Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
L. C. Smull - 1978-01-05
�f O City of Huntington Beach ;N 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 U44-- J DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 Housing/Redevelopment Division 536-5542 Planning Division 536-5271 September 16, 1987 Ms. Sharon Taransky Business Properties 17631 Fitch Irvine, California 92714 Dear Ms. Taransky: Attached is the Certificate of the Redevelopment Agency you requested regarding the northeast corner of Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue. Sincerely, IJ . Thomas Andrusky, Redevelopment Project Manager TA:sds xc: Charles P. Spencer, Deputy Director/Community Development/Housing & Redevelopment Connie Brockway, Deputy City Clerk 0-7 BUSINESS PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 17631 FITCH P. O. BOX 10588 IRVINE, CALIFORfrA.92713-0589 (744)-474=8000Fj- T ►4- August 11, 1987 Mr. Mike Strange Planning Department CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: NEC Goldenwest and Warner Huntington Beach, CA Dear Mike: Per our conversation of the other day, please provide us with an updated signed copy of the attached Certif' of the Redevelopment. Vie understand the fee will be $32.50 If you have any questions please call me. r Very truly yours, \ -- Nd BUSINESS PROPERTIES Sharon Turansky Secretary to James A. Christensen /st Enclosure N CERTIFICATE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTONQ BEACH THE UNDERSIGNED, as a party to that certain "Participation Agreement" dated January 5, 1978, by and between THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (."Agency") and L. C. SMULL (."Smull") , hereby certifies to the best of their knc:: ?ledge as follows: A. That Smull and the Agency have fulfilled all of their obligations pursuant to the Participation Agreement to be performed.as of this date; and B. That on this date Smull and the Agency are not in default pursuant to the Participation Agreement, nor has any omission or commission occurred which might later result�in a default thereunder. Executed -on this 28th day of September , 1982. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA CERTIFICATE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH THE UNDERSIGNED, as a party to that certain "Participation Agreement" dated January 5, 1978, by and between THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ("Agency") and L. C. SMULL ("Smull"), hereby certifies to the best of their knowledge as follows: A. That Smull and the Agency have fulfilled all of their obligations pursuant to the Participation Agreement to be performed as of this date; and B. That on this date Smull and the Agency are not in default pursuant to the Participation Agreement, nor has any omission or commission occurred which might later result in a default thereunder. X-N— Executed on this \4� day of 1987. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BY: Paul E. Cook Interim City Administrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER -DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To City Administrator From City Attorney Subject Goldenwest/Warner Date September 4, 1979 REFERENCE: (a) Memo Palin/Belsito Dated August 30, 1979 (b) Letter Ferguson/City Dated August 28, 1979 Reference (b) discusses legal issues which should be -.raised in the eminent domain actions. As to reference (a), sixteen lots in the redevelopment project were left out of the'Smull Participation Agreement. These "Landis" lots were to be developed by Landis under a participation agreement with the agency. However, a decision was made that this would be unneces- sary. Landis is now cooperating with Smull Business Properties. The law is clear that not all property owners need be given the opportunity to participate equally. Indeed, it is permissible to allow no partic- ipcation by any landowners. It is hoped that the foregoing answers your questions in regard to references (a) and (b). IL H ON City ttorney GH:WSA:bc Ira HM OCi HU CITY OF HUNTINGTON B INTER -DEPARTMENT COM ATI N I``_---------- N'INGTON BEACH To City Administrator VolFrom City Attorney's Office Subject Goldenwest/Warner Redevelop- Date August 28, 1979 ment Per the Council's request, attached for transmission to it is another copy of the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Novrafchan v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. Your attention is invited to pages 21 - 26, wherein the court held that, (1) all required provisions for notice of the adoption of the redevelopment plan were complied with, and (2) all the property owners were provided an opportunity to participate in the redevelopment in compliance with legal requirements. Pursuant to the redevelopment plan and participation agreement, the issues now before the Council are whether: 1. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project, 2. The project is planned or located in the manner most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, and 3. The properties being acquired are necessary for the pro- posed project. The city is required to acquire title to the subject property and trans- fer to the participant pursuant to paragraph 104, et seq., of the Par- ticipation Agreement. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney By OBE SANGS Deputy ity Attorney Attachment: Opinion C. ROBERT FERGUSON ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE S14 MUTUAL SAVINGS BUILDING 301 EAST COLORADO BOUT EVARD PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101 (213) 61514 2810 August 28, 1979 C%1 Olt N�ro� His Honor the Mayor and the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Participation in the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Project Area Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: At the hearing, August 20, 1979, the City Attorney was instructed to provide further information with respect to my clients participation rights at the next meeting of the City Council on September 4, 1979. Also requested were copies of the Court of Appeal's Opinion in Novrafchan v . City of Huntington Beach and L.0 . Smull dba Business Properties, et al . Because words at an oral hearing are transcient, it seems in the best interest of both my clients and the City of Huntington Beach that the points raised be describing in writing in order that you may more fully understand them . The points raised are: I. My clients received no notice of their right to participate. 2. My clients received no notice of the terms and conditions necessary for participation. 3. Even assuming that my clients are deemed to have received notice of their participation rights and the terms and conditions of participation, in actual practice, the Agency has improperly and unlawfully implemented participation rights under the terms of the Redevelopment Plan. The answers to the first two issues are found in the Administrative Record and the testimony of my clients . I will not dwell on them. The third point involves the issue of "public purpose" and requires a somewhat detailed discussion. Enclosed for your information are the following: 1. Chronology of Events Regarding the Project contained in the memorandum dated April 21, 1978 from Edward D. Selich, Planning Director. A- 2. Map of Sept(,mber, 1977 showing 1(ind own(�rship and owner participation. Copies of the Opinion in the Novrafchan case have been requested from the City Attorney and it is assuined that each of you will have copies in order to confirm the references in this letter. The City Attorney called and requested that I give her the citation to the case referred to at the public hearing, Redevelopment Agency v. Herrold. She can undoubtedly provide you copies or answer any questions you have about it. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN At the hearing, reference was made to sections 404 and 405 of the Plan. These sections state:* "4.2 (@ 404) Participation by Owners It is the intention of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to encourage and permit participation in the redevelopment of the Project Area by owners of real property within the boundaries of the Project Area to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the adopted Redevelopment Plan. 4 .2 .149 405) Opportunities for Owners Persons who are owners of real property in the Project Area shall be given the opportunity to participate in redevelop- ment of retaining all or a portion of their properties, by acquiring adjacent or otherproperties in the Project Area, or by selling or relinquishing their interest in properties to the Agency and purchasing other properties in the Project Area. In the event a participant fails or refuses to develop his real property pursuant to this plan or any agreements entered into with the Agency, the real property or any interest therein may be acquired by the Agency and sold or leased for development in accordance with this Plan." It should also be noted that the last paragraph of section 402 of the Redevelopment Plan states: "The Agency is authorized to acquire structures without acquiring the land upon which those structures are located. The Agency is also authorized to acquire any other interest in real property less than a fee as to any interest in real property to be retained by a participant pursuant to a participation agreement. " * The underlining is mine. -2- PAk'1'ICI11A1'I0N OPPORTUNIIAY;S A review of the Chronology will show that the only hearings or meetings with respect to participation were held on July 14, and July 18, 1977. The map of the Huntington Beach Planning Department shows "Landis" as an owner participant. No notice that participation rights were available to persons or companies, other than L.C. Smull or Business Properties, Inc. was given to my clients . The attached map clearly shows that such participation rights are available. THE NOVRAFCHAN AND HERROLD CASES The Court's discussion of owner participation in Novrafchan is set forth in the first full paragraph on page 7 of the Court of Appeal's Opinion and also on pages 23, beginning with the last full paragraph, through page 26. It is hoped that neither the City Attorney nor the Honorable Mayor and City Council will be too overwhelmed by the paragraph on page 23 which states: "Appellates also contend that the property owners were not provided an opportunity to participate in the redevelopment as required by section 33339. They were." The Court does not deal with the points raised by my clients . The Court's opinion deals with the applicable section 33339 of the Community Redevelopment Law as it applies to the Rules for Participation and the Participation Agreement with L.C. Smull and Business Properties, Inc. The Court of Appeals does not discuss actual implementation of the Plan or the rights of owners such as Landis and very probably my clients who are eligible to participate in a manner or form which is in conformity with the Redevelop- ment Plan. The final point raised at the public hearing is based on the Herrold case. This was a case in eminent domain where Mr. Herrold raised the question of "public purpose." Specifically, Mr. Herrold denied that his property "or any part thereof is necessar for the purposes alleged in said defendants /the Redevelopment Agency' complaint or that the acquisition thereof is in the public interest or convenience . " Specifically, Mr. Herrold contended that the taking of his property was not appropriate under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 14 of the California Constitution. The points raised by my clients are based upon the same constitutional principals and upon the language of the Redevelopment Plan and the fact that an undisclosed owner participant exists other than L.0 . Smull and Business Properties, Inc . -3- DISCUSSION The language of the Plan and the reference to "owners" is very clear. No hearings took place with respect to the Landis -Owner Participa- tion and one need not be an attorney to understand the simple principals of equal protection and due process and to lay ow that if participation rights are made available to one property owner, they must be made available to all . Clearly, the Agency found that L.C. Smull and Business Properties, Inc. were the only owners with the capability necessary to build a shopping center. But, this fact does not answer several obvious questions . What is the basis of the Landis -Owner Participation? Is is possible that other owners are capable of participating on an equal basis? Why was no notice of the Landis -Owner Participation given? Why is reference to the Landis -Owner Participation omitted from the chronology? The Redevelopment Plan states that participation rights are available to all owners. The paragraph of section 402 quoted above states that "less than a fee" interest may be acquired by the Agency. It would appear that some type of possessory interest, other than a fee title, is involved in the Landis -Owner Participation. Further, such an arrangement conforms with section 6 of the Rules fx Participation. My clients fully understand that the consolidation of parcels is a prime objective of the Project. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. For example, the ground under Disneyland is owned by a number of people as is the ground under the Arco -Bank of America Towers in downtown Los Angeles. Apparently, such an arrangement is available to "Landis." The personnel of the City of Huntington Beach are involved. The Agency is vested with the right to take private property and to receive tax increments. It follows that the citizens of Huntington Beach and specifically the property owners in the Project Area are entitled to a full disclosure of the manner in which the Plan is to be implemented. My clients, being persons directly effected, as well as being property owners, are entitled to notice and the opportunity to exercise those rights which exist but are undisclosed. C RF: j s Very truly yours, C . Robert Ferguson -4- 0 0 4.0 CHRONOLOGY OF EVLNTS REGARDING 'TILL' PROJECT June 21, 1976 City Council authorizes Staff to proceed with investi- gation of redevelopment for taarncr-Goldenwest area. July 6, 1976 City Council authori/c% Staff to Proceed with redcvclo} ment planning for all small lot arLis including Warner- Goldcnwest. , January 13, 1977 Redcvolopinunt C0nuni•,1, Lon rec.oi-imcnds Rodovoloh tienL Pro3ect for Warlrur-Goldenwcst. ' February 7,-1977 Redevelopment Agency initiates Project to bo funded by Business PtoperLies., February 22, 1977 Agency approves budget for pro3ect. February 23, 1977 Planning' Commissionapproves Preliminary Plan. June 6, 1977 Redevelopmeq tAgency accepts Preliminary Ilan. t , , , Tune 9, 1977 Notice of EIR prcparation published. J ^ June 9, 1977 Notice of Planning Commission hearing on Consistency and Approval.' ' June 13, 1977 RC(lovelopmrnt Conmi -, ,ion aphrovus InLerim Aijrt2cment with Business Properties. June 20, 1977 Hedevelohmont Agency approvus tnLerLm Agrc.wnt-iiL. June 21, 1977 Planning Commission finds Plan consistent and recom- mends approval. June 23 to Legal Notice of Joint Meeting on Plan and Eltt by July 21, 1977 Redevelopment 'Agency and Redevelopment C_otniizsion_ June 24, 1977 Pr03ect Area property owners notified by certified mail. _. j - I June 30, 1977 Public Notice of Redeveloprient Commission Meeting on Plan, Report to Council, EIR, and Interim Partici- pation Agreement. + 8 8 July 14, 1977 July 1U, 1977 July 25, 1977 August 1, 1917 August 15, 1977 August 30, 1977 September 15 to September 29, 1977 Itcdevelopmont l'I)1111►1t tun PLlbI tC IIII uiln.11 1011 1111101 i►ni I(t,LIvvc]u1)lm1nL A,junc:y'.►4.It)p1 •. ISM 1 ►01.In►1 14.111 It►►1�••.. Joint h0ara,ng o! C►ty Cokin.•I1/1WtI.•vulul,mutit A%jeiicd and Redevelopment Conuuission on Plan and L'] it. City Council, Second Reading of Ordina�nae. Agency approves budget addition. Ordinance effective.' Notice ?f Joint hearing on Final Participation AUroc ment. September 19, 1977 Rcdevclolmionl. Acjency roccivcs �idopt-c�d Plan .►nd coU, public hearing. -. October 3, 1977 Joint Rcdevelopnicnt Agency and Redevelopment Comae s-, hearing on final Participation Agreement. October 3, 1977 Redevelopment Commission adopts resolution finding Participation Agreement compatible with the Redevelol Plan and approving the Final Participation Agreement October 3, 1977 Redevelopment Agency adopts resolution approving acquisition and sale of certain property in the 1: jt - area in accordance'with,the Participation Agreement. October 31 1977 January 5, 1978, January 5, 1978 January 5, 1978 January 5,,1978_ January 5, 1978 March 21, 1978 City Council 6dopts,resolution approving acquisition and sale of certain property in the project area in accordance with the Participation Agreement. Participation Agreement executed. Business Properties submits set -aside letter irrevocably committing $450,000 for use by the Agency in defraying costs of implementing prgDect. Business Properties acquired Murdy't 9 acres. Business Properties commenced preparation of plans for submittal to Redevelopment Commission for adminis trativa re'vlew and,approval." Estimated submittal' 4 tlate'#�i'ay� i'' `r1978.' - Agency staff commenced acquisition procedures by selecting MAI appraiser for appraisal of outstanding parcels and securing title reports. Appraisal report due May ly 1978. Agency staff proceeded with zone change for projet area. Planning Commission approval completed March 2 1978; Council consideration scheduled for April 17th postponed until May 1, 1978. 0 n,n 9 C • A► i v t�•• 1 •� • : April 16, .1976. 1lyency staff, prc��ared documents (resolution and agree. _ ment) • for,.acquisition , of Tax •Uecded I{o,t' from. brange County. ,'Approval of, documents, schcduled for April • 17 . postponed until, May., I.'.-�78. .... - r Ld J 0 0 E SCALE IN FEET WARNER 0 CITY OR STATE OWNED ESCROW, OPTION OR OWNED BY BUSINESS PROPERTIES LANDIS- OWNER PARTICIPANT O POSSIBLE AGENCY ACTION NECESSARY Sept 1977 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP STATUS huntington beach planning department CITY OF HUNTINGTON H �? INTER -DEPARTMENT CZF TIO HUNTINGTON BEACH To Floyd G. Belsito alin, Director City Administrator t. of Development Services Subject WARNER/GOLDENWEST PROJECT AREA ate 1 August 30, 1979 CONDEMNATION We have reviewed a letter dated August 27, 1979 from the City Attorney's office to Kindel and Anderson, Attorneys at Law, concerning the Warner/Goldenwest Project Area condemnation. The letter implies that the owners of the "Landis" property are not participants within the project area as defined by the Redevelopment Plan. It also contends that Landis owns only the developed parcels at the corner of Warner and Goldenwest, which were excluded from the project area. Research of the Redevelopment Plan and Participation Agreement with Smull/Business Properties shows this information to be incorrect. We have attached maps from the plan and participation agreement show- ing the extent of the project area and the site to be developed by Business Properties, respectively. The project area includes all vacant property and excludes the developed parcels owned by Landis. However, the Participation Agreement with Smull excludes 16 vacant parcels to be developed by the Landis interests within the project area. In conclusion, Landis owns vacant property within the project area and is a participant, in addition to Smull, in the redevelopment project. JWP:CC: df Attachments I WARNER-GOLDENWEST PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP Commercial General 111,732Z= CI M Project Area Boundary ATTACHMENT 1 t: 4v 4Jl'ov c kJ �._. OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY F. O. VOA l#V. "MAIN STREET HUNTINOTON BEACH CALIFORNIA $2548 iIVON a y%HUT 27 August 1979 Lester Rosen, Esquire Kindel t Anderson Attorneys At Law 1020 North Broadway Santa Ana, California 92701 TELEPHONE i (714) 5366555 Re: Warner/Goidenwest Project Area Condemnation Dear Le's : Pursuant to our telephone conversation last Tuesday, I am for- warding for your review a rough draft of the excerpt of the public hearing on the subject matter at the August 20, 1979 Council meeting. There has been a delay in getting this to you because of its length, and t have not asked that it be retyped for that reason. You will note that Attorney C. Robert Ferguson has cited two cases: at page 3, Redevelopment Agency of the City,of Fresno, Inc. v. Herrold, 150 Cal Rptr b2l, and at page 7, In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill (1964) 61 Cal 2d 71, 40-41. These cases are not applicable. The appellate court defini- tively decided the issue of opportunity to participate in the redevelopment project in Novrafchan v. Huntington Beach in favor of the project. As you know, certain parcels in the tract were previously de- veloped, a Shell Gas Station and Hanshaw's Liquor Store. Be- cause of this, they were -excluded from the redevelopment project. C. Robert Ferguson, attorney for several parties, has raised the question as -to why the owners of the I'Landis" property were allowed to."participate"•while others Were not. He insisted that none of the minutes of the Redevelopment Agency reflect any action in regard to such property. In short, Mr. Ferguson either misunderstands the facts or deliberately misinformed the Council since it was never intended that the already developed acreage be "re -developed." I am forwarding to the Council for its review a copy of the ap- pel.late decisiontin the Novrafchan case and copies of the rele- 0 A, Letter to Lester Rosen, Esquire 27 August 979 Warner/Goldenwest Project Area Page 2 Condemnation vant portions of the owner -participation agreement obligating the city to initiate condemnation proceedings if required. I will be out of town until September 3. If you have any ques- tions, please call William S. Amsbary, Assistant City Attorney, or in his absence, Robert Sangster, Deputy City Attorney., for further information. Very truly yours, GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GH:ahb cc: Honorable Mayor Don MacAllister City Administrator/ Director, Development Services Assistant City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Robert Sangster Enc. 0 REDEVELOeMENT EXCERPT - Council Meeting August 20, 1979 MAYOR: We'll move on to Redevelopment Agency and Parking Authority, and I was going to ask (where did Gail go?) Excuse me. What I was looking at was, I think it's proper that we should go into a Redevelopment Agency role to go into this public hearing, and ? Bud! I brought this to the City Attorney's attention and she said this is the way; it should be under the city, and she'll probably be able to clarify it -- MAYOR: It should be under the city rather than -- Bud: Rather than Redevelopment Agency. All right, in regards to it MAYOR: /fine. That's all the question I had/so we're on Resolution No. 479O, "'A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Acting as Its Redevelopment Agency Pursuant to Section 33200 of the Health and Safety Code, Declaring that the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisi- tion of Certain Real Property in.the Warner/Goldenwest Project Area in.the City QQ Huntington Beach for Redevelopment Purposes, and Authorizes Acquisition of Such Property by Eminent Domain." Just let me get my--Ok, the City Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach, pur- suant to the 3.32003 Health and Safety Code, will now consider Agenda Item G-1. This is a resolution .of interest and ne- cessity regarding the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project Area. This resolution will authorize the acquisition of the property in the project area through eminent domain by the agency's designated counsel. The purpose of this noticed hearing is „to allow those owners of land in the project area to be hard concerning three topic areas: 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the project; 2. Whether the project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and 3. Whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. It is not the purpose of this noticed hearing to consider whether the proffered compensation for.the subject tporpert,y is sufficient or fair, nor whether the property the ers have been allowed an oppor- tunity to participate in redevelopment project. Therefore, no testimony or evidence will be received on these topics, or any topic other than those previously mentioned. I will now call the noticed hearing open. Those entitled to speak or the stated topics must be property owners in the project area, or their legal representative, and they must have filed with the City Clerk a notice of their intention to speak prior to this hearing. Those wishing to be heard should at this time come forward and identify yourselves. Are there any other qualified persons who wish to be heard? If there are no others, then the Council will now consider the resolution of interest and necessity regarding the redevelopment project area. So at this time I will' declare the public meeting open and we have a letter that was sent and I believe that a Mr. Robert Ferguson is speaking for the people that are here which is including Mrs. Isaiah Smashe,y (?) Rogers? Page 2 FERGUSON: Right. I'm Bob Fepguson, Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, Councilwomen, I have one question to,begin with, in the notice there was no Indication that q arks regarding participation would not be heard tonight, / wondering how it came about --I can under- stand the fact that their value would pot be discussed but I'm interested to know why participation is not.a subject that would be proper since one of the topics that I think is paramount tonight is public purpose or public need and participation rights is something that is integrally tied with public need and public purpose. MAYOR: I'll ask the City Attorney to comment on this. HUTTON: In the case of Novrafchan v. the Cit f Huntington Beach, Defendants and Respondents, the appe c urt's decision was that all proper notices had been given according to the law, and there is an opinion of the appellate court that says that that is not, that that's not an issue any longer in -this situation. FERGUSON: I disagree with you. here was a case that came down about a month ago called Held v. The Redevelopment Agency, and that case said that a proper topic for public purpose is whether or not the use of eminent domain is in compliance with redevelopment plan, and what I'm here to talk about to- night is that the use of eminent domain as it is applied towar my clients � o tonight are Bert Horn, Isa (?) Rogers and Elsa Berry/ Plva Berry who own property which is marked in red on the chart, have not been afforded an opportunity to participate, and this is a requirement under the plan. Specifically Section 404 says that it is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency to allow participation, and Section 405 says that owners (and I've underlined that) owners shall, and that's mandatory, be given an opportunity to participate. So you.say that participation is not a topic tonight,under the Held case and under the plan, before you acquire the right or the need, you have to give my clients an opportunity to participle. The reason I bring the point up specifically under HA, ld ww that one month after the plan was adopted in September of 1977, I'm informed that extensive participa- tion rights were given to one, Mr. Landis. Now granted there's a D and D agreement between Mr. Smull and the Agency; I'm well aware of that, but I have a map which shows that Mr. Landis is an owner participant, and he is not to my knowledge putting up any money. He is simply participating. Under the plan it says that the Agency shall give owners, that's everybody, a ri ht to participate and applying what I have read in the ld case with the language of the plan, before you acquire the public need to exercise the right of eminent domain, you have to comply with the plan. I mean, it's really that simple. And it has not been done so consequently at this point in time without determining that participation is unavailable with the people who still own Page 3 land, there is no public need, or items 1 and 3, there is no necessity, and item 2, the public good or the private harm, what you're doing is taking property from these people who've, which they've invested in, you're costing the city personnel a lot of their time, and probably it'll be a lot of uncompen- sated for time, assuming that Mr. Smull;compensates for the actual acquisition costs. So there's a public harm. It can all be avoided by giving these people participation rights and I would suggest that these rights be something, oh, something comparable to what Landis has, and looking at what I've seen, it appears that he simply has a long-term participation deal for the use of his land, and that's what I think my clients are entitled to and before you can exercise the right of eminent domain, I respectfully submit that the right or the jurisdiction to apply that right has not yet arisen. Thank you very much. MAYOR: Thank you very kindly, sir. Might, under the public hearing, ask another question of the City Attorney. Had this offer to participate been done in the past, the time line ran out on it and then that's why we're at the position where we are? If that's in the actual agreement indicating that they can participate , and I don't have the agreement in front of ane so I can't speak-- FERGUSON: I have a copy of it-- iAYOR: I think she does so that's why I'm, just was ask g a question here for clarification. From our point of view/w6re the various property owners given that opportunity and given a specific time to participate thEn if they didn't, they waived their right -at that time by not participating in a specific period of time, and I hink that may be the technicality, and where we want to,/ die court and everything else, to it here, is that, you know that, well, explain that matter to-- HUTTON: The appellate court took -the records from the lower court which reflected that due process requirements of law had been afforded the property owners in the project area, and that they had all the necessary requirements of law had been completed. That's all I can say. If you want to try the case again, you're entitled to-- FERGUSON: I'm not worried about that case. That case really doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is this case right h#re, Redevelopment Agency of the City of Fresno, Inc. v. RdVbld where there was no compliance and I have gone through the chronology of events of about three or fouramendments coming from the agency staff outlining all of the steps that have been taken in the agency procedure, and there is nothing in any of them that states, notice to participants sent out, notice to participants time expired, notice to participants, or hearing page 4 a or/negotiation of any agreement other than Smull. And my clients have not received a notice, so in your own admin- istrative record there is nothing showing that there was any participation rights offered to the people in the project area and that is a litigable question, if it's in the record, and there is nothing that my clients have in their records showing that no one ever asked them, "Would you care to participate?" Normally, it's a very obvious thing. You receive a certified letter in the mail and you open it up and there's a mimeo (?) and it says, "Offer to Participate' and it has about four or five questions, and it has about three or four mimeographed boxes to fill out, and then the last, at the bottom of the sheet it says "Comments" and you fill in any comments you have on how or in what manner you would like to participate, and you're instructed to send these back. My clients have never received them. As I said,there's nothing in the record that indicates that this type o4 notice was ever sent out, and it's one thing to say that/i -,as been done and use that as a blanket statement but I know I reviewed Mr. Rogers file tonight and she has nothing that even resembles an offer to participate. She's someone who's fairly active in the city of Huntington Beach and would recognize something like that. Mr. Horn has received nothing. He didn't get the letter regarding the notice tonight until seven days after it was sent, but still he was never given a right to participate. Mrs. Berry has never been given a right or _. an offer of a right to participate, and since these people have not been,afforded that right, the use of eminent domain at this time is not in compliance with the plan. Forget about due process and equal protection and just compensation, those are question whz.dzare separate and apart from whether or not the redevelopment plan nd its languate is being followed. And that's what the HJ.rf�ld case is about. It was decided December 1, 1978, and was in the advance sheets up until about a month ago and it's finally in hard volume. It's a very new case. MAYOR: City Attorney, you have a comment? HUTTON: This opinion came down from the appellate court on March 14, 1979, and in it they address the question of due �a cess, and they say, "Although appellants argue that notice/inadequate to meet due process requirements, they have failed to cite a single instance of failure of the Agency or the City to give a required statutory notice." FERGUSON: I'm not worried about notice; I'm worried about a right to participate. That's a vested right-- whether or not these people have the right to realize the fruits of their property. MAYOR: Sir, we're not in a court of law here do me; this, you know, as rar as we're not trying, the case to hear you, but I must let, her l'ln] sh her, cornmeriLs, please. Go ahead, Gail. il Page 5 HUTTON: FERGUSON: The notice they were referring to in this case to participate and the court found that it was complete. That's all I have to say. It's--a-- Well, that's a factual question. was the right statutorily HUTTON: That was what the court decided. that FERGUSON: They decided/as a matter of fact they had adequate notice. In this case we're saying my clients did not have adequate notice, and you have not given them an opportunity to participate, a requirement of the plan. MAYOR: All right. Thank you for your.comments. FERGUSON: Thank you. MAYOR: You were speaking on behalf of the various clients who are here so nobody else is FERGUSON: Isa Rogers, Burton Horn and Elva Berry. MAYOR: Yep, ok, thank you. Is there anybody else that had filed notice or has a right to on this? Ok, if there are no others, the Council will now consider the resolution of interest and necessity regarding the. redevelopment project area. I would move then to close the public hearing at this time. Council comments --I see some lights on --Councilman Mandic and then Councilman Pattinson. MANDIC: I really wasn't in favor of this project to start with but being we're- so far along, this kind of throws in a new wrinkle and we're told up to this point to go along with it and I wouldn't be, I would like possibly give the City Attorney a chance to look into this a little deeper before I pass this resolution. Gail, do you have any problems stopping this tonight or would you rather postpone it until next meeting and look into it and see if his allegations -- because --did this stuff take place during your tenure or before? These allegations that no one was notified as par- ticipants? HUTTON: This happened before my time as City Attorney but I have read the appellate court decision and the record indicated that as far as they were concerned, that the proper notices had been given. All I can do is tell you what an appellate court said and they said that the owners of property here had received the notice required by law to participate. MANDIC: So if we pass it, we get sued by him possibly, if we don't, we get passed (?) by them. I --but you say it"s all legal and aboveboard. HUTTON: Yes. The questions he raised are questions that could be debated In a court of J.aw but; the chances are, in view of the court's rec(rnt docis.ton a.l'ter the court case ho r,ol'ot-o to, t-h.it; it; would be, our r)o;;i t; icon as ref l ectod Page 6 in the appellate court's decision would be upheld again. The appellate court impliedly had notice of this particular case that he refers to because they passed their decision after the decision that he refers to. MANDIC: Ok, thank you. e MAYOR: Councilman Pattinson and Councilman Bailey. PATTINSON: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Attorney. MAYOR: All. right, fine. I'd like to direct a question to the PATTINSON: Mrs. Hutton, under redevelopment law, do they have to be given the right to participate? HUTTON: Under redevelopment law, they do have to be --the owners have to be given the right to participate if they're given a proper notice and they respond and they work out the details of it. There're provisions that they establish the rules of the situation, and they were --if they're given notice, then there's no further need, and they don't-- PATTINSON: All right. Then the next question I want to ask is were they given notice? -,** HUTTON: Yes, they were given notice. PATTINSON: By whom? HUTTON: By the city redevelopment agency. Mr. Palin may be able to answer more specifically the date, time and place and that was entered into the record by the defendant, the city -- MAYOR: Bud, would you want to make a comment or have Mr. Palin make a comment on that? BUD: No, I think Mr. Palin, acting in his capacity as development services director should respond to that. Jim? PALIN: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there was a public hearing on participation. According to our research and that which went into court records, it indicates that all the property owners were given due notice of the chance to participate fifteen days prior to the public hearing, some of those property owners appeared and addressed the agency at that meeting, and so the record :is quite clear. PATTINSON: And yet, counselor, you say you people were not given that notice? FFROUSON: my clients were not rjven that Page '% PATTINSON: PALIN: PATTINSON: notice and if I may clarify something,, under the re- development law, a redevelopment plan ed not give persons the right to participate. There'.s a / led In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hi-11 where the.Supreme Court specifically states the redevelopment plan need not call or need not give participation, but if it does articipation rights, then that redevelopment plan must/BO WIgwed, and what I'm saying is my clients were not Liven an opportunity to participate. Well, Mr. Palin, what you're saying is in fact we did follow that law where we give the different people the right to participate and that these people were given that right? According to our research and the records, yes. What type of records do we have on that, Mr. Palin? Did we send them registered letters, or was it just a postcard or what. was it? PALIN.: Well, as far as we can determine, it was a postcard of the legal notice from the advertisement that was carried in the mawspaper. We contacted the prior people working on that, specifically, Friday, and they indicated that they did not believe that it was registered mail. FERGUSON: If I may add one more thing-- PATTINSON: No, sir. MAYOR: No, I'm sorry, sir, but your time is over. Go ahead, Mr. Pattinson. PATTINSON: Mr. Mayor, I got problems with this. I think --you know I'm very much in favor of the project and I'm not worried about a lawsuit, the thing is that it --I want to make sure that these people were given that right to participate. If we are fol- lowing that direction, I think that they Could have that right. Whether they were or not is the portion that we are contending at this time, and I can't vote for this at this time. I would rather'continue it until the next regular council meeting -to allow some backup material to come to me, at least, showing what kind of notification was given out. MAYOR: That's probabfta�ll right to get that further information but I think that/m y be a moot point if it's already been through the appellate court and the appellate court did rule and judge that we had done everything that was needed and I think the the appellate court would be what would take precedent. ? Has our case been through the appellate court? is iAYOR: Yes, it has been. That's what we're looking at,/our specific case has been through the appellate court. They have already 000- Page' 8 determined that everything was done 11111 'hat needed to be 10011, done in regards to notification. I have no objection to con- tinuing but I think that all she would be doing is bringing a report (?) to us showing what the appellate court has said and if that's needed,that's fine with me to continue it to our next regular meeting but that would be the only thing. Councilman Bailey? BAILEY: That brings up a questi8Reof who filed that appeal and was the apTieal .just for that/paritl.cular legal item? MAYOR: Go ahead. HUTTON: The appeal was filed by Ellis --well, Ellis Novrafchan, et al., one of the property owners presumably, and it attacked the va- lidity of our redevelopment plan, as adopted by this Council or a previous Council, and it challenged the fact, they raised the allegation that there'd not been notice to the property owners to allow them to participate, and in the opinion, the final, conclusionary statement in that regard to that issue is, "We have examined the record and find, as did the trial court, that there has been full compliance with all statutory requirements." And they're referring to the du r cess requirements for owner participation agree- ments/a pUe 21 of the opinion, filed March 14, 1979 by the Fourth District, Second Division, Court of Appeals, State of California. BAILEY: Ok, those that did appear at the hearing then did they all waive their right to participate? PALIN: The record is somewhat sketchy on that. They were in opposition to the participation plan a� b discussed at that public hearing that night. A fewi6� Ne inf erested in the value of the property, some of 'em were talking what had been offered previously, hoping that the value would go up somewhat, but none of them said I want to participate in this development plan. According to the Clerk's records which we got a copy of today. BAILEY: I see. Thank you. MAYOR: Councilman Pattinson? PATTINSON: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I would move to continue this for two weeks and --so I can read the, the decision of the appellate court because I haven't seen it and I would like to read it over and have it clear in my own mind rather than just listening to it. BAILEY: Second. Second. v MAYOR: Ok, it's been moved and seconded to continue the decision on this Rosol.ut-lon No. 4790 to our next, rer;ularl,y schodul ed in-et.i.nrr, We have already closed the public ,. .% Page 9 hearing so that would be a vote to continue our vote on this item to that time. I see you already have your lights on, call for the question. CLERK: All ayes. C. ROBERT FERGUSON ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 514 MUTUAL SAVINGS BUILDING 301 EAST COLORADO BOULEVARD PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101 (213) 684-2810 August 16, 1979. Ms. Alicia Wentworth Clerk, Long Beach Superior Court 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Hearing re: C .0 .P P. § 1245.235 Eminent Domain, Monday August 20, 1979 Dear Ms. Wentworth: On August 16, 1979, or within fifteen (15) days after the prescribed notice, Mrs. Rogers requested that her name and mine, on behalf of several property owners, be placed on the hearing agenda for Monday night August 20, 1979. Her request was denied and thus, this written request is forwarded. Please place my name on the hearing agenda to appear and be heard at the eminent domain hearing Monday, August 20, 1979. My remarks will be made on behalf of several property owners within the Redevelopment Plan for the Warner -Golden West Small Lot Redevelopment Project. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, C . Robert Ferg C RF: j s H REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 0 Submitted by — City Attornexo Department Legal Date Prepared Augus t 10, , 19 79 Backup Material Attached XM Yes No Subject Condemnation and Redevelopment of Warner/Goldenwest Project City Administrator's Comments ON Approve as recommended DEFEMIRFIRED By couktallf, Area es �Y��2o Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT: ns The Warner/Goldenwest Project Area has been shown to be an area primed for redevelopment due to a proliferation of individually owned substandard lots. The individual owners have been unable to organize a development project, therefore, the city, through its Redevelopment Agency, and in conjunction with the developer must organize this area into buildable lots for redevelop- ment purposes. RECOMMENDATION: The attached resolution be adopted and the Redevelopment Agency proceed with the condemnation of the lots through the City Attorney or other designated counsel. The city is obligated to perform in this manner pursuant to a participation agreement with L. C. Smull, dba Business Properties. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds to be provided by developer in accordance with participation agreement between the city and L. C. Smull, dba Business Properties. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Breach contract between city and L.C. Smull, dba Business Properties. P10 V78 6 1 0 Gail Hutton, TO City Attorney DATE 8/21/79 WARNER/GOLDEN"BEST REDEVELOPMENT Please provide a copy of the A pellate deci you referred to at the Counce fee ing o August 20, 1979, to Mr. Belsito by Nao on Thursday so that he may send it out in the CA. A SIGNED Jeri.} Chenelle , Administrative Analyst JAM err I► -�. _ � _ - DATE SIGNED REDIFORM ® 4S 465 SEND PARTS 7 AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT. i PART 3 Will BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. POLY PAX �30 SETS) �463 9 ,t BUSINESS PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT CONSTRICTION MANAGEMENT ^ pd�` 40��y�` 17840 SKY PARR BOULEVARD IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 02714 (714) 979-8800 May 8, 1978 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Redevelopment Agency of the. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Mr. Floyd G. Bel:sito, Executive Director and Mr. Ron Shenkman,-Chairman Reference: Golden West and Warner Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: In reference to the Participation Agreement by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and L. C..Smull dated January 5, 1978, please be advised that you are in default of Section:808 of said Agreement in that you have failed to allow rezoning of the property subject:to said Agreement. Demand is hereby made for you to. immediately commence to cure, correct,. or remedy such default as set forth in Sec- tion' 501 -of the Agreement. Should- you fail to correct this default,. we shall request any equitable and/or legal remedies available. I would appreciate your advising me of your intentions in this matter immediately. Very. truly yours, BUS ESS PROPERTIES OZaryll�eE 7Za fford General Counsel DES: pep cc: Angelo J. Palmieri R D E E � W E M,4Y 91973 CITY OF HUNTINGTOP-I BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE j File #49 CONTRACTOR PROJECT LOCATION ATE 1z � i ci:i nson CATV Final File 2 1990 ;,orr�u �i ca �i ons, Lts. & JP Agrmnt. Emerald Cove Financial Document 1990 Senior Apt. Agrmts. # 49 CONTRACTOR PROJECT LOCATION DATE ar ite S Ellis - W Chapel O.� Faith Lutheran Church Future P ks / el 1982 / p Fandey, Edith Rental W/Wing Main St. Library 1992 U.S. Naval Weapons Fire Support Agrmt. Seal Beach 1990 Fire Points Plaza Storm Drain Constr. MainBeach/Ellis 1991 Schurgin Dev. Reimbursement Agmt. (86-D1) Schurgin Dev. Five Points Plaza Main/Beach/Ellis 1991 Off Site Storm Drain F. W. Development Storm Drain Constr. Green/Heil/Waterway 1989 Reimbursement Agmt. (80-D2) Garisek, Anthony L. Rental 520 B. PCH 1990 Philadelphia House Garner, Jeffrey T. Pier Restaurant H.B. Pier 1989 Tackle Shop Glenn J. Harlan Lake Water Study Chris Carr & Greer Park 1988 Goeden Company Reimbursement Agmt. Delaware/Franklin 1990 Drainage Dist. #9 82-D3 Golden Coast Lab. Co. Blood Samples 1975 Breathalyzer Police ` Greer & Company Bikeways Plans & Specs 1988 `N (CC-633) Greer & Company Hazard Elimination Study (CC-550 CC-559) 1987 H.B. Community Clinic Detective Annex Building 1987 H.B. Inn Training Exercise Pacific Coast Hiway 1995 Rbert L. Mayer Fire Dept. H.B. MEA Assoc. Settlement Agreement 1993 James, Fred & Co. Worker's Compensation Program 1990 Jeffrey, Robert E. Police Dog K-9 1982 Nik Agreement Jones,Hall, Hill Legal Agrmt Downtown Parking Garage 1992 & White Pier Redev. Jordan,Robt. Catering Serv. Library Patio 1988 Patisserie Jorgensen, Roy Assoc. City Wide pavement Evaluation (CC-531) 1989 Juvenile Diversion HBUHSD, UCI, HB/SB/FV/WM/LA/GG W.O.C. (File #1) 1984 ' (File #2 ) 1990 i 9 49 CONTRACTOR PROJECT Kar Kare Co. PCH parking Lot E. Bonanni Katz, Hollis, Huntington Center Coren & Assoc. Community Dist. Kamnitzwr, Cotton Architectural Serv. Keith & Assoc. Storm Drain (CC-615) Kimmel, Herman Engineering Consultant & Assoc. Agmt/traffic Signal KVB, Inc. Geothermal Dev. Grant Legal Aid Main St. Library Annex Society of O.C. William Lyon Disposition & Dev. Agreement William Lyon Main Event Management Corp. Mansion Hill Geo. McCracken McKeon Constr. Mercer-Meidinger Midway City Sanitary Dist. Midway City Sanitary Dist. Midway City Jack I. Mobley James Montgomery Motorola Comm. Electronics Inc. Multisonic Vs. Silveri & Ruiz Sr. Housing Participation Agrmt. Management Training Reimb. Agrmt.34-Dl Reimbursement Agrmt. Tract 7334 Acturial Study Medical Costs Joint Powers Agreement Joint Powers Agrmt. Joint Powers Agrmt Firewood Sales Consulting Eng. Maint. Agreement Settlement Agreement Municipal Fire Prot. LOCATION Old Downtown Civic Center Talbert Gap Flood Control Old Civic Center Newland Storm Drain Warner/PCH/Newhope (CC-502) 525A Main St. Emerald Cove Sr. Citizen Housing Project Old Civic Center Site Tract 12027 Huntington/Clay C71-S2 Beach/Heil CE 70-40 Heil/Magnolia Beach/Heil/Newland Connection GW College Connection Beach Sewer Pump Station Warner Ave. Fountain Valley City of H.B. DATE� 01 / 1992'� 1992 1990 1992 1991 1985 1989 1990 1977 1983 1993 1982 1977 1975 1979 1992 1984 1987 1970 ")Alt A • CITY OF HUf1TIf1GTOf1 BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY • P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNI D 64 ( 4) �,d� 271 1979 TO: Redevelopment Agency Members CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City. Administrator ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE FROM: Development Services DATE: May 2, 1979 SUBJECT: WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Attached herewith are two letters from property owners or their repre- sentative regarding property within the redevelopment area on the northeast corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. In addition thereto, we have received many calls from property owners to whom we had sent offers to purchase, inquiries on participation in the redevelopment plan. As nearly as we can ascertain from the record, which is extremely sketchy at this point, it does not appear as though minor property owners were given the opportunity to participate in such development. We therefore requested an opinion from the Attorney's office (memo attached) on the question of whether these minor property owners are required to be offered participation agreement in the development of this project. We have also received many responses stating that they feel the price being offered for the purchase of the property is extremely low. Pursuant to the Agency's request we have printed and disseminated copies of the appraisals on such properties. Until such time as we receive the opinion from the Attorney's office, the staff proposes that no additional City -initiated contact be made on the negotiations for purchase of the properties. As new information surfaces and becomes available to the staff or as we receive additional letters from property owners, we will forward those to the Agency members for a continuing update. This communication is a status update only, with no action requested of the Agency at this time. Respectfully submitted, ames W. Palin, Acting Director Redevelopment Agency JWP:df Attachments: 1. Memo to G. Hutton, dated April 24, 1979 2. Letter - C.R. Ferguson dated April 23, 1979 3. Letter - Bill Gadner, dated April 20, 1979 .J� ntM CITY Or- 1-4UNTINGTO BEACt-I `i INTER -DEPARTMENT COMMU IC TION HUNTINGION BEACH^r V To Gail Hutton Fr o James W. Palin City Attorney Acting Planning Director Subject Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Dat Aril 24, 1979 Participation Agreement_ The Planning Department has received a number of calls from property owners within the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Area concerning participation in the project. The owners contacting us contend that they received no notification from the Redevelopment Agency offering participa- tion in the project. Our inquiry is the following: Is the Redevelopment Agency required to make offers of participation to all minor owners within the project area, in addition to the formal participation agreement with the major owner - developer (Business Properties)? We request this information for the May 7, 1979, City Council/Redevelop- ment Agency meeting. CC/s CITY OF HunTinGTon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director DATE: April 21, 1978 SUBJECT: WARNER-GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Formation of the Redevelopment Plan 3.0 History of the Project Area 4.0 Chronology of Events Regarding the Project 5.0 Feasibility of Commercial Development 6.0 Alternative Land Uses 7.0 Summary of Participation Agreement 1.0 INTRODUCTION This supplemental data is submitted to assist the City Council in their deliberations on the zone change and acquisition of tax deeded property for the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project. It presents the historical development of the project. 2.0 FORMATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Since the adoption of the Master Plan of Non -Structural Blight in 1968, the City has pursued a policy of consolidating small lot areas. This policy included assisting property owners and developers in putting such lands together as well as acquiring encyclopedia lots as they were offered by the County in tax sales and selling them to consolidating developers. In 1976, in response to consolidation problems in Sunset Heights, south of Warner at Bolsa Chica, and at Warner-Goldenwest, Staff recommended redevelopment as a tool for lot consolidation in all the "encyclopedia lot" areas of the City. With Council permission, a Preliminary Plan for Small Lot areas was begun in July, 1976. During preparation of this Plan, Staff worked closely with property owners and potential developers in each of the three areas - including Business Properties at Warner-Goldenwest. By December, 1976, Business Properties had tied up over 60 percent of the lots and was anxious to proceed ahead of the other areas. Because the Business Properties con- solidation success was impressive and a workable project was possible. Staff requested authorization to pursue the Warner-Goldenwest Project in earnest. With consent of the Redevelopment Commission and the Redevelop- ment Agency, work on this project began in February, 1977. • C. ROBERT FERGUSON ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 514 MUTUAL SAVINGS BUILDING 301 EAST COLORADO BOULEVARD PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 91101 (213) 684- 2010 April 23, 1979. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: James W. Palin Acting Redevelopment Agency Director Re: M . Burton Horn; Redevelopment of Lots 37 & 38, Block C , Tract 392 Warner/Goldenwest Redevelopment Project Gentlemen: P. 01„( 190 On April 18, 1979, Mr. M . Burton Horn received a letter from James W. Palin dated March- 20, 1979 which indicates that the Agency is desirous of purchasing Mr. Horn's property in order to implement the Redevelopment Plan for the Warner/Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project. Mr. Palin's letter also indicates that the Agency is offering $3 .75 per square foot for the purchase of Mr. Horn's property or a total of $ 23, 800.00 for his two lots. • It appears that this offer to purchase is premature. Section 404 "Participation by Owners" states: "It is the intention of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to encourage and permit the participation in the redevelopment of the Project Area by owners of real property within the boundaries of the Project Area to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the adopted Redevelopment Plan." Section 405 "Opportunities for Owners" states in part that: "Persons who are owners of real property in the Project Area shall be given the opportunity to participate ." Although the language of Section 405 is mandatory, the only owners who have been given an opportunity to participate are Mr. L. C . Smull, Business Properties, Inc. and Mr. Landis. Upon reviewing the criteria for GO participation and the objectives of the Plan, it appears that a Participation Agreement by the remaining owners is entirely feasible and consistant with 10"4 the adopted Redevelopment Plan and its objectives. The absence of an opportunity to participate indicates that the Agency is unwilling to follow the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan or to deal with Mr. Horn in good faith and in a reasonable manner. In light of this, it would appear that an informal request would be fruitless. Therefore, Mr. Horn hereby makes a formal demand that he be given an opportunity to participate in the Redevelopment Plan in order that he may "participate in the growth and development of the Project Area." C RF: j s cc: M . Burton Horn Very truly yours, C . Robert Ferguson .- 2 -- ia ZT. "Met of "MIC MOM Z()= Cut 78-6 NOTICE IS HERSSY GIVEN th&t * puillic httttag vtll be hold by tho City COUftil Of tbO City Of' Vtt0th* tO tie COU 0tt Cher of the Civiv, C*fttor . *mttpgtoo $**Ob* of M0 hour of 7:30 on or os work thomottor splbtoo the ,, iv,.&U --- 44y, bf ix. 1g.Ift tht *f"Se Of 49"Utrto$ cadge Of Zone do. 14-6a initiated bv,tha Plannit4tbl*iSsion, from PA (Residential Aqricoltixral District) to C2' JCOIAWOO'ity ttisifioss District) The subject pr6perty is located at the hortheast cornor of'Warher Awoue and Goldenwest Street. A legal descri�ti6n, is on file its the Planning D40att%ent,0fh-qe- All Ustorooitd P*r**0* &to t6vit0d t* OttAnd **1'4- h6*ting, and *a -prose their optaims for or *40106 t 04td' Cho 0.4 Z.,pne No. .78-6 t"formottoo **Y1 � obt*1604 froW th* office of t ho Cit, Y Clork �000 Main St., fluntin4ton Seach, CA, (714) 536-5226 ITY "MM". WACH go we"twrth NOTICE: TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: FROM: PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE _DAY OF 197$. AP's are attached AP's will follow No AP's Initiated by: Planning Commission _Z-' Planning Department Petition * Appeal Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) YES NO Refer to Planning Department - Extension # 5;27-1 for additional information. * If appeal, please transmit exact wording; to be required in the legal. W .euvo, J., AV.0 �4 "iff Environmental Council CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH Post Officp Box 1 0 Huntington Beach, Californ' 92648 April 14, 1979 ����fi�Lp Mayor and City Councilf Acy,�, P.O. Boa 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, In July 1977 the Environmental Council reviewed Draft EIR 77-4 on the proposed Warner-Goldenwest Small Lost Redevelopment Plan. While the EIH has been approved, may we bring to your attention that there were many environmental concerns about the specific uses proposed. In reviewing the reports again at this time, we feel that the city staff responses still did not clarify or fully address some of the issues, including the following: 1. Aren't sewer lines on Goldenwest presently at capacity? The EIH and staff response do not provide answers to what the usage of utilities would be, and what incre- ment this would be on available supply or capacity. 2. The statistics indicate that the specific uses pro- posed would increase traffic on Goldenwest to 15% over capacity, and the signalization at Goldenwest and War- ner, and ingress and egress to that commercial area are inefficient and hazardous. Will the proposed development provide mitigating measures to alleviate these impacts? 3. If city tax returns are not as large as anticipated (from the development of similar grocery, drug, and small stores as are on the two adjacent corners), or If stores lie vacant and inviting to vandalism as has occurred in so many areas, do the taxpayers foot the bill for maintenance, policing, locating new tenants, on this property or the two adjacent corners? 4. Aren't there alternate eommeroial uses which would provide diversity and would be more compatible with the traffic, area needs, and the existing developments? S cerely, t de� Irwin Haydock Chairman Environmental Council I REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by Edward D. Selich Department Planning & Environmental Resources Date Prepared April 7 11978 Backup Material Attached XM Yes No Subject Zone Change 78-6 Northeast corner of Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended. Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE The .Planning Commission initiated request to change the zoning on the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Area from RA, residential agricultural, to C2, community business. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Zone Change No. 78-6, and give the attached ordinance a first reading. aMAT.VCTC APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning Commission LOCATION: Northeast corner of Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue REQUEST: From RA to C2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON MARCH 21, 1978: ON MOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY NEWMAN ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-6 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stern, Finley, Shea, Newman, Hoffman NOES: None ABSENT: Slates Plo 3/78 t ZONE CHANGE 78-6 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The subject site is designated General Commercial in the General Plan. Rezoning the site to C2 would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. In addition, rezoning the site to C2 will permit the implementation of the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project. The Planning Commission action was appealed by the Warner-Goldenwest Committee. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn but the materials submitted by the Committee have been attached for the City Council's review. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report 77-4 which was approved by the City Council on July 25, 1977, provides the environmental assessment for the pro- posed zone change. FUNDING SOURCE Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Deny Zone Change No. 78-6. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 1. Area Map 2. Staff Report 3. Ordinance 4. Materials submitted by the Warner-Goldenwest Committee Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Selich Secretary EDS:TJM:gc REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Palin Department Planning Date Prepared April 2 11979 Backup Material Attached Yes a No Subject WARNER-GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - NEGOTIATIONS FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: *" M STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Staff is now in the negotiation phase with thirteen (13) owners for the acquisition of property within the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project Area. Successful negotiation of these parcels requires that the Redevelopment Agency enter into escrow and sign instructions for each transaction. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Acting Redevelopment Agency Director to sign escrow instructions on each transaction successfully negotiated at the appraised value. ANALYSIS: At its March 19, 1979 meeting, the Redevelopment Agency authorized the Staff_ to proceed with the negotiations for acquisition of the subject properties at Warner and Goldenwest. Staff has offered the full appraised value to the owners of the parcels under consideration. For those owners willing to enter negotiations requires the Redevelopment Agency to sign off escrow instructions. Rather than bring each transaction.successfully negotiated before the Redevelopement Agency, Staff recommends that the Agency authorize the Acting Director to sign the appropriate escrow papers. RCA-Warner-Goldenwest ;development Project April 3, 1979 ♦ ,4 Page 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) Redevelopment Agency approve escrow instructions on each parcel transaction as they occur. This alternative may involve time delays and additional costs. Respectfully submitted, W ,Tames W. Palin Acting Director Redevelopment Agency TdF/CC/dc , If 7, � M- 6,0Y47 DETT. P. 0. ilox 190 f unlingtorL CA 92648 11 91 lArm-F REDEVELOPV 'IT AGENCY P2 0 s REQUE,,,-> I' FORiL —ACTION Submitted by AW/-Ha-rtge/Selich Department Public Works/Planning Date Prepared April 6 , 19 78 Backup Material Attachtx! ® Yes No Subject Purchase of Tax Deeded Lot in the Warner/Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project Area Executive Director' s £itpicchninistrator's Comments Approve as recommended. Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: 1.0 STATEMENT OF ISSUES: Pursuant to the Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and L., C. Smull, the Agency must purchase the outstanding lots in the Warner/Goldenwest Redevelopment Area for subsequent resale to L. C. Smull. One of the outstanding lots is pr_osetitty up for Tax Collector's sale, and in order for the Agency to pur- chase this lot a resolution objecting L-o Lhe Lax collector's sale and authorizing the execution of an agreement to purchase tax deeded property must be approved. (Resolution and Agreement attached). 2.0 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached Resolution and Agreement to purchase Tax Deeded Land be approved. 3.0 ANALYSIS: c W U.1 pp U i r� U PIO 3/78 On August 1, 1977, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2212 approving the Redevelopment Plan for the Warner/Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelop- ment Project. The objective of the Redevelopment Plan is the consolidation of the small lots for subsequent development of a shopping center of approximately 80,000 square feet. On January 5, 1978, the Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and L. C. Smull was executed, authorizing Staff to proceed with acquisition of outstanding lots within the Project Area. The subject Tax Deeded lot is presently up for Tax Collector's sale. The Agency must pass the attached standard resolution and agree- ment before Staff can proceed with the acquisition of this lot. s t� i Page Two 4.0 FUNDING: The purchase price stated for this Tax Deeded Lot is $850. Funds for acquisition of the outstanding lots are being provided through the Participation Agreement between the Agency and L. C. Smull. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Selich, Planning Director By: Monica Florian, Assistant Director H. E. Hartg.e Director of Public Works CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER -DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Finance Department Subject Refund of Appeal Fee �r From ,,�� Plari n;r Dement Date April 3, 197Vp ?� Please prepare a refund of $75.00 for Gordon Hatch, Secretary Warner Goldenwest Committee, 6905 Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach. The Committee has withdrawn its appeal on Zone Change 78-6. Since no staff work had begun on the Appeal, a refund is in order. The appeal fee was paid on March 29, 1978 by Check Number 16-351, receipt number i02417. MF:gc cc: Connie Brockway Warner-Goldenwest Committee 6905 Warner Ave. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 March 31, 1978 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. Dear Council, I would like to withdraw the appeal on Case #78-6. Respectfully yours , ordon Hatch Committee Chairman GRH/jh i4ffidavit of Publication State of California County of Orange ss City of Huntington Beach George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach News, 'a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been established, printed and published in the State of California, and County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication of 'the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or any number thereof. The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. That the ZONE CASE NO, 78-6 of which the annexed is a printed copy, was'published-in said news- paper- at least o n e issue commencing from the 3 0 t h day of --.,March 19-;L8 and ending on the 30t h day "of ,141a. rc h 19 78 both days inclusive, and as often during said period and times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following dates, to -wit: Mar, 30, 1978 PG blisher Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31 s t day of March 19_28 Notary Public Orange County, California fl ---------------•----- a�« iw*' �ti THOMAS D. WYLLIE 1 t•/ � Notary Public -California i Orange County i My Commission Expires i September 12, 1976 --------------------------- •---1 Published Huntington Beach News March I 30; 1978... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONX USE NA,.. y8-6 NOTICE. 1151'HE11EBY GIVEN that a pub. lic , hearing r.WZll, be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber. of the Civic Center, Huntington' Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as j possible; on . Monday the 17th day of Apr'1, 1978, for the purpose of consider- ing Change of Zone No. 78-6, initiated :by tl°e Planning Commission, from RA j (Residential Agricultural . District) to C1 (Community Business District), The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. A legal description l is on file in the Planning Department Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Change o1 Zone No. 78.6. Further information, .may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,,,2000 Main St., Huntington Beach, CA .(714) 536-5226. DATED: March 27, 1978. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BFCH ., By: Alicia M. Wentworth 4 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach County of Orange State of California fl ffidavitof Publication , of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk Deputy Clerk 49<� 4/0.2 q17 Warner-Goldenwest Committee 6905 Warner Ave. Huntington Beaoh,,Ca. 92647 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. Dear Council, /y* C►�'y'� 4�y �4,10 March 28, 197?' The Committee has elected to appeal the Planning Commission's decision of March 21, 1978 regarding change of Zone #78-6. The Warner-Goldenwest Committee originated to act as plaintiffs opposing the Warner/Goldenwest Redevelop- ment Project. A copy of "Consent and Request To Serve As A Plaintiff" is enclosed. The 26 signatures represent either real property owners or proprietors of a business at the intersection of Warner and Goldenwest. The following are a few of the reasons we are objecting to the zone change. These and other reasons will be presented at the public hearing. 1) Over -commercialization of this intersection and area. 2) Over -abundance of Liquor stores and Liquor departments at this intersection. The intersection has two high schools, one grade school, and a city park. 3) Additional Trafic congestion. 4) More of the same kind of business will make the existing business marginal forcing many out of business. 5) Dr. Stark's letter dated Feb. 21, 1977 attached. 6) Letter dated Sept. 7, 1977 sent to the Council and signed by concerned business people of the area. This committee believes that the 15 acres would best serve the community as a residential area. The developers of this property can make a handsome profit as a residential development without destroying the balance of the business community.� `-� J r"d Please review the discussion of the Planning Commission after they closed the public hearing at the March 21 meeting. You will find the discussion favoring the disapproval of the Zone Change. Were it not for the insistence of Ms. Monica Florin and Mr. Travis, the Zone Change, in all probability, would have been rejected by the Commission. S sincerely hope the Council will keep an open mind in reviewing this case. GRH/jh Respectfully yours, Gordon Hatch Committee Chairman ""7;;'�,����.>,,7D:; w-ti►.^M+rr. a+y,,.. Y«.....:..-.w».�.a€'ete�.,, -,, Number of Excerpts 100 Publish Once LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. ZONE CASE NO. 78-6 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California for the urpoge o considering Change of Zone No. 78-6� from RA (R sidential Agricultural District) to C2 (Community Business District). The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7:00 P.M., on March 21, 1978 , in the Council Chambers Building of the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. All interested per bons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 78-6 _ F Further information may b6 obtained ftom the City Planning N Department. Telephone No. (714) 536-5271 DATED this 9th day of _ March, 1978 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION By Edward D. Selich Secretary 1> 142-251-01 ZC #78-6 142-251-30 John A M irdy Jr Initiated by Planning Cry Gossazd et al 334 Via Lida Nord Commission 131 Las Flores Newport Beach, Calif Feb. 28, 1978 QH) `Thousand ems, Calif 92663 91360 142-251-03 142-251-15 142-251-32 Ada F Plant Alfred Patzold C L Owen John A Murdy Jr Elva R Proper John A Murdy Jr 334 Via Lich Nord 1020 W. Woodlawn Avenue 334 Via Lido Nord Newport Beach, Calif 92660 San Antonio, Texas, 78201 Newport Beach, Calif 92660 142-251-04 142-251-22 142-251-35 LYnest Sigala Myer Silverman Leon J Bierlein 1762 Roanoke Avenue Security Pacific Natl Bank 5462 Bonanza Drive Tustin, Calif Tax Div. #02-1-01396-0 Huntington Beach, Calif 92680 P.U. Box 60802 Tenn Annex 92649 142-251-05 Los Angeles, Calif 142-251-39 William Landis 90060 LYnest Sigala 1180 S . Beverly Drive -------------------------- P.O. Box 21 i,os Angeles, Calif Garden Grove, Calif 90035 92642 142-251-06 142-251-23 142-251-41 Ida Estes Avery et al Francis J Bradasich Carl J Rasmussen Alice B Belshe 1301 W 84th Street Alice B Belshe 9781 Royal Palm Blvd Los Angeles, Calif 9781 Royal Palm Blvd Garden Grove, Calif 92641 90064 Garden Grove, Cal. 92641 142-251-08 142-251-24 142-251-42 William h Ladner Sr Ethel J Osterman Charles O Terry wx 328 Point Roberts, Washington 339 W Walnut Avenue Clayton A Terry Arcadia, Calif 1702 N Cedar 98281 91006 Tacoma, Washington 984U6 142-251-11 142-251-25 142-251-44 William C Aplin et al Marie T Posen et al Lucille h Yellen P.U. Box 1027 Nola P Dessert %Jack Tellen Faun Ventura, Calif 3451 Norris Dr South Springville, N. Y. 93001 Fresno, Calif 93703 14141 142-251-12 142-251-28 142-251-45 Aarie T Pedersen et al Alice B BeLshe Eugene J Hodgeman Nola P Deseet 9781 Royal Palm Blvd 415 N Fuller Avenue 3451 Norris Dr South Garden Grave, CAl f Los Angeles, Calif Fresno, Calif 93703 92641 90U36 142-251-14 142-251-29 142-252-08 Gary Sarna wtdse Kemp Andrew Manolas 6922 Via Angelina Drive 7054 Firmament Avenue 6975 Long Beach Blvd #214 wntington Beach, Calif Van Nuys, Calif Long Beach, Calif 92647 91406 90805 ri) 142-252-12 142-231-16 Delphie Cox Warren A Bratfisch 1336 W 10th Avenue ZC #78-6 7241 A Corsican Drive Eiugene, Oregon Initiated by P.C. Huntington Beach, Calif 97402 Feb 28, 1978 (Jii) 92647 142-252-13 142-252-52 142-231-17 ljowell H Poles Frank W Gant et al Patrick F Sheehy 1575 N Coast Highway Jokm A Mtudy 1401 Avocado Avenue Laguna Beach, Calif 334 Via Lido Nord Newport Beach, Calif 92651 Newport Heads, Calif 92660 92660 142-252-18 142-252053 142-231-18 Gary L Gossard Esther F Itzabo Frank T Hung et al 131 Las Flores P.O. Boat 17052 10870 E1 Mar Avenue 'Il-Aousand Oaks, Calif I"V Beach, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif 91360 90807 92708 142-252-44 142-252-54 142-231-19 Y rmi.t A Tyler et al 1=e1lo I Beaver Clark D Henter Katharine L Johnson 1608 Rawcna Street 7260 Corsican Drive 1341 L1 Remore Glendale 8, Calif Huntington Livac;u, Calif Los Angeles, Calif 90U27 91208 92647 142-2:i2-45 142-252-56 142-231-20 Agnes Bloomfield et al M Bur ton Horn Patrick F Sheeny ipy C Hougard 6431 Weber Circle 12 Rine Deauville 405 N Peach Knoll Huntington Beach, Calif Newport Beach, Calif Anaheim, Calif 92805 92647 92660 142-252-46 142-231-12 142-231-21 !Norman Lautrup et al 1lazel I Palmer Adriana B Eckstein j651 Rockledge Drive 7291 Corsican Drive 7290 Corsican Drive Apt A Buena Park, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90621 92647 92647 142-252-47 142-231-13 142-231-37 Lila R Hensel David E Dorton Walter L Wood 254 S Madison Avenue 7281 Corsican Drive 4031 Morning Star Drive Pasadena, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 91101 92647 92649 142-252-48 142-231-14 142-231-38 Dept of transportation David E Dorton Kurt H Huehn 120 So. Spring Street 7261 Corsican Drive 15812 Dundalk Lane Los Angeles, Calif 90052 Huntington Beach, Calif duntington Beach, Calif Attn: Staff Assistant - B 92647 92647 142-4)1-49 142-231-15 142-231-39 ihrm C Farran James R Hagen James D Haran 225 N Fulton Street 7251 Corsican Drive 3672 Montego Drive Fresno, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif I*.mtington Beach, Calif 93701 92647 92649 142-231-40 165-081-10 14yron G t3eavin LC # 78-6 R S Minniek 7712 Duquesne Place Initiated by PC. Standard oil Co of Calif Westminster, Calif March 1, 1978 (Jli) Property Tax Division 92683 P.O. Box 3495 142-231-41 142-232-14 San Francisco, Calif Jeffrey R Maguire Jeamie M Hankharcit 94119 17581 Wright wood Lane 7292 Toulousye Apt 1 ----•-----------------------•-- k=tingtcn Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, C3iaf 92649 92647 142-232-06 142-232-15 165-081-19 baril E Whetsell Richax d M Jones Federated Department 7301 Toulouse Drive 2951 Tigertail Drive Stores Inc. Hfitington Beach, Calif Los Alamitos, Calif Ralphs Groc. Co. 92647 90720 P.U. box 54143 142-232-07142-232-16 Los Angeles, Calif Haril E Whetsell Lewis F Davis 90054 7291 Toulouse Dr #1 16652 Goldenwest St #1 iuntington Beach, Calif Hunthigton Beach, Calif ------------------------•---- 92647 92647 142-232-08 142-232-18 146-591-03 Dean A Bidgood Betty A Monaghan Warner -West LTD P.O. Bax 1713 7291 Elk Circle Apt 2 1281 Westwood Blvd. #206 warden Grove, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Ins Angeles, Calif 92642 92647 90024 142-232-09 142-232-18 146-591-04 Ixnald S Bunyak Louis B Kaplan Eva M Beeni TR 1d611 De ion Lane 4A 116-12 237th Street Union Oil Co iAmti.ngton Beach, Calif Elmont, N. Y. Property tax Division 92646 11003 P.O. Box 7600 142-232-11 142-232-19 Los Angeles, Calif William B Macario Samuel A Buscenti 90051 13261 Siskiyou Street 7251 Elk Circle Westminster, Calif Huntington Beacti, Calif -------------- ----------------- 92683 92647 142-232-12 142-232-20 146-254-17 William R Prince Sammal A Lkugcemi David E Rogers 7252 Toulouse Drive 2701 W 141st Place 6922 Marilyn Drive dmtington Beach, Calif Gardena, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 90249 92647 142-232-13 111-010-01 146-254-18 Lawrence L Flower Huntington Beach Union High Richard E Dougherty 18623 Plumosa Street School District 6932 Marilyn Drive Fountain Valley, Calif 1902 - 17th Street Huntington Beach, Calif 92708 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92647 r 146-254-19 Ronald L" Stits 6942 Marilyn Drive amtington beach, Calif 92647 146-254-20 Paul E Bolton 6962 Marilyn Drive Iltntington Beach, Calif 92649 146-254-21 Louis J Muller 6972 Marilyn Drive Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 146-254-22 Steven Spear 6971 .'Marilyn Drive Hunt-uigt,on Beach, Calif 92647 146-254-23 Carl R Zoellner 6961 Marilyn Drive auntington Beach, Calif 92647 146-254-24 wwell liertzbexg 367 Gawe Lane Costa Mesa, Calif 92627 146-254-25 Harold R Smith 6931 Marilyn Drive iwntington Beach, Calif 91647 Ocean View School District 7972 Warner Avenue 11untington beach, Calif 92647 2C #78-6 Initiated by PC March 1, 1978 (Jh) 142-252-48 John H Nylund et al 6861 Hinos Ave Apt 1 No. Hollywood, Calif 91605 142-252-67 Marie W. Drrynan et al 15258 Caopina Lane La Mirada, Calif 90638 142-252-13 Rodney A Madsen Coast Development Co. 16397 Algonquin Street ikmtingtm Beach, Calif 92649 C I TY OF H unfl (i Ton BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Redevelopment Agency Attention: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator 3 �9 e� FROM: James W. Palin, Acting Planning Director DATE: March 19, 1979 SUBJECT: WARNER-GOLDEN14EST REDEVELOPMENT At its March 5, 1979 meeting, the Redevelopment Agency deferred commencement of negotiations for acquisition of the.property to be developed under the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project until a study of the Participation Agreement was complete. The negotiation process will,not commit the Agency to any particular course of action while the Participation Agreement is under review. We therefore recommend that the Redevelopment Agency authorize the Staff to proceed with the negotiations for acquisi- tion of the subject properties at Warner and Goldenwest. D �p P/CC/dc n t NI1NGro+ o� Fyn M A� 10 1919 x c/�' ATiO�� 0 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OMCIAL UPORTS COURT OF qr^prgL' = F OiJ,-, i N DIST. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH DISTRIC c, SECOND DIVISION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ELIS NOVRAFCHAN, et al., ) Plaintiffs and Appellants, ) V. ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, et al., ) Defendants and Respondents. ) r ) L. C. SMULL, dba BUSINESS PROPERTIES, ) et al., ) Real Parties in Interest. ) ROBERT L, FORD, Clerk beputy-Clerk 4 Civil 19646 (Super.Ct.No. 276611) O P I N I O N APPEAL from the Superior Court of Orange County. Robert A. Banyard, Judge. Affirmed. Arthur D. Guy, Jr. and Alton I. Crowell, Jr. for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Kindel & Anderson, Douglas A. Dodds and Lester Rosen for Real Parties in Interest. Appellants seek reversal of a judgment validating the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project in the City of Huntington Beach. Appellants, all of whom either owned property in or adjacent to the proposed development, or had A -1- r r- a beneficial interest affected by the project, filed a peti- tion for writ of mandate to (1) compel respondent City of Huntington Beach to set aside its finding that the project area is afflicted with "blight," (2) invalidate City of Huntington Beach Ordinance No. 2212 which approved the re- development plan, (3) stay proceedings to condemn property within the area, and (4) stay implementation of the partici- pation agreement with Business Properties, Inc., and L. C. Smull, dba Business Properties, real parties in interest herein.. Appellants have standing to challenge the validity of the ordinance and the redevelopment plan, and have complied with the validation procedures contained in Health and Safety 1/ Code section 33500., et seq. At the hearing in the trial court, appellants made an offer of proof, which included proposed testimony to demon- strate that the finding of "blight" was erroneous. The court refused to hear the evidence or to remand for further hearing by the City Council, the Redevelopment Agency or the Redevelop- ment Commission. Following -the hearing and review of the ad- ministrative record, the trial court entered its decision hold- ing that the ordinance, the environmental impact report and the .1/ All references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated. -2- owner participation agreement were all lawful and valid. The court also held that there was substantial evidence to support the findings that the project area is a blighted area, that condemnation of real property is necessary for redevelopment of the area and that the redevelopment plan is in the interest of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. I THE PROJECT The land included in the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelop- ment Project consists of 15.2 acres of vacant land at the intersection of Warner'Avenue and Goldenwest Street in the City of Huntington Beach. It is surrounded by land devoted to pub- lic and private uses, including commercial uses, open -space parks, residential uses and a high school. No significant de- velopment has ever taken place in the project area and the land is covered by low growing weeds and is devoid of trees. At some time in the past the land was divided into 169 substandard sized lots (25' x 126' and 25' x 100') which are commonly referred to as "encyclopedia lots." In 1972 the project area was zoned RA as a holding zone because of problems with setback, street dedication and ownership patterns, and the master plan designated the area for commercial retail use. Private development of the area has -3- been unsuccessful because of inadequate lot size, clouded titles and multiple ownership within the area. As of May 1977 the lots were held by 41 property owners. Only 25 of the 169 lots have access to exterior public streets; the remaining parcels are served by private unimproved access ways of 25.2 feet width. Based on a 1976 City Planning Department Revenue/ Expenditures Analysis of Land Use, it was estimated that the area produced only $2,535 in tax revenues and requires expen- ditures of $5,850 annually. The only recent attempt to develop a portion of the area concerned a 50-foot parcel facing Warner Avenue, one of the exterior streets. Although the City granted an area variance to remove set back requirements, the development failed because of inability to comply with City code requirements for parking. On January 13, 1977, the Redevelopment Commission recommended a redevelopment project pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (5 33000 et seq.), and preliminary investi- gations for the proposed project were undertaken. On June 6, 1977, the Redevelopment Agency accepted the preliminary plan for the project, and on June 10, 1977, the City Planning Department published notice that a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had been prepared for the project and that W -4- , r- interested persons could review it and submit comments for a period of 30 days. On June 21, 1977, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which it found the proposed redevelopment plan consistent with the general plan and recommended its approval. On June 30 notice was published in the Iiuntington 2/ Beach Mews that the City Redevelopment Commission would hold .r a public meeting on July 14, 1977, for the purpose of consid- ering and taking testimony on the proposed redevelopment plan, the draft EIR, and the proposed rules -for owner participation. The notice also stated where the proposed plan and draft EIR were available for public inspection. Following the hearing, on July 14, 1977, the Commission adopted the rules for owner participation. The Redevelopment Agency also adopted the rules for owner participation by resolution on July 18, 1977. Between June 23, 1977, and July 21, 1977, notice was published in five issues of the Huntington Beach News that the Huntington Beach City Council, the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and the City Community Redevelopment Commission (Commission) would hold a joint public hearing on July 25, 1977, to consider the rede- velopment plan. The notice stated, inter alia, that all persons 2/ The Iiuntington Beach News is an adjudicated legal newspaper of general circulation in Orange County. -5- having objections to the proposed plan, or wishing to deny the existence of blight or the regularity of any of the prior proceedings had the right to file written objections or make oral objection at the hearing. The notice further stated that at the same time and place a joint public hearing would be held to consider the final EIR, and invited interested per- sons to appear and be heard. In addition to the public notice, the property .owners within the project area were notified of the July 25, 1977, joint hearing by certified mail. At the July 25, 1977, hearing, the City Council and the Commission received evidence of compliance with notice requirements for hearing and adoption of a redevelopment plan, the report of the Commission to the City Council explaining the redevelopment plan, the report of the Planning Commission finding the plan consistent with the City's general plan and recommending approval, the final EIR, the owner participation rules, and written comments on the project from property owners in the area. After hearing testimony from the City's staff, consultants, and members of the public who wished to be heard, the CoiLuAssion adopted a resolution (No. 7) approving the plan, and the City Council; sitting both as the Redevelop- ment Agency and City Council, adopted Agency resolution No. 17 approving the plan, and tentatively adopted the plan by unani- mous vote in favor of ordinance No. 2212. The City Council adopted the plan by a unanimous vote on the second reading of the ordinance on August 1, 1977. Thereafter, the notice of determination was filed with the county clerk stating that the project had been approved and that the Agency had determined that the project would have no significant effect on the en- vironment. The ordinance became effective on August 31, 1977. Between September 15, 1977, and September 29, 1977, notice was published in three issues of the Huntington Beach News that the Redevelopment Agency and the Redevelopment Com- mission would hold a joint public hearing on October 3, 1977, to consider the participation agreement between the Agency and Business Properties proposed pursuant to the previously adopted rules for owner participation. At the close of the hearing at which property owners were given an opportunity to be heard, the participation agreement was approved. Following the conclusion of the proceedings in the trial court and the denial of a stay order by this court, pre- sumably the participation agreement was executed and the project has proceeded. 0" CONTENTIONS AND DISCUSSION -7- Appellants make the following contentions on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to remand the case for additional evidence on the feasibility of private development of the project site; (2) the record lacks sufficient evidence to support the finding that the area is "blighted"; (3) the proposed redevelopment of open space constitutes an unprece- dented expansion of the Redevelopment Act; (4) the appellants were denied an adequate opportunity to be heard on the redevel- opment plan, the EIR, and the participation agreement in viola- tion of their rights to due process, and (5) the evidence was insufficient to justify condemnation for the purpose of erect - I ing retail shopping facilities. A. Blight It is apparent that many of appellants' contentions directly or indirectly attack the determination that the pro- ject area is a blighted area. in examining these contentions, it is necessary to keep in mind the applicable scope of judi- cial review. It is well established that the court may not reweigh the evidence upon which the Agency and City Council acted but rather that their actions in the adoption of a re- development project are to be evaluated in accordance with the substantial evidence rule. • (In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Mill (1964) 61 Cal.2d 21, 40-41; Regus v. City of Baldwin Park.(1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 968, 975.) We must therefore examine -8- the evidence to determine whether the administrative finding of "blight" is supported by substantial evidence. The definitional provisions of the Community Rede- velopment Law applicable to the project in question are as follows: "A blighted area is one which is characterized by one or more of those conditions set forth in Sections 33031 or 33032, causing a reduction of, or lack of, proper utiliza- tion of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, or economic burden on the cormiunity which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or allevi- ated by private enterprise acting alone." (S 33030.) "A blighted area is characterized by properties which suffer from economic dislocation, deterioration, or dis- use because of one or more of the following factors: "(a) An economic dislocation, deterioration, or dis- use resulting from faulty planning. "(b) The subdividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development. "(d) The existence of inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelop- -9- ment." (§ 33032.) Quite obviously the project area is,characterized by properties which suffer from disuse because of at least two of the factors enunciated in section 33032, to wit, faulty planning and lots of inadequate size for proper development. The undisputed evidence is that the lots are substandard, that the majority of the lots have no access to public streets, and that the property, although subdivided in 1923, remains an island of unused land surrounded by properties developed for public and private uses. The only issue on which there could,be any dispute is whether those conditions have caused "a reduction, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, or economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be re- versed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone." Therefore, in determining whether appellants' con- tention that the area is not blighted finds support in the evidence, we consider the evidence relative to the serious- ness of the physical, social, and economic burden and the feasibility of development by private enterprise. The evidence is undisputed that annual expenditures for municipal services are almost double the tax revenues from A -10- the property. moreover, the Agency and City Council properly could consider the unused productive potential which will accrue to inhabitants and property owners in the community by redevelopment of the property. Finally, in view of the weed producing character of the land and its proximity to commer- cial, residential and school property, the agencies were justi- fied in finding a serious potential hazard to the public health and safety through increased crime, fires and rodents in the project area. (The Legislature recognized this potential danger from such areas in section 33035, subdivision (c).) Clearly the Agency and City Council could reasonably find that serious social and economic burdens exist. The fact that the area has not been developed suggests that pri- vate'enterprise has been ineffective in proceeding with devel- opment. The evidence of the failure of previous efforts also supports the administrative finding that such development lacks feasibility. Even appellants' offer of proof, while seeking to show that the lots could be assembled by private developers, actually highlights the difficulty. Appellants offered to pre- sent testimony of an experienced title officer of steps neces- sary to clear title to numerous lots, including quiet title actions, quit claim deeds from absent heirs, inheritance tax releases, reversions to acreage, clarification and removal of -11- a easements for sewers and pipelines affecting lots fronting on Goldenwest Street. Appellants argue that the evidence of blight does not establish that the project area is blighted within the standards established by the California courts. We disagree. As we have seen, the Community Redevelopment Law establishes the standards; the cases relied upon by appellants simply apply the statutory standard to varying factual situations which are quite unlike the project area. In Sweetwater Valley Civic Assn. v City of National City (1976) 18 Cal.3d 270, the Supreme Court applied precisely the same standard we have previously cited, as follows: "To allow redevelopment under CRL, the proposed area must be blighted. A finding of blight requires (1) that the area suffer 'either social or economic liabilities, or both, requir- ing redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare,' and (2) the existence of one of the charac- teristics of blight. (9 33030 . . . .)" (Id., at p. 277, fn. omitted.) The court emphasized that it "is not sufficient to merely show that the area -is not being put to its optimum use, or that the land is more valuable for other uses." (Ibid.) In Sweetwater the land in question was being used as a golf course, and while this may not have been the most economically -12- r` profitable use, the court found "the golf course being econ- omically profitable -- in combination with its open space nature -- the property constitutes neither an economic nor a social liability. Therefore, it is not blighted." (Id., at P. 279.) Appellants also rely on Regus v. City of Baldwin Park, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d 968, which involved a project in- cluding two noncontiguous sites, one, the 29-acre Puente-Lierced site, and the other, the 53-acre South Baldwin Park site. The gist of plaintiff's attack on the project was that the noncon- tiguous South Baldwin Park site was not blighted at all. It contained 25 acres of valuable new development by United Parcel Service and Nichols Lumber. Even as to the smaller parcel there was testimony that the property owners could develop their own properties, and the owner of a restaurant at the site testified that his difficulty in developing the remaining property and finding tenants resulted from the city's refusal to issue per- mits, not because of irregular parceling. There was no showing that the project area was either a social or an economic lia- bility. Nevertheless, the court did not rest its decision on the failure to show blight as to the smaller Puente -Merced site but rather on the inclusion of .the noncontiguous unblighted area. The court stated, "At bench evidence of blight at tho 8 -13-r Puente -Merced site largely rests on irregular parcelization, and there is no evidence of blight at the South Baldwin Park site. Even under the former provisions of section 33321, the Project cannot stand unless there is a showing that the Puente - Merced conditions 'predominate and injuriously affect the entire area.' We find nothing in the record to show that con- ditions at Puente -Merced have the slightest effect on conditions at South Baldwin Park, located a mile away on the opposite side of the freeway." (Id., at p. 981.) The -court ultimately con- cluded that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding that the project area was a blighted area. Unlike the project areas described in Sweetaater and Regus, the Warner-Goldenwest project area presents a classic case of urban blight. Private enterprise acting alone had not and could not put the land to productive.use. The property is divided into unusable sized parcels in scattered ownership and clouded titles and without access to public streets. It is not land at the edge of an urban area proposed for premature development for urban uses, but is surrounded by property uses. The area is not being used as open space land and is not reserved or needed for that purpose, there being a regional park to the north and school grounds to the south. We conclude that the finding of blight is supported -14- by substantial evidence. We also hold that the trial court properly denied appellants' offer of proof to the effect that the finding of "blight" was erroneously grounded upon the conclusion that the property could not be developed by private enterprise. Appellants offered to produce evidence that a map showing 28 lots requiring Agency action was in error because some of those -lots were in escrow to Business Properties. The record reveals that the map was used at a hearing on October 3, 1977, relative to the participation agreement with Business Properties. Clearly this evidence was not relevant to the determination of blight made by the City Council in ordinance 2212,on July 25, 1977. Moreover, proof of acquisition of prop- erties after adoption of the plan would not constitute evidence that they could have been assembled in the absence of adoption of a community redevelopment plan. In any event, the Agency determination must be tested by the facts.as they existed at the time the determination was made. Appellants also offered testimony of an expert title officer summarizing the steps necessary to clear title to the lots in the project area in an effort to show that it could be done by private enterprise. As previously indicated this evi- dence would have provided additional support for the finding -15- that clouded titles and scattered ownerships made private acquisition impractical. The Community Redevelopment Law, section 33036, subdivision (c), recognizes that while private acquisition is speculatively possible, it may not be practical, as follows: "Such conditions of blight are chiefly found in areas subdivided into small parcels, held in divided and widely scattered ownerships, frequently under defective titles, and in many such instances the private assembly of the land in blighted areas for redevelopment is so difficult and costly that it is uneconomic and as a practical matter impossible for owners to undertake because of lack of the legal power and ex- cessive costs." Additional evidence offered by appellants included aerial photographs of the area and maps showing status of the various lots. There'is no showing that the physical descrip- tion of the area which was presented to the Agency and City Council was in error. This evidence would have been merely cumulative, and the status maps showing acquisitions subse- quent to the adoption of the plan would be irrelevant. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in refusing to remand the case for consideration of the above evidence by the City Council pursuant to Code of Civil. Proce- -16- 3/ dure section 1094.5, subdivision (e). The court did not err. The provision authorizing remand is inapplicable to judicial proceedings testing the validity of proceedings under the Community Redevelopment Law. Section 33501 authorizes action pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the validity of such proceedings. Section 869 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that validation proceedings pursuant to Chapter 9 is the exclusive method for challenge by private 4/ persons of matters authorized to be determined thereunder.- 3/- Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (e). provides: . "Where the court finds that there is relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or which was improperly excluded at the hearing before respondent, it may enter jud gr;ient,as provided in subdivision (f) of this section remanding the case to be reconsidered in the light of such evidence; or, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its indepen- dent judgment on the evidence, the court may.admit such evi- dence at the hearing on the writ without remanding the case." 4/ Code of Civil Procedure section 869 provides: "No contest except by the public agency or its officer or agent of any thing or matter under this chapter shall be made other than within the time and the manner herein specified. The availability to any public agency, including any local agency, or to its officers.or agents, of the remedy provided by this chapter, shall not be construed to preclude the use by such public agency or its officers or agents, of mandamus or any other remedy to determine the validity of any thing or matter." - -17- Moreover, the Community Redevelopment Law specifically pro- vides in section 33502 that "The judgment (in validation proceedings) shall determine the validity or invalidity respectively of the matters specified in Section 33501. . . .If Clearly, if the proceedings are found to be invalid, remand would serve no purpose, and if the proceedings are valid, the court has exhausted its jurisdiction, except for the power to reopen under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 within 90 days after judgment or to consider a motion for new trial. Appellants' contention that the proposed redevelop- ment of ."open space" constitutes an unprecedented expansion of the Community Redevelopment Law is simply another attack 5/ upon the finding of "blight." Quite clearly vacant land can be blighted if.it meets the statutory criteria of sections 33030-33032, and under section 33032, subdivisions (a) and (b) it is clear that the conditions that have kept it vacant may 5/ It is clear that,appellants equate "open space" with vacant land" since tha project site is not being used for any of the open space uses. Government Code section 65560 defines "open -space land" as follows: I'M 'Open -space land' is any parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to .an open -space use as defined in this section, and which is designated on a local, regional or state open -space plan as any of the following: (1) Open space for the preservation of natural resources . . . . (2) Open space used for the managed production of resources . . . (3) Open space for outdoor recreation ,(4) Open space for public health and safety . . . ." be the very conditions that have caused or contributed to the blight. In any event, the Legislature has authorized redevel- opment in areas afflicted with blight. It is not for this court to question the wisdom of that action as long as it serves a public purpose. It is accepted law that redevelop- ment of blighted areas is a public use. (In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker hill, supra, 61 Cal.2d 21, 41; Redevelopment Agency v.. Mayes (1954) 122 Cal.App.2d 777, 789-790.) It is true that most of the early cases determining the constitu- tionality of redevelopment laws involved clearance of blighted slum areas. however, the site involved in Hayes was not a slum area. Its claimed necessity for redevelopment was its economic dislocation and disuse under former section 33042 of 6/ the health and Safety Code. After an exhaustive review of 6/ Former health and Safety Code section 33042 provided: "A blighted area is characterized by: "(a) An economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse, resulting from faulty planning. "(b) Thv subdividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development. "(c) The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other physical characteristics of the ground and surround- ing conditions. "(d) The existence of inadequate streets, open spaces, and utilities. . . ." (Enacted by Stats. 1951, ch. 701, § 1, p. 1926. Repealed and reenacted as Health & Saf.•Code, § 33032 by Stats. 1963, ch. 1812, §§ 2, 3, pp. 3677, 3679. Section 33032 was amended to its present form by Stats. 1976, ch. 1336, No. 10 West's Cal. Legis. Service, p. 5863.) -19- the cases wherein the constitutionality of various redevelop- ment acts have been considered, the court concluded that be- fore the power of eminent domain may be used for the acquisi- tion of vacant land for redevelopment purposes, there must 7/ exist a compelling community,',social, or economic need. The court found that compelling community need in the demand for more housing. The court concluded as follows: "While probably no one element of the blight is sufficient to justify the taking by eminent domain, the combination of a great and pressing de- mand for more housing, the correlation of the area with other areas of the city, by streets and public places, the fact that without governmental help the area cannot be developed and will continue to deteriorate, together with all the circumstances shown by the record, demonstrate the compelling community econ- omic need required to permit the application of the act." (Id., at p. 798.) In the instant case the City Council has found numer- ous elements of blight, including the existence of lots of inadequate size, faulty planning resulting in disuse of land which could otherwise contribute to public health, safety and 7/ Implicit in the decision is the understanding that where a slum area is involved, the eradication of the slum provides the compelling public purpose. 0 -20- welfare, and prevalence of social and economic maladjustment, and that such conditions constitute a physical, social and economic burden on the community. (City of Huntington Beach Ordinance No. 2212.) We have concluded that the findings are supported by substantial evidence and bring the project area within the statutory definition of a blighted area so that the redevelopment thereof constitutes a public purpose. Appellants' contention that the evidence was insuffi- cient to justify condemnation for the purpose of erecting re- tail shopping facilities constitutes yet another attack upon the finding of "blight." We reiterate, the public purpose is found in the elimination of the blighted condition of the prop- erty. Condemnation is authorized as the means to accomplish that purpose where.it is established that the elimination of blight and redevelopment cannot be accomplished by private enterprise alone. B. Due Process Appellants' remaining contentions relate to the ade- quacy of. the hearings afforded with respect to the various pro- ceedings involved in the project. Although appellants argue that notice was inadequate to meet due process requirements, they have failed to cite a single instance of failure of the Agency or the City to give a required statutory notice. The -21- requirements for notice and hearing for the adoption of a redevelopment plan are specified in the California Community Redevelopment Law. We have examined the record and find, as did the trial court, that there has been full compliance with all statutory, requirements. Section 33348 requires that before the approval of a redevelopment plan by the agency, the agency shall hold a public hearing. Section 33349 requires that notice of the hearing shall be published not less than once a week for four successive weeks prior to the hearing, and requires that copies of the notice shall be mailed to the last known assessee of each par- cel, at his last known address and to the governing body of each taxing agency.by certified mail. Section 33350 requires that owners of property within the area be given notice that their property would be subject to acquisition. Section 33360 requires that the legislative body (city council) hold a public hearing for consideration of the plan. Section 33361 requires that notice be published not less than once a week for four•successive weeks. Section 33355 provides that, as an alternative to 2 -22- the separate hearings, the agency and the legislative body may hold a joint hearing on the plan provided the joint notice complies with the requirements prescribed by sections 33349, 33350 and 33361. The factual statement included herein reveals that there was full compliance with these notice requirements, that the notices contained the statements required by the CRL, and that property owners and other interested persons were given 8/ full opportunity to make objections both written and oral. (See §§ 333.62, 33363.) The statutory provisions for notice and hearing specified in the Community Redevelopment Law satisfy the re- quirements of due process. (In re Development Plan for Dunker Hill, supra, 61 Cal.2d 21, 64-67; Card v. Community Redevelop- ment Agency (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 570, 578-579.) We conclude that notices and hearings provided by respondent were consti- tutionally adequate. Appellants also contend that the property owners were not provided an opportunity to participate in the re -- development as required by -section 33339. They were. 8/ The record reflects that appellant 11arie Drynan was one of the persons who appeared at both the joint hearing on July 25, 1977, when the elan was considered, and at the joint hear- ing on October 3, 1977, on the participation agreement. -23- Section 33339 provides as follows: "Every redevelopment plan shall provide for parti- cipation in the redevelopment of property in the project area by the owners of / art of suchprop-art yif_,the owners agree to participatt;,,e — e redevelopment in conformity with the redevelopment plan adopted by the legislative body for the area." Although appellants never articulate the basis for the contention that there was a failure to comply with the above requirements, we have examined the record to determine whether the rules for owner participation were reasonable or whether there was any failure to notify property owners of the rules for participation or.to give notice and opportunity to be heard with respect to the owner participation agreement with Business Properties prior to execution. We find the rules to have been fair and reasonable and that adequate notice and opportunity to be heard were provided. That the section does not require that every prop- erty owner in a project area be given an absolute right to participate in redevelopment appears.from the section itself, Lme nce it requires that participation be conditioned upon agree-nt to participate in redevelopment in conformity with the an adopted by thelegislative body. (In re Redevelopment -24- Plan for Bunker Hill, supra, 61 Cal.2d 21, 59-60.) Moreover, the fact that some but not all property owners in a project area are provided a right to participate has been upheld as not violative of the equal protection provisions of the United States or California Constitutions. In the Bunker Hill case, the California Supreme Court upheld an owner participation plan which conditioned participation on proof of financial ability to perform. The court stated, "The question with respect to the owner -participation provisions would appear to be, as stated in the Fellom case, whether the agency has fulfilled its obli- gation of 'reasonableness and good faith.' The imposition of reasonable terms and conditions upon the right to participate as the agency may deem necessary or appropriate in light of the redevelopment.proposed would seem to be not only within the power but a duty of the agency and this would include such rules as would reasonably assure fulfillment of an owner -participation agreement including such matters as the establishment of financial ability." (Id., at pp. 60-61; see also Felloin v. Redevelopment_ Agency (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 243, 250, where the First District Court of Appeal upheld participa- tion rules which made participation opportunities available to owners of improved property but not to owners of unimproved property as being fair and reasonable; and Sanguinetti v. City -25- Council (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 813, 825-826, upholding owner participation provisions which granted participation to three parcels only out of all the parcels within a nine block area. In the instant case, Business Properties, Inc. was at the time the agreement was approved the owner of 60 percent of the property in the area. The very purpose of the project was'to eliminate the blight that was caused in part by the parcelization of the site into substandard sized lots. We find nothing unreasonable in the participation rules which per- mitted disposition to a single owner for participation and de- velopment in accordance with the plan. All groperty owners and other interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard at the joint public hearing on October 3, 1977, prior to approval of the agreement.. We conclude that the rules for owner participation were fair and reasonable and appellants were not denied any constitutional rights either of equal protection or due process. Finally, appellants contend that the procedures em- ployed in the adoption of the Environmental Impact Report denied them due process of •law. `.Le sole argument in support of this contention is that the notice of the meeting to con- sider the draft BIR was published only once in the huntington Beach News. -26- The administrative record does not support this con- tention. To the contrary, it reveals that all procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and local guidelines were satisfied. Notice of completion of the draft EIR was transmitted to the State Resources Agency as required by the'California Administrative Code, title 14, section 15085, subdivision (c). At a meeting of the Environmental Review Committee of the City on June 10, 1977, the draft EIR was ordered posted as required by local guidelines, for a 30-day period prior to a public meeting to be held on July 14, 1977, and proof of publication shows that the notice of the public muting was published in the IIuntington Beach News on June 30, 1977. The notice stated that the draft EIR was available for public inspection at the office of the agency and city clerk. Public testimony was accepted at the hearing on July 14, 1977, and subsequently the final EIR was sent to the Environmental Review Committee for review. The final EIR was extensively considered and approved as a part of the joint public hearing by the Commission and the City Council on July 25, 1977. The July 25, 1977, hearing was the subject of publication in the IIuntington Leach Nows and certified mailing to property owners as previously described. Notice of determination pursuant to the Environmental Quality -27- Act, Public Resources Code sections 21108 and 21152 was filed on August 4, 1977. It is unclear whether appellants also intend to attack the sufficiency of the EIR. In any event, such attack is barred by Public Resources Code section 21167, subdivision (c) which establishes a 30-day statute of limitation for actions alleging that the EIR does not comply with the applicable pro- visions of the code after the filing of the notice of determin- ation pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21108 and 21152. The petition for writ of mandate herein was not filed until September 29, 1977, 5G days after the notice was filed. The judgment is affirmed. We concur: Ls/ Gardner P.J. e -28- /s/ Morris J. q f 16 August 1979 TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolutions of Necessity to Acquire Private Property for Public Purposes. Agenda Item G-l. The Council is required to give each person whose property is to be acquired a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Reasonable opportunity to be heard means, in this context, that the property owner must: 1. File a written request within fifteen days after the notice of the hearing was mailed to him that he desires to be heard. 2. An opportunity to be heard need not be granted to (a) any person who is not a property owner, or (b) any property owner who did not give the proper notice. The notice to the property owner states the issue which he may address as follows: 1. Does the public interest and necessity require the proposed project? 2. Is the project planned or located in the manner most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury? 3. Are the properties being acquired necessary for the pro- posed project? Other topics such as (a) does the city have the money, (b) is the amount of compensation adequate, or (c) are other projects needed more, etc. are irrelevant, are not proper subjects for discussion at the noticed hearing and need not be given con- sideration by the Council. J4 -a 4&�_ GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GH:CM: ahb PROCEDURAL OUTLINE FOR CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM G-1 SCRIPT FOR MAYOR The City Council acting as the Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 3320'0 of the Health and Safety Code, will now consider Agenda Item G-1. This is a resolution of in- terest and necessity regarding the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelop- ment project area. This resolution will authorize the acquisition of the property in the project area through eminent domain, by the Agency's designated counsel. The purpose of this noticed hearing is to allow those owners of land in the project area to be heard concerning three topic areas: 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the project; 2. Whether the project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and 3. Whether the property sought to be acquired is neces- sary for the project. It is not the purpose of this noticed hearing to consider whether the proffered compensation for the subject property is sufficient or fair, nor whether the property owners have been allowed an op- portunity to participate in the redevelopment project. Therefore, no testimony or evidence will be received on these topics, or any topic other than those previously mentioned. I will now call the noticed hearing open. Those entitled to speak 1. SCRIPT FOR MAYOR continued on the stated topics must be property owners in the project area, or their legal representative, and they must have filed with the City Clerk a notice of their intention to speak prior to this hear- ing. Those wishing to be heard should at this time come forward and identify yourselves. Are there any other qualified persons who wish to be heard? If there are no others, then the Council will now consider the Reso- lution of Interest and Necessity regarding the redevelopment pro- ject area. 2. C. ROBERT FERGUSON , AJ iOF I1JVY Al LAW 51,)11! '�� I�I�Ill�iil S/1'J11JJ:' If�fil4fl�J.: �cJl (/•'il , � � f�i/AI,fC� I\�,f�flk JAf1lJ PASAUENA, i:ALIVORN1A 011U1 Au,just 16, 1979. Ms. Alicia Wentworth Clerk, Long Beach Superior Court 2000 Main Street P.O. 130x 190 HuwiLhigton Beach, CA 92648 Re: Hearing re: C.C.P. g 1245.235 Eminent Domain, Monday August 20, 1979 Dear M s . Wentworth: On August 16, 1979, or within fifteen (15) days after the prescribed notice, Mrs. Rogers requested that her name and mine, on behalf of several property owners, be placed on the hearing arj(.,nda for Monday night August 20, 1979. Her request was denied and thus, this written request is forwarded. Please place my name on the hearing agenda to appear and be hoard at the eminent domain hearing Monday, August 20, 1979. My romarks will be made on behalf of several property owners within the Redevelopment Plan for the Warner -Golden West Small Lot Redevelopment Project . Thank you for your cor.irtesy and cool) otaLion. Very truly yours, y f J e. i l;�• C . Robert Ferguson `? CRF:js City of Huntington Beach Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Alicia, I wish to request the right to appear and be heard before the City Council meeting on 20 August 1979 for myself, my husband Rodney A. Madsen, property owner M. Burton Horn, other property owners as represented by C. Robert Ferguson, Esq. This request is in response to your correspondence with me, "Notice of Intention to Acquire Property by Eminent Domaino, Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1245.235- Once again, I would like you to correct your records regarding my address. My correct address is cited hereon: I moved from the Algonquin Street address in October, 1978. Thank you. rs Development Co. BUSINESS P13OPERTIES DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 17840 SKY PARK BOULEVARD • IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 02714 • (714) 979-8800 September 12, 1978 Honorable Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Reference: Warner/Golden West Redevelopment Project Dear Council Members: The undersigned respectfully requests a reconsidera- tion of your denial of zoning for the above referenced project. Very truly yours, IES LCS:pep no P. 0. Box 190 Huntin t n [ ash, F 92AgQ ton t (each t: i t.y Council . Honorable P�icmhers� i�5r + 1., F'llOMI Ur. Margaret J. Stark, 11 ,sc,c iate i rofessor Director, Center for Urban Studies California State University at Long beach (Resident of Huntington Beach, residing at 16)41 Birdie Lane) DATE': February 21, 1977 SUBJECT: Proposed Small Lot Redevelopment Project at Goldenwest and ,Verner I am writing because of a growing general concern about the level of the planning effort in this community and a particular concern about the proposed small lot redevelopment project at Warner and Goldenwest. Ny concerns about the proposed Warner/Goldenwest redevelopment project center around two primary questions which will be developed in this 1 correspondence: (1) whether this proposed project is an appropriate and legitimate use of the redevelopment process; and (2) whether the ' proposed, intended commercial use represents a sound planning decision 9 in the context of the larger community. First, let me spell out my concerns; about the use of the redevelopment: process to develop the Warner/Goldenwest site. The propriety of u:,in1; the redevelopment process to develop commer:'cial use: on the Warner/ Goldenwest site is open to serious question on the rnilowing. ounLni --Vhe proposed "redevelopment" project is not redevelopment., the project constitutes development in the traditional sense, nA, redevelopment, and the use of redevelopment processes to develop vacant land is increasingly being called into question as abusive of the intent of state legislation creating and delir:eating the scope of redevelopment tools. --l{istorical.ly, the intent of redevelopment has been closely tip] to the provision of sound housing. The fact that few redevel-in—iit projects have resulted in the production of housing in the low and moderate ranges does nut obviate this "historical. linkage. --The contention that the proposed ',Varner/Goldenwest site is blighted is ludicrous, and will undoubtedly be challenged in the a courts. This throws the project ultimately into jeopardy, and the prospect of litigation on this issue is an expensive prospect for the citizens of Huntington peach. --The Use of City monios to suhs.ioize a private commercl.11 developer in thi°3 instance is Vl1l.rleT'clble on several count;. The re(JUir-OflOnt of eminent domain is that it be exercised in the public interest. i think it can be corcntl,y argued that, thiss. Proposed commercial "redevelopment" is definitely not: in the public interest, ;�s will undoubtedly be determined in ensuing public he,u-inC.,s on the proi"c t. area and project area plan. Whether further commercial development at the Warner/Goldenwent intersection is in' the public interest Members of the huntirT61;on iielC+c+ C:i'ty`�(;ourici1 Page 2 must, be seriously evaluated. '3n:uso of' public funds to brie;- l,-ind costs down to an economic value for redevelopment, and the u:;e or the power of eminent domain to facilitate the assembly of parcels for private development are legitimate only if the resultant development can be shown to serve the public interest, and if adequate assurance is given that the same kind of investment to cure similar ills will not need to be repeated every generation. The relevance of. this latter problem will become :apparent in the section of this correspondence trer,ting sound planning. -The anticipated project costs as indicated in the Planning Department memo dated January 13, 1977, are grossly underestimated, given the unpredictability of contingency costs in eminent domain proceedings and plan preparation/implementation litigation. These costs could'conceivabl,y raise the level of public.(City) expendi- tures by several magnitudes., Addressing the Warner/Goldenwest "redeve-lopment" project, from the s t•:rid- point of sound planning, in the context, of l r+rf;e+ cnnun1+3+i ty cu+nr,:. r1w In the City raises a number of equally critical problems: --In question is the need for further commercial development in the City and, more specifically, the choice of this site for further commercial use. We hive yet to fully absorb the impact, of the Westminster Mall on the Huntington Center Mall, the interrelationship of impacts of the Seacliff Shopping Center, the proposed downtown redevelopment, the newly completed shoppi.nF; centers fit Goldenwest and !salsa, developing major shopping centers �+t Goldenwest and Edinger, further commercial development at bolorn Chica and Heil, etc. The cumulative impact and mutual compatibili ty, of all these commercial developments must be evaluated. At what pointw-ill these centers become competitive and counterproductive? This is an -unknown, but it is < serious, releviint and critical question for this community. How much commercial development can we support ip such close proximity'? Does the regional context of the City augment or,restrict the optimal local level of commercial development? To argue effectively that the proposed development is in the public interest (and this is required in the use of eminent domain) these questions must be seriously addressed. --Within a several mile radius, several expansive shopping center areas are developing simultaneously. Developer marketing; surveys are not, sufficient indices to protract the public interest. Thr. developer can walk away once his developments ore sold or lea,;ed. The community must endure the longterm consequences of further commercial development. What are thew projected consoquenr�r ;'? This question deserves c Ireful, disinterested and unbiased study. Most citie3 are substantially commercially overzoned, and according to Gallioh and Eisner, architect/planner co-authors of The _Urban Pattern (1975, 3rd edition) anoted text in urban stud1e:3 an(i urban planning curricula: .;.,:�r�k�. -�_ �_. � ..,..........,,,��...»..,, .. ...�..��.. ., ., ,P.,.,.._ .,. r,�um .�.«.�Y..,. ,,, �sn .. �..., •...�.,. ._ r.._„.,�,,.�,.., r... �..,.. n.,...'..,���k*iwm» l,te�nbera of the Huntington I;e Ach Ci l.y Gounci 1 rage ) . "'I he gross excess of commercial zoraaraj? wr'ar,Iis he:tvily 11'poll the city.... much of' Ch is enterprise opera t.eo on a margin;il basis. 'The mortality rate of retail business is extremely high, between 15 and 25 per cent of the retail stores going out of business each year. About ogle -third of all retail stores have a life -span of a year or less, one-half remain in business no longer than tiro ye,-.rs, and leas than one - quarter remain as long as 10 years. PIr. kohert Dowling, a prominent real estate counsellor in New Fork City, e stim:ated that four or five times .rao ninny c tore, are in bucinrs,, as the need demands. "Inducement to en;a(;e in uneconomic ventureu i ; app;arent,ly strong, and the impact spreads f<,r beyond the failure of an individual entrepreneur. Un:; table business enterpriue breeds physical blit;h t.... " (p.. 3U1) ninny extensive shopp'irq; areas are being devPlol,ed in such clone proximity as to call ser•iouuly into question their lora6tP.rm viability. This problem deserves critical evaluation. --'iransciency, vacancy, and threatened volume -of -business rates are already visible in l,roxirn.ate are,,, within the City. The 6a.few-:y site at Warner and Si-)ringda.l.c hi,,; been vacant for approximately two years. A second site is v.,cant within that s_,me shoppin'; <Ire;i. As new commercial sites are developed with slightly improved design concepts, these blighting; phenomen:1 strand to increrl;,e. 'she, longterm implications of this trend are commercial blight, high turnover ruad vacancy factors, and a corollary blighting influence on surrounding; residential areas. The neg;r:t:ive impn-.cts of overzoning commercial policies are well -documented in older urban areas. --The whole suburban promise is one of escaping; the mistakes of older core areas. 11any suburbrin areas are rising to this challenge. These areas will, over the Jong haul, retain stable population because they have created something people desire. However, the longterm effects of unthinkin ; development will insure th.,it Huntington :leach follow the footsteps of other short-lived and declining urban centers. There is an alternative, and I would .like to indicate tome recommend It.iunst --'de need to evaluate ;erlously the mix of residenLi.a1./induutrirll/ commercial development in this community. An industrial ev;ilurltion ir, presently in the final. stages of completion. A commorc:i.al study floods to be under taken pri.f)r to the commitment of _Iny raddi tiona1. urban land space to till;, LISNIle. A moratorium on commercial develop- ment should be adopted until planning studies can be completed which cart then guide further development .in this area. -The use of redevelo^meat processes should be undertaken only in cases where blight can be unequivoc.illy documented rand where it can he demoInstratedthat the proposed redevelopment is truly in the F•ublic Members of tho Huntington Heach '.;i.ty Council. Page i nterest and would not occur wi t.IlUu t the expend! turf of put)l is funds. Overbuilding commercial, with itu attend :ni. effects of commercial blight and spillover to adjacent residenLial. ;ireris is clearly not in the public interest. The areas within, this community where the redevelopment process can be utilized legitimately are probably extremely limited, and the aucceus of these ef.forto will dep('rld upon the extent to which the community is consul tod and brou;;ht. along in the range of policy making proceasee wn ich must attend these actions. --Careful evaluation and on -going monitoring of the viability of existing commercial centers and the need for new commercial develop- ment must be undertaken. Newly forming; commercial enterpriser need to be guided, wherever possible, into existing commercial spaces. Huntington beach still has an opportunity to avoid th(! m.i:itakes of oldr.r urban centers in the Southern California =area. We have rearnd the I)enefi.ts of the exodus of residential. population from alder urban areas to this promise of our community, but with inattention to the underlying- causes of our past mushrooming growth, we will simply replicate this hopeless pattern. Already significant population is moving; southward in Granj;e County to "greener pastures." I think the time his come for, you, ,.0 leaders in thi:� community to take seriously your, public trust. btany of us have inverted our futures in tiie promise of this community; you have an obligation to see that the quality of life to which we have aspired, is not trOnsere.3sed. Examples of enlightened, visionary planning and leadership are growing throughout the state, and it behooves you, as the custodians of the public trust, to examine seriously the range of critical issues raised in this corres- pondence in the context of the aspirations of the,members of this community. Respec 'u y your , Marga e t S tar . ccl Cotes of-fHo correspondence are being made available to interested persona in the community. CONSENT AND REQUEST TO SERVE AS A PLAINTIFF The undersigned is the owner or proprietor of a business or the owner of real property in the vicinity of the proposed WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I have been advised directly by or indirectly from legal counsel Arthur D. Guy, Jr. that a lawsuit is being undertaken' to invalidate an ordinance which has been passed by the Hunting- ton Beach City Council., The action which has been taken is that of the passage of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPI:OVING AND ADOPT- ING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THEE, WARNED./GOLDENWEST S14ALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The undersigned does therefore consent and request that he or she or the identified entity be included as a plaintiff in a suit against the City of Huntington Beach together with others who or which are similarly situated. bPA _ -T�v� Anthony Tovatt cAl Harry Baker -- —' j e ✓Z IN �t evL L° v� tQ 2'J S its'\ 17`�3i 3ea-C �a J Donald Jones September 7, 1977 . I� ;� n!I 10 : 2 7 Huntington Beach City Council 2100 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Members of the Council: xows V' DD SLP 20 IVI CITY OF HUNIINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE I have been told that there is a possibi.li.ty u1 bullding, another shopping center at the turner of Warner Avenue and Golden West in the City of Huntington Beach, r U Lj This has caused the small tenants in this neighborhood to suffer emotionally due to the fact that for several years each small tenant has been trying to build up the small i' O m business to make a livlihood for their family. Now that it has become apparent, that.perhaps with more hard work ro.S� ' we might be able to make a decent living for ourselves U ' and our family, the building of this new shopping center u) �) s will. destroy all this effort for years to come and put a c? most of the small businessmen out of business. F c: ! In several blocks in this neighborhood you see many shopping �•��` n U centers, large and small, and it is beyond the need of this �n -,�J neighborhood, especially that a few blocks North a large i. new shopping^center is under construction with the major. 0 r: •t,i� ai tenant, Gemco. 0 c c To our judgment, we need badly residential quarters, and 1._'• °T a it will be to the benefit of everybody if this location is a ' U u approved for residential and not commercial. Hope you will give attention to our. problem. Very truly y Xs , ,� uh�cE� ��;�iC /,Q 7 c 3,/ar hL B. 9lG I/7 e§7 is tu it ,� (�1,�,•.f t.,/�l/<a.r.> l 13/ �t:!rlr �..v t/Cr'r, �,1/�` cIrl- 6979 0ax- rA 4o- NB IU60 CLI I W f Lyrpl TE - CITY CLERK' UE CITY CLERK i, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH No. -. s CaREEN - CITY ADMINI 'fRATOR CANARY - DEPARTMENT►L for RESOLUTION ,M REQUEST ORDINANCE or Date. Request made by o : 'VA e , Department +�f , n 5 INSTRUCTIONS: pile request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the requ'eTit'of Council Action. Attach all papers pertinent to the subject. All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved -by the Director of Firlahce before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: •`O 011� !' f � X l C Desired effective date Signe i Approved as to availability of funds Pel 1� 1 j�.,,) (' V i",% ✓ ' f Director of Finance City Attorney — Please prepare and submit printed copi to this office b : City Administrator huntington bec�.n planning department staff eort TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: March 21, 1978 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-6 ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-6 APPLICANT: Initiated by Planning Commission LOCATION: Northeast corner of Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue REQUEST: From RA to C2 ACREAGE: 15 acres EXISTING USE: Vacant 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: DATE ACCEPTED: 2/27/78 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: May 2, 1978 ZONE: RA GENERAL PLAN: General Commercial Approve Zone Change No. 78-6 based on findings in Section 7.0. 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Zone Change No. 78-6 is a Planning Commission initiated request to change the zoning on the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Area from RA, residential agricultural, to C2, community business. On July 25, 1977, the City Council adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project. The plan details the means by which a commercial shopping center environment will be established for the site, thereby eliminating and preventing blighted conditions in the proj-ect area. The Redevelopment Agency proposes to: (1) acquire certain real property, (2) abandon private streets, (3) install, construct or reconstruct streets,.utilities, and other site improvements, (4) dispose of property for uses in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan, and (5) redevelop land for uses in accord- ance with the Redevelopment Plan. 1�f ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-6 Page 2 3.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Major issues of concern regarding Zone Change No. 78-6 are: (1) conformance with the General Plan, and (2) implementation of the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Plan. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report 77-4 which was approved by the City Council on July 25, 1977, provides the environmental assessment for the proposed zone change. 5.0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The subject site is approximately 15 acres and comprised of a large number of small lots and several larger lots. Existing zoning on the property is RA, residential agricultural. The site is designated on the General Plan as General Commercial. The property is presently vacant. Murdy Community Park is located north of the subject site across an Orange County Flood Control Channel. To the east is an existing multiple family residential development zoned R3, medium high density residential, and General Planned high density residential. South, across Warner Avenue is Ocean View High School and to the west across Goldenwest Street is an existing commercial center zoned C2, community business and General Planned general commercial. 6.0 ANALYSIS: The subject site is designated General Commercial in the General Plan. Rezoning the site to C2 would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Rezoning the subject site to C2 will permit the implementation of the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project thereby providing the opportunity to accomplish the following objectives of the Project: 1. Eliminating conditions of blight that presently exist within the Project Area through land assembling, new construction, and new development. 2. Broadening the municipal economic base by developing the Project Area into a retail commercial shopping center. 3. Improving traffic circulation within the Project Area including major and primary street improvements. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Zone Change 78-6 since it implements the intent of both the General Plan and the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project. Zone Change No. 78-6 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 2. Area Map 3. February 22, 1978 Staff Report lz:N-� TM:gc DSL December 22, 1977 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ATTN: Edward Selich Director of Planning 2000 Main Street P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Gentlemen: HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. BAN 5 ";+,,j P. 0. Box 190 }Iuntington Beach, CA 92648 This letter constitutes an irrevocable commitment of funds to the Redevelopment Agency of the City,of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") in accordance with Section 601 of that certain Participation Agreement (the "'Agreement") between the Agency and L. C. Smull (the "Participant") to be drawn against and used by the Agency for payment of its costs constituting the Purchase Price, and as a good faith deposit as provided in the Agreement. 1. Certification of Funds Available. (a) We hereby certify to the Agency that we have set aside the sum of $450, 000 for purposes of this letter and to meet the Purchase Price and good faith obligations of the Participant under the Agreement. (b) We agree to increase said amount from time to time by an amount specified by the Agency, but not to exceed an increase of more than $90, 000 without our consent, immediately upon receipt of a signed statement by the Agency that an additional amount is required to cover Agency costs and con- tingencies under the Agreement. (c) We agree to maintain the amount set aside under 1 (a) and L(b), if any, of this letter for the benefit of the Agency as herein set forth. The amount set aside under 1 (a) and 1 (b), if any, of this letter shall be reduced, from time to time, as payments are made to the Agency hereunder. 2. Payments to Agency. (a) We shall pay to the Agency, promptly upon written demand by the Agency, from the sum set aside under 1 (a) and 1 (b), if any, of this letter such .mounts as are certified by the Agency or its authorized staff, from time to time, as being necessary to (1) defray or reimburse the Agency for costs incurred by the Agency as allowed under the Agreement, or (2) pay the Agency the Purchase Price as specified under the Agreement. DSL SERVICE COMPANY• P.O. BOX 5158.3501 SO. HARBOR BLVD.•SANTA ANA, CA, 92711 •PHONE (714) 549-8811 t' Page Two - December 22, 1977 (b) If the Agency certifies to us that the Agreement has been terminated and that the Agency is entitled to retain the good faith deposit under the terms of the Agreement, we shall pay to the Agency, promptly upon written demand by the Agency accompanied by such certification, the balance remaining in the sum set aside and maintained under 1 (a) of this letter. 3. Notices. (a) Notices and demands to us by the Agency shall be given by first class mail or personal delivery, addressed to us as follows: Roy A. Le sowitz DSL Service Company 3501 South Harbor Boulevard Santa Ana, California 92704 A copy of such notices and demands shall be sent to the Participant at the following address: L. C . Smull 17840 Sky Park Boulevard Irvine, California 92714 (b) Notices or demands from us to the Agency shall be given by first class mail or personal delivery, addressed to the Agency as follows: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ATTN: Edward Selich Director of Planning 2000 Main Street P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 4. Termination. (a) This letter shall terminate'upon the first to occur of the following: (1) The failure of the Agency to execute the Agreement within the time set forth in the Agreement; or (2) The withdrawal by the Agency of all funds hereunder, either fdr Agency costs, the Purchase Price or as retention of the good faith deposit; or (3) The termination of the Agreement by the Participant as provided for in the Agreement; or Page Three December 22, 1977 (4) The filing of a Certificate of Completion for all of Participant's improvements as provided for in the Agreement. (b) Before terminating the Agreement for any default by the Participant, we shall be given notice of any such default and shall have the right, but not the obligation, for a period of 30 days from any such notice, to cure the default of Participant and, at our option, to assume the obligations and position of the Participant under the Agreement. 5. Effective Termination. Upon the termination of this letter, neither we nor the Agency shall have any further rights or obligations with respect hereto. The Agency shall be under no obligation to us to return any funds paid to the Agency hereunder. 6. Agency Agreements and Representations. (a) The Agency agrees and represents that it will draw upon funds under this letter and expend such funds only for purposes permitted under the Agreement. (b) The Agency agrees and represents that it will not enter into any amendment to the Agreement which would affect our rights under this letter without our prior consent to such amendment. Date: Dec aZ.-), I i77 A TTEST: Secretary cc: Darrylle Stafford Joseph E. Coomes, Jr. DSL SERVICE COMPANY B y Z4116 c-.. Authorized Off ic REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE C O HUNTINGTON CH Lz: Chairman "AGENCY" City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92649 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR November 17, 1977 Business Properties 17840 Sky Park Boulevard Irvine, California 92707 Re: Urban Projects, Inc. Gentlemen: It is our understanding that your firm wishes to have the City of Huntington Beach contract with Urban Projects, Inc. (UPI) for additional economic services in connection with the redevelopment project in the vicinity of Goldenwest and Warner Avenues. The City, acting through its Redevelopment Agency, is willing to authorize such work to be performed by UPI under its existing contract and to direct such effort provided that you deposit the sum of Four Hundred Ninety -Eight Dollars and Fifty Cents ($498.50) with the City Treasurer. The City will then proceed to authorize the work and will deduct the cost thereof from the sum deposited. Any funds remaining after completion will be returned to you by the City. Any work directed by the City or its Redevelopment Agency under this arrangement to be performed by UPI will be at the sole discretion of the City, its officers, agents and employees. Neither UPI, the City or its Redevelopment Agency warrants such work in any way, nor does any party guarantee that the sum advanced by yourselves will be adequate to complete any desired or requested effort. Any work product generated by the use of such funds will remain the property of UPI and/or the City of Huntington Beach and its Redevelopment Agency. If you are agreeable to this arrangement as proposed herein, please sign this letter at the space ;provided below and return three copies to the undersigned indicating Your acceptance of the terms outlined herein, together with a cashier's check drawn payable to the order of Telephone (714) 536-5201 A ' • V A Page 2 the City Treasurer of the City of Huntington Beach in the amount above stated. This letter will constitute the entire agreement between your firm and the City/Agency in this regard. Ver truly yours, FLOYD BELSITO City dministrator cc: Urban Projects, Inc. ACCEPTED: Business Properties I - V DATED: 14 • h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION I Submitted by Gail Hutton, City AttornelYepartment Legal Date Prepared November 15, , 19Z Backup Material Attached FX Yes No Subject Urgency Ordinance amending the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by amending Section 9061 to provide for change of zoning on real property located on the northeast corner of Warner Avenue & Goldenwest Street. Zone Case No. 78-6 City Administrator's Comments AVVRO'VF,D BY CITY COUNCI;I. Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the last Council meeting, November 6, 1978, the City Council voted not to pursue appeal of the Peremptory Writ of Mandate issued by Judge Robert Green in the L. C. Smull v. City of Huntington Beach case (Goldenwest/Warner - Business Properties suit). Council also authorized the preparation of neces- sary documents to rezone the property, C2, pursuant to the writ. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the urgency Ordinance No. 2284. ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE: See memorandum of November 1, 1978 from City Attorney, attached. PIo 3/78 1 1� November, 1, 1978 TO: Honorable Mayor Shenkman and Members of the City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: L. C. Smull v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 29-10-89 (Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Writ of Mandate Action brought by Business Properties Seeking Rezone to C-2) Judge Robert Green has signed a judgment in the above referenced Writ of Mandate action and issued the Peremptory Writ ordering the City Council to rezone the property to C-2, pursuant to the judgment herein. The return date on the Peremptory Writ is November 27, 1978. Therefore, Council must take action prior to that date to rezone the property to C-2 or make a decision to appeal this matter to the appellate court. In the event an appeal is sought prior to the return date, the Order of Judgment is ordinarily stayed pending appeal. The Council may recall, how- ever, that Mr. William Anderson, attorney for Frank Buccella in a prior, recent case was successful at this juncture of the Buccella case in securing an order of the court for nonstay. The City Council should decide whether they wish to authorize the City Attorney's office to pursue this matter on appeal or to com- ply with the Writ, i.e. rezone the property C-2. The city was capably represented throughout the proceedings in the lower court by Mr. Ed Dilkes and finally by John O'Connor. It is the opinion of this office that there is no assurance that the results of this litigation would be any different on appeal. RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Attorney's office that the land be rezoned C-2 pursuant to the judgment of the court and the Peremptory Writ of Mandate and that no appeal be taken in this matter. ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE: Authorize the City Attorney to file a notice of appeal which may automatically stay execution of the judgment of the court; and operation of the Peremptory Writ of Mandate requiring the property to be rezoned C-2. Respectfully submitted, GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney GH:bc CITY OF H(ffi I ;!�i; ! U;',' f,,-; v OB. INDEPENDENT Publish Date 11/30/78 LEGAL NOTICE URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2284 "AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WARNER AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET (ZONE CASE NO. 78-6)." (Copy on file in the City Clerk's Office) SYNOPSIS: An urgency ordinance to rezone the property on the northeast corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street from RA to C2 prepared pursuant to court order in the Smull vs. City of Huntington Beach lawsuit. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an regular meeting held Monday, November 20 19 78 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas, MacAllister, Mandic, Shenkman NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None ABSTAIN: Councilmen: Siebert, Bailey CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk 1 2 3 4 b 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 --J,c&®• ARTHUR D . GUY, JR. F ' L 117, r ALTON I. CROWELL, JR. V 1601 Dove Street, Suite 185 N� ort Beach CA 92660 ��F;' i SEP 2 9 1917 (714} 752-8852 ',,; � ttu��1 ;: ,;+ , �,:,- •f. WtIUAM E. ST jomm, Cow,ly Cl.rk Attorneys for Petitioners IV '3 ? i1 3' . 3 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ELLS NOVRAFCHAN and GORDON HATCH, Petitioners, vs. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, DOES I through L, inclusive, .00 NO. 7 ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MAND CITY OF HUNTINGTON SEAdt OFFICE OF 1rj4E CITY CLERK MEMORANO M OF SERVICE ............. SERVED O 18 Respondents , ) sir .,,,. ' _....----_... �.__... 19 AND L. C. SMULL, dba BUSINESS PROPERTIES; ) _ PROCESS eR BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC., a Corporation, Real parties in interest. ) AM ME nm THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 23!i TO: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF I� 41 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, REDEVELOPMENT COMMIS- 25 SION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, Respondents; 26L. C. SMULL dba BUSINESS PROPERTIES; BUSINESS 1 27 PROPERTIES, INC., Real Parties in Interest: 281 Petitioners herein having filed herein their Petition for an -1- "7 � - �1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Alternative Writ of Mandate, and good cause appearing therefore, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, immediately after receipt of this writ, to set aside your Ordinance #2212 dated August 1, 197/7 and make and file a return to this writ on or before %%�/y�.y�y►s[��,� 1977, setting forth what you have done to comply herewith; or IN THE ALTERNATIVE to show cause on 'y)jry,1lc,, /) 1977 at �.30 d. m, or as soon.thereafter as counsel can be heard, in Department_ of the above -entitled Court located at 1700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California why you have Inot done so. 13 14 16 16 17 18 19I po 1. 21 �! 22 2a !' IMLLWA L. S7 JO HN WILLIAM . ST . JOHN , COUNTY CL%iziC By: DIANE L Mc HUSH Deputy-er Let the foregoing writ issue. A copy of this writ and a copy �of the Petition therefore shall be served on Respondents and real parties in interest at least days prior to the nearing 2411 25 11; 2611 I 27 I, 28 on order to show cause. DATED. 5ep1Nnc6&v- , ?, 1977 HARMON G. SCOVILLE Judge o1 t Fe Superior Court -2- RESOLUTION NO. 10 F, RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND L. C. SMULL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPROVING SAID PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Commission"), in conjunction with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency"), held a joint public hearing on October 3, 1977 to consider the proposed acquisition and sale of property pursuant to a Participation Agreement between the Agency and L. C. Smull in order to implement the Redevelopment Plan for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project j (the "Redevelopment Plan"); NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Huntington Beach finds that the proposed Participation Agreement between the Agency and L. C. Smull is compatible with the Redevelopment Plan, and the Commission hereby approves said Participation Agreement and recommends that the Agency approve said Participation Agreement. ADOPTED this 3rd day of October 1977 by the following vote: AYES: BAZIL, GAROFALO, MILKOVICH, PEREZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: GRANGER gov f0 / .., L KWChairman I ATTEST: � �R I Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 4529 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE ACQUISITION AND SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE WARNER-GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO A PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH L. C. SMULL WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") is engaged in activities nec- essary to execute and implement the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project (the "Project") in a portion of the city of Huntington Beach (the "Project Area"); and In order to implement the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency proposes to acquire and sell certain real property (the "Property") in the Project Area pursuant to the terms and pro- visions of a Participation Agreement between the Agency and L. C. Smull; and L. C. Smull has submitted to the Agency a written offer in the form of said Participation Agreement to purchase the Property for not less than fair market value for uses in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and the covenants and conditions of said Participation Agreement; and The proposed Participation Agreement contains all the pro- visions, terms, conditions and obligations required by state and local law; and L. C. Smull possesses -the qualifications and financial re- sources necessary to acquire and insure development of the Property in accordance with the purposes and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; and For all purposes of the California Environmental Quality MT:ahb 1, Act, all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a single project which shall be deemed approved at the time of adoption of the redevelopment plan; and The proposed development is covered by an environmental impact report to the Project for which a Notice of Determination was filed on August 3, 1977, and the Agency found and determined that there have not been any substantial changes in the Project which would require another EIR; and Pursuant to the provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the Agency, together with the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held a joint public hearing on the proposed acquisition and sale of the Property and the proposed Participation Agreement after publication of notice as required by law; and Following such joint public hearing, the Redevelopment Commission recommended that the Agency approve the Participation Agreement; and The Agency approved the Participation Agreement and found and determined that the consideration for sale of the Property pursuant thereto is not less than fair market value in accord- ance with covenants and conditions governing the sale; and The City Council has duly considered all terms and con- ditions of the proposed sale and believes that the redevelop- ment of the Property pursuant to the proposed Participation Agreement is in the best interests of the city and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable state and local law, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the consideration for sale of the Property pursuant to the Participation Agreement constitutes a fair and equitable 2, N price for the Property according to its value for reuse and is not less than the fair market value of the Property for uses in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and the Participation Agreement. This finding is based upon the fact that under the Participation Agreement, L. C. Smull will reimburse the Agency for all costs it incurs in acquiring the Property, and the Agency is required by law to pay no less than fair market value for property which it acquires. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves and authorizes the execution of the Participation Agreement between the Agency and L. C. Smull. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of October, 1977. 2" Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City A m nistrator 3. APPROVED AS TO FORM: y MT . I I __ems. No. 4529 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 3rd day of October , 197 7 , and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Pattinson NOES: Members: Siebert, Gibbs ABSENT: Members: Shenkman Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach 1 2 3 4 5! 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25' 261 27 28 ARTHUR D. GUY, JR. ALTON I. CROWELL, JR. 1601.Dove Street, Suite 185 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 752-8852 Attorneys for Petitioners Oct F 1,L E D .;G w1umM F. ST JOHN, " ft Cw SUPERIOR COURT OF TIME STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ELIS NOVRAFCHAN and GORDON HATCH, ) Petitioners, } ) vs. ) } CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, REDEVELOPMENT ) AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ) REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY } OF aMINGTON BEACH, DOES I through L, inclusive, } Respondents, ) AND L. C. SMULL, dba BUSINESS PROPERTIES, } BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC., a Corporation, ) Rea; parties in interest, } NO. -:� IT 6 - If TEMPORARY STAY AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Upon reading the verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Temporary Stay on file herein, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and the REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH stay execution of any agreements for acquisition, reconveyance, -1- `rr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 development or redevelopment of the property situated in the City of Huntington Beach and known as the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Red vet9pment Project. �,t _tw ��_** �t jjjjjj2. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH show cause before this Court on �1 c2�c, 60-? ) ct , 1977 at D n. m. in Department, of the above -entitled Court, why the foregoing stay should not be made to continue until the judgment of this Court in the above -entitled matter. 3. A copy of this Order shall be served on Respondents and real parties in interest together with a copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandate and Temporary Stay and a copy of the Alternative Writ of Mandate issued herein. Said service shall be at least days prior to the hearing of the above order to show cause 1977 DATED: ,. �� #1AKMON G. SCOVILLE Judge of the Superior Court -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23I 24 25 26� 27 28 5�Ac&Q I -- Cam', OCT 319i'l ARTHUR D. GUY, JR. ALTON I. CROWELL, JR. 1601 Dove Street, Suite 185' Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 752-8852 Attorney for Petitioners SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ELIS NOVRAFCHAN and GORDON HATCH, Petitioners, vs. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, DOES I through L, inclusive, Respondents, AND L. C. SMULL, dba BUSINESS PROPERTIES, BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC., a Corporation, Real parties in interest. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND TEMPORARY STAY [Validation Action; CCP §860, et seq., CCP §1094.51 Petitioners allege: 1. Petitioners are residents and taxpayers of the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, California. 2. At all times herein mentioned, Respondent, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH was a municipal corporation, lawfully chartered j lunder the laws of the State of California, situated in the County o (Orange. "'I --� - - / kL�-i -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 221 23. 3. Respondents REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH are administrative agencies created and existing by virtue of the ordinances of the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. 4. Petitioners allege on information and belief that real party in interest BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC. is a corporation Jorganized under the laws of California with a principal place of business in the County of Orange, California, and that real party in interest L. C. SMULL, dba BUSINESS PROPERTIES, is an individual residing in Orange County, California. 5. Petitioners are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Respondents sued herein as DOES I through L, inclusive, and therefore sue these Respondents by such fictitious names. Peti- tioners are informed and believe that each of the fictitiously named Respondents is responsible in some manner for the occurences herein alleged and Petitioners will seek leave to amend this Petition when their true names and capacities are ascertained. 6. Petitioners are an owner and a tenant of various pieces of property directly adjacent to or in the immediate area of the property referred to in various documents of the Respondents as the "Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project" (herein- after referred to as the "land"). Said land is located in the City of Huntington Beach at the intersection of Warner Avenue and 24liGoldenwest Street. Any change in the contemplated usage of 25 Isuch land including the transfer of the land by the Respondent 1 26 IREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to the real parties in interest for the con- 27I templated purpose of erecting competing commercial projects would 28 adversely affect the property interests of Petitioners. -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23i 241' 25L 26 27 28 7. The land is presently almost entirely free from develop- ment and provides open space enjoyed by the general community. 8. On July 25, 1977, Respondents purportedly held a public hearing pertaining to the adoption of a redevelopment plan and certification of a final environmental impact report affecting the property. No notice of said hearing was received by any of Peti- tioners. A copy thereof is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 9. Subsequent to said purported public hearing, the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH adopted on August 1, 1977, Ordinance number 2212 approving and adopting the redevelopment plan for the Warner- Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project. Such ordinance became effective August 31, 1977. 10. On September 23, 1977, Petitioners ordered the transcript of all proceedings before the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. The record of such proceedings have not yet been delivered to Petitioners by the aforesaid Respondents. Such record or records will be pre- sented to the Court immediately upon receipt by Petitioners. 11. The ordinance referred to in paragraph 9. above, among other things, contained a purported finding and determination by the City Council of Respondent CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH that: "(a) The redevelopment project area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the community redevelopment law." As set forth more fully below, Petitioners allege that the afore- said finding and determination was an abuse of discretion. 12. Petitioners and others similarly situated first became -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18) 19� aware of the acts of Respondents on or about September 1, 1977 and advised Respondents of their opposition in writing. Petitioners then received notice of a hearing of Respondent REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION on September 15, 1977 which was attended by Petitioners but not by sufficient number of members of Respondent COMMISSION to constitute a quorum. Petitioners were advised that this hearings' (was continued to September 22, 1977, cancelled, continued to September 29, 1977, cancelled, and again continued to October 3, 1977. Petitioners were thus compelled to file this Petition to avoid a statute of limitations defense by Respondents. As set forth in the "Inter -department Communication" of Respondent CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH dated March 16, 1977 and attached as Exhibit "B", Respondent CITY has admitted the propriety of review of their action and Petitioners submit that such review is both appropriate and essential to a proper determination of Petitioners' rights. 13. Respondents are attempting to employ the Community Redevelopment Act, Health and Safety Code §§33500, et seq., to (convert approximately 15 acres of open space to retail shopping )center use. Petitioners are informed and believe and therefore 201allege on information and belief that Respondents have negotiated 21ilwith real parties in interest BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC. and L. C. 22IISMULL dba BUSINESS PROPERTIES to acquire the land from various 2:5 owners through exercise of its power of eminent domain and to 24 subsequently transfer the land to -said real parties in interest 25l!for development of retail shopping centers. 26, 14. Respondents have prejudicially abused their discretion 27I in the aforesaid proceedings in that: 28� 14.1 Respondents have exceeded their jurisdiction and have i P -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I 21 22 23 24I. i 25 26 27 28 not proceeded in the manner required by law in the instituting and conducting the aforesaid proceedings and in the adoption of the purported ordinance; 14.2 Said finding and determination is not supported by the levidence. 15. By way of specification, but without limitation, Peti- tioners specify and allege that Respondents exceeded their juris- diction and failed to proceed in a manner required by law in said ;proceedings in that there was a failure to give notice to persons or entities affected by their decisions as required by the ordi- nances of the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, the Administrative and (Government Codes of the State of California and the Constitution I (of the State of California. 16. By way of specification, but without limitation, Peti- tioners specify and allege that the aforesaid decision of Respondent CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH to authorize and direct development of the land under the Redevelopment Act is not supported by the findings inasmuch as such findings failed to indicate that the determination of "blight" was made only on the basis of the area's existing use rather than on the basis of any potential alternative use. Respon- dents further failed to find that the purported "blight" constitute., la real hindrance to the development of the Respondent CITY OF i �HUNTINGTON BEACH. 17. By way of further specification, but without limitation, the Petitioners specify and allege that said findings are not supported by evidence in the light of such portions of the record as are presently available to Petitioners inasmuch as the findings of Respondents did not consider the need to promote conservation of -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16! 17 18'' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "open space" land as required by Article 13, Section 8, of the !Constitution of the State of California. 18. By way of further specification, but without limitation, Petitioners allege on information and belief that the aforesaid decision and findings of Respondents were not supported by evidence in that inadequate consideration was given to alternative uses of the land. Petitioners allege that a glut of retail shopping center; exists in the area immediate to the land and that other uses, such as housing or institutional facilities should be considered (but were not. 19. On information and belief, Petitioners further allege that the aforesaid Ordinance 2212 was adopted in reliance upon a purported "Environmental Impact Report" which did not meet the requirements of law. An excerpt from a report of Respondent CITY'S Environmental Council, an agency constituted by said Respondent, illustrating severe defects therein is attached as Exhibit "C". Such defects are not inclusive and Petitioners will seek leave to amend their Petition prior to trial to set forth further deficien- Icies in the purported Environmental Impact Report. 1 20. On information and belief, Petitioners further allege that the purported "redevelopment" of the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project is in actuality a "development" of open land for the sole benefit of real parties in interest BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC. and L. C. SMULL dba BUSINESS PROPERTIES. The (purported "redevelopment" is an unlawful exercise of the powers of a redevelopment agency under the Community Redevelopment Law, ;Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq. in that the proposed plan of development is neither appropriate or necessary in the -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I 17I 18 19 20 21 221 23'. 24 25 26 27 28 interest of the public welfare. 21. On information and belief, Petitioners further allege jthat real party in interest BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC. was granted an improper preferential position by Respondents through pre - negotiations in a manner contrary to law and have improperly entere< into an "Interim Participation Agreement". 22. On information and belief, Petitioners further allege that owners of parcels of the land have been denied the right to participate with their own land in the purported "redevelopment" with real parties in interest and have thus been denied due process of law and of the provision of Health and Safety Code §33339 which provides explicitly that Respondents "shall provide owner partici- pation". (Emphasis added.) 23. If the actions of Respondents are not reversed, Peti- tioners will suffer damage through loss of open space, increased congestion, use of energy, polution and other negative environ- mental factors, diminution of property values and increased municipal expenditure for police, fire and other public services. 24. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy of law for the reason that the law provides no method of compellin€ the proper action of Respondent CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH other than 1by writ to this Court. 25. Petitioners have exhausted all administrative remedies. 26. Unless the preemptory writ prayed for herein issues from this Court, Petitioners will sustain irreparable injury in that real parties in interest BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC. and L. C. SMULL dba BUSINESS PROPERTIES may obtain vested rights or begin construc- tion on the land, thus further hampering the means of the judicial -7- r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 231 24 25 26 27 ON system to redress the wrongs created by the improper action of Respondents. 27. In the event that development of the affected property proceeds as authorized by the ordinance attached as Exhibit "A" the property interests of Petitioners will be adversely affected causing substantial damages for which evidence will be offered at trial. WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray as follows: 1. For an alternative writ of mandate compelling Respondent CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH to set aside its findings that the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project is a blighted area and to notice a public hearing with proper notice to all affected parties, including Petitioners, for the purpose of reviewing such findings, or to show cause before the Court at a specific time and place why its said ordinance should not be set aside; 2. For an order staying,the Respondents REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH from taking further steps to acquire Ithe Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project or imple- menting the participation agreement with BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC. and L. C. SMULL dba BUSINESS PROPERTIES pending final judgment herein; 3. For judgment setting aside Respondent CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Ordinance number 2212 and directing the issuance of a preemptory writ of mandate addressed to Respondent CITY OF BEACH commanding the setting aside of said ordinance ,HUNTINGTON and declaring invalid the interim participation agreement with 11 �4 3 4 5 6 7 8 ill 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24i 251, 26 27 28 BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC.; 4. For such damages as may be shown by evidence; 5. For their cost of suit herein; 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in the premises. DATED: September 28, 1977 ARTHUR D. GUY, JR. ALTON I. CROWELL, JR. Attor eys for Petitioners ARTHUR D. GUY, JR. 16W ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER-GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDMLOP- MENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Council") is the governing body of the Redevelop- ment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency"); and The Community Redevelopment Commission of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Commission") is an organization created by the Council pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) to prepare a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project (the "Project"); and The Commission prepared a report to the Council on the Redevelopment Plan including the reasons for the selection of the redevelopment project area (the "Project Area"), a de- scription of the physical, social, and economic conditions ex- isting in the Project Area, the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area, an analysis of the pre- liminary plan, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, and an environmental impact report (the "EIR") on the Redevelopment Plan; and The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and submitted to the Council its report and recommendations for approval of the Redevelopment Plan and its certification that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach; and The Commission held a public informational meeting on July 14, 1977 to discuss the Redevelopment Plan, the E,IR and Rules for Owner Participants and Property Owners Desiring to Participate in Redevelopment with interested persons in the community; and The Council, the Agency and the Commission held a joint public hearing on July 25, 1977 on adoption of the Redevelop- ment Plan and on certification of the final Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 2000 Main. Street, Huntington Beach, California; and A notice of .said hearing was duly and regularly published in the Huntington Beach News, a newspaper of general circula- tion in the city of Huntington Beach, once a week for four (4) successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency; and Copies of the notice of public hearing were mailed by 1rw certified mail with return receipt requested to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the redevelop- ment project area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of Orange County; and Each assessee in the redevelopment project area was sent a separate statement, attached to the notice of hearing, that hia property is subject to acquisition by purchase or condem- nation under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan; and Copies of the notice of public 1-14!arin1; were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which levies taxes upon property in the Project Area; and After the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan, by Resolution No. 7, adopted on July 25, 1977, the Commission approved the Redevelopment Plan and recommended to the City Council that it adopt said plan; and `. 2. 7 The Agency has reviewed and considered the EIR for the Redevelopment Plan, prepared and submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151 and Health and Safety Code Section 33352, and determined that the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will not have an adverse effect on the environment, and that certain changes, alterations and measures have been incorporated into the project in order to mitigate the significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR; and The Council has considered the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the report of the Commission, the Redevelopment Plan and its economic feasibility, the EIR, and provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the purpose and intent of the City i"M Council with respect to the Project Area is to: (a) Eliminate conditions of blight including lots of in- adequate size for proper usefulness and development by land as- sembly for new construction and development. (b) Broaden the municipal economic base by developing the Project Area into a retail commercial shopping center. (c) Improve traffic circulation within the Project Area including major and primary street improvements. SECTION 2. The Council hereby fl.nds and determines that: (a) The redevelopment project aroa is a blighted area, the ;•�cievelopment o which is necessary L,) efft•ct;ia�ite the public purposes declared in the Conartunit-y Redevelopment Law. This finding is based upon the conditions of economic disuse which characterize the project area and are causing a lack of proper utilization of the project area. Said conditions include: (i) The existence of lots of inadequate size for proper usefulness and development. 3. (ii) Faulty public and/or private planning result- ing in disuse of land which could contribute substantially �..» to the public health, safety and general welfare. (iii) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investment and social and economic maladjustment. It is further found and determined that such con- ditions constitute a physical, social and economic burden on the community requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the city and the state. (b) The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that redevelop- ment will implement the objectives of the Community Redevelop- ment Law by aiding in the elimination of the conditions of blight, providing for higher economic utilization of poten- tially useful land, and providing for the development of the Project Area in order to expand employment activities for jobless, underemployed and low-income persons. (c) The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based on the fact that the Redevelopment Plan does not authorize the ... tax increment method of funding described in Section 33670 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code but provides that all costs incurred by the Agency in carrying out the Project will be ad- vanced, paid or reimbursed by each participating developer. (d) The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. This determination is based on the finding of the Planning Commission that the Redevelop- mont Plan conforms to the General Flan of the City of Huntington and the fact that the city ha.:. adopted a General Plan containing all mandatory elements and the Redevelopment Plan is coinpatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such General Plan. (e) The carrying out of the Re6eveloprnent; Plan will pro- mot.e the public peace, health, safety, and wet f a.re of the t'1ty of Huntington Beach and will effectuate the purposes and policy of the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding; is based on the fact that redevelopment; will benefit the project by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development. (f) The condemnation of real property, as provided for 4. in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment -Plan and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. This finding is based upon the need for the Redevelop- ment Plan to contain adequate safeguards that the work of re- development will be carried out pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and to prevent the recurrence of blight. (g) There is no need for the Agency to devise a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from housing facilities in the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the Project Area is vacant land which does not sup- port any housing facilities. (h) There is no need for the Council to determine whether there are in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and com- mercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced fami- lies and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. This finding is based upon the fact that implemen- tation of the Redevelopment Plan will result in no relocation because the Project Area is vacant land. r,. (i) Inclusion of any lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the whole area of which they are a part and any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justifi- c:,Ltion for its inclusion. This finding is based upon the fact tivtt the boundaries of the project a-: ea. were chosen as a uni- f and consistent whole to include only those lands that are predominantly vacant and unused becauc;e of blighting influences. (j ) The elimination of blight and redovel.opment of the i'ro,ject Area could not reasonably be expected to be accom- plished by private enterprise actin(; -".one without the aid and ,E.,uistance of the Agency. This find.1i . i:. ba.::eci upon tide fact that the substandard sized lots, frat.-,mented ownership of land and problems with interior access have t)revento d the site from development and will continue to prevent any future development. (k) The Redevelopment Plan for the project area will af- ford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of 5. the city as a whole, for the redevelopment of such area by private enterprise. (1) The Redevelopment Plan contains adequate safeguards so that the work of redevelopment will be carried out pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, and it provides for the retention of controls and the establishment of restrictions and cove- nants running with the land sold or leased for private use for periods of time and under conditions specified in the Plan, which this Council deems necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law. SECTION 3. Written objections to the Redevelopment Plan filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for hearing, and all oral objections presented to the Council at the hear- ing, having been considered are hereby overruled. SECTION 4. The Council, having; considered all evidence, including the Report of the Commission and the EIR of the Agency; finds, determines and certifies that the EIR complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code), that the fie - development Plan will not have an adverse effect on the en- vironment, that the redevelopment of the Project Area will enhance and promote a high -quality environment, and the ap- proval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. The boo Council further finds and determines that certain changes, al- terations and measures have been incorporated into the project in order to mitigate the significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR. This finding is based upon the following facts: 6.. (a) Short-term air pollution impacts caused by construc- tion activities will be mitigated by the controls of the city ordinance and on -site inspections. (b) Increased traffic will be mitigated by the widening of streets and installation of traffic signals. (c) Increases in noise because of traffic moving to and from the Project Area will be mitigated by changes in traffic control and improving sound Insulation of buildings. (d) Increases in energy and uLilit,y :services will be mitigated by specific energy conservation measures for new structures. (e) The loss of a possible archa.elog;ical site will be mitigated by a survey -and removal of data from the site by a 6. qualified archaeologist prior to clearing and grading. (f) The loss of open space will be mitigated by land- scaping and design review by the Agency to insure a quality environment. SECTION 5. That certain document entitled Redevelopment Plan for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project, the maps contained therein, and such other reports as are In- corporated therein by reference, a copy of which is, on file in the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated in this ordinance by ref- erence and made a part hereof, and as so incorporated, is hereby designated, approved and adopted as the official Redevelopment Plan for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project. SECTION 6. In order to implement and facilitate the ef- fectuation of the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, it may be necessary for the Council to take action with reference, among other things, to changes in zoning, the vacating acd re- moval of streets, alleys, and other public ways, the estab- lishment of new street patterns, the location and relocation of sewer and water mains and other public facilities, and other public action, and, accordingly, this Council hereby (a) plcd6es its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan, (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the city having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exer- cise their respective functions and powers in a manner consis- tent with the redevelopment of the Project Area, (c) stan63 ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any pro- ceeding necessary to be carried out by the city under the pro- visions of the Redevelopment Plan. SI.CTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a ccrtl.fied copy of this ordinance to the Agency whereupon the h,r,ency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the hodevolopment Plan. SECTION S. The City Clerk is 1-1ej-ni)y o i.roc,:ed Go recorc: w1 th the County Recorder of Orange Coiunt:y a de:,r;ription of the within the Project Area and a ,Otatement th,,it proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Aro a have been instituted under the California Community Redevelopment Law. SECTION 9. The'City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the description and statement recorded by the Clerk pur- suant to Section 8 of this ordinance, a copy of this ordinance 7. and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Project Area, to the auditor and tax assessor of Orange County, to the gov- erning body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes %Now upon any property in the Project Area and to the State Hoard of Equalization. SECTION 10. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this ordinance or the Redevelopment Plan which it approves is held to be in- valid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the valid- ity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or of the Redevelopment Plan, and this Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the ordinance, or approved the remainder of the Redevelopment Plan, if such invalid por- tion thereof had been deleted. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of August, 1977. ATTEST: Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attaa',ney Zc;VIFWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND Ai'1 OVED: A. r An Ci Administrator Director of Planning Ora. No. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City. Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of membere of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 19 and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 19 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: NOES: Councilmen: ABSENT: Councilmen: City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk oi: Cnc City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Published Huntington Beach News March 30, 1978. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CASE NO. 784 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- lic hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as Possible, on Monday the 17th day of April, 1978, for the -purpose of consider- ing Change of Zone No. 78-6, initiated by the Planning Commission, from RA (Residential Agricultural District) to C2 (Community Business District). The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Change of Zone No. 78-6. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main St., Huntington Beach, CA (7,14) 536-5226. DATED: March 27, 1978. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk m MTfiFt4�E-PA-P1TWMN.T COMM VNI Q AT k 0 N CitY AdMiRistrator 10 F I a.41ni ng Direct -Pr From William S. Ams.bary Assistant City Attorney �uiOct Business Prop_rtjes, Inc.-,P- Date 16 M arc4 1977 1'roposeO Goldznw�est and Warner Development �f-M,ORANDV,M OPTN4�0,N 1"1115 15 111 reply to Mr., Beltitols memo, dated February 24, 1977, and 'k.-hat of Mr. Seiiahd , ated F�bruary 25, 1977, both of which were gen- erated by Item L_2b on, the agenda for Council meeting of February 22, 1977. As we understand the situation, a developer is intere:3ted in dcvc1oj).iv,).r one of t,he el c i)e (leve, Y61ope4i'a lot areas in the city. The area to .0}) G J.,.; charac-te rized by having 1)&,en subd Li Y Qd into il,€tiay lou-s cavil o" J:-. 0,substc"indard 6ize. All -su'ch lots lack i,,vre:sG and ogreii; , ijrV vacant and for all n r-,cactleal, puvposes are economically irflpO6sible ILU develop in thleir pres,pn tLatate. p Do ve 1 ap c r has ac , uired an interest in ruany of the 1. o ts an( could 6evelo, tract a.,.; aa,entity 1p�iit for the fact; tAl,'It 1.1ve Owliel"', of jl('vhaj) j,x,r,qcnt of, tt-po total' acreage vefvs,e(l to s 61.1 their loUb' 1W v e e s'i r e s thre city' to iK�provp trecl;.-, in the arc:t Yer 4 'L 1),e r j. ific ter s to Ul,iliZe it,,S P,0",MOr Of emiteat domain 'to purchase the hol(I-(gut lout alb(: to sell to hj'm at a fair -orice and to allQw- cone truction, of Fi, t,4i).o,j:)pJ.ng comiter in the are 4. Developer apparently will "front" tJ*-,(-,, ac- costs, 41,14 is to allow the owners of the UQvo',its 1,-00 part; :1c-4pat@ in the development thn� powe'r 017 emlnenl; (lio,,urtin iil,,iy not, bi' u-,;cd. to jIle (lovC."I.0p;r-en A,-;t llow�-,Vcv, 1_110 Co;llll10llJ.(-..y covJ(io th;)t J1.1-i wvio,re �:i k1--(,)i)ljwi I.:111jr, ("OHIM111-lity 1vl1xvm,;!1 clovelop a pxope.r4y, a Y)"�:kop,(,vtv by' Ooinolii prop- t,&O 'sOld to 'pr4L jyae j.ri(kLto(;vJ.Q:; ()-j" r,or 0 no n'-., I'Ji;O, Wier b,c vt, tfli e subsequent sale o t, 1 -1, Pi,oj);I,,y o. thelt thei'l-, be partiq:�p,4t,On by tihbze whose proporl,-ic.,; havo boon condomlie'd. Wo , J01 Go'k,e; . MP: . , I.- -L (;i, pro- s 1. cilia t4wlt �; P, M, " , t, k W;1j'1Wj' pro,icol; arc; v-1joill(I I)(: (,-, tkiore aotiially a colq)('11ill"': I-AllmmmiLy (10vt"O'Wolent, Or il"i Wye d"'evelol.'.),ment, pp,1144o,t-lJy ('m, (Aw benellU of LA*ir (10- c, v u i u p,c v? Ti,ierc as s a In'terest in to b R Memorandum to City Administrator and 16 March 1977 PI-anning Director Page 2 Business Properties, Inc. —Proposed Golder yost 4nd Warner bevel opment viatfing the housing shortcwe particularly in low and moderate income housing in the city., However', this development is to build a shopping center. There is a compelling coifsaunity interr--.t in aprn space; however, this development defeats that goal by Ifisseninir open space . TYie proposed pr.o,j(--,ct -would gin -orate aodliJonnl "I'a"Jer, 1;,,ix revo,nuvn. It way generate additional " 'city costs In police ;uid Vie protec-Lioji, and the costs of other city services. Ultimately, if It: is I ound that; this developutept is necessary for the health, safety and welfare oC the coa#Aiipity, it is irrelevant if an incidental benefit is bestowed on, a private developer. However, on the othex, hand, If there .-1:*, 110 compelling benefit to the cqrwunity in the development, it would, be a FAisus:e of the powers given to the city by the Redevelopoent Act to enter into, the prof ect.' (b) The next question to be addressed is can private e tit c rprI,-'e- accompli'sh this development without the help of a publL.I.c ag'ency? "'i,) e developer has done an excellent job in assembling the bulk of tht-23c propeVties. Is it ' now actually ne.cess4ry to take from one property owner to. give to another by use of eminent domain or can the properLy be developed by some mutual cooperation effort or by additional pur- chlasin,g effort by the developer? Is it, required that the agencyl.; power be used or is it only convenient? There Is no question in our minds that the Goldeniqe.I;-Warner property pro-sents the classic example of' planning blif!-I)t dorccibe6 -in Lh(, Cofamunity }iodevelopment Act (11(alth and (.'o(,](' Secl;i.oll Ile only question the conq)elling ecanom.ic need to use the powers of IJ ic IIo develop the area. (See 370 Op,s AUty .Gen 1)0 an(1 i.icdcv(:�.i( i, Aroiioy or (,':ity axid Countv of San V. (1954) 22 CA26 977, I-11io P.16 1.01- i A,,,;,,�iicy factually fJr)d:-,, J.n ;.ice-oj,-6;iiw!r vJ11,11 1,11c, pi—,1(!ct'. area is a blifrhted ar(�a 'une of wM.cll i'.1 for the public health, safrLy "ind 11-hat condieral")t-.i.on property is necessary I;o the t-X-C!WJ.()11 of a' redevelopmenu C(w Hio avoa alld th"d; k; :1,V.-1i 1:1hh- t,f) pay 1'()I' them such finding; of 1'ac't, ,iru deulllod conclusive by (11,calth zind Safety Coda Scction The however' 1 1 1 i rf� V.ve w thc.;e rind,infe.*. 11poll ;J1111j1(!a(JO11 1,110 J ".togna)"t-, 0 1 the code section:; quoted. The ke(ievelQpmetnt Act does provide that tho zq;ency 11c,Iiall oermit owner I') arti c I p at ion. However, the courts have held that; not all owners Memor,,,ind.,um to City Administrator a)kd Planning Diroctor Business Froportics, Inc. --Proposed Goldenwest'an,d Warner Development 16 March 1977 PaGo 3 need be allowed to participate. ' 'In Fellom v. 1j(;,dov0loP111Pn,t AE:,eno, 320 P21d 884, 157 CA-2d 243, the Qot*,rt, in ad-,dressi_j)d t1is S.el f -SA I -a 0 (1,uostlon, said, "Assvredl-y, the, .power of eminent domain docs not; C01'1- t e %p 16 t e, any partcipationl by the owner of the prop6rty cQn4qmned.1' ( 32,0 P26 at page 8,89) It is hoped that the foregoing answers the question's as posed in the two memoranda' above referenced. Assis"ut Cit At rney WSA: ahb . 4 APPROVED: OW P._1t3U'41FTAj._ Ci t torney 'CiTY OF KUNTINGTON -4EACH MA#4HN(. ON O(AC" P(MI Office S x 190 Hunkinfjlon Beach, California 92648 To i Jphn Cope j 'Environmental Review Comilttes -Date,, July 8, 1977 Topics a Comments ,.on Draft: El , R 77-4, Proposed Warner-G old enwes t -5,ra-all Lot Rvdevelojrae.,;lt Plan "'Ilc- Ell) Review Commt itee of the Enviromiiental Coun.cil revieived, % met aiiO di .cussed this Elo'Prepared by the jluntington Beach Planninp, Departo,jent, and has the followin8 comp enrs ,�.Q,_n c ra I Whtle the E`Iit Aeview CoinniiiitlUee does not object to the Redevelop- ment A-geniey planning, commercial doveloixvient oil the northeast corner of Warmer 4;2d Goldenwest, the coimiittee does not feel that there is suffic 1, 1. �ent appropriate in"17orn"ation in this Dra't i!,M to (a) dv.,sciril)le the exi5tipa enIvIroraental 6ettina, (t) 6e- ' bo a ed pro and tkiie po- scri in a satisir ctory way trio Proj>0 5 A tcntri al:envIro,-,)MqiltaI impact of t1jat project, and (c)d 0- 5 n at e realistic miti,;attrjg mea$ures to reduce that adverse im,pack: oA...,:* developing An qp_eil piece of land at one Of the busiest inter- sections of the city. An EIR should be a full disclosure doctwtiont, able to desc-c4l.be, 1:1-ke proje-cc, LI.I.e environn4ental settinf,, etc. N,,li-thip talc_ k,oci,- Lnj2i.�* This LIR has too much i;,foriijation about; tho city L"ruff is nOL percinent to thee, subject area or Lwhile specif-AL illromiation about the p2rojeet or its v iroi°olteil A. 3 i_,Otrilly l4ckirta, There is too inuch 'Co "I illf, tile 'nfoLri;ja'.: C) 5 o k: 111 r C 0 r J, j."; rcievait to this Particular projCc.�-.. INU61 too it,,ucln tiiiC 0 aSS irnilato froi,i EIR anc' r( 0 ;A c 0 6 I'acts, and foatu.-co,.; abou-L z itic Tilere'aA-e St. 11 iii-ti-Y iiia.'ais%vored questions. 1*0 I)O'Ct j.'s i.-.0 L)C' t.160(i Oy eq, A. Ck.!i lit i Alto 0 Coil- i'k. IG hi.j,illy re I lit' i I(, c! it 0;,& ;.,I L aspeculs of* d-le -Ct -161, aild tAW67- i". c', t.! J. r 17 of the 30'ro,'ral, city. A. . CAI X.J011A.G 8reaLly increase ti-4c crt"'dill) 1, 'A. JL Of Port. j A. I A ;:i redovti-.,Iopment plan tlic, j_; llio t-.0 (.1w PI-Operty kindor Sin, -In J.,CV c LY j) are not as la:i,4,1�: 1 r. i i f 0 ii.o Vr1C;.qlt aiid to vandiali.,.10 accL;I:r(;,('i (I"o tillg taxpa loot the bill for yers I U locatinp nmw t _- n,aA , s , a t c Whatever t1he. lega l r csi PO bi 1 tY, Wis this in I it -he bl c i O's ahould �aertAl -Y b R AL d,D,QMwOAt PTOPOping ;:Iw P,1an, k, k,01111u. ` 1/8/y7 P. 2 -There were so many questions and comments by committee members that instead of addressing there by general topic ks is usually done, they will be addressed as -they appear in the report. As far as possible, duplication of our dent will be avoided as a topic is discussed in different sections a second or third time. Be certain that the final document has numbering corrected, yet with the present number designated to that various specific caaments are understandable. -More careful proofreading should be done for miscellaneous typographical errors* sect: on I „Introdtirtion Insufficient information is provided by Figures 1-1 and 1-2. There should be an "intermediate" map between these, to put the project into proper perspective. A zoning and development map would be appropriate including the four quarter -sections centering at Warner -and Goldenwest. 1.2 'Insufficient detail is provided ,in Figure 1-2 to describe the development. ' 1.3 Designation of the project: area as "blighted" seems very subjective --to a great many residents and visitors, undeveloped open space is a welcome relief. The green plant.. of hinter, beautiful field of mustard,and radish in the spring, and abundant binds feeding on the - seeds of ' summer are • beautiful a 15h+ S. (It would seem appropriate in this document, Section 1 to include information as to the number of property owners that cause this to be considered for a Redevelopment Project.) ' �►.� ' l.lProject is in Xgstg (not northwestexq section of Orange r'County. t irtt�iti g.rrat_a Seen n 2,0 slillimuk, P;Iragraph 2 should indicate that: corner is developed with gas . .;L.At:ion and liquor -grocery store. Paragraph 3 includes information not found elsewhere in rei)(trL-- emilhasis elsewhere is on a supenmarkct and superdrul; storealond. E 2 . i)__ _.I•_�lv fir,. onmrnC� etCi.nt� . `Itich of this information is )lot per.Cinollt. Lo OW pr0,jeC4, and thu:; not essential in the EIR. .Ui I!3 kind of l;r-.nerali•zed infor- nation is appropriate referred to in ot:lier doctuaent:s, ' 2.1.1.1 Is this project in "Noder.ate to Ifi.17.ii cxprO181011 ,)oCential" far clay soils? What is the dei-)th of t:lv� p at.7 141-aat are other noi.l characteristics? Are there any predictable structural design problems? (Correct two spelling errors;) ! ' 2#19192 Last section of third'paragraph is all that is relevant. 2.1..193 First two long paral;rzphs are descriptive and of i_ntorest to someone reading their. first EIR, but not necessary or appro- priate here. Third paragraph identifies project proximity to one fault, but why not to the other two faults mentioned? '20102.1 Is there a problem with mosquitcs' from,the standing wager? 2.1.2.3 F i.rst paragraph Statement's should probably be "would bc'" instead of "is". In the interim before the Army Corps provides flood protection, what does the city do'l Who is respcnsible if flood damage does occur prior to that time? 2.1.3.2 Suggest changing "culprit" to "source". 2.1.4 Paragraph 1 is irrelevant, unless the reports include specifics on this property. Paragraph two is insufficient, and paragraph 3 is irrelevant. If a private firm were preparing; this EIR far more detail would be expected, and so should be provided by the City as well. Egrets, gulls, and other shore birds are known to feed and rest in the swale in the winger. A brief walk through and drive by the area by Lnvlron inept:a 1 Council members provided sufficient information to identify at least 30 species of plants, 7 species of birds including; a kestrel (bird of prey, hence protected), and fresh of ground squirrel and pocket gopher. With paragraph 3 men- tioning endangered species in the area, it should be spccif ically stated that they are absent (through proper verification witil biologists), or if present or possibl present very specific mitigating measures would be necessar prior to any development. 2.1.5 Too superficial. Information should be retrieved from t_iie documents listed to clarify kinds of materials in ORA 346. Are there not also structures exi_stin3 on the property? Aren't archaoological resources considered "cultural or historical"? (Last paragraph should read "There are no other cultural or ..."� What is the acreage covered by ORA 3464' 2.1.6 First. paragraph is not perti.ncllt: t:o the, Project --if it i5 to bo, 11-rtained, at least make i_t 11101-( with respect to .1.)) tr,t al. ocean beaches (slot Just rllo�-,(, m;i i ilt.Zii.nod by the city), .:till dW t:otal parks in our outstan(i ni,) f-;y3L:e1IIJ alld their usaf;C. 2.2 . i First paragr,-,iph should be, much Inc�i:,,� speci f i e (as noted on 7 or: these comments r_eg;ru(li.n�; r1),,,1r)i>ri,ltc, in�►hs). Seco�l,; 1,.I1 -it,, aph, a pre se'llt laud Also and Zo111 ilj; hl;l)) Would br' much iiiore and accilrate. Dosi(;natl.n;-, zJltr 56i0o7. lr; "inr; ti.tut:ional and General. indusLi-'J ;l l" , rind t'ile major coil'finer - l'i;il corner.+ as "general eolnmerciai.,.I-cS1.(ieliLiitl" are not realis- tic designations. 2.2.2 Note should be made that Goldenwe,t is already over rapacity, and this issue addressed in a 1..ii:er �Iection. 2.2.3 Entire section (pages 14,15) should uc roviscd t:o relate to project area--i.e. elosest.fire station (manning rate is irrelevant to EIR), closest library, hospital, etc. For a commercial project, villy is discussion of schools important, esi)eci.ttlly ill the 52 r,clu,rxrc mile area described in this secti.onT If anythi.nj;, use; the school districts which serve the imrnediate area. However, of considerable importance is the, 3000-student high school immediately across Warner from the project. Goldenwest College, just one mile north, should be desiCnated as well. Next to last i)araj;raph on pate 14 rnit;ht be appropriate in a residential EIR , brit the value for this commercial project is dilesti_oned. First sentence is ambiguous i what is the "l�(untinj;ton Beach school 5yste,m7" Iiuntington Beach City School District (which does not serve this project area residences), Ocean View Elementary (which does serve this project area residences), but certainly not the overcrowded 11unti.ngton Beach Union High School District. 2.2.4 Information provided in A#B,C,D,E, is interesti.n3, but not relevant to the project. With the proposed 210,500 square foot commercial project, what would jjt, usape. of the utilities be, and what: kind of an incremental increase would this be on the available supply or capacity?, 2.2.5 Is population growth rate 3 and 2% ner year? 2.2.6 Aeai.n, noise studies should be related to the site. Witi-I the two major hi;hway noise sources, noise levels would be ex- pected to be high. Paragraph 2 is irrelevant to this study. 2.2.7 What, if any, relevance is there to discussion of the f:anli.ly i_ncornes? (This does not appear to be referred to later in the mar_keti.nC studies or other parts of the EIR, though perhaps it could have been.) 3.1.1 Is the reason (,,!von in Paragraph 2 the only reason why de- veloi-xnent has not occurred in the project arca is i.t: not; per- haps also clue to extensive sticeesslfi.11 eoinrncrci.al development on two adjacent corner.;, one major market: rel orl:od ;Is h�_ivinL :30',' i.n excess of sales over other stores in the chain? 3.1.." Pir.+l;rwh I is and cut and ri_L,k4l the bluff lines not-. 119,000 cubic 1'1r r �ls of imported rnateri.ril bei.nf; licc�i� �l , will 1 i Iali.s ilot ci use an i m,).ict: can the trarf. i.c and ad jaccnt: r�_ id��nL:. wit:ii �-.ibout 5000 1 i,ioklloAs trap spor.l:in,; th(� sol.l. ncrcl;, ; ci.i.y :;1:1 (!et:;7 From ho j r :a r will the soil be moved? (i�ii. t:i(;.11: i.c r+ inv:rcitir� s to be be dust, spoil and 1111-1d coni:i-ol, ;c; well_ ;t:; Corlt:l'011iilj, CiIG hour."; that the work was done i:o redlic t" iiilwic,l: and accident: risk r_c• r,t.lidents across the streetht Gceanview hiOl :.ic,llool, and Com- rillWi.tlj; traffic.) Whet is meant in t:lic! ltl,;t: i cni:oncc: by the "11mi- 1-a l i ell of (;rad i.11f; in sensitive arf?a•`; �� - : ��tlt; i. I_. i vt` 1.0 er us ion? J-I'arli.er- it states that the slopes will bc, ret:aincd. 3.1.`? il;ij`e 21, first paraCraph is repci:ll:i.ous (5ccl:i.oll ?..1.1.1). How cr-An any hazards be rnir.i gated by taici.n�; Soil saini)ies and borings? This section should include clear required mi.ti3ation measures. 3.1.4 Repetitious and inappropriate in this section• -belongs in 2.1.1.3 Socond paragraph should indicate risk of tl, site. 3.2.1 What are the actual eneineeriti3 abatement measures being used or required now for flood protection? 3.2.2 Will the mitigation measure of process i.nj, -runoff. water in the sewage treatment plant be required? If not;, why: Are there not reasonable mitigation measures to increase or allow percolation of water in sorne parts of the project? 3.3 Iiow is landscaping going to mitigate the adverse impact on 1:11e (w rets and gulls, sparrow hawk, finches, sparrows, cloves, etc.? E1R should contain a list oC plants that attract and are benefi- cial for resting and feeding of wildlife, and that would be re- ' ll'f qui.r�ed for the developer to plant so that all the wl_1( i e would not be displaced (which essentially means destroyed) .(C�+� �a'J"`�" liow are the ground squirrels and pocket gophers going to be conttolled so that a major problem will not be created for the adjacent property owners --the apartment^, and store, ti',e park, and most likely all the homes along the flood control channel? It would be recommended that those rodents be exterminated in a way that would not endanger the birds including the rodent - hunting sparrow hawk, prior to any grading, (grr.w t.,w✓t �(a ko��.,vf� 3.4 First paragraph is repetitious. l; During tl-ie preparation of the "JEIR" for Oceanvi.ew High School it was stated that the northerly portion of. ORA 346, oil this project site, was likely far less disturbed than the: southerly portion which was south of 1•ranier and was used for the borrow area durint, Warner Avenue widening. r uch of the site is of course. under War►ter, , ,and consequently is either destroyed or preserved for exploration many decades in rile future, when L'iir, road is t03711. upe Consequently statements of URA 346 being 2/3 destroyed do riot mean that only 1/3 of the bluff area may be of value historically. In r.his and all other section of. Ne.asures the re- cOM11len(latioils should be in this section, the irreplaceable i6cntif`t((1 historic rosoiirces requires pvol essional study aid removal before (levelopmc^nt: occurs. a 'i iir. s t:atistics i.ndical-1c,. that t:lii_s pvo j' �ct. w(m il.0 increase t:llc • 1 1':11 f i.e: oil Goldenwest Jt:3'( (.'t by 9%, 1:() 1 j OV(1i- C;i)-vietty. Are (•xi i and able, to init:i(,;li (r lei, , iml);tci:7 Tile 1'l1,-n 1'r" 1M.c and cross r_r_al-fi.c on 1•�,�3-iw 1)� 1.;n r,n 1 hc; southwest and IIoril«wo;t: (le:volopod corners, is ex(:7CF;W1'/ wi.Li) the long; ( "io or t:i)rill.nl- ar(!a; are, raised Int?(ll�lfl:i 1)(.`' n;-(ievelopcd Uo i "cl1 ice 1:11is problem for 1:he new pro jc( t. + U(i i- i_n1; pc'�ak Graf f i.c 1)Oul-f, now it: frecluently takes 3 si_-nair; 1:o t:(icn J.ef t" onto or off c)1" +1ol.de)1wCSt Street -It: Warner; when is a si)ccirii. left turn i.;,,iial being considered? Whal: kind oC pedestrian and bicycle ace( :;s i s plonnecl to accomi-ao- clat ( the large numbers of st:udent.i who wrm"I() t�:lt �'�ni.zc the stores? 3.6 What miti-ation measures will be rcciui_r(!d to rc(.luce dust and asphalt air pollutants from creating a health hazard to tine ad- jacent physical education area o€ the.school and park? f 3.7 Third paragraph on page 27 Is irrelevant; unless motel or hotel development is planned here dwelling, unit noise reduction is not appropriate unless these'standards would be carried over to the commercial project. 3.8.1 is on -site security protection to be required? 3.8.2 Statement should be made sate-speci.fi.c; what is the response rime from the other side of this quarter section at the Gothard (i'iurdy) station to the site? 3.8.3 This section should discuss the potential problems with sti.ident use of'this area, including pedestrian traffic, vandalism, crowds, truancy, litter, etc, as well as the throng of potential consumers. 3,8*4 Mitigating measures for litter control, rodent Infestation, nols-e, dust and traffic during construction and after should all be discussed in this section. 3.9.1 Gas .and electrical service statements should be changed to be site -specific. -Are the energy conservation measures recom- mendations or requirements? Two additional energy conservation measures should be included, "iiuildinps should be designed for natural lighting, heating and air movement to be allowed and uti- lized.to minimize internal load factors." 3.9.2 Conservation measures 1, 2, and -S are irrelevant to a cOM- mercial development. 3.9.3 Second paragraph should start "The Rainbow Disposal Com- pany 3fhtcll .. . 3.10.2 flow are the southwest and northwest cort•iers architecturally cons i.st nnO Will strict architectural review be required i (I'i.t�ally it is admitted that the open space may please some.) 3.11 .1 now r.lx',rttlat:i.ve is the last: pr ral,r;tlili? t;ith the t•larlu:t Aivi l ys i, i ,;tiOi cs itti.11zin, , ;a 1:wo-m-0 (+, vadi.i.1 , ;t:; laic.' morit likely t c,inel•s , and with thi.l, total ci.r el.e l)o i n 1 probably 95 within t•ito city limits of iit.tritknj� ton Reach, how can this not affect the exi.�, tint markets . in the area'! 4.3 liow can "displacement of bi.oti.c inii;►1>i.i;;ttit;r," be assured? Xs i V 110t likCly that: LhC ruajori.ty wc»alfl tii.+:i.ut;ttr;l.y he <Icst:royed be- c;ttr!:,� Of Treat decrease in similar ncav-by open lands which are alroady bccupi.e(r: 5,0 How is l:llr "positive, relat ionshi.l)" lust"want ii tlit:r local short-teril tt ;,fir atld the m.aintr:nance and erih;atic(-w(c nv.. of Lottg-Merin productivity goi.ol.; to be developed on this Pro,jCcC. 6,0 1,,nst: EIR's are not prepar(cd tinlrAl i.F; •itii'ci.cient'.1y more rliat'.a and inf'oLinati.on developed for Uie, j:,ro jceL', in which cases it in easier to see the potential impacts and mitiratina measures. Will there be additional environmental review when this project reaches more advanced planning stages? l�atragral-Al s"... Tian will ots " :. �� Second r . ,, _tl � �,,,u i.►T,croas�.d dunanc:.. . Aj)pcn(lix, HarketinC Information Systcn►s Tables 1, 2, 3, and G are very confusing, in that both are: headed "Lst:imatcd Annual Ex- l)enciitures", yet it wi:is finally concluded that the SuperTnarket: Sales were actually WLLKLY expenditures. The -consultant should be asked to correct these so it: is not misleadin- and eonfusinC. Both should use the same base, whichever it is. Appendix, Police Department CommUnicat"ion. How can the figures be extrapolated when there are so many different aspects of .the three quarter -sections compared? rieures indicate that tl-iere are presently no police calls for the project open -space undeveloped area.' Is this realistic, or would the calls projected with de- velopment increase by 558 and decrease by a certain number as wolf? 1! 2 3 Oil 5' 6j 7 8! 91 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (VERIFICATION — "6. 2015.5 C. C. P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE i alit one of the Petitioners in the above entitled action or proceeding. I have read the foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND TEMPORARY STAY [Validation Action; CCP §860, et seq.; CCP §1094.51 and Anom the contents thereof: and I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters I believe it to he true. Executed onSeptember * , 1977 at Nemport Beach (date) (place) California I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. .Signature GORDON HATCH PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013a, 2015.5 C. C. P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF I ant a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. nn business address is: , 19 , I .nerved the within on the in said action• by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at addressed as follows: Executed on at I declare. under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. California Signature CITY OF HunTin(;T0n BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. 0. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Floyd G. Belsito, FROM: Edward D. Selich, DATE: September 27, 1977 City Administrator Planning Director SUBJECT: FINAL PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WARNER-GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: On October 3, 1977, the Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Com- mission will hold a joint public hearing on a Final Participation Agreement with Business Properties (L. C. Smull) for development of the Warner-Goldenwest Project. Upon approval of the Agreement by the Agency and Commission, the Redevelopment Plan requires further approval of the terms of the Agreement by the City Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt attached Resolution approving acquisition and sale of property in the Warner-Goldenwest Project Area after Participation Agreement is approved by the Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Commission. ANALYSIS: On June 20, 1977, the Redevelopment Agency adopted an Interim Agree- ment with Business Properties for negotiating rights in the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project Area. Since that time more specific negotiations between the Agency's legal counsel and Business Properties have formulated a Final Participation Agreement for approval. This contractual agreement sets forth the rights and obligations of the Redevelopment Agency and Business Properties regarding development of the Project Area in conformance with the Redevelop- ment Plan. The proposed Final Agreement was transmitted on September 16, 1977. A summary of the Agreement prepared by Agency legal consultant Joseph Coomes was included in the Special Report on Warner-Goldenwest transmitted on September 23, 1977. Respectfully submitted, rlj,�.34 Edward D. Selich Director EDS:MF:ja Attachment /li%(Jiul CITY OF HUf1TInGTOf1 BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Redevelopment Agency FROM: Planning Department DATE: September 26, 1977 bl �� SUBJECT: FINAL PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WARNER-GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A Final Owner Participation Agreement has been prepared with Business Properties for development in the Warner-Goldenwest Project Area. This Agreement must be approved by both Redevelop- ment Commission and Redevelopment Agency before further activity can proceed. A joint public hearing on this .agreement is scheduled for October 3. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve attached resolution approving the Final Participation Agreement. A ANALYSIS: On June 20, 1977, the Redevelopment Agency adopted an Interim Agreement with Business Properties for negotiating rights in the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project Area. Since that time more specific negotiations between the Agency's legal counsel and Business Properties have formulated a Final Participation Agreement for approval. This contractual agreement sets forth the rights and obligations of the Redevelopment Agency and Business Properties regarding development of the Project Area in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan. The proposed Final Agreement was transmitted to the Agency on September 16, 1977. A summary of the Agreement prepared by Agency legal consultant Joseph Coomes was included in the Special Rgpant on Warner-Goldenwest transmitted on September 23, 1977. or."8" Mr. Coomes and representatives of Urban Projects., Inc. will attend the scheduled hearing on October 3. Respectfully submitted, di P, �a- Edward D. Selich Director EDS:MF:ja f"'I Attachment f RESOLUTION NO. 19 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE WARNER-GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE, APPROVING THE ACQUISITION AND SALE OF SAID PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH L. C. SMULL, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID PARTICI- PATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") is engaged in activities necessary to exe- cute and implement the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project (the "Project") in a portion of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Project Area"); and In order to implement the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency proposes to acquire and sell certain real property (the "Prop- erty") in the Project Area pursuant to the terms and provisions of a Participation Agreement between the Agency and L. C. Smull; and L. C. Smull has submitted to the Agency a written offer in the form of said Participation Agreement to purchase the Property for not less than fair market value for uses in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and the covenants and conditions of said Participation Agreement; and The proposed Participation Agreement contains all the pro- visions, terms and conditions and obligations required by state and local law; and L. C. Smull possesses the qualifications and financial resources necessary to acquire and insure development of the property in accordance with the purposes and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; and MT:ps 1, RESOLUTION NO. 19 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE WARNER-GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE, APPROVING THE ACQUISITION AND SALE OF SAID PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH L. C. SMULL, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID PARTICI- PATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") is engaged in activities necessary to exe- cute and implement the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project (the "Project") in a portion of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Project Area"); and In order to implement the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency proposes to acquire and sell certain real property (the "Prop- erty") in the Project Area pursuant to the terms and provisions of a Participation Agreement between the Agency and L. C. Smull; and L. C. Smull has submitted to the Agency a written offer in the form of said Participation Agreement to purchase the Property for not less than fair market value for uses in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and the covenants and conditions of said Participation Agreement; and The proposed Participation Agreement contains all the pro- visions, terms and conditions and obligations required by state and local law; and L. C. Smull possesses the qualifications and financial resources necessary to acquire and insure development of the property in accordance with the purposes and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; and MT:ps 1, For all purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a single project which shall be deemed approved at the time of adoption of the redevelopment plan; and The proposed development is covered by an environmental impact report for the Project for which a Notice of Determination was filed on August 3, 1977, and the Agency finds and determines that there have not been any substantial changes in the Project which would require another EIR; and Pursuant to the provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the Agency, together with the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held a joint public hearing on the proposed acquisition and sale of the Property and the proposed Participation Agreement after publication of notice as required by law; and Following such joint public hearing, the Redevelopment Com- mission recommended that the Agency approve the Participation Agreement; and The Agency has duly considered all terms and conditions of the proposed sale and believes that the redevelopment of the Prop- erty pursuant to the proposed Participation Agreement is in the best interests of the City and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable state and local law; NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve as follows: Section 1. The Agency hereby finds and determines that the consideration for sale of the Property pursuant to the Participa- tion Agreement constitutes a fair and equitable price for the Property according to its value for reuse and is not less than the fair market value of the Property for uses in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and the Owner Participation Agreement. 2. CI Section 2. The acquisition and sale of the Property by the Agency to L. C. Smull pursuant to the Participation Agree- ment is hereby approved. Section 3. The Chairman and Secretary of the Agency are hereby authorized to execute the Participation Agreement, and are further authorized to take all steps and to sign all docu- ments and instructions (including but not limited to the grant deed) necessary to implement and carry out the Participation Agreement on behalf of the Agency. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of October, 1977. Chairman for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ATTEST: Clerk for the Redevelopment Agency REVIEWED AND APPROVED: '_(2 of Executive Officer INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: cJ Planning Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: Legal Advisor M 3. —s. No. 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) as COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 3rd day of October , 197 7 , and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Pattinson NOES: Members: Gibbs, Siebert ABSENT: Members: Shenkman v� •_ Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach r LAW OFFICES ARTHUR D. GUY, JR. NEWPORT PLAZA, SUITE 185 1601 DOVE STREET NEWPORT ®EACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE (714) 752-68S2 Redevelopment Agency of The City of Huntington Beach P. 0, Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 101a/�*/77 1�Ft l V.3 101 September 23, 1977 S _ t' i' ii ��`' •1 P. 0. Box 190 "untington Beach, CA 92&' > Re: Warner-Goldenwesi Small Lot Redevelopment Project Gentlemen: This;lettot,Aa to advice there are persons and entites whose interests are substantially effected by,the Warner-Go•l.denwest Sloall, Lot, Redev-slopmiiit Project with respect to which the City Council o'f� i& City of Huntington Beach `fitting as a Redevelopment Agency has made certain previous determinations. This letter is further int4hded -to setve as a request for copies of transcripts -OV ill proceedi4s had before your Agency, the result of which was the ultimate passage of Huntington Belch = (Jrdta +fie y g1l, which ai proved and adopted the redevelopment plifi or t e.Varner=46 din st Small hot Redevelopment Project. This office by this letter guarantees the cost of reproduction of said records of proeeedings and if.called upon to do so would deposit with your City Clerk an estimated cost of said reproduction, The foregoing request does not provide with specificity the specific hearings for whicha transcricpt-lo£ the proceedings is requested in that neither the undersigned as counsel nor his clients have this information, Upon inquiry of a member of the staff of the Redevelopment Commission at'a called hear- ing of September 15, 1977 the undersigned was advised that the following hearings have occurred which relate to the ultimate passage of Ordinance #.22'`by the.City Council of Huntington Beach, The dates of said hearings (all in 1977) are February 23, July 14, July 25, and August 1, It is Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach September 23, 1977 Page 2 entirely possible that there were other hearings of which the undersigned is unaware. The within request is intended to encompass all hearings. Your compliance with this request will, of course, be greatly appreciated. ery y rs ARTHUR D. GUY, JR. ADG:cfe cc Mr. Gordon Hatch U OR September 22, 1977 Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. 0. 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Ms. Wentworth: 191Y t Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and comment upon the Redevelopment Plan for the.Warner=Goldeawest Redevelopment Project. The OCTD staff is basically supportive of the plan. In lieu of providing any detailed comments, I am enclosing a copy of an internal staff review of this project. I hope this will be of benefit to you. If I can be of any further assistance,'please call me at 834'6854. Very truly yours, Robert C. Hartwig Manager of Planning GM:C Enclosure f &!51VJ4-1J4.1'Y f }x, vCTa ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT OISTRICT September 21, 1977 TOs R. C. Hartwig, Manager of Planning FROM: G. Moir, Develo1 Planning SUBJECT: Proposed Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project After reviewing the proposed City of Huntington Beach Warner- Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project, a few comments would be in order. The purpose of the project is to permit "the assembly of irregular and unbuildable small lots into one or more development parcels, thereby allowing the development of property which is presently blighted because of unbuildable lot configurations and parcel owner- ships." Ordinarily, a major concern of the District would be the adverse impact of property tax revenues being frozen under tax increment financing. The proposed plan, however, clearly states a tax incre- ment financing will not be authorized. Another concern of the District pertains to the impact on OCTD bus service to the subject area. Several impacts - both positive and negative - are noted below. The negative impacts are near -term in nature and concern the potential disruption of service due to traffic congestion problems likely to result from the alteration of streets, the relocation of sewer and water mains and other public utility alterations. The longer-term,post-construction, impacts of the project have a much more positive vein. The largely vacant lots will be developed into a retail commercial shopping center, thus creating a major new trip attraetor for OCTD patrons. improved traffic circulation, as proposed within the Project Area, would result from improvements to both Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. This also would have a beneficial impact on transit service. 1200 NORTH MAIN STREET • P. 0. BOX 688 • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • TELEPHONE: (714) 834-6190 r OCTD lines currently provide service immediately adjacent to the project area - the 25 (Goldenwest) and 158 (Warner). Both are currently operating on one hour headways on weekdays as well as Saturday. Both lines are performing adequately in terms of ridership (line 25 - 1.05 passengers/mile; line 158 - 1.02 per passengers/mile; system -wide average - 1.54 passengers/mile). An intensified usage of the subject property, as proposed, could only have 8 beneficial impact on the line performances. GM:W SPATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION GEORGE R. REILLY TAX AREA SERVICES SECTIONFirst District, San Francisco 1823 I4TM STREET, ROOM 201, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA IRIS SANKEY Soeead (P.O. BOX 1713, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 93t0�) District, Son Diego WILLIAM M. SENNETT Third District, San Rafael RICHARD NEVINS Fourth District, Pasadena KENNETH CORY Controller, Sacramento Me. Alicia M. Wentworth Huntington Beach City Clerk P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 September 30, 1977 Dear Ms. Wentworth: This is to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 2212 approving the plan for the Warner-4oldenweet Small Lot Rede- velopment Project and related documents. Also received was your check No. 24687 for $190.00. This check is being re- turned. Section 33375 of the for a filing to be made with for a project contains the t by Section 33670. We will do ments you have sent to us. tax MCR:eo encl. cc -Orange County Assessor -Orange County Auditor -Jay Hubert w/encls. Health and Safety Code provides us only if the redevelopment plan increment financing authorized nothing except file the docu- Sincerely yours, Wi 44;1ti - e. Kam" Martin C. Rohrke Supervisor, Tax Area Services Valuation Division DOUGLAS D. SELL Executive Secrobry I� RESOLUTION NO. 18 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE AGENCY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ON THE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE'AGENCY AND L. C. SMULL, DOING BUSINESS AS BUSINESS PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the California Community Redevelopment Law in Health and Safety Code Sections 33430 and 33431 provides that a redevelopment agency may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any real or personal property or any interest therein, and that any such sale or lease shall be made after public hearing of the Agency after publication of notice once a week for two suc- cessive weeks; and The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") has negotiated a Participation Agreement with L. C. Smull, doing business as Business Properties, for the sale of land in the project area for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project; and The Agency desires to hold a joint public hearing with the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Commission") in order to consider and act upon the disposition and development of the Site pursuant to the Participation Agree- ment; NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve that the Secretary of the Agency is authorized to cause to be published notice of a joint public hearing to be held by the Agency and the Commission on October 3, 1977, for the purpose of considering and acting upon the proposed Participation Agreement. MT:ps 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of September, 1977. ATTEST: Clerk or the Redevelopment Agency REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Chief Pecutive Officer INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Planning Director Cht.irman for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach APPROVED AS TO FORM: Legal Advisor �T 2. xes. No. 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 19th day of September , 197 7 , and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Members: Siakert, Gibbs ABSENT: Members: None Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach J RESOLUTION NO. 18 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE AGENCY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ON THE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE'AGENCY AND L. C. SMULL, DOING BUSINESS AS BUSINESS PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the California Community Redevelopment Law in Health and Safety Code Sections 33430 and 33431 provides that a redevelopment agency may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any real or personal property or any interest therein, and that any such sale or lease shall be made after public hearing of the Agency after publication of notice once a week for two suc- cessive weeks; and The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") has negotiated a Participation Agreement with L. C. Smull, doing business as Business Properties, for the sale of land in the project area for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project; and The Agency desires to hold a joint public hearing with the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Commission") in order to consider and act upon the disposition and development of the Site pursuant to the Participation Agree- ment; NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve that the Secretary of the Agency is authorized to cause to be published notice of a joint public hearing to be held by the Agency and the Commission on October 3, 1977, for the purpose of considering and acting upon the proposed Participation Agreement. MT:ps 1• PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of September, 1977. ATTEST: Clerk for the Redevelopment Agency REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Chief xecutive Officer INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: L-�q��-�kcwo �yr Planning Director Ch irman for he Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,..- MOM Legal A.visor/ 2. q t Res. No. 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 19th day of September , 197 7 , and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Members: Sietbert, Gibbs ABSENT: Members: None I he toregoing Instrument Is a correct cap) of the original on file in this office. Attest ....19.2 7. ALICIA M. WENTWORTH ----------------------------------------------------------------.. ;ity Clerk t, U Ex-cfficio Mirk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,Cal. Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach CITY OF HUnTin(;Ton BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Redevelopment Agency FROM: Edward D. Selich DATE: September 9, 1977 SUBJECT: Joint Hearing on Participation Agreement with Business Properties STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A Final Owner Participation Agreement has been prepared with Business Properties for development in the Warner Goldenwest Project Area. This Agreement must be approved by both Redevelop- ment Commission and Redevelopment Agency before further activity can proceed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve attached Resolution setting a joint public hearing for October 3, 1977 with the Redevelopment Commission to consider the Final Participation Agreement with Business Properties. ANALYSIS: On June 20, 1977, the Redevelopment Agency adopted an Interim Agreement with Business Properties for negotiating rights in the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project Area. Since that time more specific negotiations between the Agency's legal counsel and Business Properties have formulated a Final Participation Agreement for approval. Resectfull s�ubQmitted, nn J f) ��XSL-Al. Edward D. Selich Director EDS:MF:gc Attachments: Resolution Participation Agreement 3/. /G VW-6,0,,J City of Huntington Beac P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 921 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TO: Redevelopment Agency FROM: City Clerk DATE: September 8, 1977 SUBJECT: Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Plan r,94 Transmitted herewith is a certified copy of Ordinance No. 2212 adopted by the City Council of Huntington Beach on August 1, 1977 and effective on August 30, 1977. Said ordinance adopts the Redevelopment Plan for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelop- ment Project and provides in Section 7 thereof that upon receipt hereof the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. Enclosure MT:ahb ORDINANCE NO. 2212 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER-GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Council") is the governing body of the Redevelop- ment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency"); and The Community Redevelopment Commission of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Commission") is an organization created by the Council pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) to prepare a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project (the "Project"); and The Commission prepared a report to the Council on the Redevelopment Plan including the reasons for the selection of the redevelopment project area (the "Project Area"), a de- scription of the physical, social, and economic conditions ex- isting in the Project Area, the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area, an analysis of the pre- liminary plan, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, and an environmental impact report (the "EIR") on the Redevelopment Plan; and The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and submitted to the Council its report and recommendations for approval of the Redevelopment Plan and its certification that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach; and 1. The Commission held a public informational meeting on July 14, 1977 to discuss the Redevelopment Plan, the EIR and Rules for Owner Participants and Property Owners Desiring to Participate in Redevelopment with interested persons in the community; and The Council, the Agency and the Commission held a joint public hearing on July 25, 1977 on adoption of the Redevelop- ment Plan and on certification of the final Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California; and A notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in the Huntington Beach News, a newspaper of general circula- tion in the city of Huntington Beach, once a week for four (4) successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency; and Copies of the notice of public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the redevelop- ment project area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of Orange County; and Each assessee in the redevelopment project area was sent a separate statement, attached to the notice of hearing, that his property is subject to acquisition by purchase or condem- nation under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan; and Copies of the notice of public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which levies taxes upon property in the Project Area; and After the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan, by Resolution No. 7, adopted on July 25, 1977, the Commission approved the Redevelopment Plan and recommended to the City Council that it adopt said plan; and 2. The Agency has reviewed and considered the EIR for the Redevelopment Plan, prepared and submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151 and Health and Safety Code Section 33352, and determined that the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will not have an adverse effect on the environment, and that certain changes, alterations and measures have been incorporated into the project in order to mitigate the significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR; and The Council has considered the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the report of the Commission, the Redevelopment Plan and its economic feasibility, the EIR, and provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area is to: (a) Eliminate conditions of blight including lots of in- adequate size for proper usefulness and development by land as- sembly for new construction and development. (b) Broaden the municipal economic base by developing the Project Area into a retail commercial shopping center. (c) Improve traffic circulation within the Project Area including major and primary street improvements. SECTION 2. The Council hereby finds and determines that: (a) The redevelopment project area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based upon the conditions of economic disuse which characterize the project area and are causing a lack of proper utilization of the project area. Said conditions include: (i) The existence of lots of inadequate size for proper usefulness and development. Q (ii) Faulty public and/or private planning result- ing in disuse of land which could contribute substantially to the public health, safety and general welfare. (iii) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investment and social and economic maladjustment. It is further found and determined that such con- ditions constitute a physical, social and economic burden on the community requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the city and the state. (b) The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that redevelop- ment will implement the objectives of the Community Redevelop- ment Law by aiding in the elimination of the conditions of blight, providing for higher economic utilization of poten- tially useful land, and providing for the development of the Project Area in order to expand employment activities for jobless, underemployed and low-income persons. (c) The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based on the fact that the Redevelopment Plan does not authorize the tax increment method of funding described in Section 33670 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code but provides that all costs incurred by the Agency in carrying out the Project will be ad- vanced, paid or reimbursed by each participating developer. (d) The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. This determination is based on the finding of the Planning Commission that the Redevelop- ment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach, and the fact that the city has adopted a General Plan containing all mandatory elements and the Redevelopment Plan is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such General Plan. (e) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will pro- mote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City of Huntington Beach and will effectuate the purposes and policy of the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the fact that redevelopment will benefit the project by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development. (f) The condemnation of real property, as provided for b. in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. This finding is based upon the need for the Redevelop- ment Plan to contain adequate safeguards that the work of re- development will be carried out pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and to prevent the recurrence of blight. (g) There is no need for the Agency to devise a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from housing facilities in the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the Project Area is vacant land which does not sup- port any housing facilities. (h) There is no need for the Council to determine whether there are in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and com- mercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced fami- lies and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. This finding is based upon the fact that implemen- tation of the Redevelopment Plan will result in no relocation because the Project Area is vacant land. (i) Inclusion of any lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the whole area of which they are a part and any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justifi- cation for its inclusion. This finding is based upon the fact that the boundaries of the project area were chosen as a uni- fied and consistent whole to include only those lands that are predominantly vacant and unused because of blighting influences. (j) The elimination of blight and redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accom- plished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the fact that the substandard sized lots, fragmented ownership of land and problems with interior access have prevented the site from development and will continue to prevent any future development. (k) The Redevelopment Plan for the project area will af- ford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of 02 tr:e city as a whole, for the redevelopment of such area by private enterprise. (1) The Redevelopment Plan contains adequate safeguards so that the work of redevelopment will be carried out pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, and it provides for the retention of controls and the establishment of restrictions and cove- nants running with the land sold or leased for private use for periods of time and under conditions specified in the Plan, which this Council deems necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law. SECTION 3. Written objections to the Redevelopment Plan filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for hearing, and all oral objections presented to the Council at the hear- ing, having been considered are hereby overruled. SECTION 4. The Council, having considered all evidence, including the Report of the Commission and the EIR of the Agency, finds, determines and certifies that the EIR complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code), that the Re- development Plan will not have an adverse effect on the en- vironment, that the redevelopment of the Project Area will enhance and promote a high -quality environment, and the ap- proval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. The Council further finds and determines that certain changes, al- terations and measures have been incorporated into the project in order to mitigate the significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Short-term air pollution impacts caused by construc- tion activities will be mitigated by the controls of the city ordinance and on -site inspections. (b) Increased traffic will be mitigated by the widening of streets and installation of traffic signals. (c) Increases in noise because of traffic moving to and from the Project Area will be mitigated by changes in traffic control and improving sound insulation of buildings. (d) Increases in energy and utility services will be mitigated by specific energy conservation measures for new structures. (e) The loss of a possible archaelogical site will be mitigated by a survey and removal of data from the site by a M W qualified archaeologist prior to clearing and grading. (f) The loss of open space will be mitigated by land- scaping and design review by the Agency to insure a quality environment. SECTION 5. That certain document entitled Redevelopment Plan for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project, the maps contained therein, and such other reports as are in- corporated therein by reference, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated in this ordinance by ref- erence and made a part hereof, and as so incorporated, is hereby designated, approved and adopted as the official Redevelopment Plan for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project. SECTION 6. In order to implement and facilitate the ef- fectuation of the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, it may be necessary for the Council to take action with reference, among other things, to changes in zoning, the vacating and re- moval of streets, alleys, and other public ways, the estab- lishment of new street patterns, the location and relocation of sewer and water mains and other public facilities, and other public action, and, accordingly, this Council hereby (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan, (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the city having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exer- cise their respective functions and powers in a manner consis- tent with the redevelopment of the Project Area, (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any pro- ceeding necessary to be carried out by the city under the pro- visions of the Redevelopment Plan. SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Agency whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of Orange County a description of the land within the Project Area and a statement that proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the California Community Redevelopment Law. SECTION 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the description and statement recorded by the Clerk pur- suant to Section 8 of this ordinance, a copy of this ordinance 7. and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Project Area, s to the auditor and tax assessor of Orange County, to the gov- erning body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project Area and to the State Board of Equalization. SECTION 10. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this ordinance or the Redevelopment Plan which it approves is held to be in- valid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the valid- ity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or of the Redevelopment Plan, and this Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the ordinance, or approved the remainder of the Redevelopment Plan, if such invalid por- tion thereof had been deleted. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the lst day of August, 1977. ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk By `dL Deputy City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: CiV Administrator I / l mac, vY✓ ` t..'.. . . �, �, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City At oVeyED MT I ITIATED AND AP: Director of Planning A. No. 2212 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July 19 77 , and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of August , 19 77 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office. Attest .._.... , ...'�.., .-... ALICIA M. WLNTWORTW ------------------- ---------------- ••--------- ----- ----------- City Clerk and Ex-officio Clcrk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,Cal, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 667 By G��✓�uC� „`hrx Deputy City Clerk G BUSINESS PROPERTIES �': •emu, ,r DEVEIAPMENT CONSTRUCTION - MANAG SKENT ✓J' .? d y �'t i�sidcKi Jr 1k/ 17840 SKY PARK BOULEVARD • IRVINE. OALIFORNIA 02714 (714) 979-8800� August 26, 1977 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Connie Brockway Reference: Golden West and warner Redevelopment Legal, Assistance Dear Sir: Enclosed is the executed letter agreement for the above referenced property. Very truly yours, BUSINESS PROPERTIES e7lle E. Stafford General Counsel DES: pep enclosures �;a;:cn.,`P3�:F�`*r-,�« .,. .mf„��M*"^.,.,,�—,r €4t;� �,-..;n�.�,°•s �ar�'�e°'�i', —'ws�r .yew , . . _ � �;s�""#.�'!^,;.,�^-... • ft 0 City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR August 23, 1977 Business Properties 17840 Sky Park Boulevard Irvine, California 92707 Re: Redevelopment Legal Assistance Gentlemen: It is our understanding that your firm wishes to have the City of Huntington Beach perform certain additional legal research and services in connection with a proposed development which would be located within the City of Huntington Beach in the vicinity of Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue. The City, acting through its Redevelopment Agency, is willing to authorize such services to be performed by the City's special redevelopment counsel under its existing contract and to direct such effort provided that prior to the authorization of any such services, you deposit the sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) with the City Treasurer. The City will then proceed to authorize the research and legal services and will deduct the cost thereof from the sum deposited. Any funds remaining after completion will be returned to you by the City. Any services directed by the City or its Redevelopment Agency under this arrangement will be at the sole discretion of the City, its officers, agents and employees. Neither the City, its special redevelopment counsel, or its Redevelopment Agency warrants such services in any way, nor does any party guarantee that the sum advanced by you will be adequate to complete any desired or requested effort. Any work product generated by the use of such funds will remain the property of the City, its special redevelopment counsel and its Redevelopment Agency. If you are agreeable to this arrangement as proposed herein, please sign this letter at the space provided below and return three copies to the undersigned indicating your acceptance of the terms outlined herein, together with a cashier's check drawn payable to the order of the City Treasurer of the City of Huntington Beach in the amount Telepbone (714) 536-5201 • MOM above stated. This letter will constitute the entire agreement between your firm and the City/Special Redevelopment Counsel/Agency in this regard. Very&AlnEistrator rs, FLOYTO City FGB:WSA:gm cc: McDonough, Holland, Schwartz & Allen Att: Joseph E. Coomes, Jr. Attorney at Law 555 Capitol Mall Suite 950 Sacramento, CA 95814 ACCEPTED BY BUSINESS PROPERTIES: M �'P/�J/ wsT r�� �y�.••r f+lJ►t �d�S i .v ,$ CITY OF HunTmGTon BE'kh DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536 5271 APPItOVED BY CITY COUNCIL TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrat 1�� r FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Directo DATE: August 5, 1977 ITY CLERIC SUBJECT: INCREASED FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR REDEVELOPMENT LEGAL SERVICES STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The present $5000 allocation funded by Business Properties for legal assistance relating to the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Plan is depleted. Additional funding for Redevelopment activities will be provided for in the Owner Participation Agreement now being prepared for Council adoption in September. Funds are necessary in the interim to cover legal services relating to plan adoption and development of the Agreement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize agreement between Business Properties and the City/Special Redevelopment Counsel/Redevelopment Agency for $3000 additional funding to cover legal costs prior to approval of a Final Owner Participation Agreement which will provide for Long-term funding. ANALYSIS: In March, 1977, the Council authorized execution of a contract with McDonough, Holland, Schwartz, and Allen for legal consulting assistance to the Redevelopment Agency. At the same time, Council authorized expenditure of $5000 in legal assistance for the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Plan provided that the $5000 would be paid by Business Properties. Subsequently a letter of agreement was signed by the City and Business Properties establishing a $5000 account. With payment of the July, 1977 invoice for legal services during June, only $228.63 remains in Warner-Goldenwest Legal Account established by Business Properties. This amount is insufficient to cover necessary expenses involved with Plan adoption and approval of the final Owner Participation Agreement with Business Properties in September. Therefore, interim funding of $3000 is needed to cover legal costs prior to the establishment of permanent funding arrangements in the Owner Participation Agreement. Business Properties is willing•to fund the additional $3000. Respectfully submitted, and Se r� Director EDS:MP:ja 1 ?'RECORDING REQUESTED 34303 I,�ANr�I��G ��;-pT• 13. AND MAIL TQ C;41 of EXEMPT P •O• 0OX, 19 (; Fj ��, 0. 0ox 190 AV-%JiV%JfW l PAC&- a ICa)• ,�,nt'tor, Beech, CA 9264`' ryZ6�f8 ORDINANCE NO. 2212 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER-GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Council") is the governing body of the Redevelop- ment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency"); and The Community Redevelopment Commission of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Commission") is an organization created by the Council pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) to prepare a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project (the "Project"); and The Commission prepared a report to the Council on the Redevelopment Plan including the reasons for the selection of the redevelopment project area (the "Project Area"), a de- scription of the physical, social, and economic conditions ex- isting in the Project Area, the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area, an analysis of the pre- liminary plan, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, and an environmental impact report (the "EIR") on the Redevelopment Plan; and The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and submitted to the Council its report and recommendations for approval of the Redevelopment Plan and its certification that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach; and t W0,0 r OF OFMCrAC wwom OF ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA ';IT: ahb -2 9§ PM D E C 2 71977 1, l ME CARLYLE. Cou* Recorder B112507K 495 The Commission held a public informational meeting on July 14, 1977 to discuss the Redevelopment Plan, the EIR and Rules for Owner Participants and Property Owners Desiring to Participate in Redevelopment with interested persons in the community; and The Council, the Agency and the Commission held a joint public hearing on July 25, 1977 on adoption of the Redevelop- ment Plan and on certification of the final Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California; and A notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in the Huntington Beach News, a newspaper of general circula- tion in the city of Huntington Beach, once a week for four (4) successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency; and } Copies of the notice of public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the redevelop- ment project area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of Orange County; and Each assessee in the redevelopment project area was sent a separate statement, attached to the notice of hearing, that his property is subject to acquisition by purchase or condem- nation under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan; and Copies of the notice of public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which levies taxes upon property in the Project Area; and After the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan, by Resolution No. 7, adopted on July 25, 1977, the Commission approved the Redevelopment Plan and recommended to the City Council that it adopt said plan; and 2. BX 12507PS 496 The Agency has reviewed and considered the FIR for the Redevelopment Plan, prepared and submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151 and Health and Safety Code Section 33352, and determined that the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will not have an adverse effect on the environment, and that certain changes, alterations and measures have been incorporated into the project in order to mitigate the significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR; and The Council has considered the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the report of the Commission, the Redevelopment Plan and its economic feasibility, the EIR, and provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony pronrnted for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1, That the purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area is to: (a) Eliminate conditions of blight including lots of in- adequate size for proper usefulness and development by land as- sembly for new construction and development. (b) Broaden the municipal economic base by developing the Project Area into a retail commercial shopping center. (c) Improve traffic circulation within the Project Area including major and primary street improvements. SECTION 2. The Council hereby finds and determines that: (a) The redevelopment project area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based upon the conditions of economic disuse which characterize the project area and are causing a lack of proper utilization of the project area. Said conditions include: (i) The existence of lots of inadequate size for proper usefulness and development. 3. BK 12507PS 497 (ii) Faulty public and/or private planning result- ing in disuse of land which could contribute substantially to the public health, safety and general welfare. (iii) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investment and social and economic maladjustment. It is further found and determined that such con- ditions constitute a physical, social and economic burden on the community requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the city and the state. (b) The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that redevelop- ment will implement the objectives of the Community Redevelop- ment Law by aiding in the elimination of the conditions of blight, providing for higher economic utilization of poten- tially useful land, and providing for the development of the Project Area in order to expand employment activities for jobless, underemployed and low-income persons. (c) The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based on the fact that the Redevelopment Plan does not authorize the tax increment method of funding described in Section 33670 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code but provides that all costs incurred by the Agency in carrying out the Project will be ad- vanced, paid or reimbursed by each participating developer. (d) The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. This determination is based on the finding of the Planning Commission that the Redevelop- ment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach, and the fact that the city has adopted a General Plan containing all mandatory elements and the Redevelopment Plan is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such General Plan. (e) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will pro- mote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City of Huntington Beach and will effectuate the purposes and policy of the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the fact that redevelopment will benefit the project by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development. (f) The condemnation of real property, as provided for 4. 8f t 2507M 498 in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. This finding is based upon the need for the Redevelop- ment Plan to contain adequate safeguards that the work of re- development will be carried out pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and to prevent the recurrence of blight. (g) There is no need for the Agency to devise a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from housing facilities in the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the Project Area is vacant land which does not sup- port any housing facilities. (h) There is no need for the Council to determine whether there are in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and com- mercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced fami- lies and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. This finding is based upon the fact that implemen- tation of the Redevelopment Plan will result in no relocation because the Project Area is vacant land. (i) Inclusion of any lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the whole area of which they are a part and any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justifi- cation for its inclusion. This finding is based upon the fact that the boundaries of the project area were chosen as a uni- fied and consistent whole to include only those lands that are predominantly vacant and unused because of blighting influences. (j) The elimination of blight and redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accom- plished by private enterprise acting alone without the ald and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the fact that the substandard sized lots, fragmented ownership of lntid and problems with interior access have prevented the site from development and will continue to prevent any future development. (k) The Redevelopment Plan for the project area will af- ford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of 5• BK t 250-M 499 the city as a whole, for the redevelopment of such area by private enterprise. (1) The Redevelopment Plan contains adequate safeguards so that the work of redevelopment will be carried out pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, and it provides for the retention. of controls and the establishment of restrictions and cove- nants running with the land sold or leased for private use for periods of time and under conditions specified in the Plan, which this Council deems necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law. SECTION 3. Written objections to the Redevelopment Plan filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for hearing, and all oral objections presented to the Council at the hear- ing, having been considered are hereby overruled. SECTION 4. The Council, having considered all evidence, including the Report of the Commission and the EIR of the Agency, finds, determines and certifies that the EIR complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code), that• the Re- development Plan will not have an adverse effect on the en- vironment, that the redevelopment of the Project Area will enhance and promote a high -quality environment, and the ap- proval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. The Council further finds and determines that certain changes, al- terations and measures have been incorporated into the project in order to mitigate the significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Short-term air pollution impacts caused by construc- tion activities will be mitigated by the controls of the city ordinance and on -site inspections. (b) Increased traffic will be mitigated by the widening of streets and installation of traffic signals. (c) Increases in noise because of traffic moving to and from the Project Area will be mitigated by changes in traffic control and improving sound insulation of buildings. (d) Increases in energy and utility services will be mitigated by specific energy conservation measures for new structures. (e) The loss of a possible archaelogical site will be mitigated by a survey and removal of data from the site by a a BK 12507M Soo T. qualified archaeologist prior to clearing and grading. (f) The loss of open space will be mitigated by land- scaping and design review by the Agency to insure a quality environment. SECTION 5. That certain document entitled Redevelopment Plan for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project, the maps contained therein, and such other reports as are in- corporated therein by reference, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated in this ordinance by ref- erence and made a part hereof, and as so incorporated, is hereby designated, approved and adopted as the official Redevelopment Plan for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project. SECTION 6. In order to implement and facilitate the ef- fectuation of the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, it may be necessary for the Council to take action with reference, among other things, to changes in zoning, the vacating and re- moval of streets, alleys, and other public ways, the estab- lishment of new street patterns, the location and relocation of sewer and water mains and other public facilities, and other public action, and, accordingly, this Council hereby (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan, (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the city having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exer- cise their respective functions and powers in a manner consis- tent with the redevelopment of the Project Area, (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any pro- ceeding necessary to be carried out by the city under the pro- visions of the Redevelopment Plan. SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Agency whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of Orange County a description of the land within the Project Area and a statement that proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the California Community Redevelopment Law. SECTION 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the description and statement recorded by the Clerk pur- suant to Section 8 of this ordinance, a copy of this ordinance 7. 8A f 2507K 50 r and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Project Area, to the auditor and tax assessor of Orange County, to the gov- erning body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project Area and to the State Board of Equalization. SECTION 10. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this ordinance or the Redevelopment Plan which it approves is held to be in- valid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the valid- ity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or of the Redevelopment Plan, and this Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the ordinance, or approved the remainder of the Redevelopment Plan, if such invalid por- tion thereof had been deleted. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of August, 1977. ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk B 1 L i '��_ Z'46W > Deputy City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Citof Administrator Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City At o ney M�- I IZ: AP OVED: Director of Planning Ord. No. 2212 BX 12507PS 502 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 1, ALIC LA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of membere of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July 19 77 , and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the lst day of August , 19 77 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California BY Deputy City Clerk 0 The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the iginal on file in this office. Attest 19 City Clerk and Ex-officio C erk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Cal. � RDED MAIL. TO: HUNTINGTON BEACH Office of the City Clerk P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Warner-Goldenwest LEGAL DESCRIPTION Of ! 250-M SM Small Lot Redevelopment Project Area That portion of the Southwest one -quarter of the Southwest one -quarter of Section 23, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho La Bolsa Chica-and the Rancho Las Bolsas, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in book 51 page 13 of miscellaneous maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county, also being a portion of Tract No. 392 as shown on a map recorded in book 16 page 5 of miscellaneous maps -in the office of the County Recorder of said county, described as follows; Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 23, also being the centerline intersection of Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue; thence North.00 45' 30" West 282.00 feet along the west line of said Section 23, also being the centerline of Goldenwest Street; thence North 890 25' 00" East 30.00 feet to the southwest .corner of Lot 16 of Block C of said Tract No. 392, said point being the'True Point of Beginning and lies on a line parallel with and 30.00 feet Easterly, measured at right angles, from the West line of said.Section 23, said parallel line also being the west boundary line of said Tract No. 392; thence North 00 45' 30" West 352.78 feet along said line to the North right-of-way line of Huntington Place as shown on said map of Tract No. 392; thence North 890 26' 35" East 1291.00 feet along the north line of said Huntington Place and its easterly extension to the east line of .said southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 23 also being the east line of said Tract No. 392; thence South 00 45' 30" East 604.92 feet along said last mentioned line to the South line of, said Tract No. 392 being a line parallel with and 30.00 feet northerly, measured at right angles from the south line of said Section 23 also being the centerline of Warner Avenue; thence South 890 26' 57" West 1089.23 feet along said South boundary line of Tract No. 392 to the southwest corner of Lot 30 of Block C of said Tract No. 392; thence North 00 45' 30" West 252.00 feet along the west line of said.Lot 30, its Northerly extension and the West line of Lot 63 of said Block C to the northwest corner of said Lot 63, thence South 890 26' 57" West 201.76 feet along the South line of Lots 71, 70, 69, 68, and 16 of said Block C to the True Point of Beginning. Prepared b City of Huntington Beach _ Redevelopment Agency SIGNED 'tp TITL lull r. Phone ( 714 ) 536-5431 The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of th rigiriai on ile in this office. Aites 2 1922 01 City Clerk any' Ex-officio Clerk ofthe City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Cal. This document is solely for the official business of the City of Huntington Beach, as contem- plated under Government Code Sera. 6103 and should be recorded froo of charge. 9! WA kRNER-GOLDENWEST PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP TIC o� ®■ ■ Project F Rnt inelm r 4 4 wI 4 tl IN '. INN ' September 9, 1977 L. County Recorder y''9' County of Orange 630 N. Broadway Santa Ana, California Dear Sir: _v ciidns;11 'U.11J31S103H %W1303111 N11num I ,461 we[ : ,:. 41 rn 0 0 . m m V �Om O.00to to ?u O c - m °o O vmi- ..} Cc 00 o 8 A0 0 i °. iR m e ' �=mr. • :: g. ,''��- .'k, �, � .. A. eir � " o m � � , �.. �s � Cam" ry a. , . ti c *w..� � ti, rr z O 4 f p� INe,,rt n -'' a,r;ht.. �P r 7 �,gw�*' Ys�r n e?-'��s vZi M s C qy m �4 s, eo n. � •' . HQ � A •ea Zr ; i �Klt' *�; o. 7 0 ,��� yt( ,'t v. 4. 0 1. e 00 0) W U Q. U- U BI( 12507PS W5 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on August 1, 1977, adopted Ordinance No. 2212 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Warner- Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project. A description of the land within the Project Area is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the California Community Redevelopment Law. Filed for recordation with the County Recorder of Orange County by order of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. Dated: September 9, 1977. City Clerk City of Huntington Beach RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL EKMBIT "A" S NT TO POSTMAFK OR DA'E STREET AND NO j "0 6,eo�o��y �..� -0r P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE OPTIONAL SERVICS FOR 16OIT1 AL FEES _ RETURN— 1 Shows to whom and date delivered ........ With restricted delivery RECEIPT 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered SERVICES With restricted delivery ---- • --- RESTRICTED DEE—IVERY O SPECIAL DELIVERY (extr_a i_ee required) ... ........... ... ..... f/C7-1 PS Forrn NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED—See ocher s Jan.19763800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL .. .rp t;?� G f 0 Ir CITY OF HunTmGTon Corr M" *S* aw ftlj BE 1; 3 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES , 46 P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 Cell, TO: Redevelopment Agency ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning Department DATE: July 12, 1977 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RULES FOR OWNER PARTICIPANTS DESIRING TO PARTICIPATE IN REDEVELOPMENT Attached for your information and review is a copy of the Rules for Owner Participants and Property Owners Desiring to Participate in Redevelopment in the proposed Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project. The Redevelopment Commission is to review the rules at its meeting of July 14, 1977. The rules describe how a property owner wishing to develop or improve his property may do so by entering into an agreement with the Agency in com- pliance with the Redevelopment Plan. These rules were prepared by the Agency's redevelopment attorney, Joseph E. Coomes, Jr. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Rules for Owner Participants and Property Owners Desiring to Participate in Redevelop- ment and adopt Resolution No. 16. Respectfully submitted, J0. 9.� Edward D. Selich Director EDS:RC: s Attachment. U ■non structural blight areas oonsolidatiamn needed to implement, General Plan CERTIFICATIONS' 11 01v C000M X �Fwm .J& CITY C HUNTINGTON ORANGE COUNTY NON-STRUCTURAL BLIGHT ELEMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 29-5-II CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH e ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP d u 9 3 MIMI M "o MALE IN FEET p LEGEND a D—TE9 vR-- FFE — DM 33 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP • LIP, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AMENDED BY ZONE CASE NO. 352, 365, 396.426, a0a, 526.66-I6, 67-6 , 67-12 PP 67-2, 67-35 , 69 - 3, 71-9,71-45,PP72-4,71-20(L), 74-2,75-09 WA DYC D 28-5-11 ADOPTED- AUGUST 15. 1940 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. AMENDED ORD. NO. AMENDED ORD. NO, 9-3-1963 1000 10-16-72 1791 10-7-1943 1007 5-5-75 1970 4-6-1964 J045 12-15-75 2029 a-I6-If84 1056 4-a-Ifba _1132 10-19-1965 .1162 6-6-1966 1215 5-1-67 1319 7-17-67 1339 9- 7-67 1343 2 - a -66 1399 4-7-69 1497 7-17- 71 1659 2-22-72 1723 9-21-72 1771 J NOTE: ALL DOWN IONS ARE IN FEET ANT ZONE AGUOUIING ANY NIGHT OF WAY M NITENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CEIITEN OF SUCH RIOHT OF WAY LEGEND ® SINGLE FAIN. RESIDENCE OISIRICT ®HWIWAY COMMERCIAL GSTRICT LIMITED NULTWLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE OISTIlICT ® OFFICE PROFEIISNNAL DISTRICT INSIDEMTIAL AGMCIILTURAL DWRICE COMMUNITY FACMIES (EDUCATION) DWRICT SUFFIX LEGEND: -- SETSACX LINE --- ULTIWTE RIG OF NAY :m®. FRETaf PLAN OF STREET Y.ItlSIENT e1 ee es eT AVE I— U) ORITA OR N �iiiiiiiiiiiiii "�iiiiiiiiiiiiii n 5uiq I m uuminn, i�iiii{�.a�unnuunnuunu Ililllll � II LANNING ZONING DM 25 SLCTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 22-5-11 N11' h ` ADOPTED JUNE 20, 1960 I 1 1 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO 776 �. �1 1 Y 0� AMENDED ORD. N0. AMENDED ORO N0. I hsGE MD 12- R- 62 12.1621166 7 9FA-Al RCsEO1KKSM21N41UNNTII :inr1 A.GU'NR,III CN•,IEiXa%—rvuBAAL ,INa N1f-1' 1 9 28 10-20-66 1263 I1I 35-1-67 1319 n�—N1GN1E+r • Nri.RNINAL IS'R- vr 29420 5-5-69 1495 0IR,U,H`NTIN('TON BEAC 0926 7B-I1Nrtrn Nu1r ....... 'fIrxtit� 1-20-64 1031 12-0-7COVINNIII LITIEl ,EB LAwTfIKNN[7 !RISaTsRTINC 3-17.64 1036 2-20-71 700 CCNINNITV7(RECREAIONAL) DISTRICT T -2-4 1041 NOBINWEDISTRICT){AN(ICOUNTY, CALIFORNIA 7-20-64 1074 AMENDED BY ZONE CASE' 9-9-64 1061 12-7-84 1108 - - SETBACK LINE 214. 263.264, 265, 272, 293, 337 363, 384, 362, 391, 395 4 - 5-65 1106 399, 449.468.480. 505, 50k$16,535.66.20 ,66-47, 87-8, 69.5.70.16,71-23,71-20(J),71-201K1, 5-3-85 12 13 7.19-65 1154 12-6-65 lies 1+ 0 16 1+ e1 22 a :] EDINGER AVE _ 9p - $ x» RS K BELLINGER R I of lg EIiC. 1 ORR I 0 ! J Z Z R3 _s R I RI C 2 - b' N 7uNT W $ � DR RI RI RI RI �$ —__-- 13223o R I A I RI R I 1i yT 'ol w8D DR. EUBENS DR. 2! RI 3 S MA ITo q. DR II 1 J 5 LENNOK s•2' z N EZA DR. zJ' crco oR. RIL.yjLRITRI RI RI R I l_J I �RI DR PALMADE DR. R I = - yn RI at — ?C (COLLEGE VIEWVIEWH00i.1 R I = >! � RI LAFIY a j RI ~ CF-R 3 RI RI o DA ZZ Z J � A1eu1N DR "41W OR R RI RI RI RI RI CR RI RI OIL 3 = 3 L81'DLA DN - r RI RI J RI RI RI RI C ` RE Ct. AAY:ef Cif RI BEEIANR DR 'R • « 66R6 j RI RI RI 1 oNRlm aa. o aE. ao c rn R I R I R I R I R I IF BmocEwA R I RI RI RI RI RI pl RI IA R. 1 RI RI j CF—R n ,� nen R I 815NOP DR. >' MABON OR. R I `" RI RUM ON J —E RI RI 9B TS RI CR T"=CT N0. 81 (SPRING'JICW SCHOOL)- R I RI R I RI R I a CRANDALL DR. AN 1T 71_!t . RI CF—R RI RI RI RI RI RI > ON?, PARK) RI � Sur KEN 1EK RI = RI R 1 cz9.a' u ` 3 R I R I RI DOY DR RI ARINELLA F 7NELLA DR. RI I LYDIA DR RI RI RI � RI RI RI € RI RI GRr L -- a- R I RI DR W RI R 1 UJ J O C f C D CHANNEL CS-3 L 3 Q Vr 1320! +L W O g R J R LINE SC IN SE V+ BR IN I/ R3 //� O y rRA.- MH YEC 22.8-11 C2 100 I� U'R3 R3 Ls 9 ..� R3 - (' YWIRNER � AVE. -- L „ H YY 23 Y6 27 es :s z DM 22. SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OR' NGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AMENDED 8Y ZONE CASE:NO: RR _ GIR N77. — RN-R7 7 ... 7I-I 7I-Ii 7I-NA 71-4R um NOTE l DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET E ♦DJOINSIS ANY NNT a SR Y EONR ADOPTED MARCH T. 1960 of s E eICNT oEXTEND TO THE CENTER LEND: CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 ®1 SINSLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AMENDED ORD. NO. AMENDED ORD.NO. ® OFFICE PROFEsfgN'1L DISTINCT ® RESTRICTED NANUFACTUREAD DISTRICT 6-20 -60 774 2-20-73 1618. ECMNRRREAY COMMENCIAL DWRICT 12-6-60 604 - OVO RESESM ADRR]lLTURAL DISTRICT 3-20-SI 1 6z6 ® TWO FAEIILY RESIDENCE DISTNR-, 009 OW LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE MSTRICT 9-3-6 I000 6-4-64 1066 10-4-65 1161 12-6-65 1160 ♦-17-87 1317 --, SETSPCR LINE 10-19-70 1606 -o- ; CD MRN oa 6 - 3 -71 1643 a D MITN OIL '4NING SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 26-5-II .�•�= e� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP =a :a e+ e.:e WARNER AVE r In TALBERT AVE 0 J m PLANNING srar ZONING DM 30 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 25-5-II 1CALE _- N NOTE ADOPTED AUGUST 15, 1960 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 785 N3 ARE IN FEET NY ZONE ADJOINING ANY RIGHT OF WAY 13INtENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER TENDED CITY OF AMENDED ORD. NO. AMENDED ORD. NO. OF SUCH RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND' HUNTINGTON BEACH 3-27-61 829 12-4-61 877 5-7-62 900 6_182 IS 81 So 6-IB-62 808 4-1-63 957 12-19-66 I-3.67 4-18-68 9-I8-67 3-IB-68 6-17-68 1273 1280 1349 1398 1398 1417 CF-E COMMUNITY FACILITIES(EOUCATION)DISTRICT RS OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT 'PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT pl SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT fip-lj SPECIAL ZONE (CEMETERY) ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 165.211,216, 237, 251, 290, 319, 291,330, 377, 380,408, 389, 463 485 , 66-52 , PP 66-2 , 67-3 , 67-4 , 67-22 , 67-31, 68-2. 68-41, 67-32, 69-19, PPTO-8, F P71-4, 71-39, TO- 11,T2-3,72- 4.72-10, 72-48, Im WARNER 3 RI RI j 1�4 �6 4 R AMSTERDAM DR ;T = 3 RI C -R 2 n EDA OR RIORRI RIRI MAR LE DR R,¢ POLDER CR R I a 0 1. RI R3 ►V 3T tRIRI 3T Gil 5-20-63 966 12-ISIS 1459 B-3-63 989 4-7-69 1486 © CwMINIrY BUSINESS DISTRICT 6 -24-63 976 8-18. 69 1516 ® TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 12-2-63 1021 2-16-71 1632 ® HIGNY.WY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT I - 6-64 028 12-20-71 1690 ® LIMITED EAILTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 1 -20-64 1031 2-7 -72 1731 3-16-64 1043 3-20-72 I615 SUFFIX LEGEND. 5-4-64 1052 4-3-72 I739 8-19-64 1079 4-17-72 1741 I- 4-65 III[ 5-1-72 1744 —.._ SETBACK LINE 5-7-73 IS32 ----- ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY !/I PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT AVE CITY I OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY I I 1-4 I I tfN I I I 1 I 1 I Z I I H CF—E I (LAKE YiEW SOHON...) RI RI 31926 (lo-,3 F J N ,� i's R 2 R 2 9 R 2 J N. LINE OF TRACT 4882 So R I DRIVE oDR.1 C4R3 RI RI 199.95 /R2 Y SY DR. Y BENJAMIN ND6LRE I CR. R 2 1 O� -,z La RIW EL ARROYO 99 TO R2 5 SP— N. LINF S 1/2 Sin SW I/4 _) I W m 23 J s 36 TA LBERT +I AVE Q 0 z KNor SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-II CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHAA ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP LEGEND a ov " —.cc rzzz+ur GARFIELD AVE. . z DM 38 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP - 34-5-II CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 310,505, 66-4% 68-46,70-8,70-10,71-9,71-26,71-17,71-44,73-20.74-22,74-5 GARFIELD » a• • s. ADOPTED AUGUIT 15, 1960 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE 100. 765 AMENDED ORD,NO. AMENDED = 6-3-1963 .970 4-6-1665 .1132 12-5-1= .1271 2-3-89 1467 8-28-70 1576 p-19-00 1606 7 -17-71 1659 10-19-71 1"1 1-17-72 1709 2-22-72 1722 10-15 -73 1876 4-7-74 1977 9-I5-75 2010 G 1•DD IR NOTE ALL OWNER IONS ARE IN FEET AN ZONE AD.X)INWG ART RIBMT OF MY 19 INTEND TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER OF SUCH RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND EM RESNENIYIL ""E'l "A" MSIRKT ® COIAfED 1YITH DL R CT" � eDIIEREo MTTN a IFlDDIICRJI ® SINGLE FAImLY RESIDENCE 019TRICT ® LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 019TRICT ® NXNEXY COWERCIAI DISTRICT COIIO ED WITH OIL PRODUCTION COMMUNITYFACLLITES(RECREATp L)O6TRICT ® CIVIC DISTRICT ® PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DID TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AVE. s4 r 6 S % SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-II CITY OF LEGEND a acorcc morocco rcccwr HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 33-5-II NOTE: CITY OF ADOPTED AUGUST IS, 1NO. A�+ DR�N• AAE ID TO T ANY ZONE AOJOWING ANY RINIT OF VINT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 795 IE INT[NDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENRR Ix aua SIMONY or raa LEGEND AMENDED ORD.NO. AMENDED ORD.N0. AI aINGLE FAUN] RESIDENCE DISTRICT 7-17-71 1659 ® NIONIN NAY COIERCIA DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 9_16_75 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 71-9.-M-S I �G Tp .-O✓d** cat., t.r.. ii� a, Zo CITY OF HunTmGTOn BEAC�I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. 0. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administra FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Direct DATE: August 5, 1977 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL -/ -3 1f 2. CLERK SUBJECT: INCREASED FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR REDEVELOPMENT LEGAL SERVICES STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The present $5000 allocation funded by Business Properties for legal assistance relating to the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Plan is depleted. Additional funding for Redevelopment activities will be provided for in the Owner Participation Agreement now being prepared for Council adoption in September. Funds are necessary in the interim to cover legal services relating to plan adoption and development of the Agreement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize agreement between Business Properties and the City/Special Redevelopment Counsel/Redevelopment Agency for $3000 additional funding to cover legal costs prior to approval of a Final Owner Participation Agreement which will provide for long-term funding. ANALYSIS: In March, 1977, the Council authorized execution of a contract with McDonough, Holland, Schwartz, and Allen for legal consulting assistance to the Redevelopment Agency. At the same time, Council authorized expenditure of $5000 in legal assistance for the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Plan provided that the $5000 would be paid by Business Properties. Subsequently a letter of agreement was signed by the City and Business Properties establishing a $5000 account. With payment of the July, 1977 invoice for legal services during June, only $228.63 remains in Warner-Goldenwest Legal Account established by Business Properties. This amount is insufficient to cover necessary expenses involved with Plan adoption and approval of the final Owner Participation Agreement with Business Properties in September. Therefore, interim funding of $3000 is needed to cover legal costs prior to the establishment of permanent funding arrangements in the Owner Participation Agreement. Business Properties is willing.to fund the additional $3000, Respectfully submitted, E ward . Se is Director EDS:MF:ja j City of Huntington Beach +�7 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY C ADMINISTRATOR August 23, 1977 Business Properties 17840 Sky Park Boulevard Irvine, California 92707 Re: Redevelopment Legal Assistance Gentlemen: It is our understanding that your firm wishes to have the City of Huntington Beach perform certain additional legal research and services in connection with a proposed development which would be located within the City of Huntington Beach in the vicinity of Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue. The City, acting through its Redevelopment Agency, is willing to authorize such services to be performed by the City's special redevelopment counsel under its existing contract and to direct such effort provided that prior to the authorization of any such services, you deposit the sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) with the City Treasurer. The City will then proceed to authorize the research and legal services and will deduct the cost thereof from the sum deposited. Any funds remaining after completion will be returned to you by the City. Any services directed by the City or its Redevelopment Agency under this arrangement will be at the sole discretion of the City, its officers, agents and employees. Neither the City, its special redevelopment counsel, or its Redevelopment Agency warrants such services in any way, nor does any party guarantee that the sum advanced by you will be adequate to complete any desired or requested effort. Any work product generated by the use of such funds will remain the property of the City, its special redevelopment counsel and its Redevelopment Agency. If you are agreeable to this arrangement as proposed herein, please sign this letter at the space provided below and return three copies to the undersigned indicating your acceptance of the terms outlined herein, together with a cashier's check drawn payable to the order of the City Treasurer of the City of Huntington Beach in the amount Tedepbone (714) 536-5201 -2- above stated. This letter will constitute the entire agreement between your firm and the City/Special Redevelopment Counsel/Agency in this regard. Very ruly yours, FLOYD G BELSITO City Administrator FGB:WSA:gm cc: McDonough, Holland, Schwartz & Allen Att: Joseph E. Coomes, Jr. Attorney at Law 555 Capitol Mall Suite 950 Sacramento, CA 95814 ACCEPTED BY BUSINESS PROPERTIES: DATED p� BUSINESS PROPERTIES � DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Gfw 17840 SKY PARR BOULEVARD • IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 02714 (714) 979-8800 �� n� August 26, 1977 City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. O. BOX 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Connie Brockway Reference: Golden West and Warner Redevelopment Legal Assistance Dear Sir: Enclosed is the executed letter agreement for the above referenced property. Very truly yours, BUSINESS PROPERTIES e7lle E. Stafford General Counsel DES: pep enclosures CITY OF HunTin(iTon BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Redevelopment Agency ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Redevelopment Commission DATE: June 13, 1977 SUBJECT: INTERIM AGREEMENT WITH BUSINESS PROPERTIES Enclosed for your review and approval is an interim agreement and proposal to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement between the Agency and Business Properties in the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Area. This Interim Agreement was reviewed and approved by the Re- development Commission on June 13, 1977. This agreement, which is already signed by L. C. Smull for Business Properties, grants negotiating rights to Business Properties should a Redevelopment Plan be approved. It does not commit the Agency to adopt a plan. Upon approval of this Interim Agreement, more specific negotiations will begin leading to the development of a detailed Owner Participation Agreement and specific site plan which will be scheduled for public hearing concurrently with the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Plan and EIR in July. The Redevelopment Commission recommends Interim Agreement and direct negotiation Agreement for future consideration. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Selich Secretary EDS:MF:ja that the Agency approve this of a final Owner Participation MEMORANDUM REPORT PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COSTS AND REVENUES: WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Prepared for City of Huntington Beach June 6, 1977 Prepared by Urban Projects, Inc. 10850 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90024 (213) 475-9651 0 TABLE 1 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF NET PUBLIC CAPITAL COSTS AND REVENUES: WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COSTS/REVENUES A. AGENCY COSTS 1. Acquisition Costs(1) a. Eleven Lots @ 2,55OSF ea x $2/SF $56,100 b. Four Lots @ 3,20OSF ea x $2/SF 25,600 Subtotal Acquisition Costs $ 51,700 2. Relocation/Demolition Costs -0- 3. Public Improvements(2) -- 4. Appraisal, Legal, Title, Escrow and other Settlement/Disposition Costs Thirteen parcels @ $3,600/parcel, Say $ 47,000 5. General Administrative Costs, Say 15,000 TOTAL AGENCY COSTS $113,700 Say $114,000 B. AGENCY REVENUES 1. Tax Increment Revenues(3) -0- 2. Developer Payments(4) $114,000 TOTAL AGENCY REVENUES $114,000 C. NET AGENCY SURPLUS -0- II. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COST/REVENUES A. CITY COSTS 1. Public Improvements(2) -0- 2. Book Value of City -Owned Parcels to be Disposed(5) -0- TOTAL CITY COSTS $ -0- B. CITY REVENUES Proceed— o Sale of City -Owned Parcels Fourteen Parcels @ 2,55OSF ea x $1.70/SF $ 60,700 TOTAL CITY REVENUES $ 60,700 C. NET CITY SURPLUS $ 60,700 Source: Urban Projects, Inc. Note: Above Cost/Revenue estimates are preliminary. (1) At upper range of developer's current acquisition costs to date. (2) Required street work is assumed to be already programmed in City's current near -term capital improvement budget and is not treated as a project cost. (3) Assumed not to be collected per redevelopment plan to be adopted. (4) Assumed to equal total of Agency costs. (5) Assumed to be negligible. TABLE 2 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF LONG-TERM PUBLIC COSTS AND FISCAL BENEFITS: WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Land Annual Costs/ Total Costs/ Area Revenuys/Acres(1) Revenues (2) I. CITY COSTS AND BENEFITS i A. CITY COSTS 1. Civic Support Services 16.0 ac $ 411 $ 6,580 2. Civic Improvements Funds 16.0 91 1,460 3. Fire Protection 16.0 542 8,670 4. Police Protection 16.0 1,419 22,700 5. Public Works 16.0 1,445 23,120 6. Special Gas Tax 16.0 154 2,460 TOTAL CITY COSTS B. CITY REVENUES 1. Business License Fees 16.0 $ 164 $ 2,620 2. Civic Improvements Fund 16.0 233 3,730 3. Property Tax (2) 36,500 4. Retail Sales Tax (3) 132,300 5. Water Utility 16.0 ac 371 5,940 TOTAL CITY REVENUES C. NET CITY SURPLUS Capital ized Value (4) II. SCHOOL COSTS & REVENUES A. SCHOOL COSTS -0- B. SCHOOL REVENUES (5) $137,300 C. NET SCHOOL SURPLUS Capitalized Value (4) $ 64,990 $ 181 090 $ 116,100 $1,658,000 $ 137,300 $1,961,000 Source: Urban Projects, Inc. (1) Based upon 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses, including special study results for adjoining similar Ralph's shopping complex located at Warner and Golden - west, prepared by City Planning staff. (2) Calculated separately based upon Ci,ty tax rate of $1.61/$100 A.V. times combined in- cremental assessed valuation of Business Properties, Inc. and Landis parcels; see Appendix Tables 1 and 4. (3) Calculated separately; see Appendix Table 5. (4) Capitalized at 7%; reflects cummulative value over time. (5) Similar to footnote 2; school tax rate of $6.0921/$100 A.V. J APPENDICES -.4 go, Introduction This Memorandum Report presents the results of Urban Project, Inc. 's pre- liminary review of the probable public costs and benefits associated with the proposed Warner/Goldenwest redevelopment project. This project, which would be undertaken at the northeast corner of Warner and Goldenwest Ave- nues, is being proposed as a separate redevelopment project and would be comprised primarily of a neighborhood shopping complex to be developed by Business Properties, Inc. An adjoining parcel owned by William Landis is also contained within the project area boundary however, and is also in- cluded in this review. Preliminary negotiations completed between the City and Business Properties, Inc. propose that the developer bear the Agency's costs of acquiring and consolidating the remaining few parcels heretofor not able to be acquired by the developer as part of his development program. Thus, the Agency's net cost exposure is potentially zero. UPI has nevertheless analyzed on a pre- liminary basis the probable total project costs in order to provide addi- tional information so as to facilitate a general review of the project by the Redevelopment Commission, Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency. Also, longer term fiscal benefits will also be produced by the project, which, along with revenues to be produced by sale of certain City -owned par- cels, need to be incorporated within a review of the overall merits of the project. These are also presented. in the following memorandum report. Estimated Net Public Capital Costs and Revenues Certain capital costs will be associated with undertaking the redevelopment project at Warner and Goldenwest. These are summarized in Table 1 shown facing. It is emphasized that these are preliminary estimates of the proba- ble net costs associated with acquiring, consolidating and disposing of those parcels currently not acquired to date by the developer. Total acquisition costs of the remaining fifteen parcels are estimated at approximately $51,700. Other Agency costs associated with the completing of acquisition appraisals, general legal costs, escrow costs, title services, settlement and contract negotiator costs, reuse appraisals and disposition costs are also shown. Allowances have been made for possible additional costs if special legal, litigation or title problems are encountered. These combined costs are estimated on a preliminary basis at approximately $47,000, which is believed to represent the probable upper end for costs of this type, and these may in reality be lower. Other Agency administrative costs, in- cluding outside consultants fees„ staff time, etc., are estimated at approx- imately $15,000. Total Agency costs are estimated to total $114,000. Assum- ing that the developer bears all of these costs, the Agency's net costs or surplus will be zero. As shown, the probable cost exposure by the City itself is estimated to be zero. Two assumptions underlie this: first, based upon conversations with City Planning staff, it is understood that public improvement costs associat- v ia ed with upgrading Warner and Goldenwest at the site are currently already programmed into the City's near -term normal capital improvement program and thus these have not been shown as a special cost induced by the pro- ject; secondly, the current book value of the fourteen City -owned parcels, most of which were acquired for non-payment of taxes, has been treated as being negligible. Research by the planning staff indicates that the City's total combined expenditures for these fourteen parcels approximates $1,000 or less. The preliminary understanding with Business Properties, Inc. calls for the developer to purchase these City -owned parcels at the average price per square foot paid to date by the developer for other parcels al- ready acquired. It is likely that the City would not realize these market values for these parcels unless meaningful development of the total proper- ty takes place. Therefore, under these assumptions, the City should real- ize a small surplus of $60,700. Long -Term Public Costs and Fiscal Benefits In addition to the capital costs and revenues discussed above, the City will realize certain long-term net fiscal benefits if commercial development of the site takes place as currently proposed. UPI's analysis of these pa- rameters is summarized in Table 2 shown facing. The calculations shown are based upon the methodology developed in an earlier study prepared by the planning staff in 1976 of the relative annual costs and fiscal benefits as- sociated with various types of land uses in the City. In addition and coin- cidentally, the planning staff later prepared a detailed special study of the particular cost/revenue ratios for retail/commercial land uses utilizing the adjoining Ralph's shopping complex (located diagonally from the redevel- opment project site) as a test case. The cost and revenue ratios developed as a result of this later special study, which have been utilized in Table 2, thus should yield an accurate picture of the City's probable future cost/ benefit relationship for the property.* As shown in Table 2, the City should realize an annual net surplus of ap- proximately $116,100 per year over future years. This value is based upon the most recent available site plan submitted by the developer and transmit- ted to UPI dated December 14, 1976. Recent changes in the developer's site plan are understood to be minor and should not significantly affect this value unless building densities change dramatically. The capitalized value of this surplus, which represents the City's approximate long-term cummula- tive surplus, is estimated at approximately $1,658,000. Significant school revenues will also be produced as shown. *UPI did prepare special calculations of property tax and sales tax revenues; see footnotes to Table 2. APPENDIX TABLE I INCREMENTAL ASSESSED VALUATION FOLLOWING REDEVELOPMENT: SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT BY BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC._ Warner & Goldenwest Site I. INCREMENTAL ASSESSED'VALUE FOLLOWING PHASE I A. Assessed Value of Phase I Development 1. Land, Buildings & Other Phase I $1,311,000 Construction(1) 2. Inventory 151,000 3. Fixtures & Personal Property(2) 331,000 Total Assessed Value Phase.I 1,793,000 B. Less Existing Assessed Value(3) ($ 133,000) C. Incremental Assessed Value Following Phase I II. INCREMENTAL ASSESSED VALUE FOLLOWING PHASE II A. Assessed Value of Phase II Development 1. Buildings(1) $ 253,000 2. Inventory(2) 76,000 3. Fixtures & Personal Property(2) 115,000 Total Assessed Value Phase II 444,000 B. Less Existing Assessed Value(4) C. Incremental Assessed Value Following Phase II TOTAL PROJECT INCREMENTAL ASSESSED VALUE 0 Source: Urban Projects, Inc. (1) See Appendix Table 2. (2) See Appendix Table 3. (3) 19707 Assessed Roll. (4) Deducted previously under Phase I (Item IB). $1,660,000 $ 444,000 $2,104,000 APPENDIX TABLE 2 ASSESSED.VALUATION OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS: SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT BY BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC._ Warner & Goldenwest Site I. MARKET VALUE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS A. Phase I Land 652,000SF @ $2.50/SF(1) $1,630,000 Building Improvements Use Size Cost/SF Total Cost Supermarket 29,600 --TS— $740�000 Superdrug 26,000 22 572,000 Financial Institutions 16,000 38 608,000 General Retail/Office 4,000 30 120,000 Fast Food 2,400 41 98,000 Shops 37,225 18 670,000 Subtotal Building $2,808,000 Parking and Offsites 806,000 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS $5,244,000 B. Phase II Building Improvements Use Size Cost/SF Total Cost Ka-'Jor Tenant 21 ,000 --$TO— $420,000 Shoes 17,400 22 383,000 Freestanding User 7,000 30 210,000 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS $1,013,000 II. ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS A. Phase I Total Assessed Value @ 25% of Market Value B. Phase II Total Assessed Value @ 25% of Market Value Source: Urban projects, Inc., Business Properties, Inc. (1) Includes land underlying future Phase II buildings. $1,311,000 $ 253,000 APPENDIX TABLE 3 ASSESSED VALUES OF FIXTURES AND INVENTORY: SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT BY BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC. (Warner & G61denwest Site)_. I. ASSESSED VALUE OF INVENTORY Estimated Market Total Assessed Use Area Value Per Sq. Ft. Value(1) Phase I '-upermarket 29,600 6.00 $ 44,000 Superdrug 26,000 7.00 46,000 Financial Institutions 16,000 -- -- General Retail/Office 4,000 (2) -- Fast Food 2,400 1.00 600 Shops Subtotal 37,225 115,225 6.50 60,000 150,600 Phase II Major Tenant 21,000 7.00 $ 37,000 Shops 17,400 6.50 28,000 Freestanding User Subtotal 7 000 6.50 11,000 76,000 Total Assessed Value - Phases I & II $226,600 II. ASSESSED VALUE OF FIXTURES & PERSONAL PROPERTY Use Phase I Supermarket 29,600 10.00 $ 74,000 Superdrug 26,000 10.00 65,000 Financial Institutions 16,000 20.00 80,000 General Retail/Office 4,000 10.00 10,000 Fast Food 2,400 15.00 9,000 Shops 37,225 10.00 93,000 Subtotal 115,225 $331,060 Phase II Major Tenant 21,000 10.00 53,000 Shops 17,400 10.00 44,000 Freestanding User 7,000 10.00 18,000 Subtotal 5�,400 $115,000 Total Assessed Value - Phases I & II $446,000 Source: Urban Projects, Inc. (1) At 25% of market value - reflects state subventions covering 50% exemption. (2) Assumed to be wholly occupied by office users. APPENDIX TABLE 4 INCREMENTAL ASSESSED VALUATION FOLLOWING REDEVELOPMENT: LANDIS PROPERTY _ Warner & Goldenwest Site A. Market Value of New Development Estimated Market Total Market Area Value/Sq.Ft. Value 1. Construction a.+ Land 45,000SF b. Buildings 12,600 c. Parking & Offsites 32,400 Subtotal Construction 2. Inventory(1) 12,600 3. Fixtures & Personal Property 12,600 Total Market Value B. Assessed Value of New Development(2) C. Less Existing Assessed Value(3) D. Incremental Assessed Value Following Development $ 3.00/SF 20.DO/ SF 1.50/SF 6.00/SF 10.00/SF Source Urban Projects, Inc. (1) Reflects value of state subventions convering 50% exemption. (2) At 25% of market value. $135,000 252,000 49,000 436,000 76,000 126.000 $638,000 160,000 ( 9,800) $150,200 APPENDIX TABLE 5 DERIVATION OF CITY SALES TAX REVENUES: WARNEF!LGQLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Total Total Increase Total [let Retail Percent Taxable Within Increase Sales Taxable Sales City as �* Within City I. SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT BY BUSINESS PROPERTIES, INC. A. Phase I Supermarket $ 6,710,000 35% $ 2;348,000 15% $ 352,000 Superdrug 3,570,000 75 2,677,000 15 402,000 Shops 3,720,000 85 3,160,000 15 474,000 Fast Foods 480,000 100 480,000 15 72.000 Subtotal Phase I $14,480,000 8,665,000 $1,300,000 B. Phase II aNTj —Tenant $ 2,100,000 85% $ 1,785,000 15 % $ 268,000 Shops 1,740,000 85 1,479,000 15 2221000 Freestanding User 1,050 000 100 1,050,000 15 158,000 Subtotal Phase II $— 4,890,000 $ 4,314,000 648,000 Total Phases I & II $19,370,000 $12,979,000 $1,948,000 II. L_ANDIS PROPERTY Retail Tenant $ 1,260,000 75% $ 945,000 15% $ 142,000 TOTAL WARNER/GOLDENWEST PROJECT $20,630,000 $13,924,000 $2,090,000 CITY TAX REVENUES AS PERCENT OF SALES 0.95% 0.95% CITY TAX REVENUES $ 132,300 $ 19,900 Source: Urban Projects, Inc. *i.e. estimated portion of sales representing a net increase to City taxable sales as op- posed to sales redistributed from among existing facilities. HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. MAY 17 1977 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92"S MEMORANDUM REPORT REVIEW OF MAJOR TENANT MARKET SUPPORT: PROPOSED BUSINESS PROPERTIES,INC. SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT AT WARNER AND GOLDENWEST AVENUES Prepared for City of Huntington Beach May 13, 1977 Prepared by Urban Projects, Inc. 10850 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90024 (213) 475-9651 INTRODUCTION This Memorandum Report presents the results of Urban Project, Inc.'s re- view of the probable market support for shopping center facilities pro- posed for development by Business Properties, Inc. at the northeast cor- ner• of the intersection of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Avenue in north- ern Huntington Beach. This project is being considered for potential in- clusion within a separate redevelopment project boundary and world be un- dertaken with possible Redevelopment Agency assistance. A market analysis has already been prepared for this project on behalf of.the developer by Marketing Information Systems Inc. (MIS) of San Diego and at the direction of the City Planning staff Urban Projects, Inc. has reviewed this analysis in order to verify the probable levels of market support to be available to the project. The following brief report is organized into three general sections. Sec- tion I which follows presents UPI's findings regarding the conclusions -- drawn in the study prepared by MIS for the project together with our own conclusions concerning its probable viability. Section II reviews the methodology typically utilized in assessing the market support for retail ,hopping center projects so as to provide a background for subsequent dis- cussion. Finally, Section III outlines the results of UPI's examination of the various parameters and assumptions employed in the analysis. Ap SECTION I SUMMARY 01' FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS [used upon Urban Project, Inc.'s review and analysis of the market support available to' the neighborhood shopping center proposed to be developed by Business Properties, Inc. at the intersection of Warner and Goldenwest Ave- nues, the following major findings were noted: • The market support available to the site from within the local trade area will be adequate to support the project as proposed by Business Properties, Inc. This conclusion assumes that the project will be of high duality design and carefully managed, and would incorporate major competitive supermarket and superdrug tenants as reflected in the site plan made available to UPI dated December 14, 1976. This plan assumes major competitive supermarket and superdrug units such as an Albertson's and Long's Drugs units of approximately 33,000 square feet and 26,000 square feet respectively. UPI's review of the market analysis prepared by Marketing Information Systems, Inc. (MIS) of San Diego for the site indicates this analysis to be quite thorough in its preparation and content. Further, in UPI's opinion the assumptions and general findings contained in that analysis are believed to be valid. UPI's own estimates of potential sales by the major tenants in the project are somewhat lower than those forecast by MIS. Nevertheless the market support is believed to be adequate to support the type of project proposed. • UPI's review of the total available market support, together with its survey of other existing and planned supermarket and superdrug facili- ties in the area, indicates that development of the type proposed at the Warner/Goldenwest•site will not significantly and adversely affect other existing operations'in the area. • Since the level of market support for the major tenants within the pro- posed development by Business Properties, Inc. is anticipated to be adequate, the project as a whole should be viable based upon normal shopping center experience. lk- SECTION 1I STUDY METHODOLOGY In -order to facilitate latter discussion in this report the following pre- sents a brief description of the general methodology typically utilized in assessing the market support for retail commercial projects. The meth- odology employed by Marketing Information Systems, Inc. (MIS) is -quite similar to that which is outlined below and which would also have been employed by UPI.in its own review of a shopping center project. Rather than repeat the analysis presented in the report* prepared by MIS for Business Properties, Inc., Urban Projects, Inc. felt that the same results could readily be accomplished by a review of the general assumptions, ana- lysis and conclusions contained in the report. It is suggested that the reader review the analysis contained in this referenced report. The market support for a shopping center is formed by the total spending Potential available within a logical geographical area surrounding a site and the probable market share of the total potential which can be attracted to the site. The former is simply the product of the population levels and avcrage per capita spending patterns of residents within the area, while the site share is a function of the relative strength of the site in terms of access, exposure and the levels of competition afforded by other exist- ing store facilities already serving the area or which are planned to open at competitive locations. The overall viability of a shopping center is usually determined by the success of the major tenants within the project since these provide the customer traffic for smaller shops within the cen- ter. Within convenience centers such as that proposed by Business Proper- ties, Inc., supermarkets and superdrug tenants act as the major anchor ten- ants. Thus.if it can be established that the market support is adequate for these two tenants, it can usually be concluded that the overall project will be viable. In examing the market support available to the Warner/ Goldenwest site, and in reviewing the findings of the study prepared by MIS, Urban Projects, Inc. first reviewed the above parameters. These are dis- cussed in the following section. ;VS-e Sales Estimation for Proposed Supermarket and Superdrug, Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Avenue, Hunting Beach, MIS Incorporated. lIP41 0-- SECTION III STUDY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS Trade Area Delineation As a first step in reviewing the market analysis prepared by MIS for the 4larner/Goldenwest site, UPI examined the trade area assumed by MIS to be available to the project. Also reviewed were the project characteristics and probable competitive strength, and the access and exposure of the site based upon UPI's survey of the area. As outlined in its report, MIS adopted a trade area of approximately two miles in radius surrounding the site. This was then adusted to reflect additional site and competitive factors. The trade area boundary chosen, extends to Rolsa Avenue to the north, the San Diego Freeway on the north- west, to approximately Newland Street on the east, and to Garfield on the south. 0n the west the delineated trade area extends to the west to Paci- fic Coast Iliqhwav, and includes Huntington Harbour (1). This size trade art,a is typical of the type of project proposed and UPI believes that the boundary delineated by MIS is reasonable and supportable. Trade Area Population 11PI independently reviewed the population level within the trade area available to the Warner/Goldenwest shopping center site using the results of the 1970 Federal Census and November 1973 Special City Census, and also the most current estimates prepared for January, 1976. These later esti- mates were published in conjunction with the results of the special county- wide census undertaken in 1976. Though not specifically referenced in its report, it is apparent that MIS based its population estimate on the Janu- ary, 1976 estimates published by Orange County. The total trade area pop- ulation as of that date was projected by MIS to be 84,674; UPI's tabulation produced a figure of 83,410 and the difference between the two figures is considered negligible. Trade Area Expenditure Patterns As mentioned previously, the product of population and per capita expendi- tures yields the total trade area spending potential. MIS projected the supermarket and superdrug spending levels for individual subareas within the total trade area as shown in Table 1 of their report. The average for �1� See Map No. I of MSI report. -3- the trade area was placed at $241 por person for superdr►.►g expenditures, and )upermarket expenditures were estimated at $163.43 per week per person or $854 annually. Sources for these estimate-; were not indicated. UPI prepared independent estimates of per capita Expenditures in the su- perdrug and supermarket categories using taxable retail sales for Orange County and Huntington Beach published by the California State Board of -1(luali7ation and the 1972 Census of Retail Trade published by the U. S. Department of Commerce. Based upon the above, the average annual per cap- ita drugstore expenditure level is estimated at $105 to $115 within Hun- tington Beach. The Warner/Goldenwest site trade area, which has an aver- age per capita income level which is 5b higher than Orange County(1), is estimated to have a per capita drugstore expenditure level no higher than $120 to $125 per.trade area resident. Other factors cited by MIS in sup- port of a higher per capita spending pattern are not believed supportable. In UPI's judgment, drugstore expenditure pattern was significantly over- stated. Conversely, the estimate prepared by MIS of average weekly and annual supermarket expenditures is close to UPI's own estimate. MIS placed this expenditure at $16.28 per week per person while UPI estimates the ex- penditure level at $15.25. MIS's somewhat higher level is nevertheless be- lieved to be reasonably accurate. Total Trade Area Potential and Site Share The market opportunity available to the proposed project is a function of the achievable site share of the total trade area potential. In tables 1 and 3 of its report, MIS projected the total superdrug opportunity based on this type of analysis. UPI reviewed t1iris projection and prepared its own estimate of the site share. Though the average per capita drugstore potential and thus total trade area potential estimated by MIS is believed by UPI to have been significantly overstated, UPI believes that the indi- cated market share was understated. Based upon its own projection of spending potential and site share, UPI believes that a drugstore unit of the size and type proposed would achieve sales in its third year of opera- tion of approximately $3,570,000. This estimate is roughly 70% of the level projected in the MIS analysis. It is nevertheless considered ade- quate for most superdrLuc operations.. Further, bas-upon a review of the total available market potential within the trade area, the entry of an additional unit at the Warner/Goldenwest site will not significantly and adversely impact other drug operations in the market area. UPI also reviewed the projections prepared by MIS of .the total supermarket potential and site share which are shown in Tables 2 and 4 of their report. (lY Wf)ile the area has strong household income levels, higher than aver- age household size lowers the per capita income level closer to the County average. 1M UPI estimates were found to be reasonably close to those prepared by NIS. For example, MIS placed the third year volume opportunity at $7,860,528 . UPI's estimate is placed at approximately $6,710,000 or 85% of the former. The market support available to a supe nnarket at the site is considered by UPI to be slightly marginal but sufficiently close to normal desired productivity levels to warrant development at the site. Further, as with the drugstore unit, a review of the total trade area potential indicates that entry of the proposed unit at the Warner/Goldenwest site will not significantly and adversely affect support for existing and planned units in the area. -5- marketing information systems SALES ESTIMATION FOR PROPOSED SUPERMARKET AND SUPERDRUG GOLDEN WEST AVENUE AND WARNER AVENUE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Business Properties, Incorporated Irvine, California Prepared by MIS, Incorporated San Diego, California April, 1977 -marketing in?ormation syltems 861 Sixth Avenue, Suite 419, San Diego, California 92101 • Telephone (714) 235-6495 April 21, 1977 �- Mr. James Christensen Business Properties, Inc. 17840 Sky Park Boulevard Irvine, California 92707 Dear Mr. Christensen: We are pleased to submit our study to you entitled, "Sales Estimation for Proposed Supermarket and Superdrug, Garden West Avenue and Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, �- California." As you requested, we have estimated first and third year sales for a proposed supermarket which would be similar in concept to a Lucky's or Albertson's supermarket, and first and third year sales for a superdrug similar in concept to a Long's, Sav-On, Payless drug store. Our detailed analysis of -physical site characteristics, competition, census data, saturation and penetration indices, and share of market levels leads us to the con- clusion that the proposed supermarket and superdrug operation should provide the population base with a .., shopping facility concept that is presently lacking in the market area, as well as generate a profitable return for the tenants on the proposed shopping center site. In closing, we wish to express our appreciation for your support and patronage. It has been a pleasure preparing this study for you, and we look forward to a successful �- development of your shopping center project. Very sincerely, Larry Mavices Vice President enclosure LM:gmo Site Evaluation Models / Census Data Generation / Consumer Research / Feasibility Studies / Marketing Cons iltant marketing information systems SALES ESTIMATION FOR PROPOSED SUPERMARKET AND SUPERDRUG GOLDEN WEST AVENUE AND WARNER AVENUE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Frequently a department store, supermarket, super - drug, home improvement center, discount store, or other large retailer will define the market area it serves in terms of a one, two, three, five, or maybe ten -mile radii. While providing certain benchmark figures for determining the feasibility of a proposed site, it also contains some inadequacies that might lead to false confidences. Some of these inadequacies are: 1. inability to recognize natural and man-made barriers; 2. directionality and magnitude of shopping traffic flow; 3. population and density as well as pure population; 4. effects of competition in relation to: a. number of competitors, i b. directness of competition, and -- C. positioning of competition; 5. accessibility to the site from the market area; and 1 morke" Information systems 6. peculiarities of the area that might extend the market area beyond normal limitations. In light of these limitations, MIS, Incorporated M employs a "share of market" analysis to aid in the development of a sales estimation for a proposed site. • This technique utilizes many of the above mentioned variables in deriving an accurate definition of the market area. The market area then becomes the vehicle by which a "share of market" sales estimate can be .. formulated. The purpose of this study is to provide Business Properties, Incorporated with an estimated first and third year sales volume for a proposed supermarket and superdrug* on the northeast corner of the intersection of Golden West and Warner in Huntington Beach, California. To estimate the sales volumes for the proposed site, a per capita and share of market concept was incor- porated in the analysis. As mentioned previously, adjust- ments were made for "image," merchandising concepts, population, income, penetration indices, and other sales generating and restricting factors that would affect the *,As described to the consultants from Business Properties, Incorporated, proposed supermarket operation would be similar in image and concept to an Albertson's or Lucky's supermarket; proposed superdrug would be similar in image and concept to a Long's, Sav-On, or Pay- less superdrug operation. K marketing informotion systems prediction. In the final analysis, first and third year sales estimations are stated. In defining the trade area, a two-mile radii was considered in the beginning analysis as this radii gener- ally derives the majority of a supermarket and superdrug's customer count. However, upon analyzing the site, it was felt that a two-mile radii was insufficient for use -in estimating sales volume due to a combination of competi- tion, arterial roadways, population density, etc. The trade area, as defined by Marketing Information Systems, and used for share of market analysis, appears in Map 1 in this report. The following pages of this report will present details and description of share of market, illustra- tions of the site and site area, a description of the specific site, and synopsis of socio-economic character- istics of the area. This will be followed by a descrip- tion of the major characteristics of the site area that would generate or restrict sales volume and that were used for the analysis to determine share of market and expected sales volume. 3 marketing information systems -00 W METHODOLOGY The first step in evaluating the proposed site in .r Huntington Beach required an on -site physical inspection, with effort directed towards identifying the size and "` shape of the "primary market area." This identification was accomplished by driving the arterial network so as to observe the conditions a resident would encounter in his effort to reach the proposed location. During the course of this activity, information was collected as to the location of supermarket/superdrug competitors and their positions plotted on a map. Data were also gathergd on retail shopping facilities and the quality of the residential areas, factors which directly affect the success of a supermarket/superdrug operation. A primary market. area was then designated for the proposed location. Often the presence of barriers, such as freeways or industrial sectors, were the limiting r„ factors for the primary area size. In areas where there were no physical barriers, limits were set by the draw- ing ability of the immediate retail area and arterial network or the positioning of direct competition. After the data collection procedure and primary ,. market area designation, sales volume estimates were derived for the proposed location using the "share of " market" technique. This procedure allows for the 4 .. morketing informotion systems 1Y determination of total food -drug potential dollars in various sectors of the primary market area by taking per capita expenditures (which vary by income and family size) and multiplying them times the population in each sector. Then based on the previously discussed competitive environ- ment, demographic characteristics, and locational factors, MIS estimated the share.of each sector's potential dollars which the proposed location would enjoy. The resultant figure represented only that portion of the business which would be derived from within the primary market area. The strength of the nearby retailers, arterial network, and competing retail areas were then evaluated to determine what percent of the site's total volume could be anticipated to come from residents aw beyond the primary market area. The "within" market area sales estimate was then expanded to reflect this addi- tional volume, yielding a total sales volume estimate for the site. This estimate also takes into consideration the level of sales which may be achieved after adequate time has elapsed for the advertising and merchandising poli- cies of the chain to become fully effective in the market area. The following pages summarize the results of the analysis, present the "share of market" first and third 5 morketing informotion systems year sales volume estimates, and provide other supporting data used in the analysis. 6 . 1 I'-�' . .... : , T, l.'" - .1 9:1� "ll: SI S. it C-L It told, . girl ja Lai ..49F T_AT id Fill I of 44, 1_.'4. L 111 3 IS' 11 J "'Q .41 .7 If to -mv if iv! E-4 00 o+ W4 3r on la4 E-1 Ul j Lf un Lu' 0.113' hS Vi. or lt To it LS Ot T V, J :1 UA I t• o -U-- kiii. A '(j r- r marketing information systems y r Table 1' Superdrug Sales Estimation - First Year Per Capita and Share of Market Calculations Estimated Annual Expenditures Map Per Total Percent Dollars Section Population Capita Available to Site to Site A 12,273 $305 $3,743,265 12% $449,192 B 4,780 270 1,290,600 19 245,214 C 5,798 260 1,507,480 20 301,496 D 2,743 160 438,880 8 35,110 E 9,299 225 2,092,275 12 251,073 F 10,810 270 2,918,700 25 729,675 G 9,862 245 2,416,190 23 555,724 H 3,130 245 766,850 10 76,685 I 3,672 125 459,000 15 68,850 J 8,824 195 1,720,680 17 292,516 K 1,454 225 327,150 6 19,629 L 3,294 225 741,150 8 59,292 M 6,253 225 1,406,925 8 112,554 N 2,482 225 558,450 4 22,338 Total 84,674 $20f387,595 $3,219,348 Plus 10% from Outside Market Area 357,705 Total Estimated First Year Sales $3,577,053 8 marketing information systems Table 2 Supermarket Sales Estimation First Year Per Capita and Share of Market Calculations Estimated Annual Expenditures Map Per Total Percent Dollars Section Population Capita Available to Site to Site r A 12,273 $21.00 $ 257,733 5% $ 12,887 + B 4,780 19.50 93,210 19 17,710 C 5,798 19.00 110,162 4 4,406 D 2,743 12.80 35,110 2 702 - E 9,299 15.00 139,485 2 2,790 F 10,810 18.00 194,580 13 25,295 G 9,862 15.00 147,930 17 25,148 H 3,130 15.00 46,950 11 5,165 I 3,672 10..50 38,556 14 5,398 8,824 12.80 112,947 14 15,813 K 1,454 15.00 21,810 2 436 L 3,294 15.00 49,410 4 1,976 M 6,253 15.00 93,795 4 3,752 N 2,482 15.00 37,230 2 745 -- Total 84,674 $1,378,908 $ 122,223 Plus 8% from Outside Market Area 10,628 Total Estimated Average Weekly Sales $ 132,851 $132,851 x 52 = $6,908,252 Total First Year Sales 0 markethg hformatbn systems Map Section Tab le 3 Superdrug Sales Estimation - Third Year Per Capita and Share of Market Calculations Estimated Annual Expenditure Per Total Percent Population Capita Available to Site Dollars to Site A 12,273 $305 $3,743,265 16% $598,922 B 4,950 285 1,410,750 24 338,580 C 5,798 260 1,507,480 24 361,795 D 2,743 160 438,880 8 35,110 E 9,299 225 2,092,275 16 334,764 r F 10,810 270 2,918,700 34 992,358 G 9,862 245 2,416,190 33 797,343 H 3,400 260- 8841000 8 70,720 �- I 3,790 140 530,600 18 95,508 J 8,824 195 1,720,680 20 344,136 K 1,454 225 327,150 6 19,629 L 3,294 225 741,150 14 103,761 M 6,253 225 1,406,925 15 211,039 -- N 2,482 225 558,450 2 11,169 Total 85,232 $20,696,495 $4,314,834 Plus 15% from Outside Market Area 76,441 Total Estimated Third Year Sales $5,076,275 10 markethg hformation systems Table 4 Supermarket Sales Estimation Third Year Per Capita and Share of Market Calculations .. Estimated Annual Expenditures Map Per Total Percent Dollars Section Population Capita Available to Site to Site Y A 12,273 $21.00 $ 257,733 6% $ 15,464 B 4,950 20.50 101,475 21 21,310 ... C 5,798 19.00 110,162 6 6,610 D 2,743 12.80 35,110 2 702 ` E 9,299 15.00 139,485 3 4,185 F 10,810 18.00 194,580 14 27,241 G 9,862 15.00 147,930 18 26,627 .. H 3,400 16.00 54,400 9 4,896 I 3,790 11.75 44,533 16 7,125 J 8,824 12.80 112,947 15 16,942 K 1,454 15.00 21,810 2 436 L 3,294 15.00 49,410 5 2,471 ., M 6,253 15.00 93,795 5 4,690 N 2,482 15.60 37,230 1 372 Total 85,232 $1,400,600 $139,071 r Plus 8% from Outside Market Area 12,093 Total Estimated Average Weekly Sales $151,164 ,,. $151,164 x 52 = $7,860,528 Total Third Year Sales 11 L SEAL MAP 2 .R, E A C PROPOSED SUPER DRUG'S COMPETITION CODE & LOCATION NJ .1 uj I ;0 E t fw Tz7- T. -41 -EDINGER D. GER• AV A.J L aai IS A cW fa I :4 WA A— -1mv J TALBERT 9 ll 7-9 X L;W Vi Uk U 41 ----------------- --------------- GARFIELD r L4 r 4,:! ADAM5 .1cl :A. Please see following page for Competition Code List. I -7-14 ----------- 5 12 marketing hformation systems Table 5 Superdrug Competition Code List Code Name of Establishment ... 1 Drug -A -Rama 2 Thrifty Drug 3 Sav-On Drug 4 Skagg's Drug 5 Thrifty Drug -. 6 Sav-On Drug 7 Thrifty Drug 8 Future Sav-On Drug Source: MIS, Incorporated 13 �� • - _ l `E �```� S E A L MAP 3 vo 3,. ACH _ - - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET'S �•'�• � f 3 � 9' ki'•�y �.t.,�•r � - — -- -_� COMPE`.CITION CODE & LOCATION it c.i )/+ .i'. ,.. -� ^I ..K_ r rFF �iE+�j{ _�....� .,. ;�i.a �. •I 5 'a'y,. � � J3. .' ... �_,. _•.�.��.::� :.� � Y`i . _ - _r �- - - --�•--�-•- - '�• n ,y> r1 t'...'��7j�. (1 _ �° '1_.. r - --- - --- __i'..�:- `. r "r---'r': --^"n +T _ . '� .�.,I - .. ....,- _. - .- ___ T.i `•t �' :y)jl M �L.c._ _ rry_l__'�_ •,YII' •+`.."t.°,�-'.'_��' _ •�-'il ��•S ^".l •! i +.o J�_. �.Y^f�7 , y:l:l-- l�r i i I _i, • .._ ,ti .. e.el wwoo.. Smlre � ,II V�i�I :I ;•% i�t', '!�_ __T5C ------ 1tLLJ !I'4 a l J ,14i, Q', i xr UMPP al/ :�, —;vz.^ aiayF �. W.1 ''w• - rQ _ t '_'1�.- LLJ It + r' . @7,o v ten'= � -" -�. ,�L.- •'-� ``:' .,; i /.- .__ T• 9M •:ti.a"' - __ �_. [�� ��e;�;r_�. may_ —�.�_ .�•..�i-.-•�..a•,,. __ .. -. .r � _ r1.M s " _ � 1 `--�-�__� �I . yam, � - ?,` -�-+• - 'y �-.� N� a e•.f ..,;�.. t j .T3 r, 5� .d ✓,`f Al;-�"4�� a �,... I = _�:__�=.�.� �, 3 ' 2 F e ''y � r i -- e; EDINGER\ AV I% •• _ + .A.0 EDWGFR', 7 •• `� 1 }•� `, �•!, � � 13''e �i •or�.��r;/. ::_•_ i ..,.a +!. ..-D,��.�''= 1�� • M1 y i� c, t i - ,. _i...'v �_ -3 {. •' S•i. .W ;•' h�L•ne.. wJ '1 �1i�,r.e _•u}�--•L: LTA-• .'tGc'. L'�y ... ��••� T x +i «� '' / �:L./=''- d�I ]f� fl i �'I' a:� r7s'1� �• i�,, il. 9` r 5..,.,� :) �.' +>� / '�, Q•cLi:.ri�ii ] 6; M� . i.�" `��.,, _."' y Ei�`-`-``t d •�' sS';e".--�•�'e: — ` r: I I j �.i.�' a''^•�'•.-n•',1�1��_ � �( $1--7 �T-� P,' 1 , � � b .. ,.�} 5 I) "• r, -..1� Yam_ ..:i \ ' � � ��: � _ _ r 1' , v )I)�t.s.•'.iw�.` '� �19i jt. l.. Ipil Y ,n.,e `Jy r•:i;� +""v;+�•" %)./irzt • F �, ,!'rs--;•.�S•"� ^ � . • ,,,•• L.i: :.a __•I I � / i . 1� JI✓3^yL*^• y � +•...., bear " , `• j 1 . / �'_ ,ITp, • 1 • a. .`�- �I � �lil-..� ,,�-��,�*�84` �i 'q�.•.. •. r..+-l�.._�YI_�_!'L� _ _ i �.__ t t,.`. Ni; _ ".� ,) � � ' ;� . }+�'a l • L- ..� . cr-�r•r � 3 'I•! `' ,'e+ c• 4 i„- -i 7rr-�-•-:.�t^I'1_.' � ;��, _ bw�y --y ��.,r`l't ;i . i • •I��, a _ � -:•_ _ ' � 'a _ _ � wx., - \ , iy- .'-.r.L•P t'.nK�; � •K1':-� _ �i �i •,�.5�..� r..•Y¢� �.�. .+�I'� '•:'• `o:.�wYj:. _..r: L� i e.v)�_Y_,_—_ t2=-.}--�+ •'1�'. -,- 'S :•� 1, — ,i,.f��sc�Fc�-'' - _y- '''' I e e d,,.� _ , � 7 � �.`:. �. Ic. d:�a.:., -�: T--rr.-.:-, ' 'i=l.,. - -- �`L� ` �,7'i +"}:,.''•y.•<-1"M1;7�_d_, Y-;Y �;'„j=. r......•.�y�• . a i '�P; �.v� ;3. :,. � •M'F�"' ,�'`-1 - - _ I . : G( -�, �'in C• +" _.r E.� u ov '_ •�:-"•`.. �•�''4 -�3_ w••11•;,? �. Y..E...�.. �•✓.oi ! •w +'�g �-'-i ? Ii,�,.` j._� „ 1:_ i i t :.0'- 1`-4'"• k :1 ,,jj'�P pp - S�`r :""'s�' -e _ 1F -E G� Q .aa .r .�`• • 'SI;t i .mail" 1 M e .) Q QI'Qtrn� . ER 1 ♦ �'• i a WARN •r•.:�^:�. \1y�' 1�,'>ry'' � '•• ;-. `Y3•�-F. I'- - LC. ! s•Lr. ,� ar � j 1; -,c�•+ �-) � � '�/ .J: ' Ii", S� l �•,� •P y • �.Iy� I... Lw-e li)' ..I. r SI •• ILL ,��.�,..- ��r'.�_^.- • J=..Y �.-1[�.. .. • s ^ i•- ... d •.�_� 3.. •: S�� Svi.!'� ; • . �; 1•� ��� : fl:r �Q, �Rn=_� �• 5 � •� it ,� x�'� �'• M.'_��' . 31 i "L�l�yn ii' I wut�n_'f It. x:.lr'^'- `�g] ifj i<"y 'r• ` :t� _ , `!'q.'a -%•• � —•• .• I Y 1'e.•_�;3 ic�Z 7-r �; •^ _ -._ t ty ti�+•'� «C Y:, •f I.r TALBERT of rtP r-ry .� 3 • j`�c _ .i t .+ \ t' i..rcl u'� f _ 3 Q • r."I'` r Fj �� I' •-- .�'. sc-u<.). � �; •� . ,..�, ?r• -� :,.r•..;i ; ,.,.��' rj -t----------- ^- :I r� 0 Q ; ): . ;'IIF T) r-� If ________-___ __I I ,e RVIE'_D veer \ qsi _� I v.� •)iT• '• Ic -1� v �-I..7•-•_.-''�..� � M� 77 .O•' •\ •y. i..'S 1r a'-- -i. �� r•Tn :r:�:a'•• is ADAMS k:,...,._ ';,,:�„fir I I ,x... "�•, _ .'!=I" -�w� Please see following page u` for Competition Code List. •ti { Map Source: ? ,, •' _ �"', - _= �t �` +�') a' Ly! 1.`,. - _Jt• v Thomas Brothers .I l,:• :vu•.••a rui••I :•r''• 'a.y+'-�'ST:•i � ! s - s _ � `• ___�' r� •y.Y 1-i�� •t•.• .9..� � _ � 14 marketnq hformaWn systems Table 6 Supermarket Competition Code List r Estimated Code Name of Establishment Square Footage 1 Alpha Beta Supermarket 26,000 2 Ralph's Supermarket 30,000 3 Thriftimart 24,000 4 E1 Rancho Market 19,000 5 Lucky's Supermarket 29,000 6 Von's Supermarket 30,000 7 Alpha Beta Supermarket 24,000 r 8 Albertson's Supermarket 18,000 w 9 Stater Bros. Supermarket 20,000 10 Fed -Mart 20,000 ~- 11 Fazio's Supermarket 30,000 12 Market Basket 21,000 13 Future Gemco 14 Alpha Beta Supermarket 25,000 15 Safeway Supermarket 30,000 -- 16 Von's Supermarket 23,000 17 Stater Bros. Supermarket 24,000 18 Alpha Beta Supermarket 22,000 19 Future Ralph's Supermarket 20 The Boy's Market Supermarket 21,000 Source: MIS, Incorporated 15 marketing informotion systems SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION The proposed site is situated adjacent to present retail -commercial facilities which service the extensive residential base, a sector of the Wintersburg-Huntington Beach community. Golden West Avenue, a major north -south artery, provides a maximum exposure to traffic heading (1) south to residential areas and beaches, and (2) north to the major shopping facilities included in both Westminster Mall and Huntington Shopping Center. While traffic on Warner is heavy at certain times of the day, the wide artery with left turn lanes at the intersection, and the existing arterial traffic signal, alleviate most traffic congestion. The site may be categorized as a "corner" location, although the proposed supermarket and superdrug opera- tions will be set back from the corner with adequate parking in front of the stores. East of the site may be basically characterized as residential, with a Shell Oil service station/liquor store complex located at the northeast corner of the intersection, while the southwest corner is taken up by Wintersburg High School. Neighborhood retail facilities exist on both 16 marketing information systems northwest and southwest corners of the intersection, with Union 76 and Standard Oil service stations on the immed- iate corners along with Ralph's and Alpha Beta super- markets, Drug -A -Rama, and Lloyds Bank -World Savings as major tenants. Beyond these facilities, residential family units are predominant with newest growth to the immediate southwest. The demographic profile of the population in the site area may be considered homogeneous, dense, and slightly above the average Orange County profile. Median age is 24, median family income $15,490, median property value $28,837, and average family size 3.64. A synopsis of the population profile for a one and two-mile radii surrounding the site is illustrated in the Appendix. 17 marketN information systems MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE AREA 1. Population within one and two miles of the proposed location is approximately 29,700 and 76,200, respec- tively. These figures are above normative levels of 16,000 and 50,000 persons. Within the defined market area, approximately 84,700 persons reside, accounting for almost $21,000,000 in superdrug annual consumer expenditures and $71,000,000 in food store annual potential dollars. 2. The population in the northwest and southwest quad- rants of the two-mile radii is densely populated. The remaining quadrants, while showing some population, have a large amount of area taken up by Golden West College, Huntington Shopping Center, Central Park, the Municipal Golf Course site, and Lake Huntington. 3. Median family income for the one -mile radius surround- ing the site is $16,666, while income within a two- mile radii of the location is skewed downward to a median of $15,490 due to the income decline in the ' far eastern portion of the one to two-mile sector. While this variation of income within areas of the w primary market does exist, the present income base would appear to be well -suited for the type of retail i operations which will be operating on the proposed shopping center. 18 marketing information systems 4. Median age of the two-mile population is 23.4, with an average family size of 3.64 persons. This same profile holds true for the one -mile radius as well as the delineated market area. This type of profile, an indicator of a younger, more affluent population base, raises per capita food expenditures to a weekly •.. average of $16.28 versus a normal county expectancy of $14.25 to $15.40 per capita. When coupled with the dense population base, this higher per capita provides the high food sales potential of over $71,000,000 mentioned previously. .. 5. Seventy-six percent of the housing in the two-mile area is single-family dwellings, with multi -unit dwellings representing a relatively low 21 percent of the housing. The high incidence of single-family dwellings is corrolary to the 3.64 average persons. per household within two miles of the site. Prefer- ences within this type of profile emphasize a high service level while still seeking price -competitive outlets to which the proposed type of supermarket r. and drug operation seem ideally suited. 6. The areas of highest sales potential for the proposed supermarket are located immediately west of the Golden West -Warner intersection (sections F and G of the market area) and southwest of the site (Section B). 19 marketing information systems 4 In addition to having a minimal competitive level, these areas contain median family incomes of $16,800 to $21,800 and are prime profiles for an "Albertson's- Lucky's" type of supermarket operation. Other areas of estimated high penetration include Sections A and J, where almost $19,000,000 are avail- able in annual consumer food expenditures. 7. There are several areas, within the market area, of r. high potential sales for the proposed "super drug" operation. This is due, in part, to the lack of competitive facilities in the southwestern and extreme western sectors of the market area. Basic- ally unserved by a "super drug" operation, the popu- lation within these sectors is estimated to spend approximately $12,000,000 in annual expenditures at a super drug operation, of which the proposed store -- is .estimated to capture 19 percent. Due to the lack of super drug facilities within these sectors, and the possibility of a "Long's, Sav-On,Payless" type of tenant, the proposed super - drug should provide the tenants of the proposed shopping center with additional "pulling power" above what could be considered normal. This projected pull should particularly assist the proposed supermarket as the supermarket will be the only food operation 20 morkethq Informotion systems within these sectors adjacent to a super drug operation. 8. Accessibility to the proposed site may generally be termed adequate from most sectors of the market area, with both Warner and Golden West as four -lane arteries which may be easily reached by major north -south and east -west arteries, respectively. Beach Boulevard, a heavily travelled north -south artery east of the site, will act to reduce pull from the far eastern sector during peak traffic periods. 9. Although the San Diego Freeway, located 1h miles north- east of the site, is used as part of the designated market boundary, this major traffic carrier does not deter traffic severely due to several overpasses available to vehicular traffic. Consequently, given ample time to implement marketing and merchandising programs, the proposed "Long's, Sav-On, Payless" drug operation, should not be prevented from maximizing its penetration of the population base north of the free- way. 10. In analyzing competition with respect to the proposed "super drug," it becomes readily apparent that the population base is unsaturated for this type of operation. Within one mile of the site, there are no "super drug" operations which are the equivalent of a 21 marketing information systems "Long's, Sav-On, Payless," etc. Only a Sav-On located at Edinger and Springdale, and a much older Thrifty unit at Warner and Springdale, are representa- tive of "super drug" operations, and these, consisting of an approximate total of 33,000 square feet, are positioned poorly relative to the arterial network in the southwestern and western sectors. 11. Within a one -mile radius of the proposed site, only the Ralph's supermarket at the southwest corner of NNW the Golden West -Warner intersection represents a "service -oriented, price competitive" supermarket to serve the one -mile population base of 29,700 persons. In essence, with the Ralph's estimated to be generat- ing approximately $12.0 million in sales, there remains an available one mile annual food expenditure potential of $12,700,000. I" Given the Golden West -Warner arterial network and the proposed location's positioning relative to the trapped population to the southwest and western sectors, there is a definite need for a "service - oriented, price competitive" supermarket, and the proposed location seems ideally suited to serve that need. 12. Although there are shopping centers located through- out the market area, as is typical of the Orange M marketing information systems County retail matrix, the proposed shopping center, -r with its planned tenant format, offers the market area --especially the population base to the southwest and west --the convenience of a "service -oriented" supermarket and a "Long's, Sav-On, Payless" type of superdrug at one location. This convenience, plus the physical plants being both new and modern, should combine with the previously mentioned characteristics �r of the market area to provide the population base with a shopping facility concept which seems to be lacking in the market area as well as generate a profitable return on investment for the tenants to be located in the proposed shopping center. 4W 23 marketing hformation systems ` r *w APPENDIX 24 marketing hformat'an systems r Major Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics .- Within One and Two Miles -of Proposed Site _ One -Mile Two -Mile Characteristic Radius Radius Population 29,675 76,247 Median Age 24.11 23.45 Average Persons Per Household 3.46 3.64 Number of Households 8,567 20,952 Owner -Occupied Units 5,435 14,836 Renter -Occupied Units 3,132 6,116 Single -Multiple Unit Ratio 1.79 2.90 I.r Median Family Income $16,166 $15,490 Median Property Value $32,306 $30,314 Automobile Ownership: No Automobiles 2.3% 1.9% One Automobile 32.0% 31.8% Two Automobiles 54.3% 54.8% Three Automobiles 11.4% 11.4% Source: MIS, Incorporated Computer Census Tapes, 1970 Census, Bureau of the Census 25 3/ CITY OF HunTIf1GTon BEACH Ue CITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION T OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Chairman and Membersof the Redevelopment Agency FROM: Redevelopment Commission DATE: February 7, 1977 ^^ SUBJECT: INITIATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT•AREA GOLDENWEST AND WARNER The Redevelopment Commission at its meeting of January 13, a motion to recommend to the Redevelopment Agency to direct prepare a plan for redevelopment of the northeast corner of and Warner (see attached map). The motion was approved by with 3 Commissioners absent. 1977, appr staff to Goldenwes a 4-0 vote (714) 536-5271 P .'X This item was presented to the Redevelopment Commission at the request of the City Council after staff had investigated the feasibility of preparing a redevelopment plan for the vacant 15 acre site to accommodate a developer who had expressed interest in developing the property. The site is included in the Preliminary Plan for the Small Lot Redevelop- ment Project Area which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 3, 1976 (Resolution 1173) and indicated on the Non Structural Blight Element of the Master Plan. The subject property contains substandard sized lots (25' x 1001) which are generally referred to as "encyclopedia lots" and plagued with a multitude of ownership patterns. The developer, James A. Christensen, Vice President of Business Properties, described his company's plans for developing a commercial shopping center on the site. Mr. Christensen said his firm has been planning the site and working out agreements with the various owners to acquire the property for the past three years. Business Properties is seeking the Redevelopment Agency's assistance through eminent domain in acquiring the remaining hold out properties in order to complete the lot consolidation. The firm would be willing to underwrite the Agency's acquisition costs and is interested in negotiating costs for offsite improvements. Staff estimates it would cost nearly $18,000 to prepare and administer a redevelopment plan for the small lot area. This estimated cost includes staff time and consultant assistance. Copies of the staff report, Business Properties' letter of December 13, 1976, proposed schedule to prepare a redevelopment plan, and map of the subject site are attached for your information. Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Redevelopment Commission requests authorization to pursue a redevelop- ment plan in the Warner-Goldenwest small lot area. Resp ctfully s itted, warJdD . e11ch Secretary EDS:RC: ja CITY OF HunTinGTon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 5365271 TO: Community Redevelopment Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: January 13, 1977 RE: Initiation of Redevelopment Project Area Goldenwest and Warner The City Council has suggested that the Planning Department investigate the feasibility of preparing a proposed redevelopment plan for a portion of the Small Lot Area. This vacant 15 acre site is located at the northeast corner of Goldenwest and Warner and would exclude the immediate corner which is presently developed with a service station and liquor store. This action is being undertaken to respond to a developer's interest in constructing a commercial complex on the site. The developer (Business Properties) has indicated (letter dated December 3, 1976) that it has been unable to acquire 15 of the 157 lots with another 17 lots being under city or state ownership. At this time, the developer is seeking the Agency's assistance for lot consolidation and provision of off -site improvements. The attached schedule to prepare a proposed redevelopment plan anticipates a maximum period of b months from initial approval to final plan adoption. t'ackground This particular 15 acre site was included in the Preliminary Plan for Small Lot Redevelopment Project Area that encompassed approximately 338 acres of non-contiguous residential, commercial, industrial and open space land. The Planning Commission on August 3, 1976 adopted Resolution No. 1173 approving the Preliminary Plan for the Small Lot Redevelopment Project Area. Subject property is presently zoned RA (1 acre minimum per residential unit) and the General Plan indicates the site to be developed with general commercial uses. There are no public utilities presently available on the site, interior circulation is via private streets which are non -conforming in right-of-way (25 feet) width, and the site would require land fill prior to development. Approximately 153 of the 157 lots are substandard in size (25' x 100') and generally referred to as "encyclopedia lots." The site is one of several that is indicated on the Non Structural Blight Element of the Master Plan. Redevelopment Standards The site would qualify for redevelopment activities as defined in the state redevelopment law (section 33032). Some of the blighted conditions would include lots of inadequate size which could not be developed under the present RA zone or proposed general commercial dosi.gnati.on on an individual lot by lot basis; an economic deterioration; existence of inadequate streets; and a lack of public utilities. Should the Redevelopment Agency eventuallk), approve a Redevelopment Plan for the site and begin to assist the developer by acquiring property for lot consolidation, existing property owners would have to be given first preference to participate in the development of their property before the Agency could utilize its power of eminent domain. Projected Costs Staff has attempted to project the costs both from a manpower and con- struction of off -site public utilities aspect that would be involved during the 6 month period of time. The department would commit one planner full time for the redevelopment process in getting such a plan adopted with additional assistance from other staff members. Plan preparation would entail developing a plan with possible alternatives, meeting with the Planning Commission, Redevelopment Commission at work sessions in -developing the plan, also meetings with the various taxing agencies, and other interested organizations and individuals who would have an interest in the proposed site. In addition, the plan preparation would involve having to draft an Environmental Impact Report, and Report to City Council and include economic, redevelopment and special legal counsel assistance. Plan implementation would entail the administration aspects such as obtain- ing a list of all property owners for notice of mailing, obtaining the necessary documentation required for conducting public hearings, resolutions and ordinances, meeting with the Agency's consultant and special legal counsel, scheduling activities as per the redevelopment law. One other aspect of administration that would be essential once the plan is adopted but difficult at this time to anticipate is the number of hours and costs that would be required for eminent domain activities. Such a process would require the City Attorney's Office to meet with the property owners, attempt to resolve problems and finally, prepare the necessary documents to file eminent domain proceedings with the courts. Public improvements would entail those costs assocated with providing off -site improvements to the site and include sewers, streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, median strip and other engineering costs. The developer would be responsible for providing on -site utilities. Anticipated project costs would include the following: 1. Plan preparation (710 manhours) $ 10,685 2. Plan implementation (505 manhours) $ 7,180 3. Public improvements (off -site) $119,310 Recommendation Due to the interest expressed by a developer for the above site, and the fact that the site is plagued with non -conforming lots and fragmented ownership, and the fact that this particular site was included within the adopted Preliminary Plan for Small Lot Redevelopment Project Area, it is recommended that the Redevelopment Commission give serious consideration to initiating a redevelopment plan for the area and transmit its recommenda- tion to commence the redevelopment process to the Redevelopment Agency. RC 5 0 CITY OF HunTinGTon BEACH P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, Acting City Administrator FROM: Richard A. Harlow, Planning Director DATE: June 28, 1976 SUBJECT: SMALL LOT AREA REDEVELOPMENT b �p On June 7, the City Council directed the Planning Department to proceed with preparation of redevelopment plans for small lot areas in Sunset Heights and at Warner and Goldenwest. Since that time the Department has also been contacted regarding re- development in small lot areas around Los Patos and in the Industrial Corridor. Upon reconsideration of the situation, the Planning Department recommends that a redevelopment project be pursued including all small lot areas (except Sunset Heights which would remain a separate project) as identified on the modified Master Plan of Non -Structural Blight attached. The reasons for this suggestion are twofold. Firstly, the problems of these areas are similar and all require lot consolidation. The only way the City can facilitate necessary consolidation is through the actions of a Redevelopment Agency. 16 The second reason is one of timing. While there is not immediate demand for remedies in all these areas, such demands will undoubtedly be forthcoming and actions of the Redevelopment Agency will be required. At the present time, legislation is pending in Sacramento which could restrict the use of redevelopment in non -structurally blighted areas. It is important, therefore, that if we wish to keep redevelopment as a tool for improving these areas, the City should initiate a redevelopment plan prior to January 1, 1977, when possible changes in the law may become effective. Implementation of the plan could be phased over time as needed. RECOMMENDATION: Considering the City's desire to consolidate these areas and the probability of changes in Redevelopment Law effective January 1, 1977, the Department recommends that Council direct Staff to prepare a Redevelopment Plan for the remaining small lot areas in the City with consultant fees (if required) to be paid from the Redevelopment Agency's budget. Res c f ly su to , and A. Harlow Director of Planning and Environmental Resources 'V1 O N l GA, 1-1USINESS PROPERTIES l OUK I NCO DEVEWPMENT CONSTRUCTION MANAOEMENT 1711.10 MKY PARK DOULRVAND • IRVINE, OAI.IPORNIA OS714 • (714)47t)-6600 December 3, 1976 HUNTINGTON PLANNING DEPT. DEC G 191b Mr. Al Montes P. 0, Box 190 City of Huntington Beach lkmtineton F?each, CA 9264's Planning Department Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Reference: Golden West and Warner Huntington Beach, California Dear Al: We have finally been able to calculate the approximate cost to us of the above -referenced property. It appears as though we will be able to acquire all the property, with some help from you through your power of eminent domain, for approxi- mately $1.80 per square foot. However, in order to make the project economically viable, we believe that a price of $1.60 per square foot is appropriate. An excellent comparable for this is the property we recently purchased at the southeast corner of Brookhurst and Adams. That property is approximately the same size and is similarly located. We purchased that property for $1.60 per square foot. We will need assistance from you through your redevelopment agency. A suggestion would be as follows for the city pro- , viding appropriate zoning on the property which would allow a development satisfactory to us. 1. To adjust the purchase price we would ask that you install the off -site improvements and agree to pay for excesses over an established amount for on -site grading. 2. Assist us in acquiring the approximately 15 lots which have refused to enter escrow with us, we will need your power of condemnation. Mr. Al Montes December 3, 1976 Page 2 3. There are approximately 17 lots which are either owned by the state and/or the city, which we will need your assistance in acquiring. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I would appre- ciate hearing from you regarding this at your earliest convenience. If you wish to go over in detail with us the costs and possibility of condemnation of each lot, we will be happy to do so at any time. Very truly yours, BUSINESS PROPERTIES Darrylle E. Stafford General Counsel DES:mw Apr POSSIBLE SCHEDULE FOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WARNER AND GOLDENWEST 2/7 Agenda authorizes project 2/10 Redevelopment Commission approves work program 2/23 Planning Commission approves Boundary and Preliminary Plan 2/24 Notification of Tax Assessor and Auditor 4/14 Draft Plan Complete and approved by Redevelopment Commission for public hearing 4/18 EIR posted (45 days) 4/26 Planning Commission meeting on Consistency and Recommendations 5/12 Public hearing noticed 5/12 Legal notice mailed 5/26 EIR public hearing notices 6/1 EIR review ends 6/9 Joint Redevelopment Commission/Redevelopment Agency/City Council public hearing 6/20 City Council second reading 7/20 Ordinance effective ... �Ri RIHEIL RI Q Rt J R�� RI »�w JRRI ;C4�)RI RJR1 RIRIRI M! I R3 R3 R) R3 CF-E acnocuR ( S 8RI I R! R!CF-RRI---- �rv.orrcwhrrrona� RJ R3� (C1.1 0 c . c 0 1 1 RJ R3 R3 RI CF-R e RI I s.wo R' 1 h1GYY M 11 RI RI , RI RI RI 1 CF-E I WOU.T..4OEW P>VM) . RI RI RI a RI RI RI RI R'I Q w RI RI RI RI RI RI RI Rt RI SLI►YEN WARNER/GOLDENWEST PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HUNTINGTON ®EACH PLANNING DI;PT. m �I HUNTP CTON BEACH a (I , CITY OF HUnTinGT0n BEACH P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, Acting City Administrator �'f FROM: Richard A. Harlow, Planning Director DATE: June 4, 1976 SUBJECT: SMALL LOT AREA: WARNER AND GOLDENWEST The northeast corner of Warner and Goldenwest is an "encyclopedia lot" area identified for consolidation by the Master Plan of Non -Structural Blight. We have recently been approached by a major developer regarding utilization of this 16 acre area for commercial purposes, and weerequest Council direction before we proceed further. One developer has in escrow between 60 and 65 percent of the property. The remainder is fragmented among multiple ownerships. To consolidate this area will require acquisition - perhaps condemnation - through a redevelopment program. However, no relocation of households or businesses would be involved. The developer has indicated an interest in pursuing an Advance Disposition Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency to facilitate the financing of such a project. Under this agreement, the developer would agree in advance to purchase the property once acquired by the City. The purchase price could include actual land costs as well as administrative fees if desired, thus making'',-_______ expense to the City negligible in the long run. Under an advance disposition agreement, the developer could also loan money directly to the Redevelopment Agency for use in acquiring lots. After consolidation, that loan would be applied to an agreed upon purchase price. No discussion regarding these alternatives has been pursued with the developer pending direction from Council as to whether the City wishes to pursue a redevelopment project in this area. RECOMMMDATION : Considering the City's desire to consolidate areas such as this, the Council's commitment to encouraging commercial development, ana the developer's willingness to assist in financing, we feel It would-be worthwhile -to -pursue this_-project-:---The--Planning K � Page 2 Department, therefore, recommends that Council direct Staff to prepare a Redevelopment Plan for the small lot area at Warner and Goldenwest with consultant fees (if required) to be paid from the Redevelopment Agency's budget. Resp fully submit ed, R'chard A. arlow Director of Planning and Environmental Resources RAH:MF:ja. 5 CERTIFICATIONS: PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL cl HUNTINIC ORANGE COUN 1 NON-STRUCTURAL BLIGHT ELEMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN 5 � -1 V a*9 •r r 1 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 23-5-II 03CALE FEFT -- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY; CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP IF- EDINGER WARNER AVE AVE L- Page Two The reasons for deciding to pursue a redevelopment project in the area were multiple. 1. The small lots and fragmented ownership preclude coordinated develop- ment of the site. The Project Area consists of 169 substandard sized lots (25' x 126' and 25' x 100') commonly referred to as encyclopedia lots. As of May, 1977, there were 41 property owners. Various attempts by private enterprise to consolidate the many small lots have had little success. In many instances, problems of unclear title and unlocatable owners preclude sale and consolidation. In fact, even if a developer could acquire all the small lots, develop- ment could not occur without Agency action to clear existing title blight. -2. Only the twenty-five exterior lots have access to public streets. The interior parcels are served only by substandard private access - ways. Peripheral development of the site would leave unusable interior parcels. Therefore, if the site is to be developed properly, it should be developed as a unified project. 3. It is consistent with City policy as expressed in the Non Structural Blight Element to assist in consolidation of such encyclopedia areas. 4. The area is General Planned for Commercial Use. It is consistent with City policy to assist in bringing commercial development into the community. 5. The developer accomplished considerable private consolidation and was willing to offset all costs to the City for additional consoli- dation. (Note attached map) 3.0 HISTORY OF THE PROJECT AREA The subdivision pattern of the Project Area was created in 1923 in un- incorporated County territory. The property was annexed on August 2, 1957. In 1957, County zoning identified the west half of the area as Al (general agriculture) and the east half M1 (light industrial). In 1959, the City zoned the area RA (residential agriculture). In March, 1960, the City established new zoning districts in conformance with the County Ordinance and zoned the Project Area Al-X in the western half and Ml-X in the east. In 1961, the X suffix (indicating interim ordinance status) was eliminated from the M1 area. On February 15, 1965, Zone Case 495 rezoned the Warner and Goldenwest frontage to R5 (pro- fessional, motel, and trailer park district) and the remainder to R3 (limited multiple family residential). In March, 1972, the present zoning was initiated as ZC 71-51 changed the entire project area to RA as a holding zone because of problems with setback, street dedication, and ownership patterns. .Cn August, 1964, the Master Plan of Land Use for Stuay Area 2 laeritlllea the area as High Density Residential (60 persons per acre). On May 20, 1968, Master Plan Amendment 68-2 identified the area as non-structural blight. On February 22, 1972, Master Plan Amendment 71-5 redesignated the area to its current use, Commercial Retail. Page Three Minimal development activity has been generated on the site. A use variance was filed on October 30, 1964 by Dr. Harry Okuda to permit de- velopment of a 1540 square foot medical -dental office on a 50-foot parcel facing Warner Avenue. This use variance was approved by the Planning Commission, as was area variance 65-15 to remove setback requirements. A year and a half later Dr. Okuda filed area variance 66-90 to allow parking modifications in deviation of the City's Ordinance Code. The project was again approved, but on the condition that the parking spaces conform to code; consequently the applicant never completed the project. No other development applications have been received. 4.0 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT June 21, 1976 City Council authorizes Staff to proceed with investi- gation of redevelopment for Warner-Goldenwest area. July 6, 1976 City Council authorizes Staff to proceed with redevelop- ment planning for all small lot areas including Warner- Goldenwest. January 13, 1977 Redevelopment Commission recommends Redevelopment Project for Warner-Goldenwest. February 7, 1977 Redevelopment Agency initiates Project to be funded by Business Properties. February 22, 1977 Agency approves budget for project. February 23, 1977 Planning Commission approves Preliminary Plan. June 6, 1977 Redevelopment Agency accepts Preliminary Plan. June 9, 1977 Notice of EIR preparation published. June 9, 1977 Notice of Planning Commission hearing on Consistency and Approval. June 13, 1977 Redevelopment Commission approves Interim Agreement with Business Properties. June 20, 1977 Redevelopment Agency approves Interim Agreement. June 21, 1977 Planning Commission finds Plan consistent and recom- mends approval. June 23 to Legal Notice of Joint Meeting on Plan and EIR by July 21, 1977 Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Commission. June 24, 1977 Project Area property owners notified by certified mail. June 30, 1977 Public Notice of Redevelopment Commission Meeting on Plan, Report to Council, EIR, and Interim Partici- pation Agreement. Page Four July.14, 1977 July 18, 1977 July 25, 1977 August 1, 1977 August 15, 1977 August 30, 1977 Redevelopment Commission Public Information meeting. Redevelopment Agency adopts -Participation Rules. Joint hearing of City Council/Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Commission on Plan and EIR. City Council Second Reading of Ordinance. Agency approves budget addition. Ordinance effective. September 15 to Notice of Joint Hearing on Final Participation Agree - September 29, 1977 ment. September 19, 1977 Redevelopment Agency receives adopted Plan and sets public hearing. October 3, 1977 Joint Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Commission hearing on Final Participation Agreement. October 3, 1977 Redevelopment Commission adopts resolution finding Participation Agreement compatible with the Redevelopment Plan and approving the Final Participation Agreement. October 3, 1977 Redevelopment Agency adopts resolution approving acquisition and sale of certain property in the project area in accordance with the Participation Agreement. October 3, 1977 City Council adopts resolution approving acquisition and sale of certain property in the project area in accordance with the Participation Agreement. January 5, 1978 Participation Agreement executed. January 5, 1978 Business Properties submits set -aside letter irrevocably committing $450,000 for use by the Agency in defraying costs of implementing project. January 5, 1978 Business Properties acquired Murdy's 9 acres. January 5, 1978 Business Properties commenced preparation of plans for submittal to Redevelopment Commission for adminis- trative review and approval. Estimated submittal date May 1, 1978. January 5, 1978 Agency staff commenced acquisition procedures by selecting MAI appraiser for appraisal of outstanding parcels and securing title reports. Appraisal report due May 1, 1978. flarch 21, 1978 Agency staff proceeded with zone change for project area. Planning Commission approval completed March 21, 1978; Council consideration scheduled for April 17th postponed until May 1, 1978. Page Five April 16, 1978 Agency staff prepared documents (resolution and agree- ment) for acquisition of Tax Deeded Lot from Orange County. Approval of documents scheduled for April 17th postponed until May 1, 1978. 5.0 FEASIBILITY OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT During the course of formulating the Redevelopment Plan, considerable investigation was conducted into the economic feasibility of the proposed commercial use. The Planning Staff requested Business Prop- erties to secure a consultant to prepare market analysis of the pro- posed shopping center. At the conclusion of that analysis, the City contracted with its economic consultant, Urban Projects, Inc. to review the first consultant's report and draw conclusions. The conclusions of the Marketing Information Systems report prepared for Business Properties state: 1. The market area can generate almost $21,000,000 in superdrug and .$71,000,000 in food store annual potential. 2. The present income base appears well -suited for the type of retail operations which will be operating on the proposed shopping center. 3. The proposed type of supermarket and drug operation seem ideally suited to the preferences of the type of residents in the market area. 4. Due to the lack of superdrug facility in the market area, the pro- posed superdrug should provide the center additional "pulling power." 5. Given the arterial network and demand, the proposed location seems ideally suited. 6. The proposed center should provide a facility concept lacking in the area and generate a profitable return to its tenants. Based upon Urban Projects, Inc.'s review and analysis of the market support available to the proposed neighborhood shopping center, the following major findings were noted: 1. The market support available to the site from within the local trade area will be adequate to support the project as proposed by Business Properties, Inc. 2. The market support is believed to be adequate to support the type of project proposed. 3. UPI's review of the total available market support, together with its survey of other existing and planned supermarket and superdrug facili- - ties in the area, indicates that development of the type proposed at the Warner/Goldenwest site will not significantly and adversely affect other existing operations in the area. 4. Since the level of market support for the major tenants within the pro- posed development by Business Properties, Inc. is anticipated to be adequate, the project as a whole should be viable based upon normal shopping center experience. Page Six The proposed commercial development was also analyzed in terms of its revenue -expenditure impact on the City and school districts. Assuming revenues similar to the Ralphs Center on the southwest corner of Warner and Goldenwest, the proposed project could be expected to generate revenues of $7,854 per acre and expenditures of $4,062 per acre for a net gain to the City of $3,792 per acre. School districts should receive revenues of approximately $6,175 per acre per year. The total Project Area, therefore, could generate $56,880 per year in net revenues for the City and $92,625 for the school districts. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE LAND USES Despite its desirability for commercial use, the Project Area has also been analyzed for other suitable purposes in the past. The following paragraphs summarize the results of these previous investigations into the 'potential for various Land Use Designations. In a similar nature to the General Commercial designation, the Project Area was considered for Office -Professional Use. The site is a large one, however, for such a use. Generally, such a major professional complex (similar to Beach/Edinger) would require freeway or major highway access not available on the site or would likely be medical or govern- ment related development more desirably located near hospital or govern- ment facilities. Public, Quasi -Public and Institutional uses were also considered for the Project Area. For example, a church or private school facility would comply with General Plan land use criteria. However, traffic and noise problems as well as isolation from major residential neighborhoods might deter such development. These uses, of course, would not contribute to development of the City's economic base though they might serve a community need. With Murdy Community Park adjacent to the site on the north and Huntington Central Park nearby, use of the Project Area as open space would undoubtedly be an underutilization of the property. Varying densities of residential development were investigated for the Project Area also. Noise and traffic impacts, the developed com- mercial corner, and separation from other single family areas probably preclude low density residential development of the site. However, with appropriate mitigating measures, medium or high density residential development could be feasible. The Project Area is consistent with General Plan Standards for those residential densities since it is in close proximity to commercial and educational facilities, in or adjacent to intensive land use areas, and near major transportation routes. However, the Project Area is in one of the most densely populated areas of the City already and additional residential developments would com- pound the problems already being experienced. Developed at Medium _Density Standards, the site could generate 225 units or 529 residents. Developed at High Density, the site could generate 525 units or 1118 residents. Page Seven A general revenue/expenditure analysis points out the following economic consequences of these various land use alternatives. Development Type Commercial Office Professional Open Space Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Net Gain or Loss Per Gross Acre Per Year Total for 15 Ac. +1,318 +19,770 -1,058-15,870 -1,344-20,160 - 142 - 2,130 + 593 + 8,895 7.0 SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT A. Responsibilities and Rights of Agency. 1. By condemnation if necessary, acquire property within the Site which the Participant is unable to acquire (S104, Attachment No. 4). The Agency may draw against the good faith deposit from the Participant to make such acquisition. 2. Sell acquired property to Participant (S201). (a) Property will be conveyed "as is" (S211). (b) Agency must furnish deed, estoppel certificate and pay title insurance (SS202, 208). 3. Review and approve or disapprove Participant's final plans and specifications for development (S303). 4. Close and vacate existing streets and alleys to permit develop- ment; convey portions of roadway inside Site to Participant (S308) . 5. Replat or resubdivide Site if necessary for development (S308). 6. Furnish Certificate of Completion upon written request of Participant after completion of all construction (S315). 7. Rights of access to Site during construction to inspect work (5306) and after completion to maintain public improvements on site (5406) . B. Responsibilities and Rights of Participant. 1. Deliver good faith deposit of $450,000 within ten days after Agency executes Agreement (5601); deposit will be in form of a letter from Participant's lender. 2. Acquire property from the Murdy trust (S509, Attachment No. 4). Page Eight 3. Buy property acquired by the Agency (5201) and pay all costs connected with transfer of title from Agency to Participant including escrow fees, recording fees, etc. (S202). 4. Pay all costs incurred by the Agency in acquiring the property, negotiating the Participation Agreement, preliminary studies, adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, etc. (Attachment No. 3 Section J.B.). 5. Right of access to Site to obtain data, make surveys, etc. (S212) . 6. Submit final plans and specifications for development of Site (S303). 7. Furnish evidence of bodily injury and property damage insurance to Agency, maintain workers' compensation insurance (S304). 8. Pay all taxes and assessments upon Site (SS209, 316). 9. Execute and record tract map (5702). 10. Design and construct retail neighborhood shopping center of not less than 80,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial space; parking, landscaping, signs, etc., must be approved by the Agency (S302, Attachment No. 5). 11. Maintain all improvements and landscaping; if landscaping is not maintained, the Agency may perform and charge the Participant the costs (9404, Attachment No. 5, Section I.F.). 12. Refrain from discrimination upon basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease or use of the Site (S402). C. Other Specific Provisions. 1. Participant may not sell or assign all or any part of the Site prior to completion of development without the Agency's approval (SS108, 309). 2. Participant may enter into mortgage or deed of trust financing with the approval of the Agency; rights of holders of mortgages are detailed (S310-314). 3. Participant may terminate agreement prior to conveyance only if Agency does not convey property to Participant (S508); from deposit, Agency can keep all funds expended or needed to reimburse Agency for costs incurred less net income from sale of property acquired by Agency. 4. Agency may terminate agreement prior to conveyance if Participant assigns agreement, identity o.f Participant changes, he does not submit construction plans or pay the purchase price, or he does The undersigned is the owner or proprietor of a business or the owner of real property in the vicinity of the proposed WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I. have been advised directly by or indirectly from legal counsel Arthur D. Guy, Jr. tfiat a lawsuit is being undertaken to invalidate an ordinance which has been passed by the Hunting- ton Beach City Council. The action which has been taken is that of the passage of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IRTNTINGTON BEACH ,APPROVING AND ADOPT- T.NG.THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER/GGLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The undersigned doef: therefore consent and request that he or she or the identified entity be included as a plaintiff.in a suit against ,,he City of Huntington Beach together with others who or which are similarly situated. LC�I��,..�°� Wiz,-L-�✓���+'�- �=fie JG�ordon H. Hatch Suzy rabrizio .Anthony Frates James Scott Lown EM M I, I um LYDIA DR. w I N h DR O J O (D k,r-r- ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-6 From RA to C2 HUNTM.-TOM BEACH PLAU14ING BEf T. CONSENT AND REQUEST TO SERVE AS A PLAINTIFF The undersigned is the owner or proprietor of a business or the owner of real property in the vicinity of the proposed WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I have been advised directly by or indirectly from legal counsel Arthur D. Guy, Jr. that a lawsuit is being undertaken to invalidate an ordinancewhichhas been passed by the Hunting- ton Beach City Council. The action which has been taken is that of the passage of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPT- ING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER/GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The unders-.1-gned does; therefore consent and request that lie or she or the identified entity'be included as a plaintiff,'in a suit against the City of Huntington Beach together with others who or which are similarly situcited, -DOA eel'. Ile, Loretta M Corriere A Tayler (p 53 Ld � Mlzt'g n Q 9- a, Margaret Trower Diane Ballen Voo CONSENT AND R9QUEST TO - SERVE AS A PLAINTIFF The undersigned is the owner or proprietor of a business or the owner of real property in the vicinity of the proposed WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I have been advised directly by or indirectly from legal FTunsel Arthur D. Guy,. Jr. that a lawsuit is being undertaken, to invalidate an ordinance which has been passed by the Hunting- ton Beach City Council. The action which has been taken is that of the passage of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPT T.NG THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER/GOLDENWEST S14ALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The undersigned does therefore consent and request that �e or she or the identified entity be included as a plaintiff in a suit against the City of Huntington Beach together with others who or which are similarly situated. (" A U�CF Ingemar Peterson V Rlis Noarafcha/n David Fabrizia tom. gyp, A WN?o- A CONSENT AND REQUEST TO ; SERVE AS A PLAINTIFF The undersigned is the owner or proprietor of 'a business or the owner of real property in the vicinity of the proposed WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I have been advised directly by or indirectly from legal counsel Arthur D. Guy, Jr. that a lawsuit is being undertaken� to invalidate an ordinance which has been passed by the Hunting- �on Beach City Council. The action which has been taken is that of the passage of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPT 1NG THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER/GOLDENWEST S14ALL"LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The undersigned does therefore consent and request that he or she or the identified entity be'included as a plaintiff in a suit against the City of Huntington Beach together with others'' ;alto or which are similarly situated. Leon E. Xiller Velina Goldman , E fl 3 ,5S to Ax--ru 7-7 0-77 �f �u_ T Elena Burns ti c • Shtdey`Westlie t, .., .. S r'�Cu+tlntli.W. - ,—., ... .. ..., o-ralVdtM'•AbrSgkY..y;�.f:,il+'•^ 't'4b.. .-,. __ , v ".. .;. wm,,, , d:y,� �,�, r»: ,. ' m n. _«.a, r a.;,ad l w�&"€�'F+w�.,dy'��9y�'°d '� br� �.� 'a>• s i utmJav1 n* '.;1, '4 1 ��q'm+L.a r t t CONSENT AND REQUEST TO �SERVE AS A PLAINTIFF On The undersigned is the owner or proprietor of a business or`the owner"of real property in the'vicifiity of the proposed ::''WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, . I have been. advised directly by or indirectly from legal counsel Arthur D: Guy,Jr. that a lawsuit is bein g undertaken to invalidate an ordinance which has been passed by the Hunting, ton Beach City Council. The action which has been taken is that of the passage of, -4N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,APPROVING'AND ADOPT- ING THE-AKDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER/GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The undersigned does therefore consent and request that . he 'or ,she or the identified entity be"includedas,a plaintiff �nE " suit against the City of Huntington Beach together with others,$'"� x who or which are similarly situated. George B Overdorf Florence H. Overdorf Janice Tonti 8 9 Cam Mera j ��y''/ G�L/1,�a��Xt ✓ ��91%t�7 C r x Eileen White .. 4 � �� �+;.,, (,� ��( �iy;�'� ��" T P 1- / / k`� s✓ '�,�.K,,/:.' �r; +�`j �, r.- � a-{:4 ��;.r'�'7���r%�S'J� a"° .;�" � . IL 7 q8g' "I A4" �1 t4 CONSENT AND REQUEST TO, SERVE AS A PLAINTIFF The undersigned is the owner or proprietor of a business ,or the owner of real property in the vicinity of the proposed WARNER/GOLDENWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I have been advised directly by or indirectly from legal counsel Arthur D.;Guy, * Jr. that a lawsuit is being undertaken,., to invalidate an ordinance which has been passed by the Hunting- ton Beach City Council. The action which has been taken is that of the passage of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPT- ING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WARNER/GOLDENWEST SMALL LOT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The undersigned does therefore consent and"request that be or she or the identified entity be'included,as a plaintiff in a suit against the City of Huntington Beach together with others who -or —which are %imilarlv situated. z I (-. S'� 5":_ ac - Joen Brusea z _-Ad- 7 Patrick Callahan S�2 oAA-' James Albright-,- 7z!e R. Scott Newell 5/4/77 6/7/- 7 8/17/77 8/19/77 s I PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT By and Between THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ("Agency") - and L. C. SMULL ("Participant") I I. [5100] SUBJECT OF AGREEMENT A. [§101] Purpose of the Agreement B. [§102] The Redevelopment Plan C. [§103] The Project Area D. [§104] Classification of Property Covered by This Agreement E. [§105] Parties to the Agreement 1. [§106] The Agency 2. [§107] The Participant F. [§108] Prohibition Against Change in Ownership, Management and Control of Participant II. [§200] SALE OF PROPERTY COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT A. [§201] Purchase Price - Sales Property B. [§202] Escrow C. [5203] Conveyance of Title and Delivery of Possession D. [§204] Form of Deed and Declaration of Restrictions E. [§205] Condition of Title F. [§206] Time for and Place of Delivery of Deed G. [§207] Payment of the Purchase Price and Recordation of Deed H. [§208] Title Insurance I. [§209] Taxes and Assessments J. [§210] Title Free of Possession K. [§211] Condition of the Sales Property L. [§212] Preliminary Work by the Participant III. [5300] DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE A. [§301] Development of Site by the Participant 1. [§302] Scope of Development 2. [§303] Development Plans, Drawings and Schedule B. [§304] Bodily Injury and Property Damage Insurance; Workers' Compensation C. [§305] City and Other Governmental Agency Permits D. [§306] Rights of Access for Inspection of Construction E. [§307] Local, State and Federal Laws F. [§308] Responsibilities of the Agency G. [§309] Prohibition Against Transfer of the Site, the Buildings or Structures and Assignment of Agreement and Restriction H. [§310] Mortgage or Deed of Trust Financing I. [§311] Holder Not Obligated to Construct Improvements J. [§312] Notice of Default to Mortgage or Deed of Trust Holders; Right to Cure K. [§313] Failure of Holder to Complete Improvements L. [§314] Right of the Agency to Cure Mortgage or Deed of Trust Default M. [§315] Certificate of Completion N. [§316] Taxes, Assessments, Encumbrances and Liens O. [§317] Right of the Agency to Satisfy Other Liens on the Property After Title'Passes P. [§318] Rights of Obligees IV. [§400] USE OF THE SITE A. [§401] Uses B. [§402] Obligations to Refrain from Discrimination C. [§403] Form of Nondiscrimination and Nonsegregation Clauses D. [§404] Maintenance of Site E. [§405] Effect and Duration of Covenants F. [§406] Rights of Access for Construction, Reconstruction and Repair V. [§500] DEFAULTS, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION A. [§501] Defaults - General B. [§502] Legal Actions C. [§503] Applicable Law D. [§504] Acceptance of Service of Process E. [§505] Rights and Remedies are Cumulative F. [§506] Inaction Not a Waiver of Default G. [§507] Remedies and Rights of Termination Prior to Conveyance 1. [§508] Termination by Participant Prior to Conveyance 2. [§509] Termination by Agency Prior to Conveyance H. [§510] Damages for Default After Passage of Title to the Sales Property and Prior to Completion of Construction I. [511] Specific Performance After Passage of Title J. [§512] Right of Reentry K. [§513] Agency's Further Rights with Respect to Participating Property VI. [§600] GENERAL PROVISIONS A. [§601] Good Faith Deposit B. [§602] Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties C. [§603] Conflict of Interest D. [§604] Enforced Delay; Extensions of Times of Performance E. [§605] Inspection of Books and Records VII. [§700] SPECIAL PROVISIONS A. [§701] Provisions Not Merged with Deed B. [§702] Tract Map - Consent to Vacation of Streets C. [§703] Entire Agreement D. [§704] Execution of Agreement ATTACHMENTS Attachment No. 1 - Site and Parcel Map indicating Participating Property Attachment No. 2 - Site and Parcel Map indicating Sales Property Attachment No. 3 - Method of Determining Purchase Price, Deposit Attachment No. 4 - Schedule of Performance Attachment No. 5 - Scope of Development 8/24/77 { f r t i t PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on JalAultini S', 191$ , a-9-7T, by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a public body, corporate and politic (hereinafter called the "Agency"), and L. C. SMULL, an individual (hereinafter called the "Participant"). The Agency and the Participant covenant and agree as follows: I. [§100] SUBJECT OF AGREEMENT. A. [§1011 Purpose of the Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for the Huntington Beach Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project (the "Project") by providing for the development and use of a portion of the property (the "Site") hereinafter described and located within the Project Area. This Agreement is entered into for the purpose of development and not for speculation in land. The development of the Site pursuant to this Agreement, and the fulfillment of the Agreement are in the best interests of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") and the health, safety and welfare of its residents, and is in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable federal, state and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken. Time is of the essence as to matters covered by this Agreement. B. [§102] The Redevelopment Plan. This Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan which was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach by Ordinance No. 2212 on a Icj'1� and recorded on QeCeM y 27j 1477 as Document No.34o3i in the Orange County Recorder's Office. C. [§103] The Project Area. The "Project Area" is located in the City of Huntington Beach, California, the exact boundaries of which are specifically described in an instrument recorded on QecevKber 27,1111 , in Book No. IM*7 , Page 494 , Official Records of Orange County, which instrument is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. 8/19/77 D. [§104] Classification of Property Covered by This Agreement. The classes of property covered by this Agreement are as follows: 1. "Participating Property" - That portion of the Project Area which is, as of the date of this Agreement, owned by the Participant or to be acquired by the Participant pursuant to options or agreements with property owners. The Participating Property is more specifically identified and defined in Attachment No. 1, attached hereto and by this reference incorpo- rated herein and made a part hereof as though fully set forth. 2. "Sales Property" - That portion of the Project Area which is to be acquired by the Agency and sold to the Participant. The Sales Property is more specifically identified and defined in Attachment No. 2, attached hereto and by this reference incorpo- rated herein and made a part hereof as though fully set forth. In addition to the property specifically identi- fied and described, the Sales Property shall also include any other interests in the Site acquired by the Agency for the disposition to the Participant, it being contemplated that exercise of the Agency's power of eminent domain may be required in order to clear title and remove clouds on the title which may be found to exist as to both the Participating Property and the Sales Property. 3. "The Site" - The Participating Property and the Sales Property together. E. [§105] Parties to the Agreement. 1. [§106] The Agency. The Agency is a public body, corporate and politic, exercising governmental functions and powers, organized and existing under the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. The principal office of the Agency is located at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. "Agency" as used in this Agreement includes the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, and any -2- 8/25/77 ti successor to its rights, powers and responsibilities, including the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Commission to the extent it may be -delegated authority by the City or Agency to act hereunder. 2. [§107] The Participant. Participant is an individual who qualifies as an owner -participant as that term is used in the Plan and in the California Community Redevelopment Law. The address of the Participant for the purposes of this Agreement is 17840 Sky Park Blvd., Irvine, California 92714. F. [§108] Prohibition Against Change in Ownership, Management and Control of Participant. The qualifications and identities of Participant are of particular concern to the City and the Agency. It is because of these qualifications and identities that the Agency has entered into this Agreement with the Participant. No voluntary or involuntary successor in interest of Partici- pant shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement except as expressly set forth herein; provided, however, that Participant shall have the right to bring in partners and co -venturers conditioned upon (1) such additional parties agreeing to be bound by all provisions hereof and expressly assuming in writing (to the satisfaction of the Agency) the obligations of Participant hereunder to the extent of their participation, and (2) Participant remaining fully liable and responsible hereunder. The Participant shall not assign all or any part of this Agreement without the prior written approval of the Agency. This Agreement may be terminated by the Agency if there is any significant change (voluntary or involuntary) in membership, management or control of the Participant prior to the completion of the development of the Site. The Participant will promptly notify the Agency of any and all changes whatsoever in the identity of the parties in control of the Participant or the degree thereof, of which it or any of its officers have been notified or otherwise have knowledge or information. -3- 8/19/77 II. [§200) SALE OF PROPERTY COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT. A. B2011 Purchase Price - Sales Property. In accordance with and subject,to all the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement, the Agency agrees to sell the Sales Property to the Participant, and the Participant agrees to purchase the Sales Property from the Agency and pay therefor the Purchase Price calculated as set forth in Attachment No. 3 attached hereto and made a part hereof to be deposited in accordance with the provi- sions of Section 207 of this Agreement. B. [§202] Escrow. The Agency and Participant shall open an escrow with First American Title Insurance Company, Marge Stone, Escrow Officer, Santa Ana, California (the "Escrow Agent"), as Escrow Agent, in Huntington Beach, California, as of the date designated in the Schedule of Performance. This Agree- ment constitutes the joint escrow instructions of the Agency and the Participant and a duplicate original of this Agree- ment shall be delivered to the Escrow Agent upon the opening of the escrow. The Agency and the Participant shall provide such additional escrow instructions as shall be necessary, consistent with this Agreement, provided that such addi- tional escrow instructions may modify these instructions if such are determined by both parties to be in the best interest of the parties to this Agreement. The Escrow Agent is hereby empowered to act under this Agreement and upon indicating its acceptance of the provisions of this Section 202 in writing, delivered to the Agency and to the Partici- pant within five (5) days after the opening of the escrow, the Escrow Agent shall carry out its duties as Escrow Agent hereunder. The Participant shall pay in escrow to the Escrow Agent the following fees, charges and costs promptly after the Escrow Agent has notified the Participant of the amount of such fees, charges and costs, but not later than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date for the close of escrow: 1. Costs necessary to place the title to the Sales Property in the condition for conveyance required by the provisions of this Agreement; 2. The total escrow fees; 3. Recording fees; -4- 8/19/77 4. Notary fees; 5. The premium for the title insurance policy requested by Participant as set forth in Section 208 of this Agreement; 6. Ad valorem taxes, if any, upon the Sales Property or upon this Agreement, or any rights there- under prior to conveyance of title; 7. Cost of drawing the deed; 8. Any state, county or city documentary stamps; 9. Any transfer tax; and 10. All other costs required to consummate the escrow. The Participant shall also deposit the Purchase Price for the Sales Property or portions thereof with the Escrow Agent in accordance with the provisions of Section 207 of this Agreement. The Agency shall timely and properly execute, acknowledge and deliver a deed in substantially the form established in Section 204 of this Agreement, conveying to the Participant title in accordance with the requirements of Section 203 of this Agreement, together with an estoppel certificate certifying that the Participant has completed - all acts (except deposit of the Purchase Price) necessary to entitle the Participant to such conveyance, if such be the fact. The Escrow Agent is authorized to: 1. Pay the Agency and charge the Participant for any fees, charges and costs payable under this Sec- tion 202 of this Agreement. Before such payments or charges are made, the Escrow Agent shall notify the Agency and the Participant of the fees, charges and costs necessary to clear title and close the escrow. 2. Disburse funds and record and deliver the deed and other documents with respect to the Sales Property to the parties entitled thereto when the conditions of this escrow with respect to the Sales Property have been fulfilled by the Agency and the Participant. The Purchase Price for the Sales Property shall not be disbursed by the Escrow Agent, unless and until it has recorded the deed thereto and has delivered to the Participant a California Land Title Association -5- 8/19/77 Owner's Policy of Title Insurance or other title insur- ance requested in writing by the Participant insuring title to the Sales Property and conforming to the requirements of Section 208 of this Agreement. 3. Record any instruments delivered through this escrow if necessary or proper to vest title in the Participant in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. All funds received in this escrow shall be depos- ited by the Escrow Agent with other escrow funds of the Escrow Agent in a general escrow account or accounts with any state or national bank doing business in the State of California. Such funds may be transferred to any other such general escrow account or accounts. All disbursements shall be made by check of the Escrow Agent. All adjustments are to be made on the basis of a 30-day month. If this escrow is not in condition to close with respect to the conveyance of the Sales Property before the time for conveyance established in Section 203 of this Agreement, either party who then shall have fully performed the acts to be performed before the conveyance of title may, in writing, terminate this Agreement and demand the return - of its money, papers, or documents with respect to the transaction. (Thereupon all obligations and liabilities of the parties under this Agreement shall cease and terminate.) If neither the Agency nor the Participant shall have fully performed with respect to the conveyance of the Sales Prop- erty before the time established in said section, no termi- nation or demand for return shall be recognized until ten (10) days after the Escrow Agent shall have mailed copies of such demand to the other party or parties at the address of its or their offices as indicated in Section 105. If any objections are raised within the ten (10) day period, the Escrow Agent is authorized to hold all money, papers and documents with respect to the transaction until instructed by a court of competent jurisdiction or by mutual instruc- tions. If no such demands are made, the escrow shall be closed as soon as possible. The Escrow Agent shall not be obligated to return any such money, papers or documents except upon the written instructions of both the Agency and the Participant, or until decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. 8/19/77 Any amendment to these escrow instructions shall be in writing and signed by both the Agency and the Partici- pant. At the time of -any amendment, the -Escrow Agent shall agree to carry out its duties as Escrow Agent under such amendment. All communications from the Escrow Agent to the Agency or the Participant shall be directed to the addresses and in the manner established in Section 602 of this Agree- ment for notices, demands and communications between the Agency and the Participant. Nothing in this Section 202 shall be construed to impair or affect the rights or obliga- tions of the Agency or the Participant to specific perfor- mance. The liability of the Escrow Agent under this Agreement is limited to performance of the obligations imposed upon it under Sections 202 to 208, both inclusive, of this Agreement. The Agency shall not be liable for any real estate commissions or brokerage fees which may arise here - from. The Agency and the Participant each represent that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction. C. [92031 Conveyance of Title and Delivery of Pnccaccinn Subject to any mutually agreed upon extensions of time, conveyance to the Participant of title to the Sales Property (in accordance with the provisions of Section 205 of this Agreement) shall be completed on or before the date indicated in the Schedule of Performance attached hereto as Attachment No. 4 and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. The Agency and the Participant agree to perform all acts necessary to conveyance of title in sufficient time for title to be conveyed in accordance with the foregoing provi- sions. Possession of the Sales Property shall be deliv- ered to the Participant concurrently with the conveyance of title, except that limited access may be permitted before conveyance of title as provided in Section 212 of this Agreement. The Participant shall accept title and posses- sion upon delivery in accordance with this Section. arm D. [§204] Form of Deed and Declaration of Restrictions. The Agency shall convey title to the Participant in the condition provided in Section 205 of this Agreement by Grant Deed in a form mutually satisfactory to the Parti- cipant, to the Title Company selected pursuant to Section 208 to insure the title herein, and to the Agency consistent with the terms of this Agreement. The Site, in addition to conditions and covenants consistent with this Agreement, shall be subject to all other conditions, covenants and restrictions set forth in the Redevelopment Plan. E. [9205] Condition of Title. The Agency shall convey to the Participant fee simple merchantable title to the Sales Property, free and clear of all recorded or unrecorded liens, encumbrances, covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, encroachments, assessments, leases and taxes except as are consistent with this Agreement and the Redevelopment Plan except all oil, gas and mineral substances, together with the right to extract such substances, provided that the surface opening of any well hole, shaft or other means of reaching or removing such substances shall not be located within the Project Area and shall not penetrate any part or portion of said Project Area within 500 feet of the surface thereof. F. [5206] Time for and Place of Delivery of Deed. Subject to any mutually agreed upon extensions of time, the Agency shall deposit the deed to the Sales Property with the Escrow Agent on or before the date established for the date of conveyance pursuant to this Agreement. G. [§207] Payment of the Purchase Price and Recordation of Deed. The Participant shall deposit the Purchase Price for the Sales Property or portion thereof with the Agency upon or prior to the date specified in the Schedule of Performance. The Agency shall open an escrow for the Sales Property or portion thereof in accordance with Section 202 of this Agreement and the Schedule of Performance. The Escrow Agent shall notify the Participant in writing that the deed conveying the Sales Property to the Participant, properly 8/24/77 executed and acknowledged by the Agency, has been delivered to the Escrow Agent and that title to the Sales Property is in condition to be conveyed in conformity with the provisions of Section 205 of this Agreement. The Escrow Agent shall deliver to the Participant a title insurance policy insuring title to the Sales Property in conformity with Section 208 of this Agreement and shall promptly file the deed for recordation in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County. H. [5208] Title Insurance. Concurrently with recordation of the deed conveying title to the Sales Property, First American Title Insurance Company, or some other title insurance company satisfactory to the Agency and the Participant having equal or greater financial responsibility (the "Title Company") shall provide and deliver to the Participant a CLTA Owner's Policy of Title Insurance issued by the Title Company insuring that the title is vested in the Participant in the condition required by Section 205 of this Agreement. The Title Company shall provide the Agency with a copy of the title insurance policy and the title insurance policy shall be in an amount not less than the Purchase Price of the Sales Property. The Agency shall pay only for that portion of the title insurance premium with respect to title insurance upon the Sales Property attributable to the Purchase Price of the Sales Property. The Participant, if it desires any addi- tional title insurance or extended coverage, shall pay for all additional premiums beyond those required to insure title in the condition required by Section 205 of this Agreement. I. [§209] Taxes and Assessments. Ad valorem taxes and assessments, if any, on the Sales Property and taxes upon this Agreement or any rights thereunder, levied, assessed or imposed for any period prior to conveyance of title shall be borne by the Participant. All ad valorem taxes and assessments on the Sales Property, levied, assessed or imposed for any period after closing of the escrow shall be paid by the Participant. U/ /-'t/ i i J. [§210] Title Free of Possession. Title to the Sales Property shall be conveyed with no occupants or persons in possession remaining thereon. K. [§211] Condition of the Sales Property. Title to the Sales Property shall be conveyed in its "as -is" condition as acquired by the Agency, unless the Agency and the Participant hereafter agree in writing for certain items of demolition and site clearance (but not grading or soil compactions) which shall be performed by the Agency at the cost and expense of Participant. The Agency shall in no event be liable for any subsurface condition discovered by any person after conveyance of the Sales Property. L. [§212] Preliminary Work by the Participant. Prior to the conveyance of title to the Sales Property, representatives of the Participant shall have the right of access to the Sales Property at all reasonable times for the purpose of obtaining data and making surveys and tests necessary to carry out this Agreement. Any pre- liminary work undertaken on the Sales Property by the Partici- pant prior to the conveyance of title thereto shall be done only after written consent of the Agency and at the sole expense of the Participant. The Participant shall save and protect the Agency against any claims resulting from such preliminary work, access, or use of the Sales Property. Copies of data, surveys and tests obtained or made by Participant on the Sales Property shall be filed with the Agency. Any preliminary work by Participant shall be undertaken only after securing any unnecessary permits from the appropriate governmental agencies. III. [§300] DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. A. [§301] Development of Site by the Participant. 1. [§302] Scope of Development. The Site, comprised of the Sales Property and the Participating Property, shall be developed by Parti- cipant within the limitations established in the "Scope of Development" identified in Attachment No. 5 attached hereto. and incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though fully set forth. -10- 8/24/77 2. [§303] Development Plans, Drawings and Schedule. The Participant has prepared and submitted to the Agency the Preliminary Basic Concept Drawings and the Related Documents for the development of -the Site. The Final Plans shall be prepared by Participant as established in the Basic Concept Drawings and Related Documents, except as changes may be mutually agreed upon between the Partici- pant and the Agency. Any such changes shall be within the limitations of the Scope of Development. The Participant shall prepare and submit Final Plans and Specifications for the development of the Site to the Agency for review and written approval prior to the close of escrow. Approval of Final Plans and Specifications will be promptly granted by the Agency if developed as a logical evolution of drawings and specifications theretofore approved. Any items so sub- mitted and approved in writing by the Agency shall not be subject to subsequent disapproval. The Agency shall approve or disapprove the Final Plans and Specifications prior to the close of escrow. Failure by the Agency to either approve or disapprove within the times established in the Schedule of Performance shall be deemed an approval. Any disapproval shall set forth in writing the reasons for disapproval. The Partici- pant, upon receipt of a disapproval by the Agency, shall revise such portions that are not a logical evolution of the Basic Concept Drawings and Related Documents and resubmit to the Agency as soon as possible after receipt of the notice of disapproval. After the conveyance of title to the Sales Property or any portion thereof to the Participant, the Participant shall promptly begin and thereafter diligently prosecute to completion the construction of the improvements and development of the Site within the time specified in the "Schedule of Performance" incorporated herein and attached hereto as Attachment No. 4. -11- 0/L4/ / / B. [§304] Bodily Injury and Property Damage Insurance; Workers' Compensation. Prior to the commencement of any work hereunder, the Participant shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the Agency duplicate originals of bodily -injury and property damage insurance policies furnished by the Participant or its contractors in the amount of at least $500,000 for any person, $1,000,000 for any occurrence and $300,000 for any property damage, naming the Agency and the City as coinsureds. The Participant shall also maintain workers' compensation and any other insurance required by law, and shall hold the Agency and City harmless from any claims arising thereunder. The obligations set forth in this Section shall remain in effect only until the final Certificate of Completion has been furnished as hereinafter provided. C. [§305] City and Other Governmental Agency Permits. Before commencement of construction or development of any buildings, structures or other work or improvement upon the Site or within the Project Area by the Participant and prior to the close of escrow, the Participant shall at its own expense secure or cause to be secured any and all permits which may be required by the City or any other governmental agency affected by such construction, develop- ment or work. The Agency shall provide all proper assistance to the Participant in securing these permits. D. [5306] Rights of Access for Inspection of Construction. Representatives of the Agency and the City shall have the right of access to the Site without charges or fees, at normal hours during the period of construction for the purposes of this Agreement including, but not limited to, the inspection of the work being performed in construct- ing the improvements. Such representatives of the Agency shall be those who are so identified in writing by the Executive Director of the Agency. E. [§307] Local, State and Federal Laws. The Participant shall carry out the construction of the improvements in conformity with all the applicable laws and regulations including all applicable federal and state labor standards. -12- 8/23/77 '• r F. [§308] Responsibilities of the Agency. The Agency, without expense to the Participant or assessment or claim against the Site and prior to completion of the improvements on the Site (or at such times as may be set forth in the Schedule of Performance) shall, in accord- ance with the Plan and the design for development, provide or secure or cause to be provided or secured, the following: 1. The closing and vacation, as necessary, of all existing streets, alleys, and other public rights - of -way pursuant to the Plan; provided that any portions thereof to be conveyed to the Participant shall become part of the Sales Property at a purchase price to be established by the Agency comparable to the average land values assigned to the Sales Property. 2. The replatting, resubdivision or rezoning of the Site, if necessary, for the proper development of the Site. Zoning of the Site shall be such as to permit development of the Site and construction of the improvements thereon in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, and the use, operation and maintenance of such improvements. In no event shall any part of the Site be zoned to permit uses other than those uses which are in conformance with the Plan and the Scope of Development. G. [§309] Prohibition Against Transfer of the Site, the Buildings or Structures and Assign- ment of Agreement and Restriction. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of comple- tion of construction for the Site, the Participant shall not (except as permitted by this Agreement), without prior approval by the Agency, except for Participant's normal retail leases, make any total or partial sale, transfer, conveyance, assignment or lease, of the whole or any part of the Site, buildings or structures. This prohibition shall not apply to the Site subsequent to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion on the Site. This prohibition shall not be deemed to prevent the granting of temporary easements or permits to facilitate the development of the Site or any part thereof. Any such proposed transferee shall have the quali- fications and financial responsibility necessary and adequate, a991M U/14/ / / as determined by the Agency, to fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Participant. Any such proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the Agency and in form recordable among the land records, for itself and its successors and assigns, and for the bene- fit of the Agency, shall expressly assume all of the obliga- tions of the Participant under this Agreement and agree to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Participant is subject. There shall be submitted to the. Agency for review all instruments and other legal documents proposed to effect any .such transfer; and if approved by the Agency, its approval shall be indicated to the Participant in writing. In the absence of special written agreement by the Agency, no such transfer, assignment or approval by the Agency shall be deemed to relieve the Participant or any other party from any obligation under this Agreement until completion of development as evidenced by a Certificate of Completion. H. [§310] Mortgage or Deed of Trust Financing. Notwithstanding S309 and 9316, mortgages or deeds of trust on the site or any part thereof are permitted. Prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Compliance, the participants shall not enter into any such mortgage or deed of trust financing without the prior written approval of the Agency, which approval Agency agrees to give if any such mortgage or deed of trust is given to a responsible lending institution for the purposes of financing the purchase of the Sales Property or construction of the improvements on the Site. In any event, the Participant shall promptly notify the Agency of any mortgage, deed of trust, encumbrance, or lien that has been created or attached thereto prior to completion of the construction of the improvements on the Site whether by voluntary act of the Participant or otherwise. I. [§311] Holder Not Obligated to Construct Improve- ments. The holder of any mortgage or deed of trust author- ized by this Agreement shall in no wise be obligated by the provisions of this Agreement to.construct or complete the improvements or to guarantee such construction or completion; nor shall any covenant or any other provision in the deed -14- 8/19/77 for the Sales Property be construed so as to obligate such holder. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to construe, permit, or authorize any such holder to devote the Site or any part thereof to any uses, or to construct any improvements thereon, other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement and the Plan. J. B3121 Notice of Default to Mortgage or Deed of Trust Holders; Right to Cure. Whenever the Agency shall deliver any notice or demand to the Participant with respect to any breach or default by the Participant in the construction of the improvements, the Agency shall at the same time deliver to each holder of record of any mortgage or deed of trust authorized by this Agreement a copy of such notice or demand. Each such holder shall (insofar as the rights of the Agency are concerned) have the right, at its option within ninety (90) days after the receipt of the notice, to cure or remedy or commence to cure or remedy any such default and to add the cost thereof to the mortgage debt and the lien of its mortgage. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize such holder to undertake or continue the construction or completion of the improvements (beyond the extent necessary to conserve or protect the improvements or construction already made) without first having expressly assumed the Participant's obligations to the Agency by written agreement satisfactory to the Agency. The holder in that event must agree to complete, in the manner provided in this Agreement, the improvements to which the lien or title of such holder relates, and submit evidence satisfactory to the Agency that it has the qualifications and financial responsibility necessary to perform such obligations. Any such holder properly completing such improvements shall be entitled, upon written request made to the Agency, to a Certificate of Completion from the Agency. K. [§313] Failure of Holder to Complete Improvements. In any case where, six months after default by the Participant in completion of construction of improvements under this Agreement, the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Site or any part thereof has not exercised the option to construct, or if it has exercised the option and has not proceeded diligently with the construction, the Agency may purchase the mortgage or deed of trust by payment -15- to the holder thereof the amount of the debtlremaining unpaid. If the ownership of the Site or any part has vested in the holder, the Agency, if it so desires, shall be entitled to a conveyance from the holder to the Agency of the Site or any part thereof upon payment- to the holder of an amount equal to the sum of the following: 1. The unpaid mortgage or deed of trust debt at the time title became vested in the holder (less all appropriate credits, including those resulting from collection and application of rentals and other income received during foreclosure or sale proceedings). 2. All expenses with respect to foreclosure or trustee's sale. 3. The net expenses, if any (exclusive of general overhead), incurred by the holder as a direct result of the subsequent management of the Site. 4. The costs of any improvements made by such holder. 5. An amount equivalent to the interest that would have accrued on the aggregate of such amounts had all such amounts become part of the mortgage or deed of trust debt and such debt had continued in existence to the date of payment by the Agency. zF- L. [§314] Right of the Agency to Cure Mortgage or _ Plccarl of Truici- T1afaii1f- In the event of a mortgage or deed of trust default or breach by the Participant prior to the completion of the construction of the improvements on the Site, and if the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust has not exer- cised,its option to construct, the Agency may cure the default. In such event, the Agency shall be entitled to reimbursement from the Participant of all costs and expenses incurred by the Agency in curing such default. The Agency shall also be entitled to a lien upon the Site to the extent of such costs and disbursements. Any such lien shall be subject to mortgages or deeds of trust executed for the purpose of obtaining funds to purchase the.'sales property and/or construct the improvements bn the site. M. [§315] Certificate of Completion. Promptly after completion of all construction to be completed by the Participant upon the Site, the Agency shall furnish the Participant with a Certificate of Comple- tion upon written request therefor by the Participant. The -16- O/ 4Y/ r , Agency shall not unreasonably withhold any such Certificate of Completion. Such Certificate of Completion shall be conclusive determination of satisfactory completion of the construction required by this Agreement upon the Site, and of full compliance with the terms hereof with respect to the Site. After issuance of such Certificate of Completion, any party then owning or thereafter purchasing, leasing or otherwise acquiring any interest therein shall not (because of such ownership, purchase, lease or acquisition), incur any obligation or liability under this Agreement, except that such party shall be bound by any covenants contained in the deed, lease, mortgage, deed.of trust, contract or other instrument of transfer in accordance with the Provisions of Sections 400 to 406, both inclusive, of this Agreement. After issuance of a Certificate of Completion, the respective rights and obligations of the parties with reference to the Site shall be limited thereafter to those set forth in the deed and the Redevelopment Plan. A Certificate of Completion of construction for the improvements upon the Site shall be in such form as to permit it to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office of Orange County. If the Agency refuses or fails to furnish a Certif- icate of Completion for the Site after written request from the Participant, the Agency shall, within ten (10) days of the written request, provide the Participant with a written statement of the reasons the Agency refused or failed to furnish a Certificate of Completion. The statement shall also contain the Agency's opinion of the action the Partici- pant must take to obtain a Certificate of Completion. If the reasons for such refusal are confined to the immediate unavailability of specific items or materials for landscaping or beautification, the Agency will issue its Certificate of Completion upon the posting of a bond by the Participant with the Agency in an amount representing a fair value of the work not yet completed. If the Agency shall have failed to provide such written statement within said ten (10) day period, the Participant shall be deemed entitled to the Certificate of Completion. -17- 8/24/77 Such Certificate of Completion shall not constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of the Participant to any holder of a mortgage, or any insurer of a mortgage, securing money loaned to finance the improvements, or any part thereof. Such Certificate of Completion is not a notice of completion as referred to in the -California Civil Code, Section 3093. N. [§316] Taxes, Assessments, Encumbrances and Liens. The Participant shall pay when due all real estate taxes and assessments assessed and levied upon the Site. The Participant shall not place or allow to be placed on the Site or any part thereof, any mortgage, trust deed, encum- brance, or lien not authorized by this Agreement. O. [§317] Right of the Agency to Satisfy Other Liens on the Property After Title Passes. After the conveyance of title to the Sales Property and prior to the completion of construction, and after the Participant has had a reasonable time to challenge, cure or satisfy any liens and encumbrances on the Site, the Agency shall have the right to satisfy any such liens or encum- brances; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall require the Participant to pay or make provision for the payment of any tax, assessment, lien or charge so long as the Participant in good faith shall contest the validity or amount thereof, and so long as such delay in payment shall not subject the Site or any part thereof to forfeiture or sale. P. [§318] Rights of Obligees. The provisions of this Agreement do not limit the right of obligees to foreclose or otherwise enforce any mortgage, deed of trust or other encumbrance upon the Site, or the rights of obligees to pursue any remedies for the enforcement of any pledge or lien upon the Site; provided, however, that in the event of a foreclosure sale under any such mortgage, deed of trust, or other lien or encumbrance, or sale pursuant to any power of sale contained in any such mortgage or deed of trust, the purchaser or purchasers and their successors and assigns, and the Site, shall be, and shall continue to be, subject to all the conditions, restric- tions and covenants herein provided for. OVIC IV. B4001 USE OF THE SITE. A. B4011 Uses. The Participant covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof, that during construction and thereafter the Participant, such successors and such assignees shall: 1. Devote the Site to and only to the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan. 2. Not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Site, or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. B. [§402] Obligations to Refrain from Discrimination. There shall be no discrimination against or segre- gation of any person, or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Site; nor shall the Participant itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees of the Site. C. B4031 Form of Nondiscrimination and Nonsegrega- tion Clauses. The Participant shall refrain from restricting the rental, sale or lease of the Site on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, -national origin or ancestry of any person. All such deeds, leases or con- tracts shall contain or be subject to substantially the following nondiscrimination or nonsegregation clauses: 1. In Deeds: "The grantee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment -19- 8/24/77 of the land herein conveyed; nor shall the grantee himself or any person claiming under or through him, establish or permit any such practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subten- ants, sublessees or vendees in the land herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." 2. In Leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein leased; nor shall the Lessee himself, or any person claiming under or through him, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segrega- tion with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of said land." 3. In Contracts: "There shall be no discrimina- tion against or segregation of, any person, or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry or national origin in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land, nor shall the transferee himself or any person claiming under or though him, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the land." D. B4041 Maintenance of Site. The Participant shall maintain the improvements on the Site and shall keep the Site free from any accumulation of debris or waste materials. The Participant shall also maintain the landscaping required to be planted under the Scope of Development in a healthy condition. If at any time Participant fails to maintain said landscaping, and said -20- 0/ L4/ / / condition is not corrected after expiration of ten (10) days from the date of written notice from the Agency, either the Agency or the City may perform the necessary landscaping maintenance, and Participant shall pay such costs as are reasonably incurred for such maintenance. Issuance of a Certificate of Completion by the Agency shall not affect Participant's obligations under this Section. E. [§405] Effect and Duration of Covenants. The covenants established in this Agreement, the deeds, and the Redevelopment Plan shall, without regard to technical classification and designation, be binding for the benefit and in favor of the Agency, its successors and assigns, the City and any successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof. The covenants contained in this Agree- ment shall remain in effect until August 1, 1997, except that the covenants against discrimination shall remain in perpetuity. Except as otherwise expressly provided in Article 512, breach of any of the covenants or provisions contained in this Agreement shall not give rise to any right of reentry, to any estate of reverter, nor to any right of reentry or forfeiture of the Site or any part thereof or of any interest therein to the Agency, the City, to the owner - of any land in the Project Area, or to any successor, assignee in interest in the property or any part thereof or any interest therein. F. [§406] Rights of Access for Construction, Reconstruction and Repair. The Agency for itself, and for the City and other public agencies, at their sole risk and expense, shall have the right to enter the Site or any part thereof at all reasonable times for the purposes of construction, maintenance, repair or service of any public improvements or public facilities located on the Site. Any such entry shall be made only after reasonable notice to the Participant, and the Agency shall indemnify and hold the Participant harmless from any claims or liabilities pertaining to any entry. -21- 8/19/77 V. [§5001 DEFAULTS, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION. A. [§501] Defaults - General. Subject to the extensions of time set forth in Section 604, failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. The party who so fails or delays must immediately commence to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay, and shall complete such cure, correction or remedy with reasonable diligence. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any failure or delay by either party in asserting any of its remedies or rights as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies or deprive either such party of its rights to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. B. [§502] Legal Actions. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose of - this Agreement. Such legal actions must be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, in an appropriate Municipal Court in that County, or in the Federal District Court in the Central District of California. C. [§503] Applicable Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement, except as to matters governed by federal laws and regulations. D. [§504] Acceptance of Service of Process. In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Participant against the Agency, service of process on the Agency shall be made by personal service upon the Executive Director or Chairman of the Agency, or in such other manner as may be provided by law. In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Agency against the Participant, service of process on the Participant shall be made by personal service upon any corporate officer of the Participant and shall be valid -22- W 8/31/77 dlh whether made within or without the State of California, or in such other manner as may be provided by law. E. [§505] Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative; and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. F. [9506] Inaction Not a Waiver of Default. Any failures or delays by either party in assert- ing any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies or deprive either such party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. G. [§507] Remedies and Rights of Termination Prior to Conveyance. 1. [§508] Termination by Participant Prior to Conveyance. In the event that the Agency does not tender conveyance or possession of the Sales Property to be conveyed in the manner and condition, and at the time provided in this Agreement, and such failure shall not be cured within ninety (90) days after the date of written demand by the Participant, then the Participant, at its option, may termi- nate this Agreement and all of the obligations and liabil- ities of the parties hereunder with respect to all uncon- veyed Sales Property upon its giving written notice of such termination to the Agency, and the Participant shall be entitled to the return of the good faith deposit as provided in Section 601 of this Agreement. 2. [9509] Termination by Agency Prior to Conveyance. In the event that prior to the conveyance of title to the Sales Property which the Agency is required to convey to Participant, and in violation of the Agreement: (a) Participant (or any successor in inter- est) assigns or attempts to assign the Agreement or any rights therein, or in any of the terms of this Agree- ment; or -23- 8/31/77 dlh (b) There is any change with respect to the identity of the persons in control of the Participant or the degree thereof; or (c) The Participant does not submit construc- tion plans as required by this Agreement; or (d) The Participant does not pay the Purchase Price and take title to the Sales Property upon tender of conveyance by the Agency pursuant,to this Agreement; or (e) The Participant does not acquire title to approximately 9.0 acres of real property in the Site which is presently owned by, or under the estate or trust of, John A. Murdy, Jr. within ninety (90) days after the execution of this Agreement; and if any default referred to in this Section 509 has not been cured within thirty (30) days after written demand by the Agency, then this Agreement, any rights of the Participant, or any assignee or transferee in this Agreement may, at the option of the Agency, be terminated, and the Agency shall be entitled to retain the good faith deposit as provided in Section 601 of this Agreement. H. [§510] Damages for Default After Passage of Title to the Sales Property and Prior to Completion of Construction. After the time for commencement of construction of the improvements and prior to the completion of construction on the Site, if either the Participant or the Agency defaults as to any of the provisions of this Agreement, the nonde- faulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured or commenced and with reasonable diligence sought to be cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days of service of the notice of default, the defaulting party shall be liable to the other party for any damages caused by such default. I. [§511] Specific Performance After Passage of Title. If either the Participant or the Agency defaults under any of the provisions of this Agreement after the time for commencement of construction of the improvements and prior to the completion of construction on the Site, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not commenced and with reasonable diligence sought to be cured by the defaulting 'party within thirty (30) days of service of the notice of default, the nondefaulting party at its option may institute an action for specific performance of the terms of this Agreement. -24- o/ c't/ i i J. [§512] Right of Reentry. The Agency shall have the additional right at its option to reenter and take possession of the Sales Property or any part thereof with all improvements thereon and to terminate and revest in the Agency the estate conveyed to the Participant, if after conveyance of title and prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion, the Parti- cipant (or its successors in interest) shall: 1. Fail to proceed with the construction of improvements as required by this Agreement for a period of six (6) months after written notice thereof from the Agency; or 2. Abandon or substantially suspend construction of the improvements required by this Agreement for a period of three months after written notice thereof from the Agency; or 3. Transfer, or suffer any involuntary transfer of the Site or any part thereof, in violation of this Agreement. The right to reenter, repossess, terminate and revest shall be subject to and be limited by and shall not defeat, render invalid, or limit: 1. Any mortgage or deed of trust permitted by this Agreement. - 2. Any rights or interests provided in this Agreement for the protection of the holders of such mortgages or deeds of trusts. The deed shall contain appropriate reference and provisions to give effect to the Agency's right, as set forth in this Section 512 under specified circumstances prior to recordation of the Certificate of Completion to reenter and take possession of the Site with all improve- ments thereon and to terminate and revest in the Agency the estate conveyed to the Participant. Upon the revesting in the Agency of title to the Sales Property as provided in this Section 512, the Agency shall, pursuant to its responsibilities under state law, use its best efforts to resell the Sales Property as soon and in such manner as the Agency shall find feasible and consistent with the objectives of such law and of the Plan to a quali- fied and responsible party or parties (as determined by the -25- 8/24/77 Agency) who will assume obligation of making or completing the improvements or such other improvements in their stead as shall be satisfactory to the Agency and in accordance with the uses specified for the Sales Property or part thereof in the Plan. Upon such resale of the Sales Property, the proceeds thereof shall be applied: 1. First, to reimburse the Agency, on its own behalf or on behalf of the City, for all costs and expenses incurred by the Agency, including but not limited to salaries to personnel, in connection with the recapture, management, and resale of the Sales Property (but less any income derived by the Agency from the Sales Property in connection with such management); all taxes, assessments, and water and sewer charges with respect to the Sales Property or, in the event the Sales Property is exempt from taxation or assessment or such charges during the period of owner- ship thereof by the Agency, an amount, if paid, equal to such taxes, assessments, or charges as would have been payable if the Sales Property were not so exempt; any payments made or necessary to be made to discharge any encumbrances or liens existing on the Sales Prop- erty at the time of revesting of title thereto in the Agency or to discharge or prevent from attaching or being made any subsequent encumbrances or liens due to obligations, defaults, or acts of the Participant, its successors or transferees; any expenditures made or obligations incurred with respect to the making or completion of the improvements or any part thereof on the Sales Property; and any amounts otherwise owing the Agency by the Participant and its successors or trans- ferees; and 2. Second, to reimburse the Participant, its successors or transferees, up to the amount equal to the sum of (a) the Purchase Price paid to the Agency by the Participant for the Sales Property, and (b) the costs incurred for the development of the Sales Property and for the improvements existing on the property at the time of the reentry and repossession; less (c) any gains or income withdrawn or made by the Participant from the Sales Property or improvements thereon. WV. 0/G4/ / / Any balance remaining after such reimbursements shall be retained by the Agency as its property. To the extent that the right established in this Section involves a forfeiture it must be strictly interpreted against the Agency, the party for whose•benefit it is created. The rights established in this Section are to be interpreted in light of the fact that the Agency will convey the Sales Property to the Participant for development and not for speculation in undeveloped land. K. [§513] Agency's Further Rights with Respect to Participating Property. In addition to any other rights or remedies pro- vided for in this Agreement, in the event that: 1. The Participant fails to purchase or unreason- ably delays the purchase of the Sales Property as pro- vided for in this Agreement; or 2. The Participant fails to develop the Site or unreasonably delays development of the Site as provided for in this Agreement; then the Agency may take such steps as are available and necessary to assure development of the Site, including but not limited to acquisition of the Participating Property. VI. [§600] GENERAL PROVISIONS. _ A. [§601] Good Faith Deposit. The Participant will deliver to the Agency a good faith deposit in the amount of the estimated total Purchase Price of the Sales Property, determined as set forth in Attachment No. 3 hereto, as security for the performance of the obligations of the Participant to be performed prior to the application of the deposit on account of the Purchase Price of the Sales Property. The Participant shall provide said good faith deposit within ten (10) calendar days after the Agency has executed this Agreement. The good faith deposit, at the option of the Participant, may be in the form of (1) negotiable notes or bonds issued by the federal government or any of its instru- mentalities, upon the basis of their fair market value; (2) cash; (3) cashier's or certified check; or (4) negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a federal or state bank; (5) a letter from a qualified lender (which may be savings and loan institutions) certifying that funds have -27- BOARD OY UIR EUL01,3 (Continued) Teresa hstrada Mullaney, Esq. (Join) 9461 Daytona Circle Iluntington L3each, California )2646 It-714-962-3048 i3-714 396-7261 Isa Smashoy liogors (Rodney A. Madsen) 241 Grand Avenue bong Beach, California 90803 11-213-433-7847 a-213-433--)946 John Tiernan c/o tied Onion Restaurant 1139 East Dominguez Strect1 :.;ui Le H Carsont California 90746 ;t-213--709-7677 I3-213-637-1751 8/31/77 dlh been set aside irrevocable in trust for purposes of this Section, with the right of the Agency to draw against said funds for purposes of this Agreement; or (6) any combination of such notes, bonds, checks, certificate of deposit, and cash. The Participant may change the form of the deposit from time to time, at its option, to any other of the permitted forms of deposit. The deposit, if cash or certified or cashier's check, shall be deposited in an account of the Agency in a bank or trust company selected by it. The Agency shall be under no obligation to pay or earn interest on the deposit, but if interest shall accrue or be payable thereon, such interest, when received by the Agency, shall be the property of the Participant, and shall be promptly paid to the Participant. If at all possible, interest shall be made payable directly to Participant. The amount of deposit made in cash or by cashier's or certified check shall be applied to the Purchase Price of the Sales Property at the time specified in the Schedule of Performance attached hereto. Upon termination of this Agreement by the Agency as provided in Section 509 of this Agreement, the deposit, including all interest payable thereon after such termination, may be retained by the Agency as provided herein, and the Agency shall be under no obligation to return or release any funds expended by the Agency or needed to reimburse the Agency for costs incurred, whether paid or not at the time of termination, pursuant to this Agreement. The Agency and the Participant agree that it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damages suffered by the Agency because of any default of the Participant pursuant to Section 509, that the amount expended by the Agency or needed to reimburse the Agency for costs incurred pursuant to the Agreement constitutes a reasonable estimate of such damages, and that the Agency may retain said amount as liquidated damages in the event of any such default by the Participant. Upon termination of this Agreement by the Participant as provided in Section 508 of this Agreement, the deposit shall be returned to the Participant by the Agency; provided, however, that the Agency shall be under no obligation to return or release any funds expended or needed to reimburse the Agency for any costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement, whether paid or not at the time of termination, except to the extent that the Agency may realize income from the sale �� 8/31/77 dlh ` of any property acquired pursuant to this Agreement after r first deducting therefrom all expenses of acquisition, site preparation, costs of sale and any other Agency costs relating thereto. B. [§602] Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties. Written notices, demands, and communications between the Agency and the Participant shall be sufficiently given if dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal office of the Agency and to the local office of the Participant as specified in Section 105. Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section. C. [§603] Conflict of Interest. No member, official, or employee of the Agency shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agree- ment which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is directly or indirectly interested. No member, official, or employee of the Agency shall be personally liable to the Participant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Agency for any amount which may become due to the Participant or successor or on any obliga- tions under the terms of this Agreement. The Participant warrants that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, any third person any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. D. [§604] Enforced Delay; Extensions of Times of Performance. Performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts, riots, floods, earth- quakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, acts of public enemy, epedemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, lack of -transportation, governmental restrictions or priority, litigation, unusually severe weather, inability to secure necessary labor, material or tools, delays of any contractor, subcontractor or supplier, acts of the other party, acts or failures to act of the City of Huntington Beach or any other public or governmental agency or entity, or any other causes Mss 8/31/77 dlh � T beyond the control or without the fault of the party claiming an extension of time to perform. An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay as determined by the Agency and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within thirty (30) days of the commencement of the cause. Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the Agency and the Participant. E. [§605] Inspection of Books and Records. The Agency has the right at all reasonable times to inspect agreements and documents of the Participant pertaining to the Site as pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement. The Participant also has the right at all reason- able times to inspect agreements and documents of the Agency pertaining to the Site as pertinent to this Agreement. VII. [§700] SPECIAL PROVISIONS. A. [§701] Provisions Not Merged with Deed. None of the provisions of this Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed trans- ferring title to the Sales Property from the Agency to the Participant or any successor in interest, and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the provisions and covenants of this Agreement. B. [§702] Tract Map - Consent to Vacation of Streets. The Participant agrees to join with the Agency in executing and recording a tract map embracing the Site. The Participant further consents to such street vacation as may be necessary to carry out the Plan as the same may be amended from time to time. C. [§703] Entire Agreement. This Agreement is executed in four (4) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement includes 31 pages and 5 attachments which consti- tute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and super- sedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. Any waiver of any provision of this Agreement and any amendment hereto must be in writing and signed by authorized officials of the Agency and/or the Participant. -30- 8/31/77 dlh 7 t D. [§704] Execution of Agreement. This Agreement, when executed by the Participant and delivered to the Agency, must be authorized, executed and delivered by the Agency within thirty (30) days after the date of signature by the Participant or this Agreement shall be void, except to the extent that the Participant shall consent in writing to a further extension of time for the authorization, execution and delivery of this Agreement. The date of this Agreement shall be the date when the Agree- ment shall have been signed by the Agency. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agency and the Participant have duly executed this Agreement as of the'date first above mentioned. ATTEST. Secretary THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL I FQV91X L. "AGENCY" X,IMX%I _L1.lr'M" 1 APPROVED AS TO FORM. - DON P. BONFA City Attorney ney By: �0.� J-L�. Deputy City Attorney -31- t: .! `il is - •'t" Y',7 .f :. `i J L ,r� .�:x,r:;: :1 �'..�. ►II .t►uV ly.�r.7 }:4 �.-- •�•At'1 � ,.,•.., •an.s ...,� i. . �. �n {(M.••.... w r. wy..,.� ..rw•.� : -�n � t M. �Ik � +s ~ � '�: 1 �� +�;. �1v G�i Z �" tY;� ,,,� �� ..L.i •fir - .� � 3� ' !r .� � .. i r4+• .o,.w+»...,......:.«r+i..r».., «.hr..,.,,yx«....,y ,A��Zf . • _ , � �' { p. I � -t {'�' . - -" , �,:•� +. ,t_: ♦� a' _ - �..i�4�.r;....:,.Trt..-.... .. ,. '°t-, !!. t7:� i;, %FS .t Jf '.= a _���%, -i . ... S; i- �'- - � - - 't.:r � �: '. 3 •" a" ..w. •,i+ � �........r..,.„,� �••Mfr ,..-+�...+•.. �'" '.�,,,: r+Yi�: •.N f:i. :: �, :' - t� ' yt� 1. - r. � 41 s `k t � >:► cr },' .�r_-, i � �.:�ii !� ir' ,t. 1, of �i•: •d #� r� .t} i.. e ^r f +.�M •- yyA'" 1; 2` ♦ JJ - _ _ - � w!•�� 4`3W 1N �+i��,i 1�,^Hlia . Y p" - .L• � Yi.� n :4 a' •�+tM•++r!itiG+r. _-i.�'.:.: ....�=. .Y. .{- t. +r ...f: :o .�z .. -. .. .a " T� L•Y' r s �. r, � ,t. + fir: • 71 � • , �.'�' t k •t,;+i {` `. ILI i r h rt• >-fe wi '7il t . • t{; i� • Z it3'�. �iZl}Yi Its , - : '. 1: s^ Z 4 :.''� _ "w _ r.. -. 4 ° ww. syrI•'�,,.•"Y ' jam" ••h .*1`,• 1i�, 13t%t` (1• ,.y- , �"�': � � $ .�4 C, w .►t• 1' r; �!. 4Y: � .� ;�.. �?i!: ll!�,�0 1:�;ri r . ♦ '!! •1.�� �,,r ,. 3ar � 160:.r iJ :C3` ' . c:.+. I;t1 'ay,,.. ,,'! ':.1 ri+i+. 'trig `ivL♦ •:( ir;-'a`a `t4 xt T' ,�"" -','ry,"+r,,�t<!.4tom, ,,.+ rr.�rs •S�r3� � .�. .3 .� e, � sj, :{i r ir," rr rr ' �� IS"•.1 vry .,..5�; r . :.}•3. - F , t1.At.43 7sh••i DMA •1 , � � - � - �- "'1' -�.:•. litti %! it :1S.rt 131siyi: t. !, 't l r - ♦ r ' - r' , �' �.. _ .�.r• 1t _i t'. ,� .r .` +�" 1 1 ir. ✓ (f •lam }3 - ,i VT rJ.' r� ..-t.t. J r(I.aLt' .� r s� r t i�r, "•: Is" r"�' A.=.:.r�tp nt • J.3j x10k? l/ to x F*1 ii -TV 140� IlI. M"A 4t! 0 yjIl ot -4f V� 16 rf -W� jv : 4 -1 Uf "i ;.T I� 44 IIJ vz Af 4 tt,W s .1iro'o onp it 0 (D ct 0 rt 11 wow" mvwwwm� 04 ivhh," 40) X Ilk. PSI ICT!C ATTACHMENT NO. 3 METHOD OF DETERMINING PURCHASE PRICE, DEPOSIT I. Purchase Price. A. The Participant has represented to the Agency, and the Agency is relying thereon, that the public cost of this Agreement and of the actions of the Agency and City in implementation of this Agreement will be fully recoverable by the Agency in the Purchase Price. In reliance thereon, any redevelopment plan for the Project Area shall not include the provisions of Section 33670 of the Community Redevelop- ment Law providing for tax increment financing to the Agency. B. The Purchase Price for the Sales Property under Section 201 of this Agreement shall be the amount calculated by the Agency as its total costs to implement this Agreement, including but not limited to the following: 1. Preliminary studies by Agency and City staff and consultants; 2. Negotiation and preparation of the Interim Agreement and this Agreement; 3. Preparation, studies and negotiations by the Agency and City staff and consultants, leading to sub- mission of the redevelopment plan and accompanying report and environmental impact report to the City Council for review and adoption; 4. Costs of property acquisition, including appraisals, negotiations with property owners, and relocation costs, legal fees and costs of expert witnesses, and costs of clearing title to the Site; 5. Taxes and assessments, if any, attributable to the Sales Property following its acquisition by the Agency which would be payable but for the fact that the Sales Property is in public ownership; 6. Interest and financing costs incurred by the Agency to the extent the Agency borrows funds to carry out this Agreement; 7. The costs or value of public property to be conveyed to the Participant; and 8. All other costs associated with the imple- mentation of this Agreement, including salaries and Attachment No. 3 overhead of Agency and City staff associated with the above steps. C. The parties estimate that the Purchase Price shall not exceed the sum of $450,000, which, for purposes of this Agreement, is an estimate only. This sum is based upon the assumption that the Participant has acquired or will acquire approximately 9.0 acres from John A. Murdy, Jr. in addition to the other property already acquired or to be acquired by the Participant. Futhermore, it is understood that the Purchase Price may be increased to exceed the above estimate based upon the cost to the Agency of acquiring the Sales Property as shown by the appraisals. The maximum amount of all City and Agency costs under this Agreement, other than those costs of property acquisition including condemnation awards and court costs, shall not exceed $50,000 without the approval of the Participant, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. II. Good Faith DeAosit. The good faith deposit required under Section 601 of this Agreement shall be calculated as the sum=remaining from time to time, after subtracting (1) the amount of any advances from the Participant to the Agency for its costs hereunder, from (2) the estimated Purchase Price set forth in Section I.C. of this Attachment No. 3. Attachment No. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Execution of Agreement. Agreement authorized, executed and delivered by Participant to Agency. Commencement of Property Acquisi- tion. Agency shall commence acquisition of Sales Property. Acquisition of Murdy Property. Participant shall acquire title to approximately 9.0 acres from John A. Murdy, Jr. Within 30 days after date of signature by Participant. Within 30 days after date of signature by Agency ("Date of Agreement") . Within 90 days from Date of Agreement. Completion of Property Acquisition. As soon as possible Agency shall complete acquisition following commence - of Sales Property. Agency shall ment of property institute eminent domain proceed- acquisition. ings as necessary and diligently pursue them to completion. Conveyance of Sales Property. Within 30 days from Agency shall convey, and Participant acquisition by Agency shall purchase, the Sales Property. or final judgment in favor of Agency in eminent domain proceedings. Schematic Plot Plan and Basic Completed as of Date Concept Drawings. Participant shall of Agreement. submit and Agency shall improve schematic plot plans for and basic concept drawings for,Participant's improvements. Submission of Final Workin Drawings and Related Documents. Participant shall prepare and sub- mit to the Agency and the City Building Department Final Working Drawings and Specifications for Participant's Improvements. Approval - Final Working Drawings and Related Documents. The Agency and the City Building Department shall approve or disapprove the Final Working Drawings. Building Permits. Participant shall obtain all required permits for construction of the Participant's Improvements. Attachment No. 4 Within 120 days from date Participant receives possession of the Sales Property. Within 30 days after receipt by the Agency. Within 30 days after Agency approval of Final Working Drawings. 1 • Commencement of Construction. Within 45 days after Participant shall commence construc- Agency approval of tion of the Participant's Final Working Drawings. Improvements. Completion of First Phase of Within 18 months after Development. Participant shall Commencement of complete construction of the Construction. Participant's Improvements in the first phase of development. Completion of Second Phase of Within 18 months after Development. Participant shall completion of the first complete construction of the phase of development. Participant's Improvements in the second phase of development. Attachment No. 4 4W ATTACHMENT NO. 5 SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT I. DEVELOPMENT BY THE PARTICIPANT. The Participant shall design and construct a retail neighborhood shopping center containing not less than 80,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial space. The improve- ments shall be developed in one or two phases. If the ,development occurs in two phases, the first phase shall include all the parking and common areas and not less than 50,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial area; the second phase shall be the completion of the shopping center with the construction of not less than an additional 30,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial space. The shopping center shall include stores for commercial - retail facilities and services, parking facilities and other facilities customarily located in shopping centers. In addition, the Participant agrees to develop and construct improvements such as paving, walks, curbs, gutters, lighting, landscaping, sprinklers, loading docks, rubbish storage, pick-up enclosures, public restrooms and all other development items required by the Agency. The improvements constructed by the Participant shall be designed to produce a development of high architectural and aesthetic quality and the improvements shall be landscaped to result in a pleasing and harmonious environment. The shape, scale of volume, exterior design and exterior finish of each building must be visually and physically related to adjacent buildings in the shopping center and shall be compatible with the development of the adjacent property by William Landis pursuant to an Owner Participation Agreement with the.Agency. The Participant's plans and proposals submitted to the Agency for approval shall describe in reasonable detail the architectural character of the development. A. Parking. The Participant shall construct parking facilities for the shopping center including paving, striping, lighting, landscaping, access drives, curbs, signs, etc. as required by the Agency. B. Landscaping. Landscaping shall embellish all open spaces upon the Site including.setback areas and shall include trees, shrubs, and other plants, landscape containers, plaza furniture, top soil, soil preparation, automatic irrigation, Attachment No. 5 and landscape and pedestrian lighting. a' C. Signs. The design, size, color, lighting, and placement of signs shall be approved by the Agency. D. Other Controls. Other controls and restrictions consistent with this Agreement including, but not limited to, the size of parking spaces, landscaping and land coverage, setbacks, screening, heights of buildings, loading facilities, lighting, building materials and traffic access may be specified by the Agency. E. Easements. The Participant shall grant all necessary and appropriate easements for the construction and maintenance of parking and the Participant's improvements including, but not limited to, easements for sanitary sewers, storm drainage, water, electrical power, communication lines, ventilation and natural gas. F. Maintenance. The Participant shall provide for the maintenance of all improvements, areas and spaces within the Site. All areas shall be maintained in good structural condition, painted surfaces shall be kept clean and neatly painted, working equipment shall be kept in proper working order with preventive maintenance programs initiated as appropriate, open areas shall be kept free of litter, burned out lights shall be promptly replaced, planted areas shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition and dead or diseased plants shall be replaced as necessary, and in general, any condition that impairs the full enjoyment of these improvements by the public shall be promptly and completely remedied. II. OBLIGATIONS OF THE AGENCY. The Agency shall have no obligation to prepare, grade or clear the Site, to provide any improvements, facilities or utilities, or to make any relocation or other payments in connection with the development of the Site by the Participant. Attachment No. 5 5/4/77 6/7/77 V, INTERIM.AGREEMENT AND PROPOSAL TO ENTER INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT By and Between THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ("Agency") and L. C. SMULL, an individual, doing business as BUSINESS PROPERTIES ("Participant") 5/4/77 6/7/77 INTERIM AGREEMENT AND PROPOSAL TO ENTER INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (hereinafter called "Interim Agreement") is made between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a public body, corporate and politic (which, together with any successor public body or officer hereinafter designated by or pursuant to law is hereinafter called "Agency"), duly created, established and authorized to transact business and exercise its powers, all under and pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Part I of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Codel, and having its office at the City Hall, .2000'Main Street , in the City of Huntington Beach, California (hereinafter called "City"), and L. C. SM_t,TLL, an individual, doing business as BUSINESS PROPERTIES (hereinafter called "Participant"), having an office for the transaction of business at 17840 Sky Park 'Boulevard in the City of Tru;ne , California. Recitals A. In furtherance of the objective of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, the Agency has been activated by the City Council of the City to undertake and carry out redevelopment activities within the City and within such redevelopment project areas as shall be duly adopted by the City Council. B. The Community Redevelopment Law provides for the Agency to acquire by purchase or condemnation real property located within the boundaries of a Redevelopment Project Area, except those parcels designated for owner participation, and authorizes the Agency to dispose of said acquired real property -to qualified developers. C. The Participant is desirous of entering into an owner participation agreement to purchase and develop land within a proposed Redevelopment Project Area for a shopping center and ancillary uses, said contract to be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. a 5/4/77 6/7/77 D. Participant, entirely at its own risk and without obligation on the part of the City or the Agency, has engaged in certain land acquisition, planning, project feasibility studies, and contacts with potential tenants, for the development of a shopping center within the proposed Project Area. Because of the scattered ownerships and poor parceliza- tion of the proposed Project Area, Participant believes such area is blighted and requires the use of redevelopment, particularly for land assembly, if the proposed Project Area is to be developed under reasonable economic conditions. E. Participant desires by this Interim Agreement to submit a proposal acceptable to the Agency for the develop- ment.of said shopping center in the proposed Project Area. Agreements AGENCY AND PARTICIPANT AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Property Included in Participant's Proposal. Participant's proposal, as set forth in this Interim Agreement, relates to the development of a shopping center within a proposed Redevelopment Project Area described generally and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Participant acknowledges that Agency has not made any representations that it presently has jurisdiction over the area described above, and agrees that references to said area in this Interim Agreement are stated as conditions to Participant's proposal contained herein and are not to be construed as covenants or promises by the Agency or City with respect to said area. Nothing herein shall be deemed a covenant or promise by the Agency, the City or any agency of the City, with respect to any property over which the Agency does not have jurisdiction as of the date of this Interim Agreement, the parties understanding that the Agency's jurisdiction over, and ability to act with respect to, any property is defined and limited by the provisions of the California -Community Redevelopment Law and requires independent action by the City Planning Commission, Redevel- opment Commission, and City Council in the selection of appropriate and eligible project areas and the due adoption of redevelopment plan provisions with respect to said project -2- i 5/4/77 6/7/77 areas after hearings and findings as required by the California Community Redevelopment Law. Section 2. Participant's Proposal. Participant shall have the right to bring in part- ners and co -venturers conditioned upon (1) such additional parties agreeing to be bound by all the provisions of,,and expressly assuming in writing (to the satisfaction of the Agency) the obligations of, this Interim Agreement and the Participation Agreement to the extent of their participation, and (2) Participant remaining fully liable and responsible under this Interim Agreement and the Participation Agreement. Participant proposes to the Agency, and agrees, subject to the conditions as set forth in Section 4 hereof, to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement (hereinafter called "Participation Agreement") substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof, for the purchase of land from the Agency and the development of a shopping center and compatible ancillary commercial uses. Participant is the owner of, and has the right to acquire, a substantial portion of the properties within the proposed Project Area. Title problems, fragmented ownerships, and poor parcelization require that Participant own all of the property within the proposed Project Area. The powers of the Agency to acquire property under the Community Redevelopment Law for purposes of private redevelopment appear necessary in order to bring all the properties into a single ownership so that they may be developed as a shopping center. Participant will pay a purchase price for the properties acquired by the Agency and sold and conveyed to the Participant, in an amount equal to the Agency's costs of studies and procedures relating to the adoption of a redevelopment plan, the costs of acquiring the property (including the value of any public property acquired by the Agency), and all related legal, engineering, economic, appraisal, and other staff and consultant costs and overhead incurred by the Agency in furtherance of this Agreement and the Participation Agreement. A preliminary Site Plan for said development is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof. Parti- cipant shall have the right to make changes in and modifica- tions to the Site Plan from time to time consistent with the -3- a S/4/77 6/7/77 "Scope of Development," Attachment 5 to the Participation Agreement, and provided that the obligations of the Agency or the City are not increased or adversely affected as a result thereof without their express consent and agreement. Prior to final action by the Agency on the Parti- cipation Agreement, Participant shall submit to the Agency its proposal for development of the shopping center property in not more than two phases, including timing of each phase. Based on phasing of development as approved by the Agency, the Participation Agreement shall be appropriately modified to incorporate provisions for phasing of development. Section 3. Delivery.of Participation Agreement; Escrow Agent. (a) Participant has deposited into an escrow with First American [title company], Huntington Beach, California (hereinafter called "Escrow Agent"), concurrently with its execution and delivery to Agency of this Interim Agreement, four copies of the Participation Agreement, each copy of which is fully and duly executed by and on behalf of Participant. (b) Within five days of receipt of written certi- fication from the Agency to the Escrow Agent (with a copy thereof to the Participant) that each of the conditions set forth in Section 4 hereof has been satisfied according to its terms, the Escrow Agency is hereby instructed and author- ized by Participant, without further demand or condition, to unconditionally deliver three fully executed copies of the Participation Agreement to the Agency and one fully executed copy of the Participation Agreement to the Participant. The Participation Agreement shall be dated by the Escrow Agent as of the date of the delivery, unless the parties otherwise mutually specify. Upon such delivery, Participant shall be bound by the terms of the Participation Agreement. (c) A copy of this Interim Agreement, executed by both the Agency and the Participant and delivered by either party to"the Escrow Agent, upon its acceptance by the Escrow Agent, shall constitute irrevocable instructions to the Escrow Agent as set forth herein. If the Agency does, not execute this Interim Agreement within the time set forth in Section 12 hereof, subject to extensions mutually agreed -4- 5/4/77 6/7/77 upon, the Participant may withdraw the executed copies of the Participation Agreement from the escrow. (d) The liability of the Escrow Agent is limited to the dating and delivery to the Agency and Participant of the copies of the Participation Agreement as required under subsection (b) of this Section 3. (e) All fees, costs and charges of the Escrow Agent incurred under this Section 3 shall be paid by the Participant, and the Agency shall have no liability therefor. (f) From time to time, the Agency and Participant may mutually agree to modifications in the Participation Agreement in which event they shall jointly and promptly substitute copies of the Participation Agreement as modified with the Escrow Agent accompanied by such additional written instructions as may be mutually agreed upon. Section"4. Conditions of Delivery of Participation Agreement. Upon satisfaction of the following conditions, within the times set forth or within such extended times as the parties may mutually agree to in writing pursuant to Section 11 hereof, Participant's proposal hereunder shall be deemed accepted by the Agency and the Participation Agree- ment executed by the Participant shall be delivered to the Agency by the Escrow Agent, and the Participant shall there- upon be bound according to the terms thereof. (a) Within 30 days from the date of this Interim Agreement, the Agency shall have prepared a draft environ- mental impact report or reports covering the proposed Project Area or the proposed shopping center, or both, in the sole discretion of the Agency, and shall commence to process the environmental impact report pursuant to applicable state and local procedures; and CbZ Concurrently with or as soon as practicable following the completion and approval of a final environmen- tal impact report or reports based on the draft report or reports under subsection (a) above, but in any event not later than August 15, 1977; (i) the City Council of the City, after public hearing as required by law, shall have adopted an ordinance adopting a Redevelopment Plan for a Project Area shown on Exhibit A attached hereto; -5- i r 5/4/77 6/7/77 (ii) the Agency and City, after public hear- ings as required by law, shall have approved and authorized execution of the Participation Agreement by and on behalf of the Agency; and (iii) the Agency shall have executed, subject to delivery, the four copies of the Participation Agreement deposited by the Participant with the Escrow Agent as provided in Section 3 hereof. Section 5. Interim Activities. (a) During the period of this Interim Agreement, Participant and Agency shall coordinate their activities in planning for a shopping center and the carrying out of their activities as contemplated under the Participation Agreement by scheduling regular or periodic meetings between repre- sentatives of the Agency and the Participant for purposes of consultation and consideration by each of Site Plans, cost estimates, financing proposals and other data and information as planning is developed. Participant agrees, by means of reports not less often than each 30 days, to keep Agency representatives informed of its planning progress, its commitments with and obligations to tenants, and to provide Agency representatives upon their request with copies of latest Site Plans, cost estimates, public financing require- ments, and other information pertinent to the Agency's requirements and obligations as contemplated by the Partici- pation Agreement. Participant shall cooperate with Agency and reasonably provide all data in Participant's possession to Agency or its consultants in connection with preparation of or public hearings on a Redevelopment Plan, preparation of or public hearings on any environmental impact reports or statement, and the Participation Agreement. (bl The California Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the Agency to accept financial assistance from any public or private source. Pursuant to this authority, the Agency and Participant contemplate that the Participant will advance.funds to the Agency for surveys and planning, general overhead and administrative and consultant costs, and other specified activities of the Agency including appraisals, land acquisition and relocation, under such terms and conditions as the parties may mutually agree to from time to time during the term of this Interim Agreement. a 5/4/77 6/7/77 Section 6. Design and Development Objectives. The design and development objectives for the Participant's improvements shall be as specified in the ,Participation Agreement, and actual development shall be in conformance therewith. All drawings, plans and specifica- tions for such development shall be subject to the approval of Agency in the manner provided in the Participation Agree- ment, and Agency shall cooperate fully with Participant's professional associates in providing them with any informa- tion and assistance reasonably within the capacity of the Agency to provide in connection with the preparation and execution by Participant of such drawings, plans, and speci- fications. All plans for development shall.be subject to architectural review of the Agency in the manner provided in the Participation Agreement, in addition to any other appli- cable City requirements. Section 7. Participant's Exclusive Position. Agency agrees not to negotiate regarding the disposition of land within the area covered by this Interim Agreement (set forth in Section 1 hereof) during the period that this Interim Agreement is in effect. Section 8. Participant's Representatives. Participant shall designate in writing to Agency one or more persons to act as its representatives in meeting and conferring with Agency representatives under this Interim Agreement. Section 9. Participant's Deposit. (a) The Participant has deposited with the Agency a deposit in the cash amount of ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000 ) , The deposit shall serve as security for the performance of the obligations of the Participant under this Interim Agreement. (b) The Agency shall be under no obligation to pay or earn interest on the deposit, but if interest shall accrue or be payable thereon such interest, when received by the Agency, shall be the property of the Participant, and shall be promptly paid to the Participant. (c) Upon termination of this Interim Agreement as provided in subsection (a) of Section 10 hereof, the deposit shall be retained by the Agency as part of the Participant's —7— r 5/4/77 6/7/77 deposit under the Participation Agreement and shall be governed by the terms thereof. (d) Upon termination of this Interim Agreement as provided in subsection (b) of Section 10 hereof, the deposit shall be returned or funds in lieu thereof shall be delivered to the Participant by the Agency. (e) Upon termination of this Interim Agreement as provided in subsection (c) of Section 10 hereof, the deposit, including all interest payable thereon after such termination, shall be retained by or need not be returned by the Agency. In the event of such termination, the damages suffered by the Agency by reason thereof would be uncertain. Such damages would involve such variable factors as the expenses to the Agency in delay in carrying out the Project, the expense to the Agency of interesting and negotiation with other persons, the postponement of tax revenues from the Project, and other damages to the Agency and the community resulting from the delay in carrying out the Project. The parties agree that it is and will be impracticable and ex- tremely difficult to fix the amount of such damages to the Agency. For the above reasons, the parties agree that in the event of termination of this Interim Agreement by the Agency for the reasons set forth in subsection (c) of Sec- tion 10 hereof, the Participant's deposit shall be retained by the Agency as liquidated damages. Section 10. Termination of this Interim Agreement. Ca) This Interim Agreement shall terminate on the date that the Participation Agreement is delivered to the Agency by the Escrow Agent in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 hereof. (b) If any condition set forth in Section 4 here- of is not satisfied within the time set forth for such condition or within such extended times as the parties may mutually agree to in writing pursuant to Section 11 hereof, without fault of the Participant, either the Participant or the Agency, within a period of 30 days from the date on which said conditions are required to be satisfied, may terminate this Interim Agreement by giving written notice of such termination to the other party. WE 5/4/77 6/7/77 (c) If the Participant should default or breach its obligations under this Interim Agreement, and such default shall not be cured by the Participant within 30 days after receipt of written notice from the Agency of such default or breach, then the Agency may terminate this Interim Agreement by 'giving 30 days' additional written notice of such termination to the Participant and this Interim Agree- ment shall terminate on the 31st day following the date of such notice unless the Participant shall have cured the default or breach prior to such 31st day. Section 11. Extension of Time. Time is of the essence under this Interim Agreement. However, the Participant agrees that if the satisfaction of any of the conditions in subsections (a) and (b) of Section 4 to the delivery of the Participation Agreement is delayed or temporarily prevented by any cause beyond the control of the Agency, the Participant upon request of the Agency will grant such extension or extensions of time for the satisfac- tion of the condition or conditions as shall be reasonable under the circumstances; provided, however, that the Partici- pant need not grant any extension of time beyond September 30, 1977. Section 12. Execution of this Interim Agreement by the Agency. This Interim Agreement, when executed by Partici- pant and delivered to Agency, must be authorized, signed and delivered to the Participant by Agency within thirty days after the date of said submission of this -Interim Agreement by Participant to Agency, or this Interim Agreement shall be void. The date of this Interim Agreement shall be the date when the Interim Agreement shall have been signed by Agency. By its execution of this Agreement, the Agency is not commit- ting itself to or agreeing to undertake: (a) the approval of a Redevelopment Plan; (b) a disposition of land to the Participant either within or outside a Project Area; (c) the exercise of jurisdiction over land outside a Project Area; (d) any other acts or activities requiring the subsequent independent exercise or discretion by the Agency, the City, or any agency or department thereof. The parties recognize that one or more of the conditions to the Participant's proposal set forth herein may fail to be met as a result of 4 S/4/77 6/7/77 subsequent studies, reviews and proceedings involving the exercise of discretion by the Agency, City or any agency or department thereof. This Agreement does not constitute a disposition of property by the Agency and does not require a public hearing. Agency acceptance of this Agreement is merely agreement to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations according to the terms hereof, reserving final discretion and approval by the Agency as to the Participation Agreement. The Agency by its execution of this Agreement agrees that, the proposal of Participant contained herein, and the condi- tions of said proposal set forth herein, are acceptable to Agency solely for purposes of providing Participant with an exclusive negotiating position for the period set forth for the satisfaction or failure of said conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Interim Agreement in Huntington Beach, California, as of the date and year first above written. T,E Secretary REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CI OF HUNTING H By 4� Chairman "AGENCY" L. C. SMtLL, an individual, doing business as BUSINESS PROPERTIES By -10- PARTICIPANT" 5/4/77 EXHIBIT A MAP OF PROPOSED PROJECT AREA Exhibit A e WL 5/4/77 EXHIBIT B PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Exhibit B a A.. . _ ., A4 5/4/77 EXHIBIT C OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Exhibit C 1 WARNER - GOLDENWEST PROJECT AREA' BOUNDARY T 5/4/77 6/7/77 PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT By and Between THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ("Agency") and ("Participant") a L➢ 5/4/77 6/7/77 PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on , 1977, by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a public body, corporate and politic (hereinafter called the "Agency"), and Huntington Beach, California (herein- after called the "Participant"). The Agency and the Partici- pant covenant and agree as follows: I. [§100] SUBJECT OF AGREEMENT. A. [§101] Purpose of the Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for the Huntington Beach Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project (the "Project") by providing for the development and use of a portion of the property (the "Site") hereinafter described and located within the Project Area. This Agreement is entered into for the purpose of development and not for speculation in land. The development of the Site pursuant to this Agreement, and the fulfillment of the agreement are in the best interests of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") and the health, safety and welfare of its residents, and is in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable federal, state and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken.. Time is of the essence as to matters covered by this Agreement. B. [§102] The Redevelopment Plan. This Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan which was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach by Ordinance No. on , and recorded on as Document No. in the Orange County Recorder's Office. C.. [§103] The Project Area. The "Project Area" is located in the City of Huntington Beach, California, the exact boundaries of which are specifically described in an instrument recorded on in Book No. , Page Official Records of Orange County, which instrument is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. i 5/4/77 6/7/77 D. [5104] Classification of Property Covered by This Agreement. The classes of property covered by this Agreement are as follows: 1. "Participating Property" - That portion of the Project Area which is, as of the date of this Agreement, owned by the Participant or to be acquired by the Participant pursuant to options or agreements with property owners. The Participating Property is more specifically identified and defined in Attachment No, 1, attached hereto and by this reference incorpo- rated herein and made a part hereof as though fully set forth, 2. "Sales Property" - That portion of the Project Area which is to be acquired by the Agency and sold to the Participant. The Sales Property is more specifically identified and defined in Attachment No, 2, attached hereto and by this reference incorpo- rated herein and made a part hereof as though fully set forth. zn addition to the property specifically identi- fied and described, the Sales Property shall also include any other interests in the Site acquired by the Agency for the disposition to the Participant, it being contemplated that exercise of the Agency's power of ' eminent domain may be required in order to clear title and remove clouds on the title which may -.be found to exist as to both the Participating Property and the Sales Property. 3. "The Site" - The Participating Property and the Sales Property together. E. [S105] Parties to the Agreement. 11 [5106] The Agency. The Agency is a public body, corporate and politic, exercising governmental functions and powers, organized and existing under the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. The principal office of the Agency is'located at , Huntington Beach, California "Agency" as used in this Agreement includes the Redevelopment Agency of the City -2- a 5/4/77 6/7/77 of Huntington Beach, California, and any successor to its rights, powers and responsibilities, including the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Commission to the extent it may be dele- gated authority by the'City or Agency to act hereunder. 2. [§107] The Participant. Participant is a , organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The address of the Participant for the purposes of this Agreement is , Huntington Beach, California Said Participant quali- fies as an owner -participant as that term is used in the Plan and in the California Community Redevelopment Law. F, [§108] Prohibition Against Change in Ownership, Management and Control of Participant. The qualifications and identities of Participant are of particular concern to the City and the Agency. It is because of these qualifications and identities that the Agency has entered into this Agreement with the Participant. No voluntary or involuntary successor in interest of Partici- pant shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement except as expressly set forth herein; provided, however, that Participant shall have the right to bring in partners and co -venturers conditioned upon (1) such additional parties agreeing to be bound by all provisions hereof and expressly assuming in writing (to the satisfaction of the Agency) the obligations of Participant hereunder to the extent of their participation, and (2) Participant remaining fully liable and responsible hereunder. The Participant shall not assign all or any part of this Agreement without the prior written approval of the Agency. This Agreement may be terminated by the Agency if there is any significant change (voluntary or involuntary) in membership, management or control of the Participant prior to the completion of the development of the Site. The Participant will promptly notify the Agency of any and all changes whatsoever in the identity of the parties in control of the Participant or the degree thereof, of which it or any of its officers have been notified or otherwise have knowledge or information. -3- R 5/4/77 6/7/77 II. [§200] SALE OF PROPERTY COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT. A. [§201] Purchase Price - Sales Property. In accordance with and subject to all the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement, the Agency agrees to sell the Sales Property to the Participant, and the Participant agrees to purchase the Sales Property from the Agency and pay therefor the Purchase Price calculated as set forth in Attachment No. 3 attached hereto and made a part hereof to be deposited in accordance with the provi- sions of Section 207 of this Agreement. B. [§202] Escrow. The Agency and Participant shall open an escrow with (the "Escrow Agent"), as Escrow Agent, in Huntington Beach, California, as of the date designated in the Schedule of Performance. This Agree- ment constitutes the joint escrow instructions of the Agency and the Participant and a duplicate original of this Agree- ment shall be delivered to the Escrow Agent upon the opening of the escrow. The Agency and the Participant shall provide such additional escrow instructions as shall be necessary, consistent with this Agreement, provided that such addi- tional escrow instructions may modify these instructions if such are determined by both parties to be in the best interest of the parties to this Agreement. The Escrow Agent is hereby empowered to act under this Agreement and upon indicating its acceptance of the provisions of this Section 202 in writing, delivered to the Agency and to the Partici- pant within five (5) days after the opening of the escrow, the Escrow Agent shall carry out its duties as Escrow Agent hereunder. The Participant shall pay in escrow to the Escrow Agent the following fees, charges and costs promptly after the Escrow Agent has notified the Participant of the amount of such fees, charges and costs, but not later than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date for the close of escrow: 1, Costs necessary to place the title to the Sales Property in the condition for conveyance required by the provisions of this Agreement; 2. The total escrow fees; 3. Recording fees; -4- t 5/4/77 6/7/77 4. Notary fees; 5. The premium for the title insurance policy requested by Participant as set forth in Section 208 of this Agreement; 6.` Ad valorem taxes, if any, upon the Sale S Property or upon this Agreement, or any rights there- under prior to conveyance of title; 7. Cost of drawing the deed; 8. Any state, county or city documentary stamps; 9. Any transfer tax; and 10. All other costs required to consummate the escrow. The Participant shall also deposit the Purchase Price for the Sales Property or portions thereof with the Escrow Agent in accordance with the provisions of Section 207 of this Agreement. The Agency shall timely and properly execute, acknowledge and deliver a deed in substantially the form established in Section 204 of this Agreement, conveying to 5/4/77 the Participant title in accordance with the requirements of Section 203 of this Agreement, together with an estoppel certificate certifying that the Participant has completed all acts (except deposit of the Purchase Price) necessary to entitle the Participant to such conveyance, if such be the fact. The Escrow Agent is authorized to: , 1. Pay the Agency and charge the Participant for any fees, charges and costs payable under this Sec- tion 202 of this Agreement. Before such payments or charges are made, the Escrow Agent shall notify the Agency and the Participant of the fees, charges and costs necessary to clear title and close the escrow. 2. Disburse funds and record and deliver the deed and other documents with respect to the Sales Property to the parties entitled thereto when the conditions of this escrow with respect to the Sales Property.have been fulfilled by the Agency and the Participant. The Purchase Price for the Sales Property shall not be disbursed by the Escrow Agent, unless and until it has recorded the.deed thereto and has delivered to the Participant a California Land Title Association Owner's Policy of Title Insurance or other title insur- ance requested in writing by the Participant insuring title to the Sales Property and conforming to the requirements of Section 208 of this Agreement. 3. Record any instruments delivered through this escrow if necessary or proper to vest title in the Participant in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. All funds received in this escrow shall be depos- ited by the Escrow Agent with other escrow funds of the Escrow Agent in a general escrow account or accounts with any state or national bank doing business in the State of California. Such funds may be transferred to any other such general escrow account or accounts. All disbursements shall be made by check of the Escrow Agent. All adjustments are to be made on the basis of a 30-day month. If this escrow is not in condition to close with respect to the conveyance of the Sales Property before the i 5/4/77 time for conveyance established in Section 203 of this Agreement, either party who then shall have fully performed the acts to be performed before the conveyance of title may, in writing, terminate this Agreement and demand the return of its money, papers, or documents with respect to the transaction. (Thereupon all obligations and liabilities of the parties under this Agreement shall cease and terminate.) If neither the Agency nor the Participant shall have fully performed with respect to the conveyance of the Sales Prop- erty before the time established in said section, no termi- nation or demand for return shall be recognized until ten (10) days after the Escrow Agent shall have mailed copies of such demand to the other party or parties at the address of its or their offices as indicated in Section 105. If any objections are raised within the ten (10) day period, the Escrow Agent is authorized to hold all money, papers and documents with respect to the transaction until instructed by a court of competent jurisdiction or by mutual instruc- tions. If no such demands are made, the escrow shall be closed as soon as poss.ble. The Escrow Agent shall not be obligated to return any such money, papers or documents except upon the written instructions of both the Agency and the Participant, or until decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. Any amendment to these escrow instructions shall be in writing and signed by both the Agency and the Partici- pant. At the time of any amendment, the Escrow Agent shall agree to carry out its duties as Escrow Agent under such amendment. All communications from the Escrow Agent to the Agency or the Participant shall be directed to the addresses and in the manner established in Section 602 of this Agree- ment for notices, demands and communications between the Agency and the Participant. Nothing in this Section 202 shall be construed to impair or affect the rights or obliga- tions of the Agency or the Participant to specific perfor- mance. The liability of the Escrow Agent under this Agreement is limited to performance of the obligations imposed upon it under Sections 202 to 208, both inclusive, of this Agreement. -7- s 5/4/77 The Agency shall not be liable for any real estate commissions or brokerage fees which may arise here - from. The Agency and the Participant each represent that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction. C. [§203] Conveyance of Title and Delivery of Possession. Subject to any mutually agreed upon extensions of time, conveyance to the Participant of title to the Sales Property (in accordance with the provisions of Section 205 of this Agreement) shall be completed on or before the date indicated in the Schedule of Performance attached hereto as Attachment No. 4 and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. The Agency and the Participant agree to perform all acts necessary to conveyance of title in sufficient time for title to be conveyed in accordance with the foregoing provi- sions. Possession of the Sales Property shall be deliv- ered to the Participant concurrently with the conveyance of title, except that limited access may be permitted before conveyance of title as provided in Section 212 of this Agreement. The Participant shall accept title and posses- sion upon delivery in accordance with this Section. D. [9204] Form of Deed and+Declaration of Restrictions. The Agency shall convey title to the Participant in the condition provided in Section 205 of this Agreement by Grant Deed in a form mutually satisfactory to the Parti- cipant, to the Title Company selected pursuant to Section 208 to insure the title herein, and to the Agency consistent with the terms of this.Agreement. The Site, in addition to conditions and covenants consistent with this Agreement, shall be subject to all other conditions, covenants and restrictions set forth in the Redevelopment Plan. E. [§205] Condition of Title. The Agency shall convey to the Participant fee simple merchantable title to the Sales Property, free and clear of all recorded or unrecorded liens, encumbrances, covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, OM 5/4/77 encroachments, assessments, leases and taxes except as are consistent with this Agreement and the Redevelopment Plan except all oil,'gas and mineral substances, together with the right to extract such substances, provided that the surface opening of any well hole, shaft or other means of reaching or removing such substances shall not be located within the'Project Area and shall not penetrate any_part or portion of said Project Area within 500 feet of the surface thereof. F. [§206] Time for and Place of Delivery of Deed. Subject to any mutually agreed upon extensions of time, the Agency shall deposit the deed to the Sales Property with the Escrow Agent on or before the date established for the date of conveyance pursuant to this Agreement. G. [§207] Payment of the Purchase Price and Recordation of Deed. The Participant shall deposit the Purchase Price for the Sales Property or portion thereof with the Agency upon or prior to the date specified in the Schedule of Performance. The Agency shall open an escrow for the Sales Property or portion thereof in accordance with Section 202 of this Agreement and the Schedule of Performance. Escrow Agent shall notify Participant in writing that the deed conveying the Sales Property to the Participant, properly executed and acknowledged by the Agency has been delivered to the Escrow Agent and that title to the Sales Property is in condition to be conveyed in conformity with the provisions of Section 205 of this Agreement. The Escrow Agent shall deliver to the Participant a title insurance policy insuring title to the Sales Property in conformity with Section 208 of this Agreement and shall promptly file the deed for recordation in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County. H. [§208] Title Insurance. Concurrently with recordation of the deed conveying ttle to the Sales Property, Company, or some other title insurance company satisfactory to the Agency and the Participant having equal or greater financial responsibility (the "Title Company") shall provide and deliver to the Participant a CLTA Owner's Policy of 5/4/77 6/7/77 Title Insurance issued by the Title Company insuring that the title is vested in the Participant in the condition required by Section 205 of this Agreement. The Title Company shall provide the Agency with a copy of the title insurance policy and the title insurance policy shall be in an amount not less than the Purchase Price of the Sales -Property. The Agency shall pay only for that portion of the title insurance premium with respect to title insurance upon the Sales Property attributable to the Purchase Price of the Sales Property. The Participant, if it desires any addi- tional title insurance and extended coverage, shall pay for all additional premiums beyond those required to insure title in the condition required by Section 205 of this Agreement. I. [§209] Taxes and Assessments. Ad valorem taxes and assessments, if any, on the Sales Property and taxes upon this Agreement or any rights thereunder, levied, assessed or imposed for any period prior to conveyance of title shall be borne by the Participant. All ad valorem taxes and assessments on the Sales Property, levied, assessed or imposed for any period after closing of the escrow shall be paid by the Participant. J. [§210] Title Free of Possession. Title to the Sales Property shall be conveyed with no occupants or persons in possession remaining thereon. K. [§211] Condition of the Sales Property. Title to the Sales Property shall be conveyed in its "as -is" condition as acquired by the Agency, unless the Agency and the Participant hereafter agree in writing for certain items of demolition and site clearance (but not grading or soil compactions) which shall be performed by the Agency at the cost and expense of Participant. The Agency shall in no event be liable for any subsurface condition discovered by any person after conveyance of the Sales Property. L. [§212] Preliminary Work by the Participant. Prior to the conveyance of title to the Sales Property, representatives of the Participant shall have the right of access to the Sales Property at all reasonable times for the purpose of obtaining data and making surveys -10- 5/4/77 and tests necessary to carry out this Agreement. Any prelim- inary work undertaken on the Sales Property by the Partici- pant prior to the conveyance of title thereto shall be done only after written consent of the Agency and at the sole expense of the Participant. The Participant shall save and protect the Agency against any claims resulting from such preliminary work, access, or use of the Sales Property. Copies of data, surveys and tests obtained or made by Participant on the Sales Property shall be filed with the Agency. Any preliminary work by Participant shall be undertaken only after securing any unnecessary permits from the appropriate governmental agencies. III. [§300] DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. A. [9301] Development of Site by the Participant. 1. [§302] Scope of Development. The Site, comprised of the Sales Property and the Participating Property, shall be developed by Parti- cipant within the limitations established in the "Scope of Development" identified in Attachment No. 5 attached hereto and incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though fully set forth. 2. [§303] Development Plans, Drawings and Schedule. The Participant has prepared and submitted to the Agency the Preliminary Basic Concept Drawings and the Related Documents for the development of the Site. The Final Plans shall be prepared by Participant as established in the Basic Concept Drawings and Related Documents, except as changes may be mutually agreed upon between the Partici- pant and the Agency. Any such changes shall be within the limitations of the Scope of Development. The Participant shall prepare and submit Final Plans and Specifications for the development of the Site to the Agency for review and written approval prior to the close of escrow. Approval of Final Plans and Specifications will be promptly granted by the Agency if developed as a logical evolution of drawings and specifications theretofore approved. Any items so sub- mitted and approved in writing by the Agency shall not be subject to subsequent disapproval. -11- 5/4/77 6/7/77 The Agency shall approve or disapprove the Final Plans and Specifications prior to the close of escrow. Failure by the Agency to either approve or disapprove within the times established in the Schedule of Performance shall be deemed an approval. Any disapproval shall set forth in writing the reasons for disapproval. The Partici- pant, upon receipt of a disapproval by the Agency, shall revise such portions that are not a logical evolution of the Basic Concept Drawings and Related Documents and resubmit to the Agency as soon as possible after receipt of the notice of disapproval. After the conveyance of title to the Sales Prop- erty, or any portion thereof to the Participant, the Partici- pant shall promptly begin and thereafter diligently prosecute to completion the construction of the improvements and development of the Site within the time specified in the "Schedule of Performance" incorporated herein and attached hereto as Attachment No. 4. B. [§3043 Bodily Injury and Property Damage Insurance; Workers'Compensation. Prior to the commencement of any work hereunder, the Participant shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the Agency duplicate originals of bodily injury and property damage insurance policies furnished by the Participant or its contractors in the amount of at least $500,000 for any person, $1,000,000 for any occurrence and $300,000 for any property damage, naming the Agency and the City as coinsureds. The Participant shall also maintain wor},tE--x_s' compensation and any other insurance required by law, and shall hold.the Agency and City harmless from any claims arising thereunder. The obligations set forth in this Section shall remain in effect only until the final Certificate of Completion has been furnished as hereinafter provided. C. [§305] City and Other Governmental Agency Permits. Before commencement of construction or development of any buildings, structures or other work or improvement upon the Site or within the Project Area by the Participant and prior to the close of escrow, the Participant shall at its own expense secure or cause to be secured any and all permits which may be required by the City or any other governmental agency affected by such construction, develop- ment or work. The Agency shall provide all proper assistance to the Participant in securing these permits. -12- a S/4/77 6/7/77 D. [5306] Rights of Access for Inspection of Construction. Representatives of the Agency and the City shall have the right of access to the Site without charges or fees, at normal hours during the period of construction for the purposes of this Agreement including, but not limited to, the inspection of,the work being performed in construct- ing the improvements. Such representatives of the Agency shall be those who are so identified in writing by the Executive Director of the Agency. E. [307] Local, State and Federal Laws. The Participant shall carry out the construction of the improvements in conformity with all the applicable laws and regulations including all applicable federal and state labor standards. F. [§308] Responsibilities of the Agency. The Agency, without expense to the Participant or assessment or claim against the Site and prior to completion of the improvements on the Site (or at such times as may be set forth in the Schedule of Performance) shall, in accord- ance with the Plan and the design for development, provide or secure or cause to be provided or secured, the following: 1. The closing and vacation, as necessary; of all existing streets, alleys, and other public rights - of -way pursuant to the Plan; provided that any portions thereof to be conveyed to the Participant shall become part of the Sales Property at a purchase price to be established by the Agency comparable to the average land values assigned to the Sales Property. 2. The replatting, resubdivision or rezoning of the Site, if necessary, for the proper development of the Site. Zoning of the Site shall be such as to permit development of the Site and construction of the improvements thereon in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, and the use, operation and maintenance of such improvements. In no event shall any part of the Site be zoned to permit uses other than those uses which are in conformance with the Plan and the Scope of Development. G, [§309] Prohibition Against Transfer of the Site, the Buildings or Structures and Assign ment of Agreement and Restriction. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of comple- tion of construction for the Site, the Participant shall not -13- lk 5/4/77 (except as permitted by this Agreement), without prior approval by the Agency, except for Participant's normal retail leases, make any total or partial sale, transfer, conveyance, assignment or lease, of the whole or any part of the Site, buildings or structures. This prohibition shall not apply to the Site subsequent to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion on the Site. This prohibition shall not be deemed to prevent the granting of temporary easements.or permits to facilitate the development of the Site or any part thereof. Any such proposed transferee shall have the quali- fications and financial responsibility necessary and adequate, as determined by the Agency, to fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Participant. Any such proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the Agency and in form recordable among the land records, for itself and its successors and assigns, and for the bene- fit of the Agency, shall expressly assume all of the obliga- tions of the Participant under this Agreement and agree to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Participant is subject. There shall be submitted to the Agency for review all instruments and other legal documents proposed to effect any such transfer; and if approved by the Agency, its approval shall be indicated to the Participant in writing. In the absence of special written agreement by the Agency, no such transfer, assignment or approval by the Agency shall be deemed to relieve the Participant or any other party from any obligation under this Agreement until completion of development as evidenced by a Certificate of Completion. H. [§310] Mortgage or Deed of Trust Financing. Prior to issuance of a final certificate of comple- tion, mortgages or deeds of trust on the Site or any part thereof are permitted. The Participant shall not enter into any such mortgage or deed of trust financing without the prior written approval of the Agency, which approval Agency agrees to give if any such mortgage or deed of trust is given to a responsible lending institution for the purposes of financing purchase of Sales Property or construction of -14- • 5/4/77 the improvements on the Site. In any event, the Participant shall promptly notify the Agency of any mortgage, deed of trust, encumbrance, or lien that has been created or attached thereto prior to completion of the construction of the improvements on the Site whether by voluntary act of the Participant or otherwise. I. [§1311] Holder Not Obligated to Construct Improve- ments. The holder of any mortgage or deed of trust author- ized by this Agreement shall in no wise be obligated by the provisions of this Agreement to construct or complete the improvements or to guarantee such construction or completion; nor shall any covenant or any other provision in the deed for the Sales Property be construed so as to obligate such holder. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to construe, permit, or authorize any such holder to devote the Site or any part thereof to any uses, or to construct any improvements thereon, other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement and the Plan. J. [§312] Notice of Default to Mortgage or Deed of Trust Holders; Right to Cure. Whenever the Agency shall deliver any notice or demand to the Participant.with respect to any breach or default by the Participant in the construction. of the improvements, the Agency shall at the same time deliver to each holder of record of any mortgage or deed of trust authorized by this Agreement a copy of such notice or demand. Each such holder shall (insofar as the rights of the Agency are concerned) have the right, at its option within ninety (90) days after the receipt of the notice, to cure or remedy or commence to cure or remedy any such default and to add the cost thereof to the mortgage debt and the�lien of its mortgage. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize such holder to undertake or continue the construction or completion of the improvements (beyond the extent necessary to conserve or protect the improvements or construction already made) without first having expressly assumed the Participant's obligations to the Agency by written agreement satisfactory to the Agency. The holder in that event must agree to complete, in the -15- a 5/4/77 manner provided in this Agreement, the improvements to which the lien or title of such holder relates, and submit evidence satisfactory to the Agency that it has the qualifications and financial responsibility necessary to perform such obligations. Any such holder properly completing such improvements shall be entitled, upon written request made to the Agency, to a Certificate of Completion from the Agency. K. (§313] Failure of Holder to Complete Improvements. In any case where, six months after default by the Participant in completion of construction of improvements under this Agreement, the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Site or any part thereof has not exercised the option to construct, or if it has exercised the option and has not proceeded diligently with the construction, the Agency may purchase the mortgage or deed of trust by payment to the holder thereof the amount of the debt remaining unpaid. If the ownership of the Site or any part has vested in the holder, the Agency, if it so desires, shall be entitled to a conveyance.from the holder to the Agency of the Site or any part upon payment to the holder of an amount equal to the sum of the following: 1. The unpaid mortgage or deed of trust debt at the time.title became vested in the holder (less all appropriate credits, including those resulting from collection and application of rentals and other income received during foreclosure or sale proceedings). 2. All expenses with respect to foreclosure or trustee's sale. 3. The net expenses, if any (exclusive of gen- eral overhead), incurred by the holder as a direct result of the subsequent management of the Site. 4. The costs of any improvements made by such holder. 5. An amount equivalent to the interest that would have accrued on the aggregate of such amounts had all such amounts become part of the mortgage or deed of trust debt and such debt had continued in existence to the date of payment by the Agency. -16- a 5/4/77 L. [S314] Right of the Agency to Cure Mortgage or Deed of Trust Default. In the event of a mortgage or deed of trust default or breach by the Participant prior to the completion of the construction of the improvements on the Site, and if the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust has not exer- cised its option to construct, the Agency may cure the default. In such event, the Agency shall be entitled to reimbursement from the Participant of all costs and expenses incurred by the Agency in curing such default. The Agency shall also be entitled to a lien upon the Site to the extent of such costs and disbursements. Any such lien shall be subject to mortgages or deeds of trust executed for the sole purpose of obtaining funds to construct the improvements. M. [015] Certificate of Completion. Promptly after completion of all construction to be completed by the Participant upon the Site, the Agency shall furnish the Participant with a Certificate of Comple- tion upon written request therefor by the Participant. The Agency shall not unreasonably withhold any such Certificate of Completion. Such Certificate of Completion shall be conclusive determination of satisfactory completion of the construction requited by this Agreement upon the Site, and of full compliance with the terms hereof with respect to the Site. After issuance of such Certificate of Completion, any party then owning or thereafter purchasing, leasing or otherwise acquiring any interest therein shall not (because of such ownership, purchase, lease or acquisition), incur any obligation or liability under this Agreement, except that such party shall be bound by any covenants contained in the deed, lease, mortgage, deed of trust, contract or other instrument of transfer in accordance with the Provisions of Sections 300 to 305 of this Agreement. After issuance of a Certificate of Completion, the respective rights and obliga- tions of the parties with reference to the Site shall be limited thereafter to those set forth in the deed and the Redevelopment Plan. A Certificate of Completion of construction for the improvement upon the Site shall be in such form as to permit it to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office of Orange County. -17- 5/4/77 If the Agency refuses or fails to furnish a Certif- icate of Completion for the Site after written request from the Participant, the Agency shall, within ten (10) days of the written request, provide the Participant with a written statement of the reason-9 the Agency refused or failed to furnish a Certificate of Completion. The statement shall also contain the Agency's opinion of the action the Partici- pant must take to obtain a Certificate of Completion. If the reasons for such refusal are confined to the immediate unavailability of specific items or materials for landscaping or beautification, the Agency will issue its Certificate of Completion upon the posting of a bond by the Participant with the Agency in an amount representing a fair value of the work not yet completed. If the Agency shall have failed to provide such written statement within said ten (10) day period, the Participant shall be deemed entitled to the Certificate of Completion. Such Certificate of Completion shall not constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of the Participant to any holder of a mortgage, or any insurer of a mortgage, securing money loaned to finance the improvements, or any part thereof. N. [§316] Taxes Assessments, Encumbrances and Liens. The Participant shall pay when due all real estate taxes and assessments assessed and levied upon the Site. The Participant shall not place or allow to be placed on the Site or any part thereof, any mortgage, trust deed, encum- brance, or lien not authorized by this Agreement. O. [§3171 Right of the Agency to Satisfy Other Liens on the Property After Title Passes. After the conveyance of title to the Sales Property and prior to the completion of construction, and after the Participant has had a reasonable time to challenge, cure or satisfy any liens and encumbrances on the Site, the Agency shall have the right to satisfy any such liens or encum- brances; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall require the Participant to pay or make provision for the payment of any tax, assessment, lien or charge so long as the Participant in good faith shall contest the validity or amount thereof, and so long as such delay in payment -18- a 5/4/77 shall not subject the Site or any part thereof to forfeiture or sale. P. [5318] Rights of Obligees. The provisions of this Agreement do not limit the right of obligees to foreclose or otherwise enforce any mortgage, deed of trust or other encumbrance upon the Site, or the rights of obligees to pursue any remedies for the enforcement of any pledge or lien upon the Site; provided, however, that in the event of a foreclosure sale under any such mortgage, deed of trust, or other lien or encumbrance, or sale pursuant to any power or sale contained in any such mortgage or deed of trust, the purchaser or purchasers and their successors and assigns, and the Site, shall be, and shall continue to be, subject to all the conditions, restric- tions and covenants herein provided for. IV. [9400] USE OF THE SITE. A. [5401] Uses. The Participant covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to:the Site or any part thereof, that during construction and thereafter the Participant, such successors and such assignees shall: 1. Devote the Site to and only to the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan. 2. Not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Site, or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. B. [§402] Obligations to Refrain from Discrimination. There shall be no discrimination against or segre- gation of any person, or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Site; nor shall the Participant itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees of the Site. -19- 5/4/77 C. [§403] Form of Nondiscrimination and Nonsegrega- tion Clauses. The Participant shall refrain from restricting the rental, sale or lease of the Site on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry pf any person. All such deeds, leases or Con- tracts shall contain or be subject to substantially the following nondiscrimination or nonsegregation clauses: 1. In Deeds: "The grantee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein conveyed; nor shall the grantee himself or any person claiming under or through him, establish or permit any such practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subten- ants, sublessees or vendees in the land herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." 2. In Leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein leased; nor shall the Lessee himself, or any person claiming under or through him, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segrega- tion with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of said land." -20- a 5/4/77 3. In Contracts: "There shall be no discrimina- tion against or segregation of, any person, or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry or national origin in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land, nor shall the transferee himself,or any person claiming under or though him; establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the land." D. [54041 Maintenance of Site. The Participant shall maintain the improvements on the Site and shall keep the Site free from any accumulation of debris or waste materials. The Participant shall also maintain the landscaping required to be planted under the scope of development in a healthy condition. If at any time Participant fails to maintain said landscaping, and said condition is not corrected after expiration of ten (10) days from the date'of written notice from the Agency, either the Agency or the City may perform the necessary landscaping maintenance; and Participant shall pay such costs as are reasonably incurred for such maintenance. Issuance of a Certificate of Completion by the Agency shall not affect Participant's obligations under this section. E. (§405] Effect and Duration of Covenants. The covenants established in this Agreement, the deeds, and the Redevelopment Plan shall, without regard to technical classification and designation, be binding for the benefit and in favor of the Agency, its successors and assigns, the City and any successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof. The covenants contained in this Agree- ment shall remain in effect until , except that the covenants against discrimination shall remain in perpetuity. Except as otherwise expressly provided in Article 512, breach of any of the covenants or provisions contained in this Agreement shall not give rise to any right -21- a 5/4/77 of reentry, to any estate of reverter, nor to any right of reentry or forfeiture of the Site or any part thereof or of any interest therein to the Agency, the City, to the owner of any land in the Project Area, or to any successor, assignee in interest in the property or any part thereof or any interest therein. F. [§406] Rights of Access for Construction, - Reconstruction and Repair. The Agency for itself, and for the City and other public agencies, at their sole risk and expense, shall have the right to enter the Site or any part thereof at all rea- sonable times for the purposes of construction, maintenance, repair or service of any public improvements or public facilities located on the Site. Any such entry shall be made only after reasonable notice to the Participant, and the Agency shall indemnify and hold the Participant harmless from any claims or liabilities pertaining to any entry. V. [9500] DEFAULTS, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION. A. [9501] Defaults - General. Subject to the extensions of time set forth in Section 604, failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. The party who so fails or delays must immediately commence to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay, and shall complete such cure, correction or remedy with reasonable diligence. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any failure or delay by either party in asserting any of its remedies or rights as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies or deprive either such party of its rights,to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. B. [§502] Legal Actions. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. -22- a 5/4/77 Such legal actions must be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, in an appropriate Municipal Court in that County, or in the Federal District Court in the Central District of California. C. [§503] Applicable Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement, except as to matters governed by federal laws and regulations. D. [§504] Acceptance of Service of Process. In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Participant against the Agency, service of process on the Agency shall be made by personal service upon the Executive Director or Chairman of the Agency, or in such other manner as may be provided by law. In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Agency against the Participant, service of process on the Participant shall be made by personal service upon any corporate officer of the Participant and shall be valid whether made within or without the State of California, or in such other manner as may be provided by law. E. [§505] Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative; and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. F. [§506] Inaction Not a Waiver of Default. Any failures or delays by either party in assert- ing any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies or deprive either such party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. -23- i 5/4/77 G. [§507] Remedies and Rights of Termination Prior to Conveyance. 1. [§508] Termination by Participant Prior to Conveyance. In the event that the Agency does not tender conveyance or possession of the Sales Property to be conveyed in the manner and condition, and at the time provided +in this Agreement, and such failure shall not be cured within ninety (90) days after the date of written demand by the Participant, then the Participant, at its option, may termi- nate.this Agreement and all of the obligations and liabil- ities of the parties hereunder with respect to all uncon- veyed Sales Property upon its giving written notice of such termination to the Agency. 2. [§509] Termination by Agency Prior to Conveyance. In the event that prior to the conveyance of title to the Sales Property which the Agency is required to convey to Participant, and in violation of the Agreement: (a) Participant (or any successor in inter- est) assigns or attempts to assign the Agreement or any rights therein, or in any of the terms of this Agree- ment; or (b) There is any change with respect to the identity of the persons in control -of the Participant or the degree thereof; or (c) The Participant does not submit construc- tion plans as required by this Agreement; or (d) The Participant does not pay the Purchase Price and take title to the Sales Property upon tender of conveyance by the Agency pursuant to this Agreement; and if any default referred to in (a) , (b) , (c) and (d) of this Section 509 has not been cured within thirty (30) days after written demand by the Agency, then this Agreement, any rights of the Participant, or any assignee or transferee in this Agreement may, at the option of the Agency, be termi- nated. -24- a 5/4/77 B. [§510] Damages for Default After Passage of Title to the Sales Property and Prior to Completion of Construction. After the time for commencement of construction of the improvements and prior to the completion of construction on the Site, if either the Participant or the Agency defaults as to any of'the provisions of this Agreement,__ the nonde- faulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured or commenced and with reasonable diligence sought to be cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days of service of the notice of default, the defaulting party shall be liable to the other party for any damages caused by such default. C. [S511] Specific Performance After Passage of Title. If either the Participant or the Agency defaults under any of the provisions of this Agreement after the time for commencement of construction of the improvements and prior to the completion of construction on the Site, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not commenced and with reasonable diligence sought to be cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days of service of the notice of default, the nondefaulting party at its option may institute an action for specific performance of the terms of this Agreement. D. [§512] Right of Reentry. The Agency shall have the additional right at its option to reenter and take possession of the Sales Property or any part thereof with all improvements thereon and to terminate and revest in the Agency the estate conveyed to the Participant, if after conveyance of title and prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion, the Parti- cipant (or its successors in interest) shall: 1. Fail to proceed with the construction of improvements as required by this Agreement for a period of six (6) months after written notice thereof from the Agency; or 2. Abandon or substantially suspend construction of the improvements required by this Agreement for a -25- 5/4/77 period of three months after written notice thereof from the Agency; or 3. Transfer, or suffer any involuntary transfer of the Site or any part thereof, in violation of this Agreement. The right to reenter, repossess, terminate and revest shall'be subject to and be limited by and shall not defeat, render invalid, or limit: 1. Any mortgage or deed of trust permitted by this Agreement. 2. Any rights or interests provided in this Agreement for the protection of the holders of such mortgages or deeds of trusts. The deed shall contain appropriate reference and provisions to give effect to the Agency's right, as set forth in this Section 512 under specified circumstances prior to recordation of the Certificate of Completion to reenter and take possession of the Site with all improve- ments thereon and to terminate and revest in the Agency the estate conveyed to the Participant. Upon the revesting in the Agency of title to the Sales Property as provided in this Section 512, the Agency shall, pursuant to its responsibilities under state law, use its best efforts to resell the Sales Property as soon and in such manner as the Agency shall find feasible and consistent with the objectives of such law and of the Plan to a quali- fied and responsible party or parties (as determined by the Agency) who will assume obligation of making or completing the improvements or such other improvements in their stead as shall be satisfactory to the Agency and in accordance with the uses specified for the Sales Property or part thereof in the Plan. Upon such resale of the Sales Property, the proceeds thereof shall be applied: 1. First, to reimburse the Agency, on its own behalf or on behalf of the City, for all costs and expenses incurred by the Agency, including but not limited to salaries to personnel, in connection with the recapture, management, and resale of the Sales Property (but less any income derived by the Agency from the Sales Property in connection with such -26- 5/4/77 management); all taxes, assessments, and water and sewer charges with respect to the Sales Property or, in the event the Sales Property is exempt from taxation or assessment or such charges during the period of owner- ship thereof by the Agency, an amount, if paid, equal to such taxes, assessments, or charges as would have been payable if the Sales Property were not so exempt; any payments made or necessary to be made to discharge any encumbrances or liens existing on the Sales Prop- erty at the time of revesting of title thereto in the Agency or to discharge or prevent from attaching or being made any subsequent encumbrances or liens due to obligations, defaults, or acts of the Participants, its successors or transferees; any expenditures made or obligations incurred with respect to the making or completion of the improvements or any part thereof on the Sales Property; and any amounts otherwise owing the Agency by the Participant and its successors or trans- feree; and 2. Second, to reimburse the Participant, its successors or transferee, up to the amount equal to the sum of (a) the purchase price paid to the Agency by the Participant for the Sales Property, and (b) the costs incurred for the development of the Sales Property and for the improvements existing on the property at the time of the reentry and repossession; less (3) any gains or income withdrawn or made by the Participant from the Sales Property or improvements thereon. Any balance remaining after such reimbursements shall be retained by the Agency as its property. To the extent that the right established in this Section involves a forfeiture it must be strictly interpreted against the Agency, the party for whose benefit it is created. The rights established in this Section are to be interpreted in light of the fact that the Agency will convey the Sales Property to the Participant for development and not for speculation in undeveloped land. -27- e 5/4/77 E. [§513) Agency's Further Rights with Respect to Participating Property. In addition to any other rights or remedies pro- vided for in this Agreement, in the event that: 1. The participant fails to purchase or unreason- ably delays the purchase of the Sales Property as pro- vided for in this Agreement; or 2. The Participant fails to develop the Site or unreasonably delays development of the Site as provided for in this Agreement; then the Agency may take such steps as are available and necessary to assure development of the Site, including but not limited to acquisition of the Participating Property. VI. [§6001 GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. [§601) Good Faith Deposit. The Participant will deliver to the Agency a good faith deposit in the amount of the estimated total Purchase Price of the Sales Property, determined as set forth in Attachment No. 3 hereto, as security for the performance of the obligations of the Participant to be performed prior to the application of the deposit on account of the Purchase Price of the Sales Property. The Participant shall provide said good faith deposit within ten (10) calendar days after the Agency has executed this Agreement.. The good faith deposit, at the option of the Participant, may be in the form of (1) negotiable notes or bonds issued by the federal government or any of its instru- mentalities, upon the basis of their fair market value; (2) cash; (3) cashier's or certified check; or (4) negoti- able certificates of deposit issued by a federal or state bank; or (5) any combination of such notes, bonds, checks, certificate of deposit, and cash. The Participant may change the form of the deposit from time to time, at its option, to any other of the permitted forms of deposit. The deposit, if cash or certified or cashier's check, shall be deposited in an account of the Agency in a bank or trust company selected by it.. The Agency shall be under no obligation to pay or earn interest on the deposit, but if interest shall accrue or be payable thereon, such interest, when received by the am= 5/4/77 Agency, shall be the property of the Participant, and shall be promptly paid to the Participant. If at all possible, interest shall be made payable directly to Participant. The amount of deposit made in cash or by cashier's or certified check shall be applied to the Purchase Price of the Sales Property at the time specified in the Schedule of Performance,attached hereto. Upon termination of the Agreement as provided in Section 509 of this Agreement, the deposit, including all interest payable thereon after such termination shall be retained by the Agency as provided therein. Upon termination of this Agreement as provided in Section 508 of this Agreement, the deposit shall be returned to the Participant by the Agency, as provided therein. B. CS6021 Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Aartiac Written notices, demands, and communications between the Agency and the Participant shall be sufficiently given if dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal office of the Agency and to the local office of the Participant as specified in Section 105. Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section. C. B6031 Conflict of Interest. No member, official, or employee of the Agency shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agree- ment which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested. No member, official, or employee of the Agency shall be personally liable to the Participant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Agency for any amount which may become due to the Participant or successor or on any obliga- tions under the terms of this Agreement. The Participant warrants that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, any third person any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. -29- a 5/4/77 D. [§604] Enforced Delay; Extensions of Times of PPrfnrmannc Performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts, riots, floods, earth- quakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, acts of public enemy, epedemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, lack of transportation, governmental restrictions or priority, litigation, unusually severe weather, inability to secure necessary labor, material or tools, delays of any contractor, subcontractor or supplier, acts of the other party, acts or failures to act of the City of Huntington Beach or any other public or governmental agency or entity, or any other causes beyond the control or without the fault of the party claiming an extension of time to perform. An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay as determined by the Agency and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within thirty (30) days of the commencement of the cause. Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the Agency and the Participant. E. [§605] Inspection of Books and Records. The Agency has the right at all reasonable times to inspect agreements and documents of the Participant pertaining to the Site as pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement. The Participant also has the right at all reason- able times to inspect agreements and documents of the Agency pertaining to the Site as pertinent to the Agreement. VII. [97001 SPECIAL PROVISIONS. A. [97011 Provisions Not Merged with Deed. None of the provisions of the Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed trans- ferring title to the Sales Property from the Agency to the Participant or any successor in interest, and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the provisions and covenants of the Agreement. -30- a 5/4/77 B. [§702] Tract Map - Consent to Vacation of Streets. The Participant agrees to join with the Agency in executing and recording a tract map embracing the Site. The Participant further consents to such street vacation as may be necessary to carry out the Plan as the same may be amended from time to time. C. [§703 Entire Agreement. This Agreement is executed in four (4) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement includes 30 pages and 5 attachments which consti- tute the entire understanding and agreements of the parties. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and super- sedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. Any waiver of any provisions of this Agreement and any amendment hereto must be in writing and signed by authorized officials of the Redevelopment Agency and/or the Participant. D. [§704) Execution of Agreement. This Agreement, when executed by the Participant and delivered to the Agency, must be authorized, executed and delivered by the Agency within thirty (30) days after the date of signature by the Participant or this Agreement shall be void, except to the extent that the Participant shall consent in writing to a further extension of time for the authorization, execution and delivery of this Agreement. The date of this Agreement shall be the date when the Agree- ment shall have been signed by the Agency. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agency and the Participant have duly executed this Agreement as of the date first above mentioned. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA By "AGENCY" -31- "PARTICIPANT" a 5/4/77 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 [Map Showing Site and Participant Property] Q Attachment No. 1 a ATTACHMENT NO. 2 [Map Showing Sales Property] Attachment No. 2 • 5/4/77 6/7/77 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 METHOD OF DETERMINING PURCHASE PRICE, DEPOSIT I. Purchase Price. A. The Participant has represented to the Agency, and the Agency is relying thereon, that the public -cost of this Agreement and of the actions of the Agency and City in implementation of this Agreement will be fully recoverable by the Agency in the Purchase Price. In reliance thereon, any redevelopment plan for the Project Area shall not include the provisions of Section 33670 of the Community Redevelop- ment Law providing for tax increment financing to the Agency. B. The purchase Price for the Sales Property under Section 201 of the Agreement shall be the amount calculated by the Agency as its total costs to implement the Agreement, including but not limited to the following: 1. Preliminary studies by Agency and City staff and consultants; 2. Negotiation and preparation of the Interim Agreement and this Agreement; 3. preparation, studies, negotiations by the Agency and City staff and consultants, leading to sub- mission of the redevelopment plan and accompanying report and environmental impact report to the City Council for review and adoption; 4. Costs of property acquisition, including appraisals, negotiations with property owners, and relocation costs, legal fees and costs of expert witnesses; costs of clearing title to the Site; 5. Taxes and assessments, if any, attributable to the Sales Property following its acquisition by the Agency which would be payable but for the fact that the Sales Property is in public ownership; 6. Interest and financing costs incurred by the Agency to the extent the Agency borrows funds to carry out this Agreement; 7.. The cost or value of public property to be conveyed to the Participant; and 8. All other costs associated with the imple- mentation of the Agreement, including salaries and Attachment No. 3 e 5/4/77 6/7/77 overhead of Agency and City staff associated with the above steps. C. The parties estimate that the Purchase Price shall not exceed the sum of $ , which, for purposes of this Agreement, is an estimate only. II. Good Faith Deposit. The good faith deposit required under Section 601 of this Agreement shall be calculated as the sum remaining from time to time, after subtracting (1) the amount of any advances from the Participant to the Agency for its costs hereunder, from (2) the estimated Purchase Price set forth in Section I.C. of this Attachment No. 3. Attachment No. 3 5/4/77 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Execution of Agreement. Agreement authorized, executed and delivered by Participant to Agency. ti Commencement of Property Acquisi- tion. Agency shall commence acquisition of Sales Property. Within 30 days after date of signature by Participant. Within 30 days after date of signature by Agency ("Date of Agreement"). Completion of Property Acquisition. As soon as possible Agency shall complete acquisition following commence - of Sales Property. Agency shall ment of property institute eminent domain proceed- acquisition. ings as necessary and diligently pursue them to completion. Conveyance of Sales Property. Within 30 days from Agency shall convey, and Participant acquisition by Agency shall purchase, the Sales Property. or final judgment in favor of Agency in eminent domain proceedings. Schematic Plot Plan and Basic Completed as of Date Concept Drawings. Participant shall of Agreement. submit and Agency shall improve schematic plot plans for and basic concept drawings for Participant's improvements. Submission of Final Working Drawings and Related Documents. Participant shall prepare and sub- mit to the Agency and the City Building Department Final Working Drawings and Specifications for Participant's Improvements. Approval - Final Working Drawings and Related Documents. The Agency and the City Building Department shall approve or disapprove the Final Working Drawings. Building Permits. Participant shall obtain all required permits for construction of the Participant's Improvements. Commencement of Construction. Participant shall commence construc- tion of the Participant's Improvements. Completion of Construction. Participant shall complete construc- tion of the Participant's Improvements. Attachment No. 4 Within days after Date of Agreement. Within 30 days after receipt by the Agency. Within 30 days after Agency approval of Final Working Drawings. Within 45 days after Agency approval of Final Working Drawings. Within days after Commencement of Construction. 5/4/77 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT Attachment No. 5 x SCALE IN FEET W Z W 0 J O WARNER CITY OR STATE OWNED ESCROW, OPTION OR OWNED BY BUSINESS PROPERTIES LANDIS- OWNER PARTICIPANT 0 POSSIBLE AGENCY ACTION NECESSARY Sept 1977 r Page Nine not acquire the 9.0 acres from the Murdy trust (S509); from deposit, Agency may keep all funds expended or needed to reim- burse Agency for costs incurred (S601). 5. If Participant fails to complete constructions after conveyance, Agency may reenter and take possession of property and take any action to assure development of the Site including the acquisition of the property originally owned by the Participant (S512) . Respectfully submitted, p� Edward D. Selich Director