HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 99-66 RESOLUTION NO. 99-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO
THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, on August 16, 1999, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
("City Council") and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach("Agency")held a
joint public hearing ("Joint Public Hearing") on the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment
Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("1999 Amendment"); and,
At the Joint Public Hearing, the Mayor, as the presiding officer, called for public
testimony, and all persons present were afforded the opportunity to testify and submit materials;
and,
A total of 23 written objections ("Objections") were presented at the Joint Public
Hearing; and,
Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that, where written objections are
received at or prior to the hearing concerning the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment
plan, the legislative body: "...shall...respond in writing to the written objections...The written
responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised. The legislative body shall address
the written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting the specified objections and
suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in its response";
and,
Agency staff has reviewed the Objections presented at the Joint Public Hearing, and has
participated in the preparation of responses to said Objections ("Response"), in the form
submitted herewith as Exhibit "A"; and,
The Agency has reviewed in detail the Objections and Responses, together with all
testimony and reports presented at the Joint Public Hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby approves
and adopts the Response, in the form submitted herewith, as their findings and response to the
objections presented at the Joint Public Hearing.
The City Council hereby overrules the Objections to the 1999 Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project.
SF-99Reso1:Amd0819
08/23/99-#1
Res. No. 99-66
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof on the 7th day of September. , 1999,
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Alt
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City A inistrator Ci Director of onomic Development
2
SF-99Reso1:Amd0819
OV23/99-##f
Res. No. 99-66
1. In 1965,the City contracted with Urban Land Institute (ULI)to assess land use issues on a
citywide basis and make recommendations on future directions to be followed. The ULI
Study concluded that the City's economic future lay in improving the oceanfront and
revitalizing the Downtown area.
2. In 1975, VTN Consolidated was retained by the City, and recommended a high intensity
"destination resort"concept in the five blocks adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway(including
three blocks (101, 104, and 105) in the Overlay Area).
3. In 1980, the City Council established a Downtown Development Committee consisting of
downtown property owners and City officials to start preparation of a specific plan for the
area. At that time, owners of property in the Overlay Area were afforded the opportunity to
participate in this grass roots planning effort.
4. In 1982,the Agency adopted the original Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan,which provided for
acquisition of both residential and nonresidential property by eminent domain. In 1983,the
Redevelopment Plan was amended to add territory, including portions of the Overlay Area
east of Walnut Avenue.
5. In 1983, following extensive participation from downtown residents and property owners, the
City Council adopted the Downtown Specific Plan, which included the transition of
residential uses to visitor-serving and commercial uses, and consolidation of small lots under
mixed ownership.
6. In 1989, the Agency initiated discussions with Griffin Realty regarding the redevelopment of
blocks 104 and 105.
7. In 1989, the Agency expended approximately$8.0 million to purchase approximately one-
half of blocks 104 and 105 to consolidate ownership among property owners.
8. In 1992, the Agency entered into the Coultrup Disposition and Development Agreement with
property owners within the Overlay Area(Coultrup,Bagstad, Mase, Cracchiolo, Alfonso,
Draper, and Mulligan). The Coultrup Owner Participation Agreement executed by the
current owners expressly contemplated the use of eminent domain to acquire and remove
existing uses on blocks 104 and 105.
9. In 1995, the Redevelopment Plan's 12-year time limit to use eminent domain lapsed, subject
to further extension by amendment of the Plan.
10. In 1995, the Agency adopted its Five Year Implementation Plan, in which it identified
construction of the "Main-Pier Phase II (Coultrup)"project as a high priority project
necessary to address several blighting conditions, including deteriorated buildings,
substandard lots under multiple ownership, and substandard commercial uses.
hm&ch199=wndment\nnpmSes 2
Res. No. 99-66
EXHIBIT "A"
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
AUGUST 16, 1999 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
1999 AMENDMENT
TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
3
SF-99Resol:Amd0819
08/23/90-#t
Res. No. 99-66
WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
SUBMITTED AT THE
AUGUST 16, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Introduction
On August 16, 1999,the Huntington Beach City Council("City Council") and Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach("Agency") held a joint public hearing on the proposed
residential eminent domain amendment to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan ("1999
Amendment"). During the hearing, both written and oral objections were presented on the 1999
Amendment. This document is the written response of the City Council to written objections
regarding the 1999 Amendment("Response").
Section 33363 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("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 such 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 23 written objections and correspondence were filed; they are included in their entirety
in Attachment 1 of this Response. A summary of each objection, a response and findings follow.
PART1 -BACKGROUND
The proposed 1999 Amendment is being considered to complete the Agency's redevelopment
program initiated in the Main-Pier area in 1982. Over the past 17 years, the Agency and property
owners have undertaken a variety of activities to redevelop the Main-Pier area. However, many
properties in the Project Area, including residential and nonresidential uses in the proposed
Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Area("Overlay Area"),have not yet undergone
redevelopment. The Overlay Area constitutes approximately one-half of the Downtown included
in the original Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Indeed, as acknowledged by property
owners, City residents and the Agency,properties in the Overlay Area have languished despite
extensive efforts, including the following:
nuntbvhMammdmp tmnspom s 1
Res. No. 99-66
11. In 1996, the Agency, through the merger and amendment of its five redevelopment projects,
extended the time limit to use eminent domain on nonresidential property in the Main-Pier
subarea.
12. In 1997, following the failed execution of the Coultrup Disposition and Development
Agreement, the Agency issued a second request for qualifications to local property owners
(including owners Bagstad, Mase and Cracchiolo)
13. In 1998, the Agency selected CIM to be the lead developer for blocks 104 and 105.
14. In December 1998, 16 years after adopting the original Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan, the
Agency initiated proceedings to extend/modify the eminent domain time limit within the
four-block Overlay Area.
15. In 1999, CIM began property acquisition negotiations with owners Bagstad, Cracchiolo and
others, although no accord has been reached.
This chronology shows that efforts to redevelop the Overlay Area date back decades, even
though eminent domain has not been initiated to acquire residential uses on these blocks. Nearly
35 years have passed since the need for redevelopment on these blocks was brought to the
surface. For over a decade, the Agency tried to work with Overlay Area property owners,
including execution of an agreement to provide substantial economic subsidies to underwrite
project costs. In the meantime, residents, local businesses, and community leaders continue to
call for continued redevelopment of downtown, particularly blocks in the Overlay Area.
As far back as 1982,when the original Redevelopment Plan was adopted, the authority to use
eminent domain on residential property was included in the Redevelopment Plan. Even in 1982,
the Agency and City Council foresaw that eminent domain could be necessary to complete
redevelopment within the Main Pier area. Since there has been virtually no redevelopment
progress within the Overlay Area, the need for eminent domain remains essential to eradicate
persistent blighting conditions within the Overlay Area, as well as the overall Main-Pier area.
Blighting Conditions in-the Project Area
Indeed, the Agency conclusively determined that the Main Pier area was blighted when the Plan
was originally adopted in 1982, and amended in 1983 and 1996,pursuant to Redevelopment
Law. The fact is, since properties in the Overlay Area have not yet redeveloped, blight continues
to exist in these areas.
Contrary to what has been alleged in some of the written objections, Redevelopment Law does
not require any evidence of blight to substantiate the extension of the eminent domain time limit
in a redevelopment plan. Despite the absence of a legal mandate, the Agency did in fact submit
substantial documentation of blighting conditions in the Project Area compiled over the past 17
years at the August lb, 1999 public hearing on the 1999 Amendment, including the following
incorporated into this Response by reference:
hunthch1"==dment&� 3
Res_ No. 99-66
1. Report to the City Council on the Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan (September 1982)
2. Report to the City Council on the Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan—Amendment No. 1
(September 1983)
3. Five Year Implementation Plan—Main Pier Area(October 1994)
4. Report to the City Council for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project-Merger
(October 1996)
5. Documentation of Blight Report for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project
6. Staff Report for the August 16, 1999 Joint Public Hearing on the 1999 Amendment to the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain
Amendment)
7. Report to the City Council for the 1999 Amendment to the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project(August 1999)
These documents provide detailed descriptions of the blighting conditions in the Project Area,
including the Overlay Area. These blighting conditions were found to be so pervasive that they
substantiated the creation of the original Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan,with provisions for
residential and nonresidential eminent domain. These conditions include the following:
Physical Deterioration and Obsolescence
The Project Area, including properties in the Overlay Area, suffers from physical deterioration
and obsolescence due to deferred maintenance. These conditions were noted in the 1982, 1983,
1996, and 1999 Reports to the City Councils, as well as the current Five Year Implementation
Plan and staff report submitted at the August 16, 1999 joint public hearing. Examples of
properties that contain these conditions as they exist today are depicted on the Photo Survey,
included as Attachment 2 to this Response. These photographs show specific structural
problems with Overlay Area properties, including:
• Weathered and rotting facades,
• Structural obsolescence,
• Broken foundations,
• Roof damage,
• Cracked siding,
• Exposed wiring, and
• Chipped and peeling paint
In total, approximately 32 residential units, or 80 percent of the 40 residential units in the
Overlay Area exhibit one or more of these physical conditions. Some property owners have
publicly acknowledged the deficient condition of Overlay Area buildings, including owners
bmtbch199a endm lVe ppnses 4
Res. No. 99-66
Bagstad and Cracchiolo,who entered into the Coultrup Owner Participation Agreement to
remove these deteriorated properties.
Today, the Agency remains committed to redeveloping deteriorating and obsolete buildings in
the Overlay Area, and the extension of eminent domain will enable the Agency to take a more
proactive role in the revitalization of blocks containing residential uses in the Overlay Area.
Incompatible Uses
Properties along First Street and block 101 (in the Overlay Area) contain commercial and heavy
industrial uses (oil production and storage) adjacent to single and multifamily residential
property. Incompatible uses are also located on blocks 104 and 105,where residential uses
adjoin commercial structures. Photographs exemplifying these conditions are included in the
Photo Survey. These nonresidential uses subject area residents to a variety of negative impacts,
including living in close proximity to potential environmental hazards, traffic and parking
problems generated by more intense uses,unsightly equipment and facilities that detract from the
economic value of residential properties. As indicated at the outset of this Response, the City
and area property owners developed the Downtown Specific Plan in part to remove incompatible
residential uses from these areas.
In total, approximately 39, or 97 percent of the 40 residential units are impacted by adjacent
incompatible uses. The 1999 Amendment would permit the Agency to use eminent domain, as a
last resort, to purchase residential properties for specific redevelopment projects that would
remove incompatible land uses in the Overlay Area.
Lots of Inadequate Size and Mixed Ownership
According to the Documentation of Blight Report prepared in connection with the adoption of
the original 1982 Report to the City Council, approximately one-third of the lots in the original
five-block Main-Pier area were narrow (25 feet wide or less) and under mixed ownership. In the
1996 Report to the City Council, inadequately sized lots were also a primary blighting condition
in the Main-Pier area. Today,mixed ownership and inadequately sized lots remain problematic,
particularly on block 101 and along First Street, where approximately 10, or 46 percent of the 22
parcels in this area are under mixed ownership. Photographs showing examples of mixed
ownership patterns in the Overlay Area are included in the Photo Survey.
Block 101 lacks lots sufficiently sized and under single ownership to accommodate the parking
and building size demands for visitor serving uses sought by the community in the Downtown
Specific Plan. Also, the existing residential uses are not designed to accommodate commercial
or visitor serving uses, so rehabilitation of these properties is not feasible. In an area that
requires redevelopment like block 101, property acquisition will be essential to consolidate
ownership of these small lots to accommodate redevelopment of visitor-serving and commercial
uses consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. Both Eminent Domain Law and
Redevelopment Law provide redevelopment agencies the authority to use eminent domain, as a
last resort, to assemble and consolidate inadequately sized lots to facilitate their reuse.
hnntbcM99a dm nttir ponse 5
Res. No. 99-66
Other Blighting Conditions
In addition to the conditions described above, the documentation in the record also identifies
other blighting conditions that warranted the adoption and subsequent amendments to the Main-
Pier Redevelopment Plan. These conditions include inadequate public improvements (including
antiquated storm drain and sanitary sewer systems), and economic disuse and depreciated values
as compared to other beachfront communities such as Newport Beach and Dana Point.
Alleviation of these blighting conditions can be accomplished through the revitalization of the
Overlay Area by providing the Agency the necessary tools to assemble property, including the
authority to use eminent domain, as a last resort.
PART 2 -RESPONSES
This Response addresses each point raised in each written objection.
1. Objection by Alice Parnakian
a. "I feel very threatened by the agency using eminent domain to remove me from my residence
and my rental income. In the whole of Huntington Beach, there is no way that will find
another location where I will be able to relocate my residence and two rentals on a double
lot and look out at the Pacific Ocean when I get up each day. I am 72 years old and have
spend the majority of my life in this city. "
Response:
At this time, the Agency has made no decision to use eminent domain on residential property
in the Overlay Area and has not initiated eminent domain on residential property. Agency
action to remove housing would cause the Agency to provide relocation benefits to displaced
households, and provide replacement housing for displaced low and moderate income
households.
The Agency is mandated by Redevelopment Law to replace any units housing low or
moderate income families or households destroyed or removed by a redevelopment project
under either of the following conditions:
(a) Such a project is subject to a written agreement with the Agency, or
(b) When the Agency has provided financial assistance to such a project.
Section 33413 of the Redevelopment Law requires the Agency to rehabilitate, develop, or
construct(or cause to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed) replacement housing within
four years of the destruction or removal of any low or moderate income units. Not less than
75%of the replacement units are to be affordable to the same income levels of the units
destroyed or removed.
As provided by the State Relocation Law, any person displaced from the units removed from
the Project Area is eligible for relocation benefits (i.e. actual moving and related expenses).
huntbchMamendn=tLesponses 6
Res. No. 99-66
In such instances, the Agency is required to have a relocation plan that insures that no
persons or families of low or moderate income are displaced until there is a suitable housing
unit available and ready for occupancy. Such housing is to be available at rents comparable
to those at the time of displacement, and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and an otherwise
standard dwelling unit.
Finally,whether or not the 1999 Amendment is adopted,properties may be acquired by the
City(through its own eminent domain powers, if necessary)to complete public
improvements such as the extension of Pacific View Drive. Inasmuch as this writer's
property lies within the proposed alignment of this roadway, acquisition of this property may
be necessary even if the 1999 Amendment is not adopted.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the use of
eminent domain will not result in the permanent reduction of the City's supply of housing
affordable to low and moderate income households, and that households or businesses
displaced by an Agency project will be entitled to relocation benefits afforded by State Law.
2. Objection by James A. Lane
a. "This proposed ordinance would give the redevelopment agency the power of"Eminent
Domain"to condemn residential property and is unnecessary and will be very costly to
Huntington Beach taxpayers. The very idea that the City would take our homes so that it can
pursue a fraudulent redevelopment scheme that poses great risk to the general fund of the
community is appalling. It seems tome that this proposal is nothing more than a giant land
grab ofsome of the most valuable property in Southern California. "
Response:
The "fraudulent redevelopment scheme"is neither described nor supported by any evidence
in the objection. It appears that the comment is made in connection with the ongoing
discussions between the Agency and CIM regarding a development agreement for blocks 104
and 105. Despite the allegation of"great risk to the (City's) general fund" the Agency
current financial agreement with CIM actually provides a proportionately lower project
subsidy than what the Agency agreed to provide Overlay Area property owners in the 1993
Coultrup Owner Participation Agreement. Among the distinctions between these two
agreements are the following:
hwtbcM99=endrnmLWsWnses 7
Res. No. 9M6
Cog1trup Agreernwt CIM A reeme t
Project Value $15.3 Million $47.4 Million
(210% greater)
Agency Subsidy $5.3 Million(estimate) $8.0 Million
$40.92 per square foot $35.84 per square foot
(12% less)
City/Agency Revenues $180,000 Annually $1,409,000 Annually
(3.4%Return) (17.6%Return)
As it seems in the above analysis, the Agency and City stood at greater risk in the former
Coultrup Agreement than the current CIM Agreement.
Based on the information contained in the above response,the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,there is no
evidence of a fraud as alleged in the objection and this comment is without basis.
b. "The homes and apartments in the proposed area are not blighted. If a building is old and
has a historical background it deserves to be saved and restored so all the citizens of
Huntington Beach can celebrate and enjoy the early history of our great community. Does
the entire old downtown have to be pink or white stucco and plastic? Can't the citizens enjoy
a feeling of a true village atmosphere with quaint shops and stores without being over
powered and overwhelmed by tall buildings four or more stories in height?"
Response:
As indicated in the Background, the Project Area was conclusively determined to be blighted
upon adoption of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan in 1982 and subsequent amendments,
pursuant to Redevelopment Law. Further, land use controls, including design standards,
permitted uses, and building intensities, are established by the Downtown Specific Plan. The
1999 Amendment does not alter any land use provisions of either the Redevelopment Plan or
the Downtown Specific Plan.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the Project
Area is conclusively determined to be blighted, and the 1999 Amendment does not alter any
City or Agency policies and guidelines controlling land uses.
huntbchW9ammdment\msponses 8
Res. No. 59-66
3. Objection by Frank M. Cracchiolo
a. "Why not let these long tame property owners develop their own properties. Everything
would be new and there would be no need to condemn out anyone. This would save the city
over$12,000,000.00 in condemnation costs and a fortune in Attorney fees. "
Response:
Indeed, the Agency did work with Mr. Cracchiolo and other Overlay Area property owners to
redevelop their own properties. In 1993, the Agency entered into the Coultrup Owner
Participation Agreement, in which condemnation and removal of existing residential uses
was provided. Unfortunately, the Coultrup Agreement never was implemented. In 1997, the
Agency provided the same property owners a second opportunity to participate in the
redevelopment of blocks 104 and 105, and provided Mr. Cracchiolo's development team with
a request for qualifications on the project. In December 1998, after review of all
development proposals, the Agency selected CIM to develop the site.
In other areas of Downtown, the Agency has successfully worked with a number of property
owners and development entities to implement redevelopment in the area, including the
Abdelmuti, Koury, and Demonstration Block projects.
In regards to the alleged $12 million condemnation cost,the Agency is not aware of the
source of this figure. In the event that the Agency desires to acquire property in the future,
the offer to purchase must be not less than the property's fair market value based upon an
independent, certified appraisal of the property's highest and best use. Since eminent domain
has not been initiated on residential property in the Overlay Area, no such appraisals have
been performed, and, therefore, no condemnation cost figures could be known at this time.
Further,the 1999 Amendment does not prohibit the Agency from working with property
owners in the future, nor does it initiate any eminent domain action at this time. It is the
Agency's intention to use eminent domain as a last resort to facilitate completion of
redevelopment in the Overlay Area.
Based on the information contained in the above response,the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,property
owners within the Overlay Area have had or will have the opportunity to redevelop their
properties.
6on1bcM99amendrMtNresponses 9
Res. No. 9M6
b. "There is no Blighted property here. If you want to see Blight look at the city property with
high weeds, broken fences,potholes, and black canvas falling off the fences. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 2b above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the Project
Area is conclusively determined to be blighted.
c. "David Biggs and CI M. are trying to steal our property. They are using Eminent Domain
as a hammer to get us to negotiate in an unfair manner. This deal with David Biggs and
CI.M. is a bigger land give away than the Eri Goti project where the city gave him 11 Ocean
front lots along P.C.H. worth $11,000,000.00. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 2a above.
Also,the Agency has made no decision to acquire any residential property in the Overlay
Area by eminent domain. In the event that the Agency moves forward to acquire property,
the Agency would need to adhere to State Acquisition Guidelines and, as applicable, Eminent
Domain Law. These statutes mandate that the Agency pay not less than the fair market value
of a property's highest and best use,based upon a certified appraisal. Also, the law requires
the Agency to conduct a duly noticed public hearing to condemn property, and a
supermajority (2/3) of the Agency board must approve of the motion to condemn property.
Finally, property owners have the right to a jury trial, and may petition to recover legal costs
if the Agency's offer is determined to be unreasonably low. These and other procedural
requirements for property acquisition have been summarized in Attachment 3 to this
Response.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, there is no
evidence that the Agency can acquire property without just compensation and that any
acquisition by the Agency is statutorily required to follow the State Acquisition Guidelines
and Eminent Domain Law.
d. "Please reject this Amendment, so we may be able to negotiate in a fair and honest manner,
or reject the C.I.M. Project completely, so we can develop our own properties. "
Response:
See Response to Objections 3a and 3c above.
Also, the 1999 Amendment does not involve consideration of the C.I.M. project.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,there is no
h=fth\99amendmen1\respo¢sm 10
Res. No. 99-66
evidence that the Agency to acquire property without just compensation and that
consideration of the C.I.M. project is not a part of the proposed 1999 Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project.
4. Objection by Deanne R. Coombs
a. "I am appalled at the city trying to impose Eminent Domain for the financial profit of a
company from Los Angeles. Why not let the owners of this property be apart of the
redevelopment- why bring in outsiders who do not understand the importance of tradition in
our city."
Response:
See Response to Objection 3a above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,property
owners within the Overlay Area have had or will have the opportunity to redevelop their
properties.
5. Objection by Corinne Burton
a. "7here is plenty of land that needs to be developed in our city. The Huntington Center,for
example is practically a Ghost Town and definitely an eye sore -focus your money and
energy creating a new center. "
Response:
The Agency is focusing its efforts to eradicate blight and redevelopment the entire Project
Area, including both Huntington Center and the Downtown. Both districts present distinct
opportunities for the City to enhance their economic value and improve the Project Area. As
an area that has been the historic center of the community, Downtown serves as a front
window to 11 million visitors each year, and needs continued revitalization, the Downtown
cannot be overlooked in the Agency's efforts to redevelop the Project Area.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,
redevelopment of the Main-Pier Area, including the Overlay Area, is not complete, and the
1999 Amendment will enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program initiated in
1982.
huntbch199ameadmene,mI*ns" 1 1
Res. No. 99-66
b. "Downtown is beautiful and I commend all the work that has gone on thus far, however
taking away homes from residents is disgusting. Downtown is a safe place where I enjoy
taking my nieces and nephew. I would be heart broken if some of those cute little homes and
stores were taken away. I advise that you work with the owners of this property to improve
our city -do not farce them out so that a large impersonal company from Los Angeles can
decide what is best for our city. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 3a above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,property
owners within the Overlay Area have had or will have the opportunity to redevelop their
properties.
6. Objection by Donald R. White
a. "The residential properties deemed blighted are in the eyes of the beholder."
Response:
See Response to Objection 2b above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the Project
Area is conclusively determined to be blighted.
b. "The designation of Blight decreases property values and will decrease their tax value to the
city. "
Response:
Neither the Agency nor the redevelopment consultant(RSG) is aware of any detrimental
impacts that the designation of blight, inclusion of property in a redevelopment project area,
or eminent domain authority either in the Project Area or elsewhere among the 780 other
redevelopment project areas throughout the State of California. The designation of blight
relates to the Project Area, and not specific properties. As stated in Response to Objection
3c, the Agency is required by State law to acquire property based on a fair market appraisal,
and fund relocation expenses, so eminent domain authority does not cause a property to be
sold for less than its market value.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, there is no
evidence that creation of a redevelopment project area, identification of the Project Area as
blighted, or extension of eminent domain authority have any detrimental impact on property
values, and this comment is without basis.
huntb M99m=&nemlrespmses 12
Res. No. 99-66
c. `Many of the property owners are willing to build new. Why take their property and give it
to an outside developer when they can develop their own property. What has happened to
property rights of the owners? I feel the Redevelopment Agency should stop trying to take
residential homes and apartments away from citizens in our City for the benefit of the
Developers, and at the expense of property owners. If you want to purchase someone's
property for any reason you should negotiate in a fair and honest manner and not use the
threat of Eminent Domain as a "sledge hammer"bargaining tool. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 3a above.
Also, as summarized in Attachment 3, State law specifies stringent acquisition activities to
protect the rights of property owners. These steps include opportunities for owner
participation, offers to purchase at no less than the fair market value (based on an
independent appraisal), and ultimately, right to a jury trial.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,property
owners within the Overlay Area have had or will have the opportunity to redevelop their
properties, and property owners rights are protected under Eminent Domain Law and other
applicable State and federal laws.
7. Objection by William J. Ross
a. "I firmly believe that the use of eminent domain,particularly on a private resident, or
property owner, is wrong at the most basic Americana level. "
Response:
Both state and federal law provide the authority of public agencies to use eminent domain.
This authority is extended to redevelopment agencies because redevelopment has been
determined by state law to be a public purpose and public use for which eminent domain can
be utilized.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, eminent
domain authority is provided to redevelopment agencies under applicable law.
b. "I do not support any decision by the City to use the power of the courts against the few who
have a personal investment in the city over large corporations that have primary goals of
financial growth for their investors, and in a lesser way, growth and beautification of the
city. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 3a above.
haatbchk99amcnMcntkeepm9e9 13
Res. No, 99-66
Also, this comment is not supported by evidence of any"large corporation" failing to
successfully redevelop the Project Area. The Agency and property owners are responsible
for the successful implementation of redevelopment in the Project Area. For its part, the
Agency continually endeavors to identify persons and entities that have the financial
capability and development acumen to undertake projects that achieve the goals of the
Redevelopment Plan. Foremost of these is the elimination of blight in the Project Area.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,there is no
evidence that persons and entities involved in the redevelopment of the Project Area have
failed to achieve the goals of the Redevelopment Plan, and this comment is without basis.
S. Objection by Orville La Venture
a. "I surf a lot and I use this Garage to change clothes before Igo surfing. I also use this space
to entertain my friends. I enjoy this life style. I will never in my lifetime be able to afford to
rent a unit this close to the ocean for the amount of rent I am now paying. "
Response:
The Agency is mandated by Redevelopment Law to replace any units housing low or
moderate income families or households destroyed or removed by a redevelopment project
under either of the following conditions:
(a) Such a project is subject to a written agreement with the Agency, or
(b) When the Agency has provided financial assistance to such a project.
Section 33413 of the Redevelopment Law requires rehabilitate, develop, or construct(or
cause to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed)replacement housing within four years of
the destruction or removal of any low or moderate income units. Not less than 75% of the
replacement units are to be affordable to the same income levels of the units destroyed or
removed.
As provided by the State Relocation Law, any person displaced from the units removed from
the Project Area is eligible for relocation benefits (i.e. actual moving and related expenses).
In such instances, the Agency is required to have a relocation plan that insures that no
persons or families of low or moderate income are displaced until there is a suitable housing
unit available and ready for occupancy. Such housing is to be available at rents comparable
to those at the time of displacement, and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and an otherwise
standard dwelling unit.
huntbch%9&nen&m ttrespons" 14
Res. No. 9M6
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,the use of
eminent domain will not result in the permanent reduction of the City's supply of housing
affordable to low and moderate income households, and that households or businesses
displaced by an Agency project will be entitled to relocation benefits afforded by State Law.
9. Objection by Alisa R. Bree
a. "Haven't you already torn down enough historical Huntington Beach buildings? The
property owners in downtown Huntington Beach paid for their land and they have a right
to get fair-market value for their property,IF they wish to sell their property! It is not the
city's decision or right to condemn these properties and give this land to outside developers.
Whatever happened to property owners'rights? Where and when are you people going to
stop?
Response:
With regard to property owner's rights and the eminent domain process, see Response to
Objection 6c above.
As indicated on the final proposed boundaries of the Overlay Area presented at the joint
public hearing, the Worthy property at Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street(which is on the
national historic register) is no longer included in the Overlay Area.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, property
owners within the Overlay Area have had or will have the opportunity to redevelop their
properties, and property owners rights are protected under Eminent Domain Law and other
applicable State and federal laws, and that the Worthy property is no longer included in the
Overlay Area.
b. "The traffic and congestion is unbelievable! Why are you ignoring the addition traffic
burden,your decision to give this land to outside developers to develop, would only
exacerbate?"
Response:
Traffic impacts are generated by land use changes in the area,not adoption of the 1999
Amendment. The 1999 Amendment does not propose to alter land use designations in the
Overlay Area; redevelopment in the Overlay Area would need to conform to the Downtown
Specific Plan, as well as other applicable City building codes and standards. The impacts of
these land uses on traffic and other environmental matters are addressed in the accompanying
environmental documentation, subject to further environmental review by the City as specific
projects are proposed. As addressed in the Negative Declaration for the 1999 Amendment,
there are no traffic impacts created by adoption of the 1999 Amendment.
h=tbch199a dmentVespmues 15
Res. No. 9M6
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, adoption
of the 1999 Amendment does not create any traffic or other environmental impacts.
c. "Taxes? I realize this is the excuse that is frequently touted at City Council meetings. I
frequently watch these meetings. I am appalled at the disregard this City Council has far the
views and concerns of the citizens of Huntington Beach. The above mentioned Eminent
Domain, and Wal-Mart are prime examples."
Response:
Economic development initiatives such as Downtown revitalization and the Wal-Mart project
(which is incidentally not located in the Project Area) are necessary for the City to maintain a
revenue base to provide essential municipal services to residents. As a community with an
increasing residential population, and a relatively stagnant commercial base,Huntington
Beach is forced to provide greater service levels with a revenue base lower than many other
cities in Orange County. Other options, such as increasing taxes or diluting service levels,
would create a economic hardship throughout the community. In this regard, through
economic development activities like Downtown redevelopment, the City and Agency are
seeking the means to deliver services to its residents with the least impact to the overall
community.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, adoption
of the 1999 Amendment is necessary to effectuate the completion of the Agency's
redevelopment program in Downtown.
10. Objection by Terry Rylski
a. "I am against Eminent Domain! Do I as a property owner need to worry about this city
someday taking away my property! Do I need to disclose to my clients that there is a
possibility of losing their property after they purchase it because the city council wants to
REDEVELOP all the old and replace it with new. "
Response:
The writer apparently resides at Pier Colony (200 Pacific Coast Highway) and is a
beneficiary of past redevelopment efforts. Since Pier Colony was a redevelopment project
which necessitated the use of eminent domain to complete site assembly, as such it is not
affected by the 1999 Amendment. The Agency cannot acquire this property by eminent
domain,with or without the 1999 Amendment.
The Agency advises this real estate agent to follow all applicable disclosure laws. In fact, a
title report on any real property in the Project Area would normally indicate that it is located
within a redevelopment project area.
Finally, the purpose of the 1999 Amendment is not to redevelop all old structures in the
Project Area. In fact, the Agency has successfully undertaken a rehabilitation effort on the
hun[hchW9arnmdmentVcaponm 16
Res. No. 99-66
west side of the 200 block of Main Street in which many older structures were preserved.
Also, the Agency is currently in discussions with the owners of the Worthy property, a
national registered historic building, to restore this structure. However, such restoration
projects are generally not possible in the Overlay Area,because of land use incompatibilities
and nonconforming residential buildings. In these instances, a more extensive redevelopment
effort is warranted.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the Pier
Colony project is not affected by the 1999 Amendment, and the purpose of the 1999
Amendment is to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
b. "I was taught that Eminent Domain was a last resort to be used for the good of the public.
What are you doing with the property you acquire."
Response:
In general, the purpose of the Agency's involvement in projects in the Downtown is to
implement the Redevelopment Plan. For example, the Agency has acquired property in the
Downtown to remove obsolete and unsafe properties, and cause development of projects like
Pier Colony,where this writer resides. At this time, the Agency does not have specific plans
for all properties in the Overlay Area,with the exception of the CIM project on blocks 104
and 105, where the Agency has entered into a disposition and development agreement to
facilitate reuse of this area for hotel and commercial uses. These uses are consistent with the
Downtown Specific Plan.
Based on the information contained in the above response,the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
c. "Isn't it true that the present property owners have the means and desire to develop
independently? Why don't you let the property owners do their own refurbishing and or
rebuilding or make their own negotiations with developers of their choice instead of being
forced to cooperate with an outside developer chosen by your staff, or feel the hammer of
Eminent Domain come down on their heads. "
Response:
See Response to Objections 3a and IOa above.
h=bcM99amen&mmt�mponses 17
Res. No. 99-66
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
11. Objection by Ralph Peck
a. "These families are very much opposed to your plan and also personally offended by calling
them blighted and low income families, because they choose to live at the beach."
Response:
The designation of blight,made at the time the components of the Main-Pier Redevelopment
Project Area were included in 1982 and 1983 does not apply to specific properties,but
instead the overall Project Area. It is not clear in this comment whether the writer opposes
the Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan (which designates the property owners
blocks for nonresidential uses), or the 1999 Amendment itself. Nonetheless, the purpose of
the 1999 Amendment is limited to extending the ability of the Agency to use eminent domain
to acquire property in the Overlay Area; the Downtown Specific Plan, originally adopted in
1983, establishes land use policy in this area.
With regard to the comment on the Agency calling residents in the area low income families,
it has not been the Agency's intention to label any specific households in the area as low
income. Indeed, the Agency does not have specific information regarding the income levels
of residents in the Overlay Area. However,because Redevelopment Law requires the
Agency to convene a project area committee if a substantial number of low or moderate
income households could be subject to eminent domain by the 1999 Amendment, the Agency
proceeded with the 1999 Amendment under to assumption that some households in the
Overlay Area could be of this income level.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
b. "We are not opposed to redevelopment by those that wish to willfully do so. But we are,
without a doubt, overwhelming opposed to the way the city representatives of Huntington
Beach have,for almost thirty years, used scare tactics and threats of condemnation to
acquire from my family our beach home and income property to be handed to private
developers. The Planning Commission refers to our property as blighted. Ourproperty is
not in anyway blighted. "
Response:
With regard to the blight issue, see Response to Objection 2b above.
Between 1982 and 1994, the writer's property was subject to eminent domain under the
original time limits established by the Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan. Agency staff
hpntkW99arnrndmentMmponseg 18
Res. No. 99-66
recollects that there has been no occasion that any eminent domain action has been initiated
with respect to this property. The 1999 Amendment only provides the Agency the authority
to use eminent domain within the Overlay Area, but does not initiate any eminent domain
action.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
c. "A vote for condemnation, of our property or any other private property, is an outrageous
crime against our free society. And to think we are about to have anyone call it legal in
America to steal property from us in the name ofpublic good is very wrong. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 7a above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
d. "Your Planning Department talks of relocating ourselves and our tenants. Your plan is
unacceptable to all of us. We want to live on the beach where we are -not where you want to
put us. "
Response:
Since 1983, the Downtown Specific Plan designated properties along the 100 block of Pacific
Coast Highway for nonresidential, Visitor Commercial use. The 1999 Amendment does not
alter land use policies.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearingand other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,the 1999
Amendment does not affect land uses in the Downtown Specific Plan, and is necessary to
enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the Downtown.
12. Objection by„Shekhar Karnik
a. "To evoke eminent domain to free up land currently held by local businesses and residents
would be a great move...if one intended to sever links with our past. If we begin to alienate
loyal citizens who have lived here for decades, then just who are we aiming to please?"
hmthchN"mm menC\resp mn 19
Res. No. 99-66
Response:
The Agency is seeking to complete redevelopment of the Downtown that was initiated
approximately 17 years ago. The purpose of redevelopment in the Downtown has been to
eliminate blight and improve this area for the entire community,both City residents and
visitors, to enjoy.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
13. Objection by Louise P. Fiorillo
a. "This City constantly misuses the term "blight" in connection with commendation. Older
homes do not constitute blight. Our property is not blighted. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 2b above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the Project
Area has been conclusively determined by the Agency to be blighted.
b. "It is time that the Redevelopment Agency stops trying to take residential homes and
apartments away from its taxpayers and residents for the benefit of Developers. Why should
I have to spend my income to sue the City and its appointed developer to retain what is
legally, ethically and rightfully mine? The right to own property is insured under the U.S.
Constitution. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 7a above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
c. "It is outrageous for this City, and its appointed developer to think they could relocate our
tenants, and us to the same environment now enjoyed, not to mention monetary
compensation. "
Response:
In the event that the Agency is involved in a project that necessitates relocation,the Agency
will adhere to State Relocation Lave and seek to provide tenants decent, safe and sanitary
housing in the community. Property owners would be compensated for the fair market value
AuntbW99amcndmentVuponm 20
Res. No_ 99-66
of their properties,based upon a independent appraisal, and provided relocation assistance
pursuant to State Relocation Law.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the
Agency will adhere to State law with regard to relocation opportunities and benefits.
d. "Mr. David Biggs states, `There is no legal cause to compensate a property owner for the
location, or view afforded by the property. ' At the same time stating, `The land(ours) is
valuable to a developer for its location and proximity to the beach.
Response:
During Project Area Committee meetings at which property acquisition procedures were
discussed, this issue was addressed. The determination of Fair Market Value includes factors
such as location and views. See the response in 3c above for more discussion of the property
acquisition and valuation process.
14. Objection by-Gloria G. Treece
a. "First, I am aware that the constitution has made it possible for imminent domain to be used
in cases of`public good. " I am in favor of this idea when it is applied sensibly. However, in
the pending case of our community. I feel this does not apply. It does not apply because of
the conditions that have arose from the redevelopment consequences that are apparent in the
downtown area. I have lived in this area for thirty-five years and have observed the changes.
Redevelopment has not changed things for the better. In fact, it has created a Bourbon
Street"environment. "
Response:
The 1999 Amendment does not affect land use policy in the Overlay Area. In fact,pursuant
to the Redevelopment Plan, land uses,building guidelines, and development standards must
conform to the Downtown Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. As such
redevelopment within the Overlay Area, as well as in the greater Project Area, must conform
to the Specific Plan and General Plan, irrespective of whether the Agency adopts or
implements eminent domain in the Overlay Area.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,the 1999
Amendment does not alter any City or Agency policies and guidelines controlling land uses.
b. "Also, the type of business'do not cater to the community, rather they cater to younger
people (teenagers) and tourist, who do not have a vested interest in the community. Many of
the businesses that our community needs have been unable to survive in the downtown area.
Places like bookstores that have a positive effect upon the community. I feel that your duty is
to frx the existing problem of Main Street, rather than continue to build what are risky
speculative projects. "
huntkhk"amendnw6responnes 21
Res. No. 99-66
Response:
Again, land use policies are controlled by the Downtown Specific Plan and other applicable
City building standards and policies. The 1999 Amendment doe not affect these policies, nor
involve the approval of any specific project.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment does not alter any City or Agency policies and guidelines controlling land uses,
nor involve the approval of any specific project.
c. "I realize that many of the areas targeted for eminent domain are run down and unsightly.
The city should support its community members by helping there upgrade their properties,
rather than forcing them out...The term used by the staff as blight is very liberal. If these
places are taken and redeveloped what is next."
Response:
With regard to the comment that the Agency and City should work with property owners to
upgrade and improve their properties, see Response to Objection 3a above. Blight was
addressed in the Background section of this Response, as well as Response to Objection 2b.
Further, the 1999 Amendment extends residential eminent domain authority within the
Overlay Area only; further extension of the Agency's eminent domain powers in the
Redevelopment Plan would require undertaking another amendment as prescribed by
Redevelopment Law.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,property
owners within the Overlay Area have had or will have the opportunity to redevelop their
properties, and property owners rights are protected under Eminent Domain Law and other
applicable State and federal laws. Further,based upon such evidence, the Project Area is
conclusively determined to be blighted.
d. `Another point is that the property owners in the imminent domain area have worked hard to
acquire the places they have and are not getting a fair deal, by being forced to sell. Some
are onfixed incomes and use their rentals as a main source ofsurvival. It is very cruel to
take the livelihood aware from senior citizens."
Response:
See Response to Objections 1a and 3c, above.
In the event that the Agency acquires property,property owners may use sales proceeds to
purchase replacement rental property. Also, the law provides many economic and tax
benefits whenever the Agency condemns property, including the ability to maintain the
current property tax basis, Agency-paid nonrecurring closing costs (such as property transfer
taxes), and extended reinvestment protection from federal capital gains taxes.
huntboh199emendment\r ponws 22
Res. No. 99-66
Based on the information contained in the above response,the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the use of
eminent domain will not result in the permanent reduction of the City's supply of housing
affordable to low and moderate income households, and that households or businesses
displaced by an Agency project will be entitled to relocation benefits afforded by State Law.
15. Objection by Stefan Wally
a. "Moreover, despite reassurances from the city attorney, it is clear that some current council
members may be acting unethically if they vote for the eminent domain proposal. I urge
those of you who have interests in the property to be redeveloped to do some simple thinking
and not use your office for personal gain. "
Response:
Prior to the joint public hearing, the City Attorney reviewed and advised each Council
member/Agency board member regarding potential conflicts of interest that could limit their
participation in the consideration of the 1999 Amendment.
b. "In addition, in a society in which private property rights are among our most fundamental
values, city councils should not be allowed to evict people from their homes, even if we are in
the midst of a real estate boom and some anonymous planning/consulting body has promised
big profits from overbuilding on the Oceanfront. "
Response:
The legal authority of the Agency to use eminent domain was addressed in Response to
Objection 7a above, and land use policies were addressed in Response to Objection 14a
above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
16. Objection by Wayne and Joy Reinert
a. "I'm against H.B. Power of Eminent Domain and all the destruction of I.B. affordable
housing for corporate tax base gain, or any of their reasons. "
Response:
The reasons for the 1999 Amendment were addressed in the Background section of this
Response, as well as the Response to Objection 7b above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
hmtbch199a d mmtVesp=m 23
Res. No. 99-66
17. Objection,by David J. Castenholz
a. "First of all, given this country's support and protection of private property rights, as
contained in, among other things, the Bill of Rights, use of eminent domain should be one of
last resort and only when it is absolutely essential to protect the health and safety of the
general populous. I do not believe that eminent domain is being proposed for that purpose
here, but rather for purposes of power and greed. "
Response:
The legal authority of the Agency to use eminent domain was addressed in Response to
Objection 7a above. Further, the 1999 Amendment does not initiate any eminent domain
proceeding, but only extends the time limit within which the Agency may commence
eminent domain on residential property within the Overlay Area.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
b. "The Redevelopment Agency could offer no legitimate reason for taking blocks 101, 104, and
105 by eminent domain. Blight was not a factor; indeed, no one from the City ever argued
that it was. Rather, it was clear that the Redevelopment Agency wanted the CIM
Development Group to develop blocks 104 and 105 without any concerns whatsoever for the
property owners or the local population. And no legitimate reason was ever given for the
taking of block 101. "
Response:
The reasons for the 1999 Amendment were addressed in the Background section of this
Response, as well as the Response to Objection 7b above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
c. "Having served on the Project Area Committee, I cannot recall a single person who
appeared at any of the meetings in order to support the amendment allowing for additional
use of eminent domain. Rather, each and every individual who spoke on this issue was
adamantly opposed to it. "
Response:
In fact, according to the report of the Project Area Committee, PAC member Hass did speak
out in favor of the 1999 Amendment, and voted as such. The minutes of the PAC also
indicate a number of instances where residents or property owners expressed concerns or
questions about redevelopment; however,they were not"adamantly opposed."
hunthchl99a dmmt\a ponm 24
Res. No. 99-66
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, opposition
to the 1999 Amendment was not unanimous.
d. "The Redevelopment Agency and the City of Huntington Beach will not be adversely affected
if the amendment is defeated. However, the population of Huntington Beach and, more
importantly, the local population will be severely adversely affected if the Amendment is
passed. "
Response:
The reasons for the 1999 Amendment were addressed in the Background section of this
Response, as well as the Response to Objection 7b above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
e. "I am more than a bit curious why additional efforts have not been made by the City to work
with the current property owners to bring about whatever desired results the City of
Huntington Beach has for those parcels. Ultimately, however, it is the property owners
themselves -- and not the City of Huntington Beach or the Redevelopment Agency or any
other group or individual-- who have the right to determine the use of their own property. "
Response:
The legal authority of the Agency to use eminent domain was addressed in the Response to
Objection 7a above, while the Agency's work with property owners was addressed in
Response to Objection 3a above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
18. Objection by Dave Winn
a. "This new design does not make our property or others like them, blighted though, they are
just old. To the eyes ofsome, these old properties stand in the way of their grand visions.
Response:
See Response to Objection 2b above.
Based on the information contained in the above response,the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the Project
hunWch199a cndm t\responses 25
Res. No. 99-66
Area is conclusively determined to be blighted, and the 1999 Amendment does not alter any
City or Agency policies and guidelines controlling land uses.
b. "It seems the Downtown Plan "changes with the wind. " There is much confusion about
"what"is being developed, and there seems to be no answer as to "how"things are going to
be developed. The grand plan is either hidden or it doesn't really exist, or it only exists in
the minds of a few dangerous people. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 10b
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the City
Council hereby finds that the 1999 Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to
complete its redevelopment program in the Downtown.
0
19. Objection by Michael H. Leifer(on behalf of Charles Cather)
a. Mr. Cather objects to the City of Huntington Beach's proposed Amendment on the
grounds that(1)the public interest and necessity do not require the proposed project;
(2) the proposed project is not planned or located in a manner that will be most
compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury and; (3) the
subject parcels are not necessary for the proposed project.
The 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan
("Plan Amendment") is not applicable to the Objector's property. The Plan Amendment will extend
the Agency's power of eminent domain to residential property located within the designated
Eminent Domain Residential Overlay Area in the Main-Pier Subarea of the Redevelopment Project.
Objector is the owner of nonresidential property within the Overlay Area. The Agency already has
the authority to acquire nonresidential property by eminent domain under the Redevelopment Plan
as it now exists. No plan amendment is necessary to acquire nonresidential properties.
b. The City is incapable of conducting a fair, legal and impartial hearing regarding the
consideration of the Proposed Amendment. Any hearing resulting in acceptance of
the Amendment by the City would be a predetermined result because the City has
shown that it has previously committed itself to accept the same.
The public hearing conducted by the Agency and City Council was to determine whether the
Redevelopment Plan should be amended to permit the use of eminent domain should be extended
to residential properties within the 4-block Residential Overlay Area. The public hearing is not a
hearing to determine whether the Agency will exercise its powers of eminent domain to acquire
specific property within the Area.
C. The City has failed to prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Public
Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., in violation of the California Environmental
hmnbcM99amendm"tVcq"5es 26
Res. No. 9M6
Quality Act Substantial evidence exists which demonstrates that the proposed
redevelopment project will create a significant impact on the environment.
Where an amendment to an adopted redevelopment plan is proposed, CRL § 33457.1 provides that
to the extent warranted by the proposed amendment to a redevelopment plan, the reports and
information required by Section 33352, including an EIR) shall be prepared and made available to
the public prior to the hearing on such amendment.
CEQA § 21090 and § 21166 provide that all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant
to, or in furtherance of, a redevelopment plan shall be deemed to be a single project. However,
further environmental review of any public or private activity or undertaking pursuant to, or in
furtherance of, a redevelopment plan shall be conducted only if substantial changes are proposed in
the project requiring major revisions of the EIR, substantial changes occur with respect to
circumstances under which the project is undertaken, or new unknown information becomes
available.
Environmental Impact Reports were prepared for the adoption of the Main-Pier Plan and for the
merger of the redevelopment plans in 1996. For the 1999 Amendment, an Initial Study was
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, which found that the Amendment would not result in any
environmental impacts. The 1996 EIR No. 96-2 was utilized in the analysis of the Plan
Amendment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. The Plan Amendment would result in no
substantial changes in the Project which would require major revisions in EIR No. 96-2, no
substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken, and no new
information, which was not known or could not have been known at the time EIR No. 96-2 was
certified.
d. The taking of the subject parcels are not necessary to eliminate blight, as the subject
parcels are not blighted. The City has failed to demonstrate that substantial evidence
exists to support a finding that the subject parcels are blighted. Blight does not result
from alternative economic or viable uses with a goal to develop commercial property.
Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law requires the Report to Council to contain,
among other things:
A "Blight Report" which gives the reasons for selecting the project area; describes specific
projects then proposed by the agency; and describes how these projects will improve or
alleviate the conditions of blight. It further describes the physical and economic conditions
that exist and cause the project area to be blighted.
Where an amendment to an adopted redevelopmennt plan is proposed, CRL § 33457.1 provides that:
"To the extent warranted by the proposed amendment to a redevelopment plan, (1) the ordinance
adopting an amendment to a redevelopment plan shall contain the findings required by Section
33367 and (2) the reports and information required by Section 33352 shall be prepared and made
available to the public prior to the hearing on such amendment."
hun1hch\99=endm"r\r Mses 27
Res. No. 9"6
The Reports prepared for the adoption of the original Redevelopment Plan established the required
blight in the Project Area for the Project Area as a whole. There is no requirement, and the Agency
is not finding, that any particular parcel is blighted. Although the Agency has redeveloped portions
of the Project Area, redevelopment is needed in the Overlay Area to address ongoing blighting
conditions and to implement the Redevelopment Plan. These conditions include obsolescence and
physical deterioration, substandard residential units, narrow and inadequate lots under mixed
ownership and incompatible uses. Blight in the Project Area was finally and conclusively
established in 1996. See Part I of these Responses above.
e. The City has failed to provide adequate notice to Mr. Cather of his right to participate
in the redevelopment project pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 33339, et
seq.
Mr. Cather has not been adequately notified that he has a right to participate in the
redevelopment project
The requirements for participation in the redevelopment project are unreasonable.
The Redevelopment Plan first adopted in 1982 included provisions for participation in the Project
by existing owners. Rules and regulations regarding participation were adopted by the Agency at
that time. Notice of the initial adoption of the Plan in 1982 and its amendment in 1996 included
notice of participation opportunities. No development project is proposed for the Objector's
property,thus,no notice of participation is required. The Plan Amendment and its hearing is not an
eminent domain hearing to determine the right to take specific property. The Plan Amendment
only will extend the Agency's power of eminent domain to residential property located within the
designated Eminent Domain Residential Overlay Area in the Main-Pier Subarea of the Project. At
such time as the Agency commences planning for development of the Objector's property, Mr.
Cather will be notified and extended the opportunity to participate in accordance with the Agency's
adopted Rules for Owner Participation.
20. Objection by John M. Starks
a. 'I certainly don't see how the `public welfare"can be improved by adding more apartment
dwellings, condominiums, commercial and/or other land uses which will increase traffic
noise and congestion in the already overcrowded downtown area. I once looked forward to
regular visits to the city's downtown district. Now it is a place I make a strong effort to
avoid due to the traffic congestion, over-commercialization, high crime caused by outsiders,
and an overall anti family atmosphere, and I feel that these problems will only become worse
if you carry out your eminent domain proposal. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 9b above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
humbcb199amendmemhespanses 28
Res. No. 99-66
Amendment does not alter the Downtown Specific Plan's land use policies, and is necessary
to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the Downtown.
21. Letter from Timothy J. Stripe of Grand Pacific Resorts
This letter did not present any objections to the 1999 Amendment, and thus no response is
required.
22. abjection by Rita Bohanan
a. "Three of you should be precluded from voting due to the fact that you have properties
within the limits of this project causing an obvious conflict of interest. One that is prohibited
by law. "
Response:
See Response to abjection 15a above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the City Attorney did review and
advise all Council members/Agency board members regarding potential conflicts of interest
on the 1999 Amendment.
b. "The City Council, Code enforcement Officials and our City Attorney's have already
demonstrated their obvious inability to enforce our already existing codes and laws
governing properties in various states of disrepair. Had your departments kept up with the
complaints of the voters living around that property as well as other properties in town, the
properties in question in the Downtown area would not have become "blighted"by anyone's
standards in the first place. Your track record in these cases affecting code enforcement
does not inspire me to think that new buildings will not suffer the same fate as the existing
properties, sometime in the future, and become blighted all over again. "
Response:
Blight in the Project Area, and the Agency's historic efforts to improve the Project Area were
addressed in the Background section of this Response.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its redevelopment program in the
Downtown.
c. "It is my understanding that the owners of the properties in question have agreed to
rehabilitate their properties and if your interest is in the best interest of the property owners
and this City, then I see no reason you shouldn't be elated to work with them on their
proposals. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 3a above.
h=tbch194a m&nent\a"ses 29
Res. No_ 99-66
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,property
owners within the Overlay Area have had or will have the opportunity to redevelop their
properties.
d. "In at least one case and maybe others, it is my opinion that you may be in violation of the
historical site laws as well. "
Response:
See Response to Objection 9a above.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council,the
Worthy property is no longer included in the Overlay Area.
e. "If you seize valuable property to give to out of town developers in one area of town, what
reason do we.residents,property and business owners have, to believe you will stop there?
What will keep you from feeling compelled to `REDEVELOP'other areas of downtown for
our own good and seizing more property?"
Response:
The 1999 Amendment extends residential eminent domain authority within the Overlay Area
only; further extension of the Agency's eminent domain powers in the Redevelopment Plan
would require undertaking another amendment as prescribed by Redevelopment Law.
Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the
public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the 1999
Amendment only applies to residential property located within the Overlay Area.
23. Objection by Jeffrey Oderman, on behalf of CARE, et al.
The following is a response to each point in this Objection, with numbers in the margin
corresponding to the point addressed in the Response.
The Comments and objections made regarding the adoption of the 1999 Redevelopment Plan
Amendment and the environmental assessment conducted with respect thereto are inconsistent with
a proper understanding of the redevelopment process required by the Community Redevelopment
Law, and the use of CEQA and a project EIR in the redevelopment process. Review and analysis
of Comments and the Responses thereto must take into consideration a prescribed legal process.
COMMENT 1
Comment 1 summarizes the grounds for objections to the adoption of the 1999 Redevelopment
Plan Amendment. These grounds are:
huntbcM99amendm ntVe pansm 30
Res. No. 99-66
(1) Approval of the project based upon a Negative Declaration violates CEQA and a full EIR
evaluating the impacts of the proposed project and other closely related, past, and
reasonably foreseeable and probable projects.
(2) There is no substantial evidence in the record that the condemnation of residential
properties in the selected portions of the Project is necessary to the execution of the
Redevelopment Plan.
(3) There is no substantial evidence in the record that conditions of blight continue to exist in
the Project Area or the portions affected by the Plan Amendment.
(4) There is no substantial evidence in the record that supports a finding that the adoption and
carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible.
(5) The Plan Amendment is being undertaken to implement the Disposition and Development
Agreement between the Agency and CIM Group LLC ("CIM DDA') for certain properties
located within Blocks 104 and 105, and that the Plan Amendment is subject to all legal
objections raised with respect to the CIM DDA.
The majority of the objections to the Plan Amendment are based on objections to the CIM DDA
which implements the adopted Redevelopment Plan. It is the Objectors contention that the Plan
Amendment has the same impact on the environment as the CIM DDA and the environmental
assessment of the Plan Amendment should have included an in depth assessment of the DDA.
The Plan Amendment objections are based on the objections made by the Objectors to the CIM
DDA which was approved on June 7, 1999. The Objectors' filed a Superior Court action on July 7,
1999 challenging the validity of the CIM DDA. Objectors attempt to raise all of the issues in this
lawsuit in their objections to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. All issues
raised with respect to the validity of the CIM DDA, which received its own environmental
processing distinct from the subject Plan Amendment, will not be responded to in these Responses
to Objections to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. They will be appropriately addressed in
court.
hunthch\"mmdmmt\repo 31
Res. No. 99-66
CRL and CE A Provisions Applicable to the Plan Amendment
Redevelopment is a process which implements a plan to halt and eliminate the existence of blight
found in an area, and involves exhaustive and continued planning and study, including
environmental assessment. The assessment of the potential environmental impacts of a proposed
redevelopment plan requires a careful melding of two statutory processes: those prescribed by the
Community Redevelopment Law and those prescribed by CEQA. The Community Redevelopment
Law sets forth comprehensive procedures which must be followed step-by-step before an area may
be declared blighted and redevelopment instituted pursuant to a redevelopment plan. Health &
Safety Code, § 33000,et. seq.
The Community Redevelopment Law requires the Agency to prepare and submit the
Redevelopment Plan to the City Council, along with a comprehensive report analyzing and
summarizing the proposed Project ("Report to Council"). While the EIR is an integral element of
the planning,preparation and adoption of a redevelopment plan and approval of a project, it is only
one component of the Report to Council and a fraction of the redevelopment plan adoption process.
Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law requires the Report to Council to contain the
following, among other things:
1. A "Blight Report" which gives the reasons for selecting the project area; describes
specific projects then proposed by the agency; and describes how these projects will
improve or alleviate the conditions of blight. It further describes the physical and
economic conditions that exist and cause the project area to be blighted.
2. An implementation plan that describes specific goals and objectives of the agency,
specific projects then proposed, including a program of actions and expenditures
proposed to be made within the first five years of the plan, and describes how these
projects will improve or alleviate the conditions of blight.
3. An explanation of why the removal of blight and redevelopment of the project area
cannot reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting
alone, or by the city council's use of financing alternatives other than tax
increment financing.
4. The proposed method of financing the project.
5. A relocation method or plan for the relocation of families and persons to be
temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the project area.
6. The report and recommendations of the planning commission.
huntb6\94amrndmentlusponses 32
Res. No. 99-66
7. An EIR as required by Section 21151 of CEQA. CEQA § 21151 requires all
local agencies to prepare and certify the completion of an EIR on any project that
they may intend to carry out or approve which may have a significant effect on the
environment. Any significant effect on the environment shall be limited to
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions which
exist within the area which will be affected by the proposed project.
8. A neighborhood impact report which describes in detail the impact of the
project upon the residents of the project area and the surrounding areas, in
terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of
community facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of
education, property assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical
and social quality of the neighborhood.
Accordingly, the EIR is but one component of a much broader Report to Council, and must be
interpreted and construed along with the whole of this Report and the Redevelopment Plan in
determining its adequacy under CEQA.
Where an amendment to an adopted redevelopment plan is proposed, CRL § 33457.1 provides
that: "To the extent warranted by the proposed amendment to a redevelopment plan, (1) the
ordinance adopting an amendment to a redevelopment plan shall contain the findings
required by Section 33367 and (2) the reports and information required by Section 33352
shall be prepared and made available to the public prior to the hearing on such amendment."
CEQA § 21065 states that a "Project" means an activity which may cause either a direct physical
change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment.
CEQA § 21090 provides:
For all purposes of this division, all public and private activities or undertakings
pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a redevelopment plan shall be deemed to be a single
project. However, further environmental review of any public or private activity or
undertaking pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a redevelopment plan shall be
conducted at any of the events specified in Section 21166 have occurred.
CEQA§ 21166 states in part:
When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to
this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be
required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the
following events occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the environmental impact report.
huntbcM99w=dmmi\mpmcs 33
Res. No. 99-66
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the
environmental impact report.
(c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes
available.
The State Guidelines implementing CEQA §§ 21090 and 21166 state that: All public and private
activities or undertakings pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a redevelopment plan shall be deemed to
be a single project. § 15180. Section 15180 continues that an EIR on a redevelopment plan
shall be treated as a program EIR with no subsequent EIRs required for individual
components of the redevelopment unless a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR is
required by Section 15162 or 15163.
The Guidelines [§ 15168] defines a Program EIR as an EIR which may be prepared on a series of
actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
(1) Geographically.
(2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions.
(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to
govern the conduct of a continuing program,or
(4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or
regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can
be mitigated in similar ways.
Agency Process for Preparation and Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment
On September 20, 1982, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2528, which established the
Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. On September 6, 1985, the City Council by amendment
enlarged the Main-Pier Project Area. Between 1983 and 1995, the Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan
authorized the use of eminent domain by the Agency to acquire property in the Project Area. In
1995 the Agency's power of eminent domain to acquire property in the Main-Pier Project Area
lapsed, subject to extension by plan amendment. On December 16, 1996, the City Council merged
five redevelopment plans, including the Main-Pier Plan, into the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Plan. This action also extended eminent domain authority to nonresidential property in the Main-
Pier Area.
A Report to Council including the then applicable components prescribed by CRL § 33352 above
was prepared for each of the actions taken(collectively,the "Original Reports"). An environmental
assessment was conducted for each adoption and amendment of the Redevelopment Plans.
hunthch199amen�nmtlresperoses 34
Res. No. 9M6
Redevelopment of the downtown is essential to the overall economic stability of the City of
Huntington Beach, its greatest assets being the Pacific Ocean beaches and the Huntington Beach
Pier. These two amenities attract approximately 11 million visitors per year, yet the economic
benefits of these assets are largely untapped. Clearly, the City must enhance its revenue base in
order to provide services to its 200,000-person population. An area of prime focus is the downtown
area. Because of the daily tourist visits,the City is pursuing an economic development strategy that
calls for recycling older, blighted properties with new visitor-serving commercial uses. Through
redevelopment, the Agency may pursue the assemblage of smaller parcels of property into larger
parcels that can accommodate new development. However, the current Plan limitations on eminent
domain hinders this effort in the core downtown area.
Since residential uses are interspersed throughout the blocks in the core downtown area,
development of the area will need to incorporate property on which persons currently reside.
Without the ability to acquire residential properties through eminent domain, the Agency is missing
an essential tool to complete redevelopment in the Main-Pier Area.
In light of the above, it was proposed that the 1999 Redevelopment Plan Amendment be adopted
which would extend the use of eminent domain as a last resort to acquire residential property
located within the Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Area. The 1999
Redevelopment Plan Amendment was prepared pursuant to CRL §§ 33457.1 and 33352 as set forth
above.
As provided in § 33457.1, to the extent warranted by the Plan Amendment proposal to extend the
Agency's power of eminent domain to residential property in the 4-black Overlay Area, the Agency
prepared a Report to City Council. Where the Plan Amendment did not affect components of the
existing Report to Council,no additional information or data was included.
Environmental Impact Reports were prepared for the adoption of the Main-Pier Plan and for the
merger of the redevelopment plans in 1996. For the 1999 Amendment, an Initial Study was
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, which found that the Amendment would not result in any
environmental impacts. The 1996 EIR No. 96-2 was utilized in the analysis of the Plan
Amendment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. The Plan Amendment would result in no
substantial changes in the Project which would require major revisions in EIR No. 96-2, no
substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken which would
require major revisions in EIR No. 96-2, and no new information, which was not known or could
not have been known at the time EIR No. 96-2 was certified.
The 1999 Redevelopment Plan Amendment in itself does not cause any direct or indirect physical
change in the environment in addition to the physical change anticipated and analyzed in the
certified EM-s which have already been prepared for the Project. The 1999 Amendment merely
extends the Agency's legally authorized eminent domain power already authorized by the Plan, to
the 4-block Residential Overlay Area which had previously been excluded.
hunthch199arn=dmen6responsos 35
Res. No. 99-66
COMMENT 2
This Comment complains of failure to address the specific purported impacts of the CIM DDA in
the environmental assessment for the 1999 Plan Amendment.
As shown above in the Response to Comment 1, the CIM DDA underwent its own environmental
assessment prior to approval, and the issues raised here are the subject of a pending court challenge.
The extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain to the Overlay Area has received its own
environmental assessment in full compliance with applicable law, as detailed above. In addition,
the CIM DDA did not include precise development standards. Thus, this level of analysis would be
premature and must await the submission of specific development plans for approval.
COMMENT 3
This objection is based on the Agency's purported failure to address significant adverse traffic
conditions that will be caused by the CIM development.
These issues are raised in the pending litigation cited above, and will be appropriately addressed in
court. The addition of Agency power of eminent domain to the Overlay Area will not result in
additional traffic impacts in the area above and beyond those already considered in the prior
environmental documents.
COMMENT 4
This objection complains of the failure of the Negative Declaration for the 1999 Plan Amendment
to address LOS along Pacific Coast Highway, which EIR No. 96-2 assumed would be satisfactory
between the years 1996 and 2010 because of street widening work.
This issue would not be appropriately addressed in the environmental assessment of the effects of
the Plan Amendment. The addition of Agency power of eminent domain to the Overlay Area will
not result in additional traffic impacts along Pacific Coast Highway. The assumption in the EIR
was that satisfactory LOS would be achieved between the years 1996-2010. This is 1999. It is the
Objectors' unsupported belief that the assumption will not be realized during this period.
COMMENT 5
This Comment objects to the failure of the 1999 Plan Amendment to address the significant
increases in projected background traffic occurring in the area.
This issue need not be addressed in the Plan Amendment extending the Agency's power of eminent
domain to the 4-block Overlay area. Traffic levels and increases appropriately will be addressed
when there is a proposed Plan implementation activity which results in significant effects on traffic.
hunthch199amendmentlresponses 36
Res. No. 99-66
COMMENT 6
This Objection would require the update of the traffic analysis for the Project Area before the Plan
Amendment can move forward. This is based on the allegation that traffic from the CIM
development will greatly exceed traffic increases projected in EIR No. 96-2.
Specific issues with respect to the CIM development will be addressed appropriately in the pending
litigation on this matter. The Plan Amendment does not approve parking,FAR, height or any other
development standards for a precise CIM development. These effects will be addressed upon
review of specific plans when submitted pursuant to appropriate City regulatory and environmental
procedures. Absent those plans, it is premature to address these effects in the Plan Amendment
extending eminent domain.
The action of extending eminent domain to the 4-block Overlay Area will not create additional
traffic. Traffic generation and increased volumes will be considered when there is a traffic
generating Plan implementing activity which will produce new impacts in the area.
COMMENT 7
This Objection states that by approving the Plan Amendment and the CIM DDA, the Agency and
the City are ignoring the City's Circulation Element which requires that a city-wide LOS for
roadway links not exceed LOS C for daily traffic and to improve roadways and intersections that
are approaching, or have reached,unacceptable levels of service.
Specific issues with respect to the CIM development will be addressed appropriately in the pending
litigation on this matter. The action of extending eminent domain to the 4-block Overlay Area will
not create additional traffic as no specific development standards are proposed in the CIM DDA or
the Plan Amendment.
COMMENT 8
This Comment complains that the approval of the CIM development causes the amount of
downtown development to greatly exceed what was assumed would occur in the Downtown
Specific Plan and related Downtown Parking Master Plan,which was not addressed in the Negative
Declaration for the Plan Amendment.
Specific issues with respect to the CIM development will be addressed appropriately in the pending
litigation on this matter. The action of extending eminent domain to the 4-block Overlay Area is
not relevant to the amount of development permitted in the downtown. The Plan Amendment does
not approve parking, FAR, height or other development standards for the CIM development or any
other development. These standards will be addressed when review of specific development plans
are submitted for review and approval. Any consideration at this point is premature and not
directly relevant to the extension of eminent domain powers to the Overlay Area.
hunihcM99a endure et pnnses 37
Res. No. 99-66
COMMENT 9
It is claimed that the Negative Declaration ignores the significant concern for parking adequacy.
There is a particularly significant concern for parking adequacy because of the higher parking
requirements due to the massive increase in restaurant and retail space proposed for Blocks 104 and
105.
Specific issues with respect to the CIM development will be addressed appropriately in the pending
litigation on this matter. The Plan Amendment does not approve or provide development standards
for the CIM development. These standards will be addressed when review of specific development
plans are submitted for review and approval. Any consideration at this point is premature and not
directly relevant to the extension of eminent domain powers in the Overlay Area.
COMMENT 10
This Comment complains that approval of the Plan Amendment and the Negative Declaration
violates both the Downtown Parking Master Plan and the clear mandate of CEQA because the Plan
Amendment facilitates the CIM development project.
Specific issues with respect to the CIM development will be addressed appropriately in the pending
litigation on this matter. The action of extending eminent domain in the 4-block Overlay Area is
not relevant to the adequacy of parking in the downtown area. Neither the CIM DDA nor the Plan
Amendment include development standards for the CIM development. These standards will be
addressed when specific development plans are submitted for review and approval. Any
consideration at this point is premature and not directly relevant to the extension of eminent domain
powers to the Overlay Area.
COMMENT 11
The Objectors' contend that it is inexcusable of the City/Agency's refusal to address parking
deficiency because of the clear mandate in the City's certified LCP, Downtown Specific Plan and
Downtown Parking Master Plan.
The Plan Amendment does not include development standards for the CIM development or any
other development in the Overlay Area. No specific development plans have been approved for the
CIM development. Development square footage, parking spaces and parking utilization and
compliance with City regulatory plans will be considered and addressed when specific development
plans for construction are submitted for review and approval.
COMMENT 12
This Comment contends that there is clearly no adequate informational base upon which the
City/Agency could approve a Negative Declaration on the parking issue, because the City has not
conducted annual review and monitoring of development square footage per use and parking spaces
as required by the Downtown Parking Master Plan.
h=tbch199arnenc�n=0msFKmm 38
Res. No. 99-66
The Negative Declaration for the Plan Amendment could not appropriately address these issues.
The Plan Amendment merely extends the Agency power of eminent domain in the Overlay Area.
It does not include development standards for any development which will occur in the Overlay
Area. Development square footage, parking spaces and parking utilization and compliance with
City regulatory plans will be considered and addressed when specific development plans for
construction are submitted for review and approval.
COMMENT 13
This Comment claims that the CIM project will create a 400 space parking deficiency, in addition
to eliminating a substantial amount of off-street surface parking within Blocks 104 and 105.
Specific issues with respect to the CIM development will be addressed appropriately in the pending
litigation on this matter. The action of extending eminent domain in the 4-block Overlay Area will
not create parking deficiencies as no specific development standards are proposed. Development
square footage, parking spaces and parking utilization and compliance with City regulatory plans
will be considered and addressed when specific development plans for construction are submitted
for review and approval.
COMMENT 14
This Comment proposes that a new EIR needs to be prepared that focuses on a building-by-
building analysis and does not look only at the overall supply of and demand for parking in the
greater Downtown area, as neither the Plan Amendment Negative Declaration nor EIR No. 96-2
adequately address the Downtown parking problems.
The Plan Amendment extends the Agency's eminent domain powers in a 4-block Overlay Area.
Under the CRL and CEQA, the Agency is required to conduct additional study only to the extent
warranted by the action proposed to be taken. The Plan Amendment does not change
development square footage, parking spaces and parking utilization in the Overlay Area. Thus,
additional study will be considered and addressed when specific development plans for
construction or other implementing activity which impact the area are proposed.
COMMENTS 15 AND 16
These Comments state that neither the Plan Amendment Negative Declaration nor EIR 96-2
address the significant adverse parking impacts during the construction period of the CIM
development or the seasonality of the Downtown parking supply and demand.
The Plan Amendment will extend the Agency's power of eminent domain in the Overlay Area
which in itself will not create adverse parking impacts. Both the Plan Amendment and the CIM
DDA underwent separate environmental assessments prior to approval. The approval of the CIM
DDA is the subject of a pending court challenge, and all issues with respect to that development
will be addressed in the litigation.
COMMENTS 17, 18 AND 19
nu,cxn 99amcmaP=c nses 39
Res. No. 99-66
These Comments raise issues with respect to the lack of consistency of the CIM project with the
Downtown Parking Master Plan, land use standards of the Downtown Specific Plan and LCP and
the resulting significant aesthetic impacts and loss of ocean views.
The approval of the CIM DDA is the subject of a pending court challenge, and all issues with
respect to that development will be addressed in the litigation. The Plan Amendment extension of
Agency powers of eminent domain in the Overlay Area does not impact these purported
inconsistencies.
COMMENT 20
This Comment complains that neither the Plan Amendment Negative Declaration nor EIR 96-2
contain any analysis of the impacts that the massive CIM project would have on adjacent and
nearby cultural resources.
The Plan Amendment's extension of Agency powers of eminent domain in the Overlay Area does
not impact cultural resources in the area. The CIM DDA is the subject of pending litigation, and all
issues with respect thereto will be addressed in court. In addition, approval of the CIM DDA was
pursuant to a separate environmental assessment, and the project will be subjected to additional
environmental study when specific development construction plans are prepared and submitted for
approval.
COMMENT 21
Comment 21 contends that the Plan Amendment Negative Declaration contains an inadequate
project description, fails to consider the entire project, and improperly chops the project into "bite-
size pieces."
The Plan Amendment and the Negative Declaration were approved and adopted pursuant to CRL §
33457.1 and CEQA § 21090. The Project (Redevelopment Plan) was adopted in 1996 for which a
full EIR was prepared. The Plan Amendment changes the adopted Redevelopment Plan
by extending the Agency's powers of eminent domain in an identified 4-block Overlay Area. In
accordance with CRL 33457.1 and CEQA 21090, when adopting the Plan Amendment, only those
findings, reports and information need be prepared that are warranted by the amendment action
being taken. In addition, CEQA provides that subsequent and supplemental EIRs for a
Redevelopment Plan need be prepared only when substantial changes are proposed in the Project,
substantial changes occur in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken or unknown
new information becomes available. The act of extending the Agency's eminent domain power
does not fit into any of the required categories.
huntbchl49mrmdm tVespon 40
Res. No. 99-66
COMMENT 22
This Comment contends that the Negative Declaration fails to use the proper "base line" for
environmental analysis, in that environmental impacts and their significance must be measured by
comparing the "project" against the existing environment,not some previous plan.
The subject action here is a Plan Amendment and its environmental assessment which are subject to
the special provisions provided in the CRL and CEQA. See Response to Comment 21 above.
COMMENT 23
This Comment contends that the Negative Declaration fails to recognize that the Plan Amendment
is not a paper exercise, and requires that an environmental analysis address the full impacts of the
build-out of the CIM project.
The CIM DDA is the subject of pending litigation, and all issues with respect thereto will be
addressed in court. In addition, approval of the CIM DDA was pursuant to a separate
environmental assessment, and the project will be subjected to additional environmental study
which specific development construction plans are prepared and submitted for approval.
COMMENT 24
The Negative Declaration fails to properly address the cumulative impacts of the Plan Amendment
and requires a full analysis of the CIM project as a closely related past, present or reasonably
foreseeable probable future project.
The Plan Amendment merely extends the Agency powers to eminent domain in the Overlay Area.
It does not change any other provisions of the adopted Redevelopment Plan, and presents no new
cumulative impacts. The CIM DDA is an implementing activity pursuant to the adopted
Redevelopment Plan which is the Project for CEQA purposes. It is not a separate project. Thus,
the treatment of the CIM project as cumulative development in the Negative Declaration would be
inappropriate. In addition, the CIM DDA is the subject of pending litigation, and all issues with
respect thereto will be addressed in court.
COMMENTS 25-28
These Comments disagree with staff assertion that the power to acquire residential properties by
eminent domain is necessary as a last resort to execute the adopted Redevelopment Plan.
The Plan Amendment provides the Agency greater ability to acquire residential parcels in the
Overlay Area to encourage the continued redevelopment of the downtown area to visitor-serving
and commercial uses. The Agency currently has the authority to use eminent domain on
commercial properties and is in need of the added ability in order to assemble adequate land parcels
for the type of development planned for the area. Despite the Agency's best efforts,redevelopment
still is needed in the Overlay Area to address ongoing blighting conditions and to implement the
Redevelopment Plan. These conditions include obsolescence and physical deterioration,
huntbW99amendmenAmpons 41
Res. No. 99-66
substandard residential units, narrow and inadequate lots under mixed ownership and incompatible
uses. See Part I of these Responses above. Agency staff will continue to work with existing
owners in its attempt to enhance the overall economic vitality of the area. As with its use of
eminent domain heretofore,the Agency will continue to use its powers sparingly.
COMMENTS 29-31
These Comments object to the Agency's purported display of favoritism for outside developers to
the detriment of existing owners.
These Comments are not relevant to the Plan Amendment to extend the Agency's power of eminent
domain to residential uses in the Overlay Area. The owners cited in the Comments are
nonresidential owners. The Agency now has eminent domain powers over nonresidential
properties under the Redevelopment Plan without the adoption of the Amendment.
COMMENT 32
This Comment states that there is no substantial evidence of blighting conditions sufficient to
justify reactivation of the Agency's power to condemn residential properties; that the Agency is
required to re-establish the current existence of blight in the areas in question.
The Reports prepared for the adoption of the original Redevelopment Plan established the required
blight in the Project Area. Although the Agency has redeveloped portions of the Project Area,
redevelopment is needed in the Overlay Area to address ongoing blighting conditions and to
implement the Redevelopment Plan. These conditions include obsolescence and physical
deterioration, substandard residential units, narrow and inadequate lots under mixed ownership and
incompatible uses. Blight in the Project Area was finally and conclusively established in 1996.
See Part I of these Responses above.
COMMENT 33
This Comment states that there is no substantial evidence in the record that implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan Amendment is economically sound and feasible. These Comments focus on a
purported lack of financial analysis that shows that the CIM project is feasible.
Objectors misinterpret the required finding of economic feasibility set forth in CRL § 3367(d)(3).
This finding is directed to the feasibility of the entire Project, not each specific development which
may occur thereunder. The feasibility of the Project was established in the 1996 Plan adoption
process. The Plan Amendment merely extends the Agency powers of eminent domain in the
Overlay Area which does not change the method of financing the Project. The financial feasibility
of the CIM project and any other specific development is not a proper subject of the Plan
Amendment. The feasibility of a DDA is determined during the process of approving the DDA. In
addition, the CIM project is the subject of a pending lawsuit, and all issues with respect to that
project will be addressed in court.
COMMENT 34
hunthW99wrwndment%m"se9 42
Res. No. 99-66
This Comment attempts to incorporate all of the legal objections made in opposition to the CIM
DDA into the objections to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment.
As stated above, Objectors have already filed a court action challenging the validity of the CIM
DDA, all issues with respect to the DDA will be addressed in that action. The Plan Amendment
extends the Agency powers of eminent domain in the Overlay Area and does not have the same
impact on the environment as the CIM DDA.
Additional Response to Exhibit H of Oderman Objection
Incorporated into the Oderman Objection was Exhibit H, a letter dated August 15, 1999 from
Marshall Krupp of Community Systems Associates, Inc. (CSA). As specific,point-by-point
analysis of the CSA letter follows below. Notations in the margin of the CSA letter
correspond to each point addressed in this Response.
Comment 1
See Part 1-Background of this Response regarding the issue of blight.
The finding of blight was conclusively determined by the City Council when the original
Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan was adopted, as well as in subsequent amendments to the
Redevelopment Plan in 1983 and 1996. Further, Redevelopment Law does not require that
the Agency resubstantiate the existence of blight when undertaking an eminent domain
amendment. Despite this, the Agency did submit substantial documentation of blight into the
public record during the August 16 public hearing.
Comment 2
See Part 1-Background of this Response regarding the issue of blight.
Comment 3
This comment provides no support for the claim that the properties in the Overlay Area are
"an integral element to the prosperity...over the past fifteen years", nor how some continue
the character of the beachfront business and residential community which this are is known
for. In fact, residential uses have not been permitted in this are since the Downtown Specific
Plan since its adoption in 1983. In addition, these properties have not yet redeveloped since
the original Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1982, and the evidence in the record
indicates that these properties face numerous blighting conditions. In the case of blocks 104
and 105,the property owners themselves acknowledged the need to redevelop their
properties, and entered into the Coultrup Disposition and Development Agreement in 1993.
Comment 4
See Part 1-Background of this Response regarding the issue of blight.
Comment 5
The comment that "capital investment and development is evident in the Project Area"is not
applied to the Overlay Area,which is the subject of the 1999 Amendment. Again, as
hunt1)ch\99an=dmemlrapomes 43
Res. No. 99-66
discussed in the Background section of this Response, the evidence in the record supports the
basis for the 1999 Amendment.
Comment 6
The 1996 Amendment/Merger is not being reconsidered as a part of the 1999 Amendment..
The comment that the documentation in the 1996 Report to the City Council is too brief or
not sufficient in view of the author is purely argumentative, and does not refute the existence
of blight, nor the need for the 1999 Amendment. In fact, the City Council did conclusively
determine that based upon the evidence presented in 1982, 1983, and 1996 that the Project
Area is blighted. Again, see the Background section of this Response for discussion of blight
in the Project Area.
Comment 7
See the Background section of this Response with regard to the Agency's past efforts to
redevelop properties in the Overlay Area. Also, the Agency has not made any decision to use
eminent domain to acquire at this time, so there are no specific instances to refer to where
eminent domain could occur.
Comment 8
The Redevelopment Plan contains a list of projects and authorities that identify the Agency's
intentions for the Project Area. Land use controls are set forth in the Downtown Specific
Plan. The 1999 Amendment does not alter any provision of the Redevelopment Plan with
respect to the potential projects which maybe undertaken by the Agency,nor any land use
controls that affect the ultimate use of redeveloped property in the Project Area.
Comment 9
See Part 1-Background of this Response regarding the issue of blight. Again, though
Redevelopment Law does not require resubstantiation of blight for an eminent domain
amendment, the Agency supplied substantial evidence into the record at the public hearing.
Comment 10
See Part 1-Background of this Response regarding the issue of blight.
Redevelopment Law does not direct redevelopment agencies to ignore the basis for
establishing a redevelopment project area when amending a redevelopment plan, even if the
definition of blight changed. The definitions of blight that were instated in 1994 apply only
to new project areas or areas added to redevelopment project areas. Since 1983,no territory
was added to the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area, and the 1999 Amendment does not
add territory to the Project Area.
Comment 11
See Part 1-Background of this Response regarding the issue of blight.
Comment 12
The specific addresses referenced in this comment are not located in the Overlay Area.
hunrbrM99amrndmea\mpwses 44
Res. No. 99-66
Comment 13
When the original Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1983, eminent domain was
determined to be necessary to the removal of blight, and was provided in the Redevelopment
Plan. With regard to the reasons for the 1999 Amendment,please see the Background
section of this Response.
Comment 14
The CSA letter included 16 photographs of the Project Area. Only three of the CSA photos
depict residential properties actually within the Overlay Area, and many show properties
which the Agency has undertaken redevelopment activities. The relevance of this survey is
questionable, since there is little description as to how the photographs relate to the
allegations made in the CSA letter. Captions such as "typical business (or residential)
activity within the traditional beachfront community" are vague. Whether these captions are
to indicate that properties are not deteriorating, on lots of inadequate size, surrounded by
incompatible uses, is unclear. Not one of the photographs depicted residential units adjoining
oil facilities, an acute problem in the Overlay Area. None of the photographs showed
obvious signs of physical deterioration that affects 80% of the residential units in the Overlay
Area. A photo survey of the specific blighting conditions in the Overlay Area are included
in Attachment 2 to this Response.
hmthchi99amendm eaP ponse 45
Res. No. 9M6
ATTACHMENT 1
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
1. Alice Parnakian, 205 First St. (Owns property in Overlay Area)
2. James A. Lane, 637 Frankfort Ave (Owns property in Overlay Area)
3. Frank M. Cracchiolo (Owns property in Overlay Area)—2 Letters
4. Deanne R. Coombs, 711 Pacific Coast Highway(Resides in Project Area)
5. Corrine Burton (Does not reside or own property in Project Area)
6. Donald R. White (Does-not reside or own property in Project Area)
7. William J. Ross (Does not reside or own property in Project Area)
8. Orville La Venture (Does not reside or own property in Project Area)
9. Alisa R. Bree (Does not reside or own property in Project Area)
10. Terry Rylski (Owns property in Project Area)
11. Ralph Peck (Owns property in Overlay Area)
12. Shekhar Kamik(Does not reside or own property in Project Area)
13. Lousie P. Fiorillo (Owns property in Overlay Area)
14. Gloria G. Treece (Owns property in Project Area)
15. Stefan Wally (Does not reside or own property in Project Area)
16. Wayne&Joy Reinert
17. David J. Castenholz, (Rents property in Project Area)
18. Dave Winn (Owns property in Project Area)
19, Michael H. Leifer(on behalf of Charles Cather)
20. John M. Starks
21. Timothy J. Stripe, Grand Pacific Resorts
22. Rita Bohanan
23. Jeffrey M. Oder-man (on behalf of CARE, Abdelmuti Development, Bagstads,Mases)
huoebch199amendmentlesponses
Res. No. 99-66
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 7th
day of September, 1999 by the following vote:
AYES: Green, Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan
NOES: Bauer, Garofalo
ABSENT: Julien
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California