectly applies the recently passed legislation to the proposed Project. The ordinance approving the proposed Project will be adopted prior to the effective date of revisions to the Community Redevelopment Law wrought by AB 1290. AB 1290 does not require previously adopted redevelopment projects to reprove blight under the new criteria unless those projects are being amended after January 1, 1994. Mr. Buell's states that the information contained in his memorandum is the result of a windshield survey and property data search. However, Mr. Buell's criteria for evaluating existing conditions was not provided, such as building or site condition rating criteria. The following is a comparison of the fmdings of the field survey and other data provided by Mr. Buell and the survey results and other information presented in the Preliminary Report and the Report to City Council on the Redevelopment Project. 1. Assessor Parcel No. 035-020-49 (former Northrop site). As presented in the Preliminary Report, the site has been identified as having toxic contamination. The degree to which toxic contamination has impacted the site and surrounding area is currently being assessed. The Santa Aria Regional Water Quality Control Board is investigating the possibility that past industrial activities at the site may be a source of groundwater contamination. Northrop is currently negotiating with the Orange County Water District to provide monitoring indefinitely for two off-site wells which Northrop would fmance. Mr. Buell identified the site as vacant without any evidence of physical blight. 2. Assessor Parcel No. 073-090-17 (former Anaheim Drive-In). Although, the Anaheim field survey did identify that 32 percent of the Sub-area I parcels were of irregular form, shape and inadequate size, this parcel was not included in that category due to its large size (23 acres). However, Mr. Buell actually strengthens the Agency's blight analysis when he identifies the parcel as irregular in shape. Furthermore, Mr. Buell's survey rated the overall condition of the parcel as good. The survey included in the Preliminary Report and Report City Council (the "Anaheim survey") rated the site as moderately maintained and the condition of the theater's rehabilitation moderate. These rating conditions were based upon the cracked and broken asphalt (as noted in Mr. Buell's survey) as well as the age of the structure and PU~L:9724_I[3361B2621.43 28 12/14/93 need for maintenance. Furthermore, other blighting characteristics were noted such as age and obsolescence, deterioration and dilapidation and shifting uses (the theater is now being used as a swap meet). 3. Assessor Parcel No. 073-090-22 (commercial strip center) Both surveys were in agreement that the site and buildings were in good condition. 4. Assessor Parcel No. 073-090-25 (vacant parcel) Mr. Buell's survey indicated that the parcel was in good shape with no evidence of physical blight. However, Mr. Buell's survey fails to note that the parcel is of irregular shape, as a result of being a remnant from the construction of the Riverside Freeway. The parcel also is of inadequate size (.002 acres). 5. Assessor Parcel No. 073-090-26 (vacant parcel). Mr. Buell's survey identified this parcel as simply triangular in shape with no evidence of physical blight. However, this parcel is also an irregularly shaped parcel resulting from the construction of the Riverside Freeway. 6. Assessor Parcel bTo. 073-090-27 (Anaheim Dental Center). Mr. Buell's survey identified the parcel as a flag-lot with building and landscaping in good condition and no signs of physical blight. The Anaheim survey identified the parcel as being of irregular shape due to the flag-lot configuration. The site was rated as well maintained and the building was rated as in need of minor rehabilitation. The building survey also noted that the structure was characterized by blighting conditions including age and obsolescence and mixed and shifting uses. The dental office is the only professional office in that portion of Sub-area I north of the Riverside Freeway (Sub-area 1). Due to the small lot size and uniqueness of the use, it appears to be part of an older development pattern that has shifted from small uses to generally large retail or industrial uses. ~, 7. Assessor Parcel No. 073-090-28 (automotive garage). Mr. Buell's survey identified this property as in good condition with no signs of physical blight. The Anaheim survey rated the site as well maintained and the building as in need of minor rehabilitation. This parcel was also identified as a mix and shifting use due to the primarily multiple tenant retail character of the surrounding uses and the large parcelization pattern. 8. Assessor Parcel No. 073-090-29 (vacant parcel) Mr. Buell's survey identified this property as an irregularly shaped parcel resulting from the construction of the Riverside Freeway (again strengthening the Agency's blight analysis) and included a comment that the parcel will probably be improved as a result with future freeway improvements. The Anaheim survey did not identify the parcel as irregularly shaped due to its basically rectangular shape and the fact that is over an acre in size. However, the site was rated as moderately maintained due to its unimproved character and presence of weeds. This parcel is PUBL:9724-113361B2621'43 29 12/14/93 basically an island left over from the Riverside Freeway construction and there are no guarantees that future freeway improvements will include upgrading this parcel. 9. Assessor Parcel No. 073-090-30 (strip center). Both surveys were in agreement that the buildings and landscaping were in good condition. 10. Assessor Parcel No.073-090-31 (retail center including Ralphs Market) Mr. Buell's survey identified this parcel as irregularly shaped (again strengthening the Agency's blight analysis). The Anaheim survey did not due to its large size (over 8 acres). Although its shape is somewhat irregular this seems to be the result of shift in development patterns from small parcels with individual uses to large parcels with multiple tenants. Both surveys indicated that the buildings and site were in good condition. 11. Assessor Parcel No. 073-100-51 (Northrop) Mr. Buell's survey identified the site and building to be in very good condition. The Anaheim survey identified the site as being well maintained and the building in need of minor rehabilitation. Mr. Buell's survey concluded with a general evaluation of the public right-of-way, services and utilities. The survey concluded that, with the exception of Orangethorpe Avenue, where resurfacing or resealing and street lighting improvements are needed, all rights-of-way, curbs and gutters, railroad grade separations and lighting appear to be adequate and in good condition. Also, that based upon past improvements to the drainage system it must be adequate as well. The only deficiency noted in Mr. Buell's survey was the possibility of traffic congestion along Orangethorpe Avenue during peak hours. As identified in the estimated public improvements and facilities cost list provided in the Redevelopment Plan and the Report to City Council, there are no curb, gutter, street resuffacing, street lighting or undergrounding utilities improvements proposed as part of the Project in that area. Mr. Buell's survey refers to an existing railroad grade separation on Onmgethorpe Avenue where none exists. However, the Plan does propose such a grade separation. Several other street widening, intersection improvements and traffic signal upgrades have been identified to reduce traffic congestion in the Project Area and will benefit the City of Fullerton. The evaluation of sub-surface infrastructure deficiencies (e.g drainage systems) is incorrect. Drainage deficiencies exist on Orangethorpe Avenue from Lemon Street to 1800' east of Lemon Street as Mr. Buell belatedly acknowledges in his December 2, 1993 memorandum. In a subsequent memorandum to Barry Eaton, dated December 1, 1993, Mr. Buell stated that the puqx)se of his November 29, 1993 memorandum was to analyze the findings of the Preliminary Report and to raise important questions pertaining to its validity, in light of the City of Anaheim deleting certain portions of the North Central Industrial Area from the proposed Project Area. It was Mr. Buell's opinion that the area included in Sub-area I of the Project north of the Riverside Freeway was not blighted to the extent necessary for vul~l.:9T24_l 13361 B2621.43 30 12/14/93 inclusion in a redevelopment project area. Furthermore, that the descriptions of physical blight in the Preliminary Report do not seem to correspond with the properties that remain in the Project Area. Mr. Buell's determination that the portion of the Project Area north of the Riverside Freeway is not blighted is based solely on his windshield survey of building and site conditions, focusing solely on indicators of deterioration and dilapidation, without consideration of other physical blighthag characteristics such as age, obsolescence, mixed character, or shifting of uses. In addition, Mr. Buell does not consider economic or social Nighting factors as defmed in section 33032 of the Community Redevelopment Law. Furthermore, Mr. Buell does not provide any criteria from which he based his determinations of structural and site conditions. Mr. Buell, without any factual basis, draws the conclusion that because certain portions of original Project Area north of the Riverside Freeway were deleted from the Project Area, the rema'mder should also be excluded. As stated in the Report to City Council, although the areas removed from the Project Area were not completely free of blight influences, they did not exhibit the same high degree of blighting influences as existed in the rest of the Project Area and were not believed to be necessary of effective redevelopment of the Project Area. In Mr. Buell's memorandum no consideration is given to fact that the former Northrop site, which includes approximately 18 percent of the net acreage of Sub-area 1 and 54 percent of the Project Area north of the Riverside Freeway, is now vacant with toxic contamination problems. This site, which once provided 5,000 jobs, has now become a burden to the City as a result of lost jobs, lost tax revenues from secured and unsecured property, and potential hazardous waste remedlation cost. Private sector development has been hindered by the hazardous waste contamination and inadequate street access which is only provided from Orangethorpe Avenue and Durst Street (a narrow dead-end stree0. On pages 2-3 of his December 1 memorandum, Mr. Buell, in table format, makes comparisons of conditions noted in the Preliminary Report and those he observed in his field survey. Mr. Buell's analysis is not entirely relevant due to the fact he surveyed only a portion of Sub-area 1 and is comparing his observation of selected parcels to totals in the Preliminary Report aggregated for the entire Sub-area prior to the property deletions. However, the data reported in the Preliminary Report includes statistics on approximately 129 acres that has now been deleted from the Project Area. Although this deletion does not significantly change the blightLag characteristics of the Project Area, it would however explain Mr. Buell's statement that the physical blight reported in the Preliminary Report does not seem to correspond with the properties that remain in the Project Area. One of Mr. Buell's comments made in the table was that he did not observe any code violations in the Sub-area 1. It is not known if Mr. Buell has any training or expertise in assessing code violations. However, the sample survey of code violations reported in the Preliminary Report and Report to City Council was based upon observations made by Anaheim City Code Enforcement Officials who observed that, 14 percent of all buildings surveyed had one or more code violations. Also, many of the properties deleted from the Pu1~1.:9724_11336t B2621,43 31 12/14/93 Project Area had multiple code violations which explains the higher percentage of violations reported in the Preliminary Report. Mr. Buell's attempt to quantify data and draw conclusions from different and unrepresentative data sources would explain the differences between the number of buildings, parcels, types of uses, vacancies, and other characteristics reported in the Preliminary Report and those he observed. Also, some of the blighting characteristics described in the Preliminary Report and Report to City Council are not present on every parcel. For example, it is possible that most of the 11 properties Mr. Buell observed may not have unabated graffiti. However, during Anaheim's code enforcement survey, unabated graffiti was observed at the Anaheim Drive-In site. Several subjective judgments were made in Mr. Buell's memorandum, including the value of the former Anaheim Drive-In. Mr. Buell asserts that the former 23 acre drive-in site now used as a swap meet fills an important niche in the region. From the City of Anaheim's perspective, the recognized shift in use from a drive-in to a swap meet is an indicator of age, obsolescence and shifting of uses which the Community Redevelopment Law (Section 33031) expressly identifies as a blighting characteristic. Mr. Buell further states that with excellent access and exposure the site should be easily redeveloped without the necessity of redevelopment assistance. However, the property has not functioned as an operating drive-in for some time and has not been redeveloped by the private sector. Mr. Buell also makes no unsupported assumptions that the irregular parcels adjoining the drive-in site along the Riverside Freeway may be remedied with future freeway improvements and that the owner of the "island" property surrounded by the freeway could at some time in the future negotiate with CaiTrans to provide that island with access, thereby making it developable. Mr. Buell correctly states that the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Lemon Street and Orangethorpe functions at Los A during the morning traffic peak and Los D during the evening traffic peak, rather than LOS F as reported in the Preliminary Report. However, it should be noted that LOS D is the lowest level of service that is considered acceptable and borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in approach delay, and hence, decreases in arterial speed. Finally, Mr. Buell asserts that "although the black and white photographs presented in Plates 1-20 may show signs of physically blighted conditions, none of these are germane to the areas subject to this analysis." As stated in the Preliminary Report, the photographs are intended to be illustrative and are not purported to be quantitatively representative of the Project Area. Mr. Buell's ffmal memorandum to Bany Eaton, dated December 2, 1993, attempts a cursory comparison of the Report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan with the Preliminary Report, acknowledging that the former document makes substantial changes to the latter. The memorandum is a study in inconsistency. Continuing on in his "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" blight analysis, Mr. Buell questions the validity of information in the Report to City Council regarding the existence of physical blight in Sub-area 1. At the same time, Mr. Buell corroborates the validity of the information in the Report to City Council regarding the PUIIL:9724_I 13361 B2621.43 32 12/14/93 existence of physical blight in Sub-area 1, when he admits: "...having lived in Anaheim for most of my life, I know that the physically blighted areas are south of the freeway." In the f'mal memorandum, Mr. Buell makes a remarkable admission regarding the existence of blight in the area north of the Riverside freeway: Following discussion with our Engineering Staff, I have been made aware that the issue of drainage systems may be valid. However, this as well as other inadequate public improvements, facilities and utilities are not so burdensome in the area of concern .... "(Emphasis added.) Anaheim would note that Section 33032(a)(3) of the Community Redevelopment Law identifies "[t]he existence or inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment" as a factor causing blight. Mr. Buell merely attempts to gloss over his admission regarding the presence of physical blight in Sub-area I by expressing his opinion that Anaheim staff can pursue other funding sources to correct these inadequacies. Anaheim does not share Mr. Bueli's opinion on this matter. Comment 35. Moreover, there is simply no evidence of economic blight in sub-area one north of the Riverside Freeway. In fact, sub-area one is rarely mentioned in the Report's analysis of economic conditions (Report, at 11-23-27), and the few times sub-area one is discussed, the area north of the Riverside Freeway is ignored. For example, the discussions of retail sales activity (Id., at I1-24) and economic maladjustment contain no analysis of sub-area one. In the section describing the economic setting of the project area (Id., at II-23), sub-area one is briefly mentioned, but the discussion states that "vacant lots and large parcels are scarce." Id. This may be true south of the Riverside Freeway, but the area north of the Riverside Freeway is dominated by three large parcels, one of which is vacant. $~ Map 1-4A. Response 35. As stated in Anaheim's response to Comments 32 and 33, the area north of the Riverside Freeway is economically blighted as evidenced by the lack of ability of the private sector to develop/redevelop the Northrop and Anaheim Drive-In sites. The loss of jobs and reduction in assessed value as a result of the Northrop closure, combined with the high cost for providing needed public improvements (i.e., street and drainage improvements), the high cost of toxic remediation, and the increasing need for police service, has resulted in this area becoming an economic burden to Anaheim. Fullerton is incorrect in its assertion that Sub-area 1 is rarely mentioned in the Report's economic analysis and that the area north of the Riverside Freeway is ignored. The data provided in the R_eport's economic analysis is either reported in relationship to the two noncontiguous areas (North Central Industrial Area or South Anaheim Boulevard) or by Sub-area. Furthermore, the economic data was not PUBL:9724_113361B2621.43 33 12/14/93 aggregated specifically for the area north of the Riverside Freeway because that area is not an independent or segregated sub-area as proposed by the City of Fullerton. Although economic maladjustment indicators exist for all sub-areas not all economic blighting indicators apply to all sub-areas. As Fullerton notes, retail sales activity is not discussed for Sub-area 1. As stated in the Preliminary Report "Less than 20 percent of land uses in the North Central industrial portion of the Project Area are occupied by commercial enterprises, thus, the retail sales study focused on the South Anaheim Boulevard portion of the Project Area." Fullerton's comment that there is not a lack of vacant lots or large parcels north of the Riverside Freeway is true for that portion of Sub-area 1 but, as previously stated, the Report' s analysis is not aggregated to segregate that portion of the North Central Area. However, even though there are large parcels in the area north of the Riverside Freeway (one of which is the vacant Northrop site) the existence of these underdeveloped and undeveloped parcels further illustrates the inability of the private sector acting alone to develop what would otherwise appear to be desirable sites. Comment 36. The failure to evaluate adequately the economic conditions of blight is critical because under recent amendments to Health and Safety Code section 33030 (AB 1290 § 3), the project area must be both a "physical and economic burden on the community." In other words, substantial evidence of economic blight is r~_uired. These amendments will become law on January 1, 1994. Anaheim's f'mding of blight will not become effective until after January 1, 1994 (Govt. Code § 36937). Response 36. Fullerton's statement regarding Anaheim's lrmding of blight is incorrect. The necessary finding as to blight will be made by the City Council at the time the City Council approves the ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. The ordinance -- not the findings -- becomes effective 30 days after its adoption. Since f'~rst and second reading of the ordinance would occur in December, 1993, the ordinance will be adopted before January 1, 1994, but will become effective after January 1, 1994. Therefore, in making the requisite findings as to blight necessary to adopt the ordinance in 1993, the City Council will look to the definitions of blight as currently set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law, not as it will be effective January 1, 1994. Since Fullerton raises the issue of demonstrating economic blight under AB 1290's recent amendments to the Community Redevelopment Law, it would be instructive to note that, under these recent amendments, the Agency's case for the existence of economic conditions north of the Riverside Freeway causing blight is, if anything, stronger. For example, as amended by AB 1290, Health and Safety Code Section 33031(b)(1) will describe one economic condition causing blight as: Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including, but not necessarily limited to, those PUliL:9724_ 11336[ B2621.43 34 12/14/93 properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority as specified in Article 12.5 (commencing with Section 33459). No one disputes the fact that serious toxics problemg exist beneath the Northrop property. As amended by AB 1290, Health and Safety Code Section 33031(b)(2) will describe an economic condition causing blight as: Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turn over rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities. Anaheim submits that the loss of a major employer that previously provided up to 5,000 jobs constitutes a serious "business vacancy." Although the abandoned three-story building on the Northrop property has been demolished, the now vacant property is plainly "within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities." Since the State Legislature also amended the Community Redevelopment Law by adding new Section 37.~.a..6, authorizing redevelopment agency assistance for "the development or rehabilitation of property that will be used for industrial or manufacturing purposes," Anaheim submits that redeveloping the Northrop site for industrial or manufacturing purposes which will restore lost jobs is exactly the kind of redevelopment activity the Legislature had in mind in its reform of the Community Redevelopment Law. Finally, as amended by/LB 1290, Health and Safety Code Section 33031Co)(5) will describe as an economic condition causing blight as: A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. The Report to City Council demonstrates that the Project Area suffers from a reported crime rate that is three times the rate Citywide. This crime rate is well in excess of rates disclosed in reported cases (60 percent and 200 percent) where courts have upheld the city's blight fmding. Comment 37. In Regus v. City of Baldwin Park, 70 Cal. App. 3d 968, 982 (1977), the court discussed in detail the danger of a redevelopment agency "misemploying the extraordinary powers of urban renewal" by including unblighted areas in a project area as "a grubstake to subsidize commercial development within the project area in the hope of striking it rich." In order to ensure compliance with the Community Redevelopment Law and avoid the problems highlighted in Regus, the area north of the Riverside Freeway should be deleted from the project area. PUBL:9T24_ 113361 B2621.43 35 12/14/93 Response 37. Regus v. City of Baldwin Park is inapposite. In R_.e,g~, the city proposed a redevelopment project area with two separate noncontiguous sites along the San Bernardino Freeway. The larger site, south of the freeway, consisted of commercial and industrial development property and nearly half of the site consisted of newly f'mished construction or construction in progress. The court found that the plaintiffs challenging the redeveiopment plan provided evidence before the redevelopment agency and city council that the site south of the freeway was not blighted and was only included to capture tax revenues from construction in progress and for the purpose of attracting further development. Because the court found no evidence of blight to counter this evidence, the redevelopment plan was invalidated. In contrast, the record before the Anaheim City Council is replete with evidence distinguishing Sub-area 1 from the situation in ]?xc, gl~. First, Sub-area I constitutes a single contiguous site straddling the Riverside Freeway. As noted in the Report to City Council, the area contains some of the City's oldest and most obsolete industrial infrastructure. Keeping the areas both north and south of the Riverside Freeway in the Project Area is logical, given that CalTrans is currently proposing (as Fullerton acknowledges) extensive changes to the freeway which could seriously impact adjacent properties, particularly as northbound and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps are redesigned. Also unlike the situation in 17~4~, the area north of the Riverside Freeway does not consist of newly finished construction or construction in progress. In fact, and as Fullerton acknowledges, two areas north of the Riverside Freeway were deleted during the plan adoption process because those areas, while blighted, did not exhibit the same high degree of blight found elsewhere in the Project Area. Comment 38. For the foregoing reasons, Fullerton opposes the proposed Redevelopment Plan and urges Anaheim not to consider it further until the deficiencies identified in this letter are corrected. Response 38. Fullerton's opposition to the Redevelopment Plan is noted. Finding and Disposition The City Council of the City of Anaheim f"mds that the foregoing responses provide a good-faith, reasoned analysis of the City of Fu!lerton's written objections to the Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Redevelopment Plan and give reasons for not accepting Fu!lerton's objections and suggestions; such written objections are hereby overruled. POBL;9724_l1336]B2621.43 36 I2/14/93