HomeMy WebLinkAboutRedevelopment Agency - 304 }
{
RESOLUTION NO. 3 0 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
APPROVING THE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE
1999 AMENDMENT-TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND TRANSMITTING THE REPORT AND
1999 AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has prepared an
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("1999
Amendment") in the form attached herewith as Exhibit "A," in accordance with the provisions of
Article 12 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health & Safety Code Section
3300, et seq. ("CRL"); and
The Agency submitted the 1999 Amendment to the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach for its report; and
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1544 on June 8, 1999, determining that-
the 1999 Amendment conforms to the City's General Plan and that the Amendment to the Plan
will.facilitate continued revitalization of downtown, and enhance the Agency's ability to pursue
elimination of blight and improvement of the Project Areas infrastructure, aesthetics and
commercial base and employment opportunities; and
The Agency submitted the 1999 Amendment to the Project Area Committee; and
On July 21, 1999, the Project Area Committee adopted a minute order recommending
against adoption of the 1999 Amendment, and will be issuing a report to the City Council
supporting its recommendation; and
Pursuant to Sections 33352 and 33457.1 of the CRL, the 1999 Amendment submitted by
the Agency to the City Council must be accompanied by a report on the proposed redevelopment
plan; and .
The Agency has prepared a Report to City Council on the 1999 Amendment, submitted
herewith as Exhibit "B," d
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which attached
hereto as Exhibit"A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is
hereby approved; and
1
g:4:99resol:l 999rda
Agency Resolution No. 304
2. That the Report on the 1999 Amendment, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit`B" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby
approved; and
3. That the Executive Director of the Agency is hereby authorized and directed to
transmit the Report and the 1999 Amendment to City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the And day of 4uC2y6 r , 1999.
i
Chairman
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
kt
Agency Clcrk Agency General Counsel
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: ��3/a?IN ATED AND APPRO VIED•
Execut' e Director D ector o Economic evelop nt
2
&4:99resol:1999rda
7N .
RES. NO. 304
1999 AMENDIVT:ENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, adopted on
December 16, 1996 by Ordinance 3343 (the "Plan"), is hereby amended as follows:.
Table of Contents (second page) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Exhibit A:. Project Area Maps
Exhibit B: Legal Descriptions
Exhibit C: Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements Projects
Exhibit D: . Oakview Public Acquisition Map
Exhibit E: Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Map"
Section 101 (page 1) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SECTION I. (100) INTRODUCTION
A. (101) General
This is the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
("Plan"), located in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California.
It consists of the text (Sections 100 through 1200), the Project Area Map of Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") (Exhibit A), the legal description of
the Project Area boundaries (Exhibit B), a listing of the proposed public facilities and
infrastructure improvement projects (Exhibit C), aiid a map of the properties potentially
subject to acquisition by eminent domain within the Oakview Area (Exhibit D), and a
map of the properties on which any persons legally reside which are potentially sub'eci t to
acquisition by eminent domain within the Original and Added Main-Pier Areas (Exhibit
(No ficrther revisions to this section.)
Section 603 (page S) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
`B. (602) Property Acquisition
1. (603) Acquisition of Real Property
Without limitation, the Agency may acquire real property, any interest in
property, and any improvements on such property by any means authorized by
law including, without limitation, by gift, grant, exchange, purchase, cooperative
negotiations, lease, option, bequest, or devise.
In addition, the Agency may acquire real property, any interest in property, and
any improvements on such property by eminent domain, with the following "
exceptions:
humb,h\99mmmime nt\:urctxheu 1 04/01/99
• RES. NO. 304
a. Within the Yorktowri=Lake Area and Talbert-Beach Area, the Agency shall
not have the authority to acquire property by eminent domain,
b. Within the Original Main-Pier Area and Added Main-Pier Area, the Agency
shall not have the authority to acquire, by eminent domain, property on
which any persons legally reside unless such property is located within the
Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Area as shown on Exhibit E,
and this new limitation shall supersede any and all previous limitations on the
Agency's powers of eminent domain within the Original and Added Main
Pier Areas including, but not limited to, Resolution No.48, and
c. Within the Oakview Area, the Agency shall not have the authority to acquire,
by eminent domain, property which is excluded from the Oakview Public
Acquisition Map, incorporated herein as Exhibit D.
Exoept foi the Qalrcxi'iew A.-ea and as JthefuA,i-se pr-eyided herein, of ether-wise
pffe—ded by !a;.;,, no efmnent domain b
D-ajeet Are shall be e�,.,�., enee.l afte-- twelve (12) following i the date f
... Area shall .... .......�......,,.,... after- twelve �i...�� �vu>.s >va>v r>•»tb. ii>c.�ctrc.—fir
adeption of the er-dinance this Plan. With respeet to pr-opefties identifi
b
an Exhibit D n eminent domainpfeeeedi rt to aequiiree p r in ti, " fl 1.
view
adoption of Ordinance • , afnending
the Redevelopment Plan foF the
Oakview RedeN,ele.—��-ejeet. This Plan does notamend, or other-.-ise
ehanb e tke b
eney's eminent domain authef:ities established by the adoption e
The time limitations on the commencement of eminent domain shall be as
follows:
1) Properties subject to eminent domain within the Oakview Area - no eminent
domain action shall commence after July 5, 2001.
2) Properties within the Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Area
(Exhibit E) - no eminent domain action shall commence after
2011.
3) All other areas subject to eminent domain by this Plan - no eminent domain
action shall commence after December 16. 2008.
Such time limitations may be extended only by amendment of this Plan.
To the extent required by law, the Agency shall not acquire real property on
which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present
form and use without the consent of the owner, unless: (1) such building requires
structural alteration, improvement, modernization or rehabilitation; or (2) the site
or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape or use;
or "(3) it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standards,
restrictions and controls of this Plan and the owner fails or refuses to participate in
the Plan pursuant to Sections 605 to 609, inclusive of this Plan and applicable
provisions of the Redevelopment Law."
huntbch\99wm tvJi ent\andtcat 2 04/01/99
RES NO. 304
EXHIBIT E of
MAIN-PIER RESIDENTIAL EMINENT DOMAIN
OVERLAYACQUISTHONTMAP
RES. NO. 304
Amended Residential
Eminent Domain
Overlay Area,
O QO
tiiy� P �`QP O
OA,
PALM AVE.
O
ACACIA AVE. G O�
�.
z G Q,P
a
W yo Q
a
PECAN AVE.
ORANGE AVE.
OLIVE.AVE.
F
Q
Z
�-
S � sZ o Z
z : f:•
O
W N
WALNUT AVE. :?
R. ilk
o
.::: ...:::..
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
W
a
.......................................
.............:.................................:...
PACIFIC OCEAN
RES. NO. 304
gm
n U' x. rr,�v �< s .,✓r 7�da a '
.R
�`'.,�.s..� �.,�,,,...tea.,��,,,'`i,� .� a Y.. ..,.,.., "?'. �..».,,�,,,. Ems.:'., �1:: .�,.�.<;��'*�,....,,,/�,e,�ls,»�r/ �,tf. .�'� ••: ss ,,, ,,,::..+aa,..��,�.�". '^#A.�.��„ �i � ,
*16OCT t
RES. NO. 304
1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Prod ect
Report t® the City. Council
Prepared for:
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
July 20, 1999
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc.
540 N.Golden Circle,Suite 305
Santa Ana,CA 92705
Phone 714.541.4585
Fax 714.836.1748
E-Mail: RSGINCCA@aol.com
RES. NO. 304
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................i
SECTIONA ...........................................................................................................1
Reasons for Amending the Redevelopment Plan and a Description of Specific
Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting
Conditions Found in the Project Area
SECTIONB ...........................................................................................................2
A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the Project Area
SECTION C
Five-Year Implementation Plan
SECTIOND ...........................................................................................................4
Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot Be Accomplished by
Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the City Council's Use of Financing
Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment
SECTIONE ...........................................................................................................5
The Method of Financing
SECTIONF ...........................................................................................................6
The Relocation Plan
SECTIONG ...........................................................................................................7
Analysis of the Preliminary Plan
SECTIONH ...........................................................................................................8
Report of the Planning Commission.
SECTIONI ...........................................................................................................9
Report of the Project Area Committee
SECTIONJ .........................................................................................................10
General Plan Conformance
RES. NO. 304
SECTION PAGE
SECTIONK .........................................................................................................11
Environmental Documentation
SECTIONL .........................................................................................................12
Report of the County Fiscal Officer
SECTIONM .........................................................................................................13
Neighborhood Impact Report
SECTIONN .........................................................................................................14
A Summary of Agency Consultation With Affected Taxing Agencies
RES? NO. 304
INTRODUCTION
On September 20, 1982, the Huntington Beach City Council ("City Council") adopted Ordinance
No. 2528, which established the 5-block Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area at Pacific Coast
Highway and Main Street. On September 6, 1985, the City Council amended the Main-Pier
Redevelopment Plan via Ordinance No. 2634, enlarging the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project
Area to 336 acres ("Main-Pier Area").
Between 1982 and 1995, the Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan provided the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ("Agency") the authority to use eminent domain to
acquire any real property in the Main-Pier Area. During this period, while sparingly used,
eminent domain was an essential part of the Agency's redevelopment activities. On December
16, 1996, the City Council merged its five redevelopment plans into the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") and, at the same time, extended the Plan's eminent domain
authority to nonresidential property in the Main-Pier Area. However, since 1995, the Agency has
been prohibited from using eminent domain to acquire residential property in the Main=Pier
Area.
Background and Purpose
Redevelopment of the downtown is essential to the overall economic stability of the City,
because it adjoins one of the City's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean beaches and Huntington
Beach Pier. These two amenities attract approximately 11 million visitors per year, yet the
economic benefits of these assets are largely untapped. According to the City's taxable sales
statistics, the downtown core accounts for approximately 2% of the total taxable sales activity in
the City, or $329,000 annually despite the fact that 11 million visitors per year frequent the area.
Communities need to capitalize on their unique assets to sustain long term economic viability;
this has not been the case in Huntington Beach. According to the State Board of Equalization,
Huntington Beach ranked 20`h out of the 31 Orange County cities in taxable sales in 1997,
despite having a regional mall, a destination auto row, and virtually every major retailer in the
City. 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 downtown Huntington Beach. Given 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. One tool the City can use to
accomplish this objective is assembling smaller parcels into larger parcels that can accommodate
new development. Through redevelopment, the City may legally pursue property assembly.
However, the current Plan's limitations on eminent domain hinders this effort in the core
downtown area.
Because residential uses are interspersed throughout the blocks in the core downtown area,
redevelopment of this area will need to incorporate residential properties. However, without the
ability to acquire residential properties through eminent domain, the Agency is not capable of
using an essential tool to complete redevelopment projects in the Main-Pier Area.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 i Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
As the Agency envisions possible property acquisition activities for future redevelopment
projects, the Agency is proposing to amend the Plan to permit the use of eminent domain to
acquire residential properties in the core downtown within the Main-Pier Area ("1999
Amendment"). The 1999 Amendment would allow the use of eminent domain, as a last resort, to
acquire residential property located within the Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay
Map ("Overlay Area"), per the 1999 Amendment. If approved, the 1999 Amendment would
provide the Agency a 12-year time period, starting from the date the 1999 Amendment is
adopted, to commence eminent domain actions in the Overlay Area.
Report to the City Council
This document is the Agency's Report to the City Council ("Report") on the proposed 1999
Amendment and has been prepared pursuant to Section 33457.1 and 33352 of the California
Community Redevelopment Law ("Law"). Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Law, the Agency is
required to submit a Report containing specific documentation regarding the proposed 1999
Amendment. The purpose of this Report is to provide the information, documentation, and
evidence required to support the adoption of the 1999 Amendment. This information,
documentation, and evidence is provided to assist the City Council when considering proposed
1999 Amendment, and in making determinations in connection with its adoption.
With respect to the 1999 Amendment, this Report supplements the documentation and evidence
contained in the three preceding Reports to the City Council ("Original Reports") prepared in
connection with the formulation of the original Main-Pier Redevelopment Plans and current
merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan. These Original Reports are incorporated herein
by reference.
The contents of this Report are presented in 14 sections that correspond to the subdivisions
presented in Section 33352 of the Law. The sections are as follows:
SECTION A Reasons for Amending the Redevelopment Plan and a Description of
Specific Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or
Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area
SECTION B A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the
Project Area
SECTION C Five-Year Implementation Plan
SECTION D Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot be
Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the City Council's
Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment
SECTION E The Method of Financing
SECTION F The Relocation Plan
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 ii Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION G Analysis of the Preliminary Plan
SECTION H Report of the Planning Commission
SECTION I Report of the Project Area Committee
SECTION J General Plan Conformance
SECTION K Environmental Documentation
SECTION L Report of the County Fiscal Officer
SECTION M Neighborhood Impact Report
SECTION N A Summary of Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 iii Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION A
Reasons for Amending the Redevelopment Plan and a
Description of Specific Projects Proposed and How
These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting
Conditions Found in the Project Area
The 1999 Amendment would permit the use of eminent domain to acquire residential property in
the Overlay Area for a 12-year period, or until August 2011. Exhibit 1 presents the boundaries of
the Overlay Area. An estimated 51 residential units (comprising 43 residential tenants and 8
owner occupants) are located within the Overlay Area.
Although it has been sparingly used, the ability to acquire property through the use of eminent
domain has been an effective tool to facilitate redevelopment of the Main-Pier Area and the
greater Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"). Since I982; the
Agency has undertaken a proactive redevelopment program in the Main-Pier Area to improve
blighted properties and implement the vision of the Downtown Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan was created to achieve a coordinated vision for a mix of tourist-oriented
residential and commercial uses that take advantage of the City's greatest assets, the Huntington
Beach Pier and the Pacific Ocean. These recreational assets attract nearly 11 million visitors a
year to the City.
The Specific Plan, in part, helps the City enhance the economic value of these assets by guiding
the development of high quality development, while adhering to the historic "village" character
of the downtown. As a city with increasing residential population service demands, the City
Council must continually strive to find ways to attract and maintain tourist and commercial
districts that generate a majority of the City's revenues to pay for police, park, and other City
services. Without continued revitalization of the downtown, an important source of city
revenues will remain stagnant, and the level of future City services could be threatened.
Over the past two decades, the Agency has helped downtown transition from older, modest
structures to more contemporary buildings with greater architectural character. These
redevelopment efforts, primarily on the first and second blocks of Main Street, have been quite
successful, as evidenced by the high level of patronage to local businesses by both residents and
visitors. However, the City continues to receive input from local community and business
representatives that downtown redevelopment efforts must be expanded to address the remaining
blighted properties.
In order to continue with the redevelopment of the downtown, property acquisition is critical,
because many of the buildings in the downtown are either too small or not designed to
accommodate contemporary visitor-serving or commercial uses. For example, Overlay Area
properties along Pacific Coast Highway (on blocks 101, 104 and 105) are on small parcels
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 1 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
developed with older(40 years or older) structures that have not been maintained. A property
owner or developer faces the difficult task of having multiple properties under various owners to
facilitate new development activities. This results in increased development costs (because
smaller properties under different ownership are more expensive to acquire than larger properties
under single ownership), which can compromise a developer's ability to create a high-quality
project suitable for the downtown.
As a result of these land acquisition issues, the Agency has been involved in acquiring properties
for specific redevelopment projects. In rare circumstances, the Agency has utilized eminent
domain to acquire property. Currently, the Plan permits the Agency to use eminent domain to
acquire commercial property in the Main-Pier Area, but prohibits the use of eminent domain to
acquire residential property. By extending the ability to use eminent domain to residential
property within the Overlay Area, the Agency will be able to respond to the community's desire
to improve the downtown while ensuring the development of high-quality projects that generate
tax revenues to support City services.
Although the Agency may be able to facilitate blight removal and prevention without_,the._use of
eminent domain, in some instances, the use of condemnation powers may be necessary to
assemble multiple smaller parcels under separate ownership for consolidation into larger parcels.
This type of consolidation would accommodate the greater land area requirements to develop
contemporary commercial and visitor-serving uses.
By expanding the Agency's ability to proactively assemble substandard and obsolete properties,
adoption of the 1999 Amendment will have a beneficial impact in the Overlay Area.
Specifically, the 1999 Amendment will enable the Agency to more effectively assist the
transition of the core downtown area to retail, tourist and other uses that generate economic
benefits to the City. By expanding the Agency's acquisition capabilities, properties integral to
the economic potential of downtown can be redeveloped into uses consistent with the Downtown
Specific Plan. Also, the 1999 Amendment would permit the Agency to eliminate blight, improve
infrastructure, aesthetics, and economic opportunities.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 2 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304.
SECTION B .
A Description of the Physical and Economic
Conditions Existing in the Project Area
Section 33352(b) of the Law requires a description of the physical and economic conditions that
cause the Project Area to be blighted. This information was provided in the documentation that
was prepared and provided as evidence that the Project Area was deemed blighted at the time of
adoption.
The Original Reports documented the following blighting conditions in the proposed Overlay
Area of the Project Area:
• Defective design and character of physical construction;
• Faulty exterior spacing; =
• Age, obsolescence, and deterioration;
• Irregular subdivision of lots under mixed ownership;
• High crime rates;
• Inadequate public improvements and facilities; and
• Social and economic maladjustment.
Over the past 17 years, the Agency has successfully mitigated some of these blighting conditions
through implementation of various redevelopment initiatives. However, continued
redevelopment progress will be contingent upon the Agency's ability to utilize redevelopment
tools to renovate, rehabilitate, reconstruct, and/or acquire additional residential properties in the
Overlay Area. By extending the time frame to employ eminent domain, as a last resort, to
acquire residential property in the Overlay Area, the 1999 Amendment would permit the Agency
to more effectively remove persistent blighting conditions in the future.
Pursuant to Section 33368 of the Law, adoption of the respective ordinances adopting the
original Main-Pier Redevelopment Plans and the current Plan are final and conclusive, and it is
thereafter presumed that the Project Area is a blighted area as defined by Sections 33031 and
33032 of the Law and that all prior proceedings have been duly and regularly taken.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 3 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION C
Five-Year Implementation Plan
Pursuant to Section 33457.1 of the Law, the 1999 Amendment does not warrant the adoption of a
five-year implementation plan. In 1994, the Agency adopted the current Implementation Plan for
the Project Area ("Implementation Plan"), which expires in December 1999. The
Implementation Plan contains redevelopment and economic development goals and objectives
that guide Agency implementation activities, projects and programs the Agency may implement
between 1995 and 1999, and an explanation as to how these projects and programs will achieve
the stated goals and objectives, and eliminate blight within the Project Area. The Agency has
initiated the process to update the Implementation Plan prior to the end of the current five-year
cycle.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 4 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION D
Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment
Cannot Be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting
Alone or by the City Council's Use of Financing
Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment
Section 33352(d) of the Law requires an explanation of why the elimination of blight in the
Project Area cannot be accomplished by private enterprise alone, or by the City Council's use of
financing alternatives other than tax increment financing. This information was previously
provided in the Original Reports and supporting documentation prepared and provided at the
time of the adoption of the respective original Main-Pier Redevelopment Plans and current Plan.
The proposed 1999 Amendment will not make any changes that would effect the validity of the
prior documentation._
Private enterprise alone has not been able to facilitate consolidation and redevelopment of the
Overlay Area, in part, due to the fragmented ownership patterns in these blocks. Uses envisioned
in these areas (such as a small hotel to diversify and expand the downtown's economic base) are
of greater scale and intensity than current uses. These uses require a minimum of 2-acre lot, yet
parcels in the Overlay Area along Pacific Coast Highway (on blocks 104 and 105) are
approximately .17 acres on average. These parcels are not large enough and are divided among
different owners. For example, on blocks 104 and 105 (between Sixth and Main Streets) 10 of
the 23 parcels are owned by different property owners. Also, on block 101 along Pacific Coast
Highway (between 1st and Second Streets), 7 of the 9 parcels are under mixed ownership.
To date, the Agency has been working to facilitate redevelopment efforts. However, the Agency
could not reach accord on a redevelopment program that best capitalized on the downtown core
area's assets. Even after owner participation efforts, the Agency elected to proceed with the
acquisition of various properties in the area. If the Agency is to achieve the goals set forth in
both the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan, it must evaluate using eminent domain, as a last
resort, to acquire property. However, the prohibition on using eminent domain to acquire
residential property prohibits the Agency from completing the acquisition process and
implementing the goals of the Specific Plan.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 5 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION E
The Method of Financing
Section 33352(e) of the Law requires inclusion of a proposed method of financing the Project.
This documentation was provided in the Original Reports, which are incorporated herein by
reference. Because the Project Area boundaries will not be altered and the base year value of the
Project Area will not be affected, the 1999 Amendment will not change the method of financing
the Project.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 6 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION F
The Relocation Plan
In conjunction with the adoption of the original Main-Pier Redevelopment Plans and the current
Plan, the Agency prepared and adopted the attached Relocation Plan. The Relocation Plan
ensures that the Agency will meet its relocation responsibilities to any families, persons, or
nonprofit local community institutions to be temporarily or permanently displaced as a
consequence of project implementation. The 1999 Amendment does not alter the Relocation
Plan, which will continue to remain in full force upon adoption of the 1999 Amendment.
This Report incorporates this Relocation Plan.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 . 7 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION G
Analysis of the Preliminary Plan
The Preliminary Plan for the 1999 Amendment ("Preliminary Plan") was approved by the City of
Huntington Beach Planning Commission ("Planning Commission') on January 12, 1999 and
subsequently accepted by the Agency. Following the Agency's acceptance of the Preliminary
Plan, the Overlay Area boundaries were reduced by the Agency. The Preliminary Plan described
the boundaries of the Project Area and included general statements of the proposed land uses,
layout of principle streets, population densities, building intensities, and building standards. It
also addressed how the Plan would attain the purposes of the Law. It discussed the conformance
with the City's General Plan and discussed the impact of.the 1999 Amendment upon residents
and the surrounding neighborhood.
The Plan conforms with the standards and provisions of the Preliminary Plan, as detailed below:
• Project Area Location and Description: This section of the Preliminary Plan describes the
boundaries of the Project Area. Other than the reduction of the size of the Overlay Area,
there have been no changes proposed to the 1999 Amendment or the Project Area boundaries
as delineated in the Preliminary Plan.
• General Statement of Proposed Planning Elements: This section of the Preliminary Plan
states that the Project Area land uses, proposed layouts of principal streets, proposed
population densities, proposed building intensities, and proposed building standards shall be
subject to and controlled by the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and any other state
and local building codes and guidelines as they exist or are hereafter amended. These
planning elements have been incorporated into the Plan. The 1999 Amendment does not
propose any changes to the Plan's development standards.
• Attainment of the Purposes of the Redevelopment Law: This section of the Preliminary Plan
generally sets forth the objectives of the Project Area. To this end, the Plan contains a
detailed list of redevelopment goals that would allow the Agency to more comprehensively
alleviate blighting conditions in the Project Area in accordance with the Law and develop and
preserve the community's supply of affordable housing. The 1999 Amendment does not alter
the Plan's.goals.
• Conformance to the General Plan of the City: Both the Preliminary Plan and the 1999
Amendment conform to the City's General Plan, as it exists or is hereafter amended.
• General Impact of the Proposed Project Upon the Residents of the Project Area and
Surrounding Neighborhoods: The impact of the Project will generally be in the areas of
improved facilities and services, improved living environment, and enhanced employment
and economic activity.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 8 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 804
SECTION H
Report of the Planning Commission
Section 33352(h) of the Law requires inclusion of a Planning Commission's report on the Plan's
conformity to the City's General Plan. For the original Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan and the
current Plan, the Planning Commission adopted reports recommending approval of the respective
redevelopment plans; the Planning Commission's reports were incorporated into the Original
Reports.
On June 8, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution (Exhibit 3) finding that the 1999
Amendment conforms to the City's General Plan. This resolution comprises the Planning
Commission's report on the amendment.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 9 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION
Report of the Project Area Committee
On January 19, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1540 to establish the "Procedure
for Formation and Election of the Project Area Committee" pursuant to Section 33385 of the
Redevelopment Law. The specific role of a PAC was to review the proposed 1999 Amendment
and prepare a report and/or make a recommendation regarding the 1999 Amendment to the City
Council.
On March 22, 1999, 6 PAC members were elected in the following categories: Residential
Owner Occupant, Residential Tenant, Business Owner, and Community Organization
Representative.
To date, the PAC has conducted seven meetings, including 2 in downtown, to review the 1999
Amendment. The proposed Amendment was reviewed at great length. Items discussed_included:
the procedures and legal aspects of eminent domain, the legal requirements for relocation and the
relocation process, the acquisition process, the owner participation process, the role of the Project
Area Committee, the proposed Overlay Area boundaries, the overall plan amendment process,
replacement housing requirements and other issues. In addition, staff responded to other PAC
inquiries, including the status of the blocks 104 and 105 project, the replacement housing for
blocks 104 and 105, the certificate of conformance process, and the status and availability of
housing in the City. Copies of the 1999 Amendment Text, pertinent sections of Redevelopment
and Eminent Domain Law, the current Redevelopment Plan, and other materials were distributed
to committee members.
On July 21, 1999, the PAC noted to recommend against adoption of the proposed 1999
Redevelopment Plan Amendment. The Committee's report will be transmitted to the City
Council for consideration at the Joint Public Hearing on August 16, 1999.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 10 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION J
General Plan Conformance
On June 8, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution finding that the 1999
Amendment conforms to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. The Planning Commission
resolution provides that-if the size of the Overlay Area is subsequently reduced by the City
Council, the 1999 Amendment affecting such smaller area also conforms to the General Plan.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 11 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION K
Environmental Documentation
For the 1999 Amendment, Section 33352(k) of the Law requires environmental clearance
pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code. Concurrent with the adoption of the
original Main-Pier Redevelopment Plans and the current Plan, the Agency caused the preparation
of necessary environmental documentation, including program environmental impact reports to
review and mitigate impacts associated with the redevelopment implementation activities. The
Original Reports include such environmental documentation, incorporated herein by reference.
For the 1999 Amendment, an Initial Study was prepared pursuant to California Environmental
Quality Act guidelines, which found that because adoption of the 1999 Amendment would not
alter land uses, building intensities or densities, the 1999 Amendment would not result in any
environmental impacts. As such, on April 22, 1999, a Negative Declaration (contained herein as
Exhibit 4) for the proposed 1999 Amendment was completed and made available for.public
inspection. On June 8, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that
the City Council certify the Negative Declaration.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 12 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION L
Report of the County Fiscal Officer
The proposed 1999 Amendment does not alter Project Area boundaries; therefore, the respective
base year reports for the Project Area, prepared pursuant to Section 33328 of the Law by the
County of Orange Auditor-Controller and State Board of Equalization ("Base Year Reports"), do
not need to be reformulated. The Base Year Reports are included in the Original Reports and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 13 Report to the City-Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION M
Neighborhood Impact Report
The Law requires that the following topics be addressed in the Neighborhood Impact .Report:
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. The
Neighborhood Impact Report must also discuss the impact the 1999 Amendment would have on
low and moderate income persons or families in the following areas: the number of dwelling
units to be removed or destroyed; the number of low or moderate income persons or families
expected to be displaced; the general location of housing to be rehabilitated or constructed; the
number of dwelling units to house persons and families of low or moderate income are planned
for construction or rehabilitation; the projected means of financing the aforementioned dwelling
units; and the projected timetable for meeting the Plan's relocation, rehabilitation and
replacement housing objectives.
Relocation
According to the Negative Declaration, 20 or fewer households may be relocated as a
consequence of implementation activities during the 12-year term of the 1999 Amendment. This
would involve properties in blocks 104 and 105. With the exception of blocks 104 and 105, no
specific projects requiring relocation can be identified at this time, and it is not feasible to
identify specific businesses, residences, or local community institutions which may need to be
relocated at some time during the implementation process. With regard to blocks 104 and 105,
located along Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street to Sixth Street, the Agency has entered
into a development and disposition agreement with a developer as of June 17, 1999. As part of
this action, the Agency approved a Replacement Housing Plan. In the event this project is
implemented, the Agency would be responsible for relocation of eligible tenants and businesses,
and would need to adopt a specific relocation plan for the project.
If relocation activities are undertaken, the Agency will handle those relocation cases on an
individual case-by-case basis, in accordance with the Agency's method of relocation. As an
Agency formed under the provisions of state law, the Agency is required to adhere to the State
Relocation Law (Government Code Sections 7260 through 7277) and follow the California
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines ("State Guidelines') as
established in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 6.
Traffic Circulation
Traffic circulation impacts resulting from implementation of the 1999 Amendment are discussed
in Section VI of the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration's analysis concluded that
no transportation or traffic impacts will result from the proposed 1999 Amendment. Further, the
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 14 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
1999 Amendment will not affect the General Plan's land use changes, traffic generation, traffic
levels of service, or intersection capacity.
Environmental Quality
The Negative Declaration found that the proposed 1999 Amendment does not have a significant
effect on the environment, because the 1999 Amendment does not propose uses or intensities
beyond those provided in the General Plan or Specific Plan. Additionally, where required, more
specific environmental analysis will take place as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA").
Availability of Community Facilities and Services
The Negative Declaration addresses issues related to the provision of public services and utilities.
Because the Overlay Area is generally built out and constitutes less than 0.5% of the entire area
of the City, the Negative Declaration determined that implementation of the 1999 Amendment
would not create significant impacts on public facilities or governmental services,-..police
protection, fire protection, schools, or parks.
Effect on School Population and Quality of Education
The Negative Declaration found that the 1999 Amendment will not induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Further, the analysis of the 1999 Amendment
found that there would be no impact on schools. Implementation of the 1999 Amendment will
not result in development in excess of that allowed by the City's General Plan. Therefore, the
1999 Amendment will not generate more students than could occur in connection with
development allowed in the General Plan. The City has adopted policies in the General Plan to
mitigate impacts of General Plan buildout on schools; implementation of the 1999 Amendment
will adhere to General Plan policies to mitigate impacts on schools.
Property Taxes and Assessments
The Redevelopment Plan calls for various methods of financing its implementation; the 1999
Amendment does not alter the Plan's methods of financing. Because redevelopment agencies do
not have the constitutional authority to levy taxes, the 1999 Amendment will not cause an
increase in property tax rates.
Low and Moderate Income Housing Program
A. Number of Dwelling Units Housing Low and Moderate Income Households Expected to
be Removed by the Redevelopment Project
The Agency estimates that property assembly could cause the removal of approximately
12 to 20 units, or significantly less than the total housing stock of the City. At this time,
because site specific redevelopment proposals have not been implemented, the Agency
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 15 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
cannot ascertain whether these units are occupied by low and moderate income
households. Consequently, these 12 to 20 units could be occupied by low and moderate
income households and could be displaced. To the extent that specific implementation
activities cause the removal of units occupied by low and moderate income households,
the Agency will comply with all provisions of the Law, the Redevelopment Plan and its
method of relocation regarding the construction of replacement units and the relocation of
existing residents.
B. Number of Persons and Families of Low and Moderate Income Expected to be Displaced
by the Redevelopment Project
As discussed above, the Agency estimates that 12 to 20 units of low and moderate income
could be displaced by the implementation of the 1999 Amendment over the Plan's
effectiveness. Based on the City's average household size of 2.65, a conservative
estimate of the potential number of low or moderate income persons that may be
displaced is between 20 and 53. To the extent such displacement is necessary, the
Agency will be responsible for relocation of such households per the method of.relocation
presented in Section F of this Report.
C. General Location of Replacement Low and Moderate Income Housing to be
Rehabilitated, Developed and Constructed
Replacement housing could be located in residentially designated areas in Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project Area, as well as other areas in the City designated for
residential uses in the General Plan. The Agency is required to replace affordable
housing destroyed or removed as a consequence of a redevelopment project. Section
33413(a) of the Law provides that, whenever dwelling units housing persons and families
of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the affordable housing market
as a part of a redevelopment project that is subject to a written agreement with the
agency, or where financial assistance has been provided by the agency, the agency shall
provide, or cause to be provided, an equal number of replacement dwelling units. The
replacement dwelling units must have an equal or greater number of bedrooms as those
destroyed or removed and shall be affordable to persons and families of low or moderate
income. Further, replacement dwelling units must be available for occupancy within four
years of the destruction or removal of any affordable dwelling units.
D. Number of Dwelling Units Housing Persons of Low and Moderate Income Planned for
Construction or Rehabilitation Other than Replacement Housing
The Agency has not yet formulated specific housing development or rehabilitation
proposals, it is not possible to determine the exact number of low and moderate income
units expected to be developed or rehabilitated at this time. The Agency will be subject to
and consistent with the guidelines set forth in the Law. Section 33413(b) of the Law
requires that at least 30% of all new or substantially rehabilitated units developed by the
Agency shall be affordable to persons or families of low and moderate income. For units
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 16 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
developed or substantially rehabilitated by public or private entities or persons other than
the Agency, at least 15% shall be affordable to low and moderate income households.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 17 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
E. Projected Means of Financing Rehabilitation and New Construction of Housing for Low
and Moderate Income Households
The Agency pledges not less than 20% of the Project Area's tax increment revenues to
finance the rehabilitation and construction of housing for low and moderate income
households, in accordance with the provisions of the Law as it now exists or may
hereafter be amended. The Agency also works with the City to pool funds and resources
beyond the tax increment set aside funds if it is determined to be necessary to improve the
City's housing stock.
F. Projected Timetable for Meeting the Plan's Relocation, Rehabilitation and Replacement
Housing Objectives
Any relocation needs will be met prior to displacement as required by Law. All
relocation activities will comply with the method of relocation contained in Section F of
this Report. Construction of any replacement housing units, if necessary, will-.achieve or
exceed the required four-year requirement described in Subsection "A" above.
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 18 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304
SECTION N
A Summary of Agency Consultation with Affected
Taxing Agencies
On July 14, 1999, the Agency transmitted the notice of the August 16, 1999 joint public hearing
to all affected taxing agencies and offered to consult on the 1999 Amendment. To date, no
taxing agencies have contacted the Agency; any taxing agency seeking consultations may provide
input on the 1999 Amendment on or before the August 16, 1999 public hearing.
The proposed 1999 Amendment would not detrimentally impact affected taxing agencies because
the financing of the Project Area will not be affected in any way, nor will it change the land use
policies or list of public improvement projects from the Plan.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
July 1999 19 Report to the City Council
RES. NO. 304 -�
EXHIBIT I
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area Map
RES. NO. 304
A F
tl
u
io0000000!i7
N�l I
T n n
eouA
D EN
EQNGEi
Kl
NOT TO SCALE
WN Ek
SUTEi
CEN—
PA2K
TA E;T -
It CW�l
easAaicwveTvws PAAt :: <i
TA Kkl BEACH -
E=
G IRD
CD
may`" OLCTOWN
f Z YOR D
CK�CNM.IMP1
Y�
C DCD
D�D INQ.WNCUS
1Y
1'III((1'' 1Bryy�1��1B1I1I1IIII ATIANTA
RE %E4 X LSD
f/M4tTON
DBANNNG
RES. NO. 304
EXHIBIT 2
Proposed 1999 Amendment Text
RES. NO. 304
1999 AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, adopted on
December 16, 1996 by Ordinance 3343 (the "Plan"), is hereby amended as follows:
Table of Contents (second page) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Exhibit A: Project Area Maps
Exhibit B: Legal Descriptions
Exhibit C: Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements Projects
Exhibit D: Oakview Public Acquisition Map
Exhibit E: Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Map"
Section 101 (page 1) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 1. (100) INTRODUCTION
A. (101) General
This is the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
("Plan"), located in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California.
It consists of the text (Sections 100 through 1200), the Project Area Map of Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") (Exhibit A), the legal description of
the Project Area boundaries (Exhibit B), a listing of the proposed public facilities and
infrastructure improvement projects (Exhibit C), a d a map of the properties potentially
subject to acquisition by eminent domain within the Oakview Area (Exhibit D), and a
map of the properties on which any persons legally reside which are potentially subject to
acquisition by eminent domain within the Original and Added Main-Pier Areas (Exhibit
E).
[No further revisions to this section.]
Section 603 (page 8) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
"B. (602) Property Acquisition
1. (603) Acquisition of Real Property
Without limitation, the Agency may acquire real property, any interest in
property, and any improvements on such property by any means authorized by
law including, without limitation, by gift, grant, exchange, purchase, cooperative
negotiations, lease, option, bequest, or devise.
In addition, the Agency may acquire real property, any interest in property, and
any improvements on such property by eminent.domain, with the following
exceptions:
11untbL'h\99wu ndm nt\wu ndtczt 1 04/01/99
RES. NO. 304
a. Within the Yorktown-Lake Area and Talbert-Beach Area, the Agency shall
not have the authority to acquire property by eminent domain,
b. Within the Original Main-Pier Area and Added Main-Pier Area, the Agency
shall not have the authority to acquire, by eminent domain, property on
which any persons legally reside unless such property is located within the
Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Area as shown on Exhibit E;
and this new limitation shall supersede any and all previous limitations on the
Agency's powers of eminent domain within the Original and Added Main-
Pier Areas including, but not limited to, Resolution No. 48, and
c. Within the Oakview Area, the Agency shall not have the authority to acquire,
by eminent domain, property which is excluded from the Oakview Public
Acquisition Map, incorporated herein as Exhibit D.
b
Pfejeet Are., shall be , eed after-_twelve (12) year-s fell,. ing, the date 0
adoption of the erdinanee b
a Exhibit D, Tg eminent�nin eedin t aequfFe pr-eper-t„ li the nk.
Area shall be een:uneneed after- twelve (12) yeaFs b
dot: of ! rdi .+Ee NE). 3402, amending, the RedeN,elepment -Pl. for the
Oakview RedevelopmentPf6jeet This Plan Elees-rzvi-amend,-er ethe A,i=se
e A ' testablished h , the .1eptie f
chuirg�tl rrgF?ffE rczimicizr domain aiff-authorities rcacm�riJrrca-v'�-crcc-ccav�rrorr yr
Ordinan^e No 3002
The time limitations on the commencement of eminent domain shall be as
follows:
1) Properties subject to eminent domain within the Oakview Area - no eminent
domain action shall commence after July 5, 2001.
2) Properties within the Main-Pier Residential Eminent Domain Overlay Area
(Exhibit E) - no eminent domain action shall commence after
2011.
3) All other areas subject to eminent domain by this Plan - no eminent domain
action shall commence after December 16, 2008.
Such time limitations may be extended only by amendment of this Plan.
To the extent required by law, the Agency shall not acquire real property on
which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present
form and use without the consent of the owner, unless: (1) such building requires
structural alteration, improvement, modernization or rehabilitation; or (2) the site
or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape or use;
or .(3) it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standards,
restrictions and controls of this Plan and the owner fails or refuses to participate in
the Plan pursuant to Sections 605 to 609, inclusive of this Plan and applicable
provisions of the Redevelopment Law."
hundy-,W9wn ndtnent\atnendtezt 2 04/01/99
RES. NO. 304
EXHIBIT E
MAIN-PIER RESIDENTIAL EMINENT DOMAIN
OVERLAY
RES. NO. 304
Amended Residential
Eminent Domain
1O� ��� Overlay Area
O QO
4.
ti� OAP
J
dig oR
�A1O
PALM AVE. Q"
GPG\P t 40� Q O
ACACIA AVE. G� OQ-�
f- y~ 141
FC, Q1P
W Q ,
a
PECAN AVE.
I'
ORANGE AVE.
OLIVE,AVE.
V1 N N Z v V Q :•N
Ems., }�( 0 Ln
W H S � :• i.. -.
WALNUT AVE.
F]ITUDX,
, xx
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
W
a
.:..:.:..........................:...
..::::.......:::::::::.::::::.....:.....:.....
PACIFIC OCEAN
RES. NO. 304
EXHIBIT 3
Planning Commission Report on 1999 Amendment
RES. NO. 304
RESOLUTION NO. 1544
j A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THE PROPOSED 1999 AMENDMENT TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
(GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 99-2)
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ("Agency") is'
preparing an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the merged Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project ("Amendment") to establish the authority to use eminent domain on
certain residential property in the Main-Pier Redevelopment Sub-area of the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, Section 33346 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("Law")
provides that before the proposed Plan is submitted to the City Council for consideration, it shall
first be submitted to the Planning Commission for its report and recommendation concerning the
Plan and its conformity to the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 1999, the Agency referred the proposed 1999 Amendment, in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 1999, the Planning Commission has received and reviewed the
1999 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, The Amendment does not propose alterations to the Redevelopment Plan's
land use controls, permitted uses, public uses, interim uses, and general land use controls and
limitations; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with its report and recommendation on the Redevelopment
Plan, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1517 on September 10, 1996, finding that the
Redevelopment Plan's land use controls, permitted uses, public uses, and general land use
controls and limitations conform to the City General Plan, and recommending adoption of the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach does hereby find and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The proposed amendment to the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Plan to extend the power of eminent domain for residential
properties in a portion of the Main-Pier Sub-area conforms with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the Land Use Element, the Economic Development
Element, and the Urban Design Element of the General Plan.
(GARESOLUTrRES 1544.DOC)
RES. NO. 304
SECTION 2: The proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is
necessary to facilitate the continued revitalization of the downtown pursuant to
the Downtown Specific Plan.
SECTION 3:. The proposed amendment will maintain the project area
goals enacted to address specific conditions within the Main-Pier Sub-area.
SECTION 4: The proposed amendment will enhance the ability of the
Redevelopment Agency to pursue the elimination of blighted conditions, and the
improvement of the project area's infrastructure, aesthetics, commercial base,and
employment opportunities.
SECTION 5: The proposed amendment will maintain and improve the
ability of the Redevelopment Agency to address parcels of irregular shape and size,
to assemble properties, and to redevelop and recycle underutilized parcels;
SECTION 6: The Planning Commission hereby authorizes and-directs the
officers, employees, staff, consultants and attorneys for the Planning Commission
to take any and all actions that may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this
resolution or which are appropriate or desirable in the circumstances. In the event
that prior to the adoption of the Plan, the Agency or City Council desire to make
any minor, technical, or clarifying changes to the Plan, the Planning Commission
hereby finds and determines that any such minor, technical, or clarifying changes
need not be referred to it for further report and recommendation; and
SECTION 7: This resolution shall constitute the report of the Planning
Commission on the 1999 Amendment pursuant to Section 33453 of the Law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach on the eighth day of June, 1999 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Laird, Chapman, Speaker, Livengood, Mandic
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kerins, Biddle
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Xe
H w'_Krd Zelefs ecretary ai rso lanning Commission
ATTACHMENT:
Exhibit No. A— 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
(G:\RESOLUTMES 1544.DQC)
RES. NO. 304
EXHIBIT 4
Negative Declaration for the 1999 Amendment
to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan
RES. NO. 304
* < r
ENVLROl`J7VIENTAL CHECKLIST`FORM
. 7 _
{ CITY OF HUNTINGTNBEA
! f
PLAI�INING DEPAR,". ENT'
-
ENVIRONMENTAL`ASSES$MNT;NO: 99!�4
may` E ` :
t t
a
-r-
1. PROJECT TITLE: Amendment to the City of Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Plan
Concurrent Entitlements: None
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Contact: Herb Fauland, Senior Planner
Phone: (714) 536-5271
3. PROJECT LOCATION: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan/Main-Pier
Redevelopment Sub-Area (north of Pacific Coast Highway,
south of Pecan Avenue, east of Sixth Street, west of First
Street)
4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Contact Person: David C. Biggs, Economic Development Director
Phone: (714) 536-5582
5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various
6. ZOi\�TG: Downtown Specific Plan
7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1999 Amendment to the City of Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Plan to Extend the Power of Eminent Domain for Residential Properties in A Portion
of The Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Sub-Area.
8. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Environmental
Impact Report No. 96-2 for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): None
Page 1
RES. NO. 304
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS .POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a"Potentially Sigdficant Impact"or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
El Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services
El Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems
❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics
El Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation
❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [I
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE ❑
DECLARATION«zll be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMMPACT REPORT is required. []
I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant effects) on the environment,
but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or
mitigated pursu t to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitig ion eas s that e imp sed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
lgl9a
Signature Date
Herb Fauland Senior Planner
Printed Name Title
Page 2
RES. N0: 304
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the
project. A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site;
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead
agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant
Impact".entries when the determination is made,preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted.
4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Nlitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures'has
reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant.to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are
discussed in Section XVM at the end of the checklist.
6. .References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g:, general plans, zoning ordinances)have been
incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIH. Other sources used or
individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions.
7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3,Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements.
(Note: Standard Conditions of Approval -The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are
considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in
reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a Ievel of insignificance. However, because they are considered
part,of the project, they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information a list of
applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 3.
SAMPLE O UERYON.-
Potentially.
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) QX
Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington
Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which
show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response
probably would not require further explanation).
Page 3
RES. NO. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or 0
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,
local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Sources: 1-8)
b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or El 0 El Q
natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 1,6)
c) Physically di-,zde an established community? (Sources: 1, 3, 1:1 El El
El
4)
Discussion: There is no impact on or conflict with the General Plan or other policy documents adopted for the purpose
of mitigating an environmental effect. The amendment is not changing any land use,zoning,or conservation plans and
will not physically di,,ide an established community.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either El El ElQX
directly(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or
indirectly(e.g., through extensions of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Sources: 1,8)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ElEl
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (Sources: 8)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ElQX
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 8)
Discussion: Twelve or fewer housing units will be potentially affected by eminent domain. Due to the nature and
location of the subject units,it is assumed that there is one person per unit,and 12 persons would potentially be
displaced. If the average household size of 2.65 for the City of Huntington Beach is used to calculate a potential
maximum number of persons that may be displaced,the resulting figure is 32. Thus,it is reasonable to expect that the
potential number of persons that may be displaced will be between 12 and 32. In the event that units are acquired using
eminent domain,displacees are eligible for relocation benefits as defined in Redevelopment Law. Further,
Redevelopment Law requires that units removed be replaced. Replacement units can be located anywhere in the City
and do not have to be newly constructed. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach would be
responsible for assisting and/overseeing displacees and replacement of units. Because relocation assistance is available
and units must be replaced,potential impacts resulting from the use of eminent domain are considered less than
significant.
Page 4
RES.. NO. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact . Incorporated Impact No Imp
III.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the El El
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources: 8)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources: 8) El
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? El El 0
(Sources: 8)
iv) Landslides? (Sources: 8)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil,or changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? (Sources: 8)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 0
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 8)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the El El Q
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to
life or property? (Sources: 8)
Discussion: The proposed project would expand the powers of the Redevelopment Agency, however,no development is
proposed in conjunction with the request. Replacement of any units will be evaluated from an environmental perspective
at the time of that action,as appropriate. No geology or soils impacts will result from the proposed project.
IV.HYDROLOGY AND`VATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 0El QX
requirements? (Sources: 1, 8)
Page 5
RES. NO. 304
Potentially,
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere Ela
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
Support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (Sources: 8)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orEJ El El
area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off-site? (Sources: 8)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or0 El El
area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-
site? (Sources: 8)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the El Z
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Sources: 8)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 8) EJ El
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped '
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 8)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which El N
would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 8)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury 0 ElQ " "
or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 8)
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources: 8)
Discussion:Tlie'proposed project would expand the powers of the Redevelopment Agency,however,no development is
proposed in conjunction with the request. Replacement of any units will be evaluated from an environmental perspective
at the time of that action,as appropriate. No hydrology impacts will result from the proposed project.
Page 6
Y-
RES. NO. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impac.
V. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 8)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Sources: 8)
c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofEl
people? (Sources: 8)
d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air El ❑ Q
quality plan? (Sources: 1, 8)
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any El 0
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 8)
Discussion: The proposed project would expand the powers of the Redevelopment Agency, however,no development is
proposed in conjunction with the request. Demolition or replacement of any units will be evaluated from an
environmental perspective at the time of that action,as appropriate. No air quality impacts will result from the proposed
project.
VI.TRANSPORTATIONfIRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to El El �X
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(e.g.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at
intersections? (Sources: 1, 8)
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service QX
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,8)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an El
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Sources: 8)
Page 7
RES. NO. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., El El El
sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses?
(Sources: 8)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 8) El 0 El X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 8) 0
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources: 8)
Discussion:The proposed project would expand the powers of the Redevelopment Agency, however, no,development is
proposed in conjunction with the request. Replacement of any units will be evaluated from an environmental perspective
at the time of that action, as appropriate. No transportation or traffic impacts will result from the proposed project.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through EJ El El
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources:
8)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or El El El0
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans,policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Sources: 8)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected El 11 El
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool,coastal,
etc.)through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means? (Sources: 8)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native QX
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 8)
Page 8
RES. ,NO. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impac .
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting F-1 El
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (Sources: 1, 8)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat El El
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or
other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation
plan? (Sources: 1, 8)
Discussion:The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans or affect biological
resources. The proposed project area is already developed with urban uses, and no development is proposed in
conjunction with the request. No biological impacts will result from the proposed project.
VM. MWERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the El
state? (Sources: 1, 8)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral El F-1
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources: 1, 8)
Discussion: The proposed project would not result in the loss of mineral resources or mineral resource sites.
IN:HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS NMTERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ElQ
through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Sources:8)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El 11 00
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Sources: 8)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous material,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 8)
Page 9
RES. N0. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact h'o Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous El
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant
hazard to.the public or the environment? (Sources: 1)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where El El EJ
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public
airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
(Sources: 3,4, 8)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the El El
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area? (Sources: 3,4)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an E] Q
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Sources: 8)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury, El El El Q
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with ytiildlands? (Sources: 3,4, 8)
Discussion: The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted or proposed activities that would expose persons to
hazards or hazardous materials.
X. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess El El D0
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
(Sources: 8)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome El El El
Vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 8)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in El ElQ
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Sources: 8)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise QX
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Sources: 8)
Page 10
r
RES. NO. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impac
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or.public use airport,would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels? (Sources: 3, 4, 8)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the El El 1:1
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 3,4, 8)
Discussion: No development is proposed in conjunction with the request. Noise impacts that may result from future
replacement of units will be evaluated at the time of that action. No noise impacts will result from the proposed project.
XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? (Sources: 8) 0 El El QX
b) Police Protection? (Sources: 8) Q
c) Schools? (Sources: 8) Xz
d) Parks? (Sources: 8) ` []X
e)._ Other public facilities or governmental services? (Sources: 8) El El ElQX
Discussion: The project will not result in the need for additional or create impacts to public services.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X[]
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 8)
Page 11
e
RES. NO. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
env-ironmental effects? (Sources: 8)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (Sources: 8)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 0
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 8)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment El 0 El N
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 8)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to El E 11 0
I ccommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
(Sources: 8)
g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and regulations F-1 El El z
related to solid waste? (Sources: 8)
Discussion: The project does not include any development and will not impact utilities or service systems.
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 11 El El 0
8)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not El El El
limited to, trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 8)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 0
of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 8)
Page 12
RES. NO. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant-
IS SUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact .No Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources:
8)
Discussion:The proposed project would expand the powers of the Redevelopment Agency,however,no development is
proposed in conjunction with the request. Replacement of any units Rill be evaluated from an environmental perspective
at the time of that action, as appropriate.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in 815064.5? (Sources: 8)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant-to 515064.5? (Sources: 1, 3, El El `D 9
4, 8)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological El El 9.
resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1,3,4, 8)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside El El El Q
of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1, 3,4, 8)
Discussion: The proposed project area is already developed Mth urban uses, and no development is proposed in
conjunction with the request. No cultural impacts will result from the proposed project.
XV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood,
community and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 8)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Sources: 8)
c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources: 8) El El ElQX
Discussion:The project does not include any development and will not impact recreational facilities or services.
Page 13
Y, f
RES. NO. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XVI.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the.California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of El El Z
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-
agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 3,4, 8) .
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a
Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 2)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due El El 0
to their location or nature,could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 8)
Discussion: The project does not include any development and will not impact any agricultural resources.
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of 0
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? (Sources: 8)
Discussion:The project does not include any development and will not affect the quality of the environment ro reduce
habitat areas or plant or animals.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, 0
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the
effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 8)
Discussion:The 1996 Redevelopment Plan contains provisions that may have the effect of encouraging growth in the
Project Area through redevelopment of underutilized properties,development of vacant properties and through
improvements to infrastructure. These improvements may make areas more desirable and-or feasible for development.
The proposed project would assist in implementing the 1996 Redevelopment Plan. Any development that may occur
would be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code.
Page 14
RES. NO. 304
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impac;
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human bein-,s,either directly or
indirectly? (Sources: 8)
Discussion: See discussion of Section I-XVI above.
Page 15
RES. NO. 304
XVIII.' EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).
Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis:
Reference 9 Document Title Available for Review at:
1 City.of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept.:
Planning/Zoning Information Counter,
3rd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance "
3 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1
4 - Reduced Site Plan See Attachment,,2
5 1996 Redevelopment Plan Amendment EIR No.96-2 City of Huntington Beach
(State CIearinghouse No. 96041075) Economic Development Dept.,
5th Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
6 California Health & Safety Code (Redevelopment Law)
Section 33000 et. Seq.
7 1999 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan
Amendment
8 Project Narrative See Attachment#3
Page 16
RES. NO. 304
Project Vicinity Map
...
i;
.. ..........
.............. .
�> :.::::::::: ..:......:.:::::.:.�.. ...:.-.:..i::::: ............
......
RES. NO. 304
A C
Ll:1
FT
-----Ti
o E
6
fJJ HdGV
Z
It KC
�+•i`[L
? 9 -
zi
RES. NO. 304
PROJECT NARRATIVE
1999 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT
BACKGROUND
The Redevelopment Agency has been active since 1976, and has processed various
Redevelopment Plan Adoptions and Amendments since its inception. These actions have
resulted in today's single redevelopment project area composed of five non-contiguous
subareas: Main-Pier, Yorktown-Lake, Talbert-Beach, Oakview and Huntington Center. These .
subareas total 661 acres in size and represent about three percent of the city's land area. A
Project Area Map is attached.
Land uses within the area include single- and multi-family residential, commercial and industrial
uses and a small amount of vacant land. Factors contributing to the area's designation as
"blighted" include: the age and configuration of existing structures, inadequate transportation
and other infrastructure, building and safety code violations, the presence of soils
contamination, a lack of public services and facilities and inadequate_ housing available at
affordable cost to low- and moderate-income households.
THE AMENDMENT
To further the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, it is being proposed to extend and
modify the Agency's authority to use eminent domain on residential properties. The attached
map shows the portion of the Main-Pier subarea to be affected if the Redevelopment Plan
Amendment is approved.
Because the Amendment could result in the displacement of low- and moderate-income
households, state law requires that the City Council provide for the formation of a Project Area
Committee to act in an advisory capacity to the Council and to make a recommendation on the
Amendment. This requirement was fulfilled on January 19, 1999, when the City Council
adopted Procedures for the Formation of a Project Area Committee (PAC).
Twelve or fewer residential units are expected to be removed..due to redevelopment activities.
Lower income households displaced due to the removal of housing units are entitled to
relocation benefits. These benefits include actual moving costs, including transportation, and a
rent differential payment (the product of the difference in current rent and the rent at a new
location. This obligation is required for up to five years); Or, the displaced tenant may elect to
take a lump sum cash payment that is roughly equivalent to the benefits described.
Property owners subject to eminent domain are entitled to receive, at a minimum, fair market
value for any property acquired by,the Redevelopment Agency through .the eminent domain
process. Also, owners of properties that conform with the redevelopment plan may request a
"certificate of compliance", which will exempt the property from eminent domain.
The 1999 Redevelopment Plan Amendment is an administrative action and will not, of itself,
make physical changes to the environment. Further, any-physical changes that do occur,
subsequent to the adoption of the Plan Amendment, will be subject to independent
environmental review.
Attachment No. 3-Page I
RES. NO. 304
Reduced Site Plan
.... .:.: ........::t
f.
77
.. ........
............. .... ... ...
....... ..... . ...
.. ..........
.................................................
N1NETH ST.
�D� GO��" �n ➢
"Cj m=D��D��<
D EIGHTH ST. < D <
m
D C�'m� �mn
0 � �� �� ��
n SEVENTH ST.
4 D P Ore
LA 51XTH ST. PECAN S7.
P�G R � m
•f-Fµ�i�: �� ?r : ::,a
D -,
:• :•: ,t O Sj �+
tta?r.•. W
.v''',w'':',•,�''rG,� wyNr�
apt•:::';;: :•;�: :�i�tfi�l't$�;•�;: ;�:�i;�����:
X .�
v •�': , l:',••:'•':•ixxx
':;•i:'':' fry; ; l� !/�^ ,
n ;.; .�.; ;.:: :. ��• O
NST ST:
Op O/
m ;7
N�4 l co 41
� Q
f/l j 9`�/ 0 �. (D m
O F
0
RES. NO. 304
Res. No. 304
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on
the 2°d day of August, 1999 and that it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green,Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach, Ca.