HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 96-103 RESOLUTION NO. 9 6-1 a 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH RESPONDING TO AND MAKING
WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
TO THE PROPOSED HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND AMENDMENT AND MERGER OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan("Plan")has been
prepared by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach("Agency")
incorporating the amendment and merger of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Projects; and
A duly noticed joint public hearing on the proposed Plan was conducted at a joint public
meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Huntington Beach held on November 18, 1996; and
Said joint public meeting was continued to December 2, 1996, for the purpose of
responding to written objections to the proposed Plan presented at or before the public hearing;
and
Written objections were received from affected property owners and the City Council
directed the Agency staff to respond in detail to such written objections as were received, giving
reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; and
The City Council has received and considered such objections and such responses as set
forth in the "Findings and Responses to Written Objections"attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
as follows:
1
SFA WDRResoluffindings
11/21/96-#2
RLS 96-851
1. The City Council hereby makes and adopts the findings in response to each
written objection received, as set forth in said Exhibit A.
2. The City Council hereby finds that said Exhibit A adequately addresses, analyzes
and responds to each of the written comments in the manner required by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day ofDecember1996.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk tttt rney
J�zI- 516
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIT TED AND APPROVED:
City Arministrator Director of Econo 'c Development
2
SF/s TCD:ResoluvFindings
t 1/21/96-42
RLS 96,951
EXHIBIT A
WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
SUBMITTED AT THE
NOVEMBER 18, 1996 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE
PROPOSED AMENDED AND MERGED
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
November, 1996
Prepared for:
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 536-.5511
Prepared by:
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305
Santa Ana, California. 92705
(714) 541.4585
iiLI L-
WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
SUBMITTED AT THE
NOVEMBER 18, 1996 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE
PROPOSED AMENDED AND MERGED
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Introduction
On November 18, 1996,the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach held a joint public hearing on the proposed amended and merged Redevelopment Plan for
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project("Plan"). The purpose of the hearing was to
receive both oral and written testimony for and against the proposed Plan. During the hearing,
both written and oral objections were presented on the Plan. This document is the written
response of the City Council to written objections regarding the Plan("Response")
Section 33363 of the California Community Redevelopment Law requires that before adopting a
redevelopment plan, the legislative body(City Council) shall evaluate all evidence and
testimony, both for and against the adoption of the plan, and make written findings in response to
each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. Further, the legislative
body is to respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public
hearing and that these responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised, and address in
detail the reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions.
Written Objections Submitted
A total of four written objections were filed by property owners affected by the Plan; these
objections are included in their entirety in Appendix A of this Response. No written objections
were filed by any affected taxing entities. The four objections were submitted by the following
parties:
1. Keith B. Bohr
415 Townsquare Lane#219
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
2. Joy Lynn, et al.
470 Pacific Coast Highway#2
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
3. Jeffrey M. Oderman(for Eldon Bagstad and Ann Mase)
611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
4. J.A. Wiley
15651 White Oak Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Response to Written Objections
This Response addresses each point raised in each written objection.
Objection by Keith B. Bohr, dated November 1$ 1996
1. "(Because)Agency will only be able to utilize its eminent domain authority for non-
residential properties...it really minimizes the utility of having a Redevelopment Agency for
the purpose of eliminating blight. "
Response:
The use of eminent domain is one of 19 of the redevelopment actions available to the Agency
under the Plan. Historically, eminent domain has not been the sole tool, nor the most critical
tool, employed by the Agency to alleviate blight. The Agency has successfully undertaken
infrastructure improvements, commercial redevelopment projects and housing rehabilitation
programs in the Main Pier, Oakview, and Yorktown-Lake Areas without eminent domain.
The Plan ensures that the Agency will continue to be empowered with the necessary tools to
remove the remaining blight in the Project Area.
Section B of the Report to the City Council for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
delineates the blighting conditions present in the Project Area. These conditions include:
dilapidation, deterioration, obsolescence, substandard design,narrow lots under mixed
ownership, inadequate public improvements, abnormally high vacancies, depreciating values,
and high crime rates. Section 600 of the Plan contains a listing of the redevelopment actions
proposed by the Agency to alleviate these conditions; only one of these actions involves
eminent domain. These redevelopment actions include the following:
1. Acquiring, installing, developing, constructing, reconstructing, redesigning,replanning,
or reusing streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,traffic control devices, utilities, flood control
facilities and other public improvements and public facilities.
2. Rehabilitating, altering, remodeling, improving, modernizing, or reconstructing
buildings, structures and improvements.
I Rehabilitating, preserving, developing or constructing affordable housing in
compliance with State law.
4. Providing the opportunity for owners and tenants presently located in the Project
Area to participate in redevelopment projects and programs, and extending
preferences to occupants to remain or relocate within the redeveloped Project Area.
nwtbaraa„m 2
i S �l(' f a'
5. Providing relocation assistance to displaced residential and nonresidential occupants,
if necessary.
6. Facilitating the development or redevelopment of land for purposes and uses
consistent with this Plan.
7. Acquiring real property by purchase, lease, gift, grant, request, device or any other
lawful means (including eminent domain on a limited basis, after the conduct of
appropriate hearings).
8. Combining parcels and properties where and when necessary.
9. Preparing building sites and constructing necessary off-site improvements.
10. Providing for open space.
11. Managing property owned or acquired by the Agency.
12. Assisting in procuring financing for the construction of residential, commercial, and
office buildings to increase the residential and commercial base of the Project Area,
and the number of temporary and permanent jobs in the City.
13. The disposition of property including, without limitation,the lease or sale of land at a
value determined by the Agency for reuse in accordance with this Plan.
14. Establishing controls, restrictions or covenants running with the land, so that
property will continue to be used in accordance with this Plan.
15. Vacating or abandoning streets, alleys, and other thoroughfares, as necessary, and
dedicating other areas for public purposes consistent with the objectives of this Plan.
16. Providing replacement housing, if any is required.
17. Applying for and utilizing grants, loans and any other assistance from federal or
State governments, or other sources.
18. Taking actions the Agency determines are necessary and consistent with State,
federal and local laws to make structural repairs to buildings and structures,
including historical buildings, to meet building code standards related to seismic
safety.
19. Taking actions the Agency determines are necessary and consistent with State,
federal and local laws to remedy or remove a release of hazardous substances on,
under or from property within the Project Area or to remove hazardous waste from
property.
kMtkhVC&POnW 3
�5 cll� - f� 3
Objection b Joy oy Lynn, et al., dated November 18, 1996
1. "We are totally against the destruction of affordable housing, small businesses and jobs for
the benefit of hamburger empires, coffee shops, and bars through the process of eminent
domain. "
Response;
The Plan would limit the Agency's authority to use eminent domain on nonresidential
properties only; no properties on which persons reside would be subject to eminent domain.
Therefore,the use of eminent domain under the Plan will not cause the destruction of
affordable housing.
The Agency has incorporated a series of goals in the Plan that underscore its desire to protect
and expand small business opportunities in the Project Area. As set forth in Section 500 of
the Plan, these goals include the following:
• Eliminate and prevent the spread of conditions of blight including: underutilized
properties and deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses,
deficient infrastructure and facilities, obsolete structures, and other economic
deficiencies in order to create a more favorable environment for commercial, office,
industrial, residential, and recreational development.
• Expand the commercial base of the Project Area.
• Promote local job opportunities.
• Encourage the cooperation and participation of residents, businesses, business
persons, public agencies, and community organizations in the
redevelopment/revitalization of the Project Area.
Under the Plan,existing small businesses have a distinct advantage to remain in the Project
Area. First, small businesses have the opportunity to participate in redevelopment of the
Project Area. Section 605 of the Plan provides opportunities for property owner participation
in the redevelopment of the Project Area if the owners agree to participate in conformance
with the objectives and policies in the Plan. Further, the Plan requires the Agency to extend
reasonable relocation and reentry preferences to businesses if such businesses otherwise meet
the requirements of the Plan.
hwTffich\r=ponm 4
2. "Huntington Beach has demolished low income housing in the name of redevelopment."
Response:
In fact, redevelopment of the Project Area has resulted in the production of 50 more
affordable dwelling units than those removed. While some units of low income housing have
been destroyed as a result of redevelopment activities, implementation of redevelopment in
the City has caused an overall increase in very low, low, and moderate income housing
supply. Since the Agency established redevelopment in 1982, a total of 213 affordable
dwelling units have been removed. Over that same period,263 affordable units have been
produced to replace the 213 units removed,creating a net gain in affordable dwelling units of
50 units.
The Plan and the California Community Redevelopment Law require the Agency to replace
any affordable units removed or demolished as a result of a redevelopment project within
four years of such removal or demolition. Further, the Plan and the Law also provide that the
Agency is to employ not less than 20% of its annual tax increment revenues for the purposes
of increasing, improving, and expanding the community's supply of very low, low, and
moderate income housing.
3. "I believe taxes are paid to help protect us, our jobs and homes, not to be used against us to
move us to another poor area while our original homes, businesses and that beach go to the
benefit of the rich. "
Response:
See responses to Objections#1 and#2 above.
4. "Affordable housing should be rebuilt for the citizens such as students, busboys, waitresses,
disabled, etc. that are working and paying in the downtown Huntington Beach area. "
Response:
See response to Objection#2 above.
5. "How long must we be under pressure of losing what we have worked for? Clearly you have
the distinct advantage of money and years of time to formulate and implement your plans,
whereas we have merely a few days to respond and react. I believe we should be given equal
time to respond and obtain knowledge of what you...are trying to do to us. "
Response:
Approval of the Plan does not initiate any eminent domain activities. Acquisition by eminent
domain involves a process prescribed by the Plan and the State Acquisition Guidelines. This
process, which takes about 18 months to complete, generally involves inviting the owner to
participate in the redevelopment effort, obtaining a highest and best use appraisal of the
property's fair market value, and conducting a noticed public hearing on the proposed
mu,6cn4 5
ILvS Wit( - (L3
condemnation. Any eminent domain acquisition requires a super-majority approval of the
Agency board. Ultimately,the property owner has the right to proceed to a jury trial on
condemnation.
Objection b�ldon Bag,stad and Ann Mase � Jy effreY OdermanL dated November 18, 1996
1. "There is no change in circumstances that would justify extending this (the eminent domain)
time limit for the properties in Block 104 of the Main Pier Redevelopment Project Area. "
Response:
Redevelopment Law does not require the Agency to find any"change in circumstances"to
justify the extension of eminent domain. As stated in the amending and merging ordinance
and based on facts contained in the Report to the City Council, the condemnation of real
property is necessary to the execution of the Plan. These facts include,but are not limited to,
the existence of lots of irregular size and shape under mixed ownership and widespread
deterioration and dilapidation of commercial structures.
2. "In order for the City Council to approve a Plan Amendment/Merger that again subjects the
properties on Block 104 to the threat of eminent domain, the City Council would be required
to make a jinding, supported by substantial evidence in the record, that resurrecting the
eminent domain power `is necessary to the execution of the redevelopment plan... '(Health
and Safety Code Section 33367(d)(6) and 33457.1.) There is no basis for making such a
finding with respect to the properties within Block 104. "
Response:
The Law does not require separate findings on each parcel or block of the Project Area with
respect to the necessity of eminent domain. As required by Law, the necessity to extend
eminent domain on nonresidential property is based on the Project Area as a whole. The
ordinance contains such a finding and that finding is supported by substantial evidence.
I "Repealing Resolution No. 48 would be a breach of the covenant made with the property
owners when the Redevelopment Project was first formed.... "
Response:
Rescinding Resolution No. 48 is necessary because it has effectively eliminated the
usefulness of eminent domain. Under Resolution No. 48,two-thirds of the property owners,
by number and area, must first approve of any project involving condemnation. Without the
ability to more forcefully encourage property owners to redevelop their properties, the
Agency is handicapped from removing blighted nonresidential structures in the Project Area.
Like any other resolution, the City Council has the authority to rescind Resolution No. 48.
The City Council elected to incorporate the rescinding of Resolution No. 48 into the
Amendment/Merger process to afford property owners in the Main-Pier Area with an
extended opportunity to voice their concerns.
p�S cl& —i 0 3
Objection by J.A. Wiley, dated October_28,-1996
1. "My objection is to the City Council being able to waste the taxpayers'money by using this
merger. Stop wasting money!!! The City Council should not be permitted to control any tax
money without the approval of the taxpayers. "
Response;
In 1952,the taxpayers of the state voted to approve amending the state constitution to
provide local government with the authority to collect and utilize tax increment revenue. The
financial management of the Agency's activities is governed by the City Council
representative elected by the voters of the City. Since 1982,the City Council representatives,
sitting as the Agency, have appropriated tax increment resources to renovate dilapidated
housing, construct public improvements, and expanded the community's economic base
through economic development activities. The expenditure of tax increment revenues is
subject to approval of an annual work program and budget, a five-year implementation plan,
and specific redevelopment projects. These decisions are all made at public meetings of the
Agency, and the community is always invited to provide input on the proposed
redevelopment activities.
E
numncn4dp� 7
i�re:S � G— la3
WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
SUBMITTED AT THE
NOVEMBER 18, 1996 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE
PROPOSED AMENDED AND MERGED
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
APPENDIX A
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
humhchlnap rm 8
Jos
Nov-le-Se 18: 24 FROM =L .B . / COMM .DEV . 1D= 310 570 6215 PAGE 1/1
November 11996
RECEIVED
CITY MRK
Honorable Mayor/Chairman and City Council/ 1;11 t ?`
Mernbers/Redevelopment Agency Members u KT I k`' n y
2000 Main Street
NOV I 8 28 P '96
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
O7
r
Dear Council/Agency Members:
As a downtown property owner, I am writing to express my support for the proposed :3-
Amendment and Merger of the City's five existing redevelopment project areas. However,
strongly urge the Agency/Council to review the issue of eminent domain for the proposed project
area before voting on adoption of the Resolution. The two biggest incentives for having a
Redevelopment Agency are; 1. to be able to utilize tax increment financing; and 2. to be able to
acquire property at the fair market value from a noncooperative owners through the use of
euz inent domain.
My understanding from reacting the staff report is that the Agency will only be able to utilize its
eminent domain authority for non-residential properties_ While I am sure this will make the
adoption process much more palatable to the general public and negate having to set up a Project
Area Committee(PAC), it really minimizes the utility of having a Redevelopment Agency for
the purpose of eliminating blight.
If the Agency, staff; or the development conununity were to prepare a "top tern list" of the best
candidate properties in need of redevelopment, I am confident 416 Pacific Coast aghway (Papa
7oe's Pizza) and 504 Pacific Coast Highway(El Don Liquor) would be at the top of all lists.
Both of these properties are mixed-use consisting of commercial and residential and therefore,
under the proposed merged project area could not be acquired by the Agency by means of
condemnation.
Currently the Agency owns eighty three percent of Block 105, with 416 Pacific Coast Highway
(50' x 110' = 5,500 SF) sitting right in the front middle of the Agency's 72,000 SF, significantly
reducing the Agency's resale value and its ability to negotiate a economically feasible
development plan with a third party developer. Similar concerns exist for the property located at
416 Pacific Coast Highway.
A lot of capital has been invested into the downtown by the Agency and private property owners
alike, on the premise that the Agency was going to complete its goals of redeveloping the
downtown. Please keep the vision toward the future and at a minimum complete the
redevelopment of the Phase II (Blocks 104 & 105) and Third Block West projects.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (714) 960-
7286.
Sincerely,
Keith B. Bohr
415 Townsquare Lane 4219
Huntington Beach CA 92W
/ c FaK .St-
� z
cc
OR w a ,{- e �jp2 •�r�S 4 { r
w: U ti ✓
A� 1
o- G �``t.^ D �z�� Q lid S e G�� cCG Icy(
�� occ
0�CPLU
Lfu
w o o
z D � �e ID�I;Si 1 �S�?'I �1��CrS1f�eSSC�'
wz cr
/
AW411
1�7 %/ csQ Items
- -- ._ _ - - ITi d��'.S. �I�7�1�-5!'� ��dC� t•�cQs*z � �G�r1f,�.
Ie ' Ar
te - o'3
V-4*
j -
--- - - ------ - -
11,12e
.-�______------- G%1`.� �. -._-�_._.--- °S'�^_ ��Ifs rr�..�.- �1��1�� '-�-� •- --'---_ Y__
JJ
J
/ r
1t
J
- - --
1� .
� .
� �
� � -
SENT BY: 11-18-96 ; 3:38PM ; RUTAN & TUCKER- 93755087;# 2/ 4
RUTAN & TUCKE:R, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT L-AW
a r.APTNFR^yNIP INCLUDING PROM L5�10NAL rgRp4RATiONS
-JAMrl w.wDOne, NARCM A.rOQLTT.. 414 ANTON BOULEVARD, :WlrG 1400 :AVN[ .ArI,Vw MCCP 7,p KILL Nwr.,V'.'.SS.
rAVI rn COCRIC MAR% r_MPRTIC.4gLNP Swvr.,r,COSOnOYC DAY1NA. NAROCN
We JwMCiML,MONr.a _YA .+nrrM .—Mn.Lawx�r
w.iwww4 a eWRNVTT ANNC NCLSON LANPN ft `��=}T'+R MESA, CALIFORNIA D2QZ�-ISII$� LVCPNa NNw.
C ills JOGCPM L.%ve"In
LCONw4. 11 ,-VT.J WW.AM J.GPLJ.T. T.w..w�R I.P493 ARPIR.; wiL4Cw
JO, !.xVgLRVT.iR, MKNAGL'I'.MOIrNwr GIR£CT ALL MAIL 70: p. O. tlOal I960 wrPT.rcIN[q LT:P+•w.w+.,TaowTw
M,C wwCL w IA NCLL PMILIP O.KONN
M 11 rO ,
.4a[n vwCOSTA MESA, LALIFORNIA fas iS-1���IG N PPML,JR. N—AI1 PPM
N YOLKCRT nORw J.YOUNG
,.CO
PfRtY A.COLY wxr x V OGTCP0AR 3.
a C.4ER,NSTON r4NAA w.Nxl...w.rpt(.h ITLEpM43MF {7I41 641-5100 �.*ZY pfI,.CIL .,•,.� -OONP
RECs.AQp P-$.Mw L.�Lilwr y. n ,!w I AYMC n_wCLl Cq .�•4N•rCR wnITC LPLRLIN4
RORCQT L-RAA4N ww.r.�.,LY.I'AV PMIM F147S {714] 1f46-:ILlJ:J . ww.�ti1R,-6N
C q.VAQp 0-SrOCSMA,iR w ..,V.Ow LL M.w —ve. M.CNACL w_SLATT[NT II W.4 hCIM[RL
TMONAZ L-rwa."4k OCLRA OLNN Sri►•
�JTr.VCN M_CW[IeAN
,. N' ! CnA,C w w r �I N- wv J.CJv1
COFFQw4 t.MI[O[N w ryN lW1J-IpT C'.1c A N
TQarNVw ...-.y.JLw!J_pLNN,NmgN
NiCMwCL D.RURIN M .Lw,yr R,NF JCMbOn .+nw..+y rV4 w!R.SR "a'.IDSO/ OAN SULTCR T4OO O.UFFIN
N.LIV ND W.OAPL,sn MID-IDDW
IRA.3 .VON OVN[r_TVANLOYI9T JAM[:L.nLl4s wTCYCN M.MU1b Owrav
JCGFR[Y M.!WrYwM• R,CmARP O-MONTCYIPCO x w1.44CN NOWILLL i1R2S-1PR)1 CAROL L.4CNN�.sx ANTNONY A PCCL{M.h
J VTr..r4 O.';—MVTN LORI 5ARl CA--MIT,. PATRICK 4 WI;MLLA J[ITRCY R.In,VI.N
UTAN n T+OLCOV CRN[_T W.NLATT[III CVC Lt.L&LLI—
Nt.4AM-i..wPWrw CUZ^*ETN nw1 A.MTRICK MU.V• NMA S,CARLGOM
.+wvlP J.a.CIRIINC IVM p_Tn OMPzQI. %LLCM S rnN VROrt CRIC L,CUMN
. rAYL�.a.RYrnw
November 18, 1996
.rwnv,n r.o.N.ucNRC Ry.N
nAvin 1 GAgInA..I,,, r,t
4F LwmaaL
Mayor Dave Sullivan and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
Chairperson Dave Sullivan and Members of the Board of Directors
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Proposed Ameadment)Merger of the Existing Redevelopment Plans for the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Areas
Dear City Council Members and Members of the redevelopment Agency's Board of Directors:
I am writing this letter on behalf of Eldon Bagstad and Ann Mase, property owners
within Block 104 of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area, 1 respectfully request that this
letter be entered into the public hearing record for the proposed Amendment/Merger of the
several existing Redevelopment Project Areas in the City that is scheduled to be heard at your
meeting this evening.
My clients object to the provisions in the proposed Amendment/Merger dw would (1)
reactivate the Agency's expired power of eminent domain in Block 104 of the Main-Pier
Redevelopment Project Area and (2) repeal Resolution No. 48 within that same block.
ne reasons for the foregoing objections are as follows;
1. There is NQ Change in Circumstances That Would Justify RcaadyafMg, or
L=ding The Ag+ Gy's Power of EMinent Daman Roond the 12-Year I&M
'mi . T'he Community Redevelopment Law places a time limit of 12 years for
the Agency to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire property within
a Redevelopment Project Area, (See Health & Safety Code $ 33333.2(a)(4)•)
There is no change in circumstances that would justify extending this time limit
for the properties in Block 104 of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area.
"The Agency already has had the eminent domain "sword of Damocles" poised
11207M44401130 MI. SUM%
SENT BY: 11-18-96 ; 3:39PM RUTAN & TUCKER- 93755087;# 3/ 4
ztt �U ( 03
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Ff
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A FAk'i N1 wp-M IlIC4 VOINO Ap4l['.r.1f1.14 I.UhrV1l111pY1y
Mayor rave Sullivan and Members of the City Council
Chairperson Dave Sullivan and Members of the Board of Directors
November 18, 1996
Page 2
over the heads of the property owners within this block for well over a decade.
The property owners have attempted to cooperate with the Agency through all of
the twists and turns that the Main-Pier Phase ll project has taken over the years
and with all of the different outside development entities (Coultrup, Griffin
Realty, A&M Equities, etc.). Much time, energy, and money has been expended
by the property owners in good faith. Enough is enough.
2. Thy Emma ty Owners Continue to Cuoperate with the Agency; kMi=J 1&ni in
is not Nary. In order for the City Council to approve a Plan Amendment/
Merger that again subjects the properties in Block 104 to the threat of eminent
domain, the City Council would be required to make a finding, supported by
substantial evidence in the record, that resurrecting the eminent domain power
"is necessary to the execution of the redevelopment plan. . . ." (Health& Safety
Code §§ 333.67(d)(6)and 33457 1.) There is no basis for malting such a finding
with respect to the properties within Block 104. For at least 15 years, the
property owners have cooperated with the City/Agency. The property owners
have not objected to redeveloping their properties. Instead, a series of redeve-
lopment proposals has failed due to the failure or inability of outside developers
to perform, governmental delays (e.g., the lengthy period it has taken to obtain
Coastal Commission approvals and the time it has taken the Agency to assemble
the properties in Block 105), the complications of the Coastal Commission/
Agency requirement that the redevelopment of Blocks 105 and 104 proceed
simultaneously, and other circumstances beyond the control of any individual
Block 104 property owner. The problem most assuredly has W been the
Agency's lack of eminent domain power. indeed, for almost this entire time
period and until very recently, the Agency did have eminent domain authority
within Block 104 and still was unable to pull the project together. The property
owners should not have to suffer the ongoing risks that their properties will be
tale away from them after the years of cooperation they have demonstrated.
3. R ling Rew1uJo No. 48 Would bg a Breach of the Cl yg=t Made_ydth.the
EgUME t]wners when the Redevelopment Project was First Formed. When the
Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area was first being formed in the early
1980's, the use of eminent domain was highly controversial and was opposed by
many party owners and residents. The City/Agency assured the property
owners that eminent domain would be used only as a last resort against "holdout"
owners in situations where a super-majority of property owners within an area
were in favor of moving forward with redevelopment. A deal was struck.
Thre City/Agency made its commitment to the property owners through the
11714TT3344DQII?"31. d1/Im
SENT BY: 11-18-96 ; 3:40PM RUTAN & TUCKER 93755487;# 4I 4
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
ATTOAW EYS AT LAw
•r.m.Cp.x�µCoxa vgoresL,Qr• ceane�euay
Mayor Dave Sullivan and Members of the City Council
Chairperson Dave Sullivan and Members of the Board of Directors
November 18, 1996
Page 3
adoption of Resolution No. 48 (memorializing the super-majority owner consent
to the use of eminent domain)and the owners waived their right to challenge the
Redevelopment Plan. Ile current proposal to unilaterally repeal Resolution
No. 48 is a breach of the covenant made with the property owners many years
ago. Taking such an action, particularly where there has been no change in
circumsmnces (I 1 above) or demonstration of necessity (12 above), can only
serve to give more ammunition to the people who say "you can't trust City Hall.°
Mr. Bagstad and Ms. Mace will continue to cooperate with the Agency's efforts to
redevelop Block 104 in a sensible fashion that is a credit to the community. Eminent domain
in Block 104 is not needed to achieve that objective. We request than any action on the
Amendment/Merger be revised to recognize these concerns.
Very truly yours,
JyRUTA & TUCKER, LLP
M. erman
JMO:jh
cc: Eldon Bagstad
Ann Mase
City Administrator/Executive Director Michael T. Uberuaga
Director of Economic Development David C. Biggs
City Attorney Gail Hutton, Esq.
112M7354-OW-MMI..l In u%
(03
October 28, 1996
J.A. Wiley
15651 White Oak Lane / Sze/ --/2a"_ ,,
171untington Beach, California 92647
Connie Brockway. City Clerk, f
City Of Huntington Beach
200 Main Street 2nd Floor
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
Dear Connie,
This letter registers my objection to Redevelopment'-Aniendmentr Uierger." My objection is to
the cite council being able to waste the tax payer's money by using this merger. Stop wasting money!!
This city council should not be permitted to control any tax money without the approval of the tax payers
consent. I mean that a vote should be taken not these stupid public notices when it involves large sums
of money. Paragraph H of the public notice is why I am against this merger. It allows too much
freedom of the council assigning too much time and too much access to taxpayer's money for an
unnecessary project. These types of projects are Borne idiots dream to control the taxpayers.
J. A. Wiley
cm s
z
C:,Z4
en
S'w
V + �
J
Res. No. 96-103
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City,
do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of December, 1996 by the
following vote:
AYES: Harman, Dettloff,Bauer, Green, Garofalo
NOES: Sullivan
ABSTAIN: Julien
ABSENT: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
G/re sol uti/res bkp g/9b-100