Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThird Block West Project - APN# 024-143-12, 024-143-17 & 024 REQUEST FO9"REDEVELOPMENT AGCY ACTIN ` Q � ED 94-16 Date: Augg VED BY CITY COUNCIL Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Memt ofs 19.2`rL. ate- �yn �e� Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Directo ci ct-�' ►� Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development Subject: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY--THIRD BLOCK WEST Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception07 Statement of Issue,Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Agency's final offer to purchase private property within the Third Block West site has been rejected by the owners. The project has valid entitlements. Implementation of the project is dependent upon the Agency's acquisition of the complete site. RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION: 1. Receive testimony of staff and owner(s) and others with interest in the property (if reqed Y response has been received). 2. Adopt attached Resolution of Necessity for AP No.'s 024-143-12, 17 & 20. 3. Appropriate $1,362,500 from Agency Housing Set-Aside/to-f�the acquisition and - approve the attached Fiscal Impact Statement. rl 4. Authorize deposit of the appraised value of all parcels, $1,362,500 with the court and request an Order of Immediate Possession. 5. Authorize expenditure of up to $250,000 in Agency relocation funds for benefit payments and administration expenses for displaced persons or businesses and authorize re-appropriation of this amount from Third Block West toxics to relocation. ANALYSIS: On May 2, 1994, the Agency authorized staff to present a last offer to owners of the subject parcels (Koller/Gaurano) at the recent appraised value with such price to be offset by the cost of remediation. Such letter was sent on May 17 and a rejection from the owners counsel of May 27 was received on May 31 (see Attachment No. 2). The letter rejects the Agency's offer, refuses any offset in value for hazardous material remediation, claims damages, and requests RAA ED 94-16 August 1, 1994 Page two copies of appraisals (these will be submitted to court should the attached resolutions be approved). There follows documentation of the history of the Third Block West Project. Project Area Adoption The Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area was adopted in September, 1982. Among the findings of blight made at that time was the fragmented subdivision of land, small parcels and diverse ownership that precluded consolidation of parcels to accommodate new mixed use development. The Third Block West project illustrates these constraints to Redevelopment. Developer Selection: In the fall of 1989, the Redevelopment Agency solicited proposals from developers for the Third Block West site. At that time the agency owned approximately 75% of the full block consolidation for this project. Developer participation was broadly solicited as was the participation by the current private property owners (the owners received an RFP but declined to submit a proposal). This process led to the ultimate selection of Newcomb-Tillotson, Inc. as the developer of the Third Block West project and subsequent negotiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). The DDA was approved by the Agency and City Council on March 4, 1991 (see Attachment No. 3). Koller/Gaurano vs. The Redevelopment Agency: Approximately thirty days after approval of the Third Block West DDA, the minority property owners filed a lawsuit against the Redevelopment Agency in the Superior Court of the County of Orange. The suit alleged various abuses of the Agency's powers in approving the project, inadequate environmental review, non-compliance with Resolution No. 48, and the project's incompatibility with the Downtown Specific Plan. This lawsuit progressed through the courts and a judgment in favor of the Redevelopment Agency and developer was awarded on December 30, 1992 (a summary of the milestones of the lawsuit are included in Attachment No. 4). Attempt to Purchase Properties: In an effort to acquire the properties and settle the lawsuit staff continued to negotiate with the owners. These efforts resulted in a recommendation to the Agency that these properties be acquired for the total sum of$2,345,000 which was approved by the Agency on July 1, 1991' (see RAA, Attachment No. 5). This price exceeded the then appraised value of the site ($1,850,000) by approximately $500,000. A portion of this price was to be in exchange for a settlement of the lawsuit. An escrow was opened for the acquisition of these parcels at the designated price with the stipulation that the Agency had the opportunity to do hazardous materials testing on the site. Such testing revealed the presence of subsurface hydrocarbons and the Agency staff requested that the ultimate cost of remediation be offset from the offered price. This was unacceptable to the sellers and escrow was canceled. RAA ED 94-16 August 1, 1994 Page three Entitlement Approval: Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 with Special Permits, Coastal Development Permit No. 90- 30 and Tentative Tract Map No. 14352, Negative Declaration No. 90-41 and General Plan Conformance No. 90-9 were approved by the Planning Commission on November 6, 1990 and an appeal to this action was filed by the Koller/Gaurano property owners. The City Council on March 4, 1991, denied the appeal and upheld the Planning commission's approval of the project (see RCA Attachment No. 6). On March 2, 1993, the Planning commission approved an extension of the entitlements for the project (see Notice of Action, Attachment No. 7). Redevelopment Committee: Over the last year the Third Block West project has been the subject of discussion at the Redevelopment Committee on five separate occasions (March 11, 1994, October 6, 1993, August 19, 1993, July 7, 1993, May 5, 1993). These discussions concerned principally the continuing effort to compel remediation of hazardous materials on the site by the property owner and other responsible parties through the efforts of a special counsel contracted with Agency Attorney. Discussions also included the developers investment in the project to date and the value of the minority property owners holdings (see Redevelopment Committee Minutes, Attachment No. 8). Value of Private Holdings: The Redevelopment Agency contracted for an appraisal of the properties owned by Mr. & Mrs. Koller and Dr. Lauro Gaurano and the outcome of this appraisal was reported on June 1, 1990 as a total of$1,850,000. As mentioned above, an offer was made of$2,345,000 in July, 1991. Agency staff requested an update of the appraisal in September, 1993 and a value was then reported at $1,542,111. Another update of April 26, 1994, shows a value of$1,362,500 (Attachment No. 9 summarizes this history of values). This information is provided as background only--value is not at issue when considering a resolution of necessity. Relocation: If this acquisition proceeds, the Agency will be responsible for relocation of any tenants. Law requires that all occupants receive at least a 90 day notice to vacate. The Agency's relocation consultant has already visited the site in an attempt to explain eligibility for relocation benefits to current occupants. These occupants eligible will receive assistance in finding a new location, the actual cost to move and, under specific circumstances, payments for the loss of good will. RAA ED 94-16 August 1, 1994 Page four Public Need: The Code of Civil Procedure (Section 1240.030) requires that eminent domain may be exercised only if all-the following are established: a) The public interest and necessity require the project. Major objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for the Main-Pier Project Area include: "Eliminating blighting influences, including deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses,...obsolete structures..." and; "Providing adequate parcels and required public improvements so as to encourage new construction by private enterprise, thereby providing the City of Huntington Beach with an improved economic base." And Section 3.3 Irregular Subdivision and Multiple Ownership of the Report to Council adopted September 1982, (pp. 3-4) reads in part: "This fragmented pattern of existing ownership prevents the development of any modern retail, office or residential mixed-use development." Therefore, it is well established that the elimination of blight and consolidation of parcels are consistent with the Redevelopment Plan objectives, are vital to the public interest and require the project. b) The project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. The project is located at a key location on Main Street that will assure easy and broad public access to the completed project and upon the one block within which the Agency has acquired a majority of the land (the Agency owns approximately 75% of the site). c) The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. The planned project encompasses the entire block bounded by Main and Fifth Streets, Orange and Olive Avenues. Construction of the project on less than the entire site would not be possible. FUNDING SOURCE: Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-Aside funds. RAA ED 94-16 August 1, 1994 Page five ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Do not approve the Resolution of Necessity. ATTACIIMENTS: 1. Resolution of Necessity 2. Letter from Menke, Fahrney & Carroll dated May 27, 1994 3. RCA/RAA dated March 4, 1991 4. Memo to Scott Hess dated February 8, 1993 5. RAA No. RH 91-49, dated July 1, 1991 6. RCA No. ED 91-01, dated March 4, 1991 7. Notice of Action dated March 5, 1993 8. Minutes - Redevelopment Committee Meetings 9. History of Value/Offers dated April 27, 1994 10. Fiscal Impact Statement 11. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 26, 1994 MTU/BAK/SVK:jar 1212j RESOLUTION NO. 259 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN(THIRD BLOCK WEST PROJECT APN 024-143-12, 17 & 20) V4MREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach is proposing to take certain real property, hereafter referred to as "the Property," commonly known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 024-143-12, 17 & 20, for public use; to wit, for redevelopment purposes, the elimination of blight, and the construction of a mixed use retail/residential project for the Main- Pier Redevelopment Project Area; and Health&Safety Code § 33391(b) authorizes the Redevelopment Agency to acquire real property by eminent domain for purposes of redevelopment; and All persons whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized assessment roll for the Property were given notice of the intention of the Agency to adopt a Resolution of Necessity and to authorize the acquisition by eminent domain of the aforesaid property, and informing them of their right to be heard on said matter pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235; and A public hearing was held by the City Council on AL!ca 11!t / , 1994, at which the matters set forth above and in Code of Civil Procedure § 1240.030 were discussed, including the following matters: (a)whether the public interest and necessity require the acquisition of the Property; (b)whether the redevelopment project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (c)whether the Property is necessary for the redevelopment project; (d)whether an offer of just compensation pursuant to Government Code § 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record; and (e)whether the Agency's offer of just compensation was refused by the owner or owners of record. 1 4ls\Reso1:APN 024-143\07/25/94 NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: 1. That the above Recitals are all true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. That the public use for which the Property is to be taken is redevelopment purposes; to wit,.the elimination of blight and the construction of a mixed use retail/residential project for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. 3. That the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach is authorized to take the Property by eminent domain pursuant to Health&Safety Code § 33391(b). 4. That the legal description of the real property to be taken is set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said real property is also graphically depicted by the map which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B," and incorporated herein by this reference. 5. That the public interest and necessity require the proposed project. 6. That the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that is most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. 7. That the acquisition of the Property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is necessary to permit construction and completion of the Project.. Without inclusion of the Property, the Project could not be completed. 8. That offers of just compensation pursuant to Government Code § 7267.2 have been made to all owners of record of the Property, that reasonable diligence has been used to locate every interested owner, and that the Redevelopment Agency's offer of just compensation was based on an appraisal of the Property, and that the Redevelopment Agency's offer was for the full appraisal amount. 9. That due to the refusal of the owner or owners of record to accept the Redevelopment Agency's offer of just compensation, the Property cannot be acquired, and the Project cannot be completed, except by the Redevelopment Agency's power of eminent domain. 2 4\s\Resol:APN 024-143\07/19/94 10. That the public interest and necessity require the acquisition of the Property for redevelopment purposes and for the elimination of blight, and that such acquisition is necessary for the project. 11. That pursuant to Government Code § 65402, the location, purpose and extent of the proposed acquisition of the Property conforms with the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 12. That the development proposal, and the proposed acquisition of real property incidental thereto, is not subject to the provisions of Resolution 48 of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, relating to the procedures for approving development proposals within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. 13. That participation in the Redevelopment Project has been reasonably offered to the owner or owners of the property described herein. 14. That notice has been given as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235. 15. That the taking of said real property be in fee simple, and that acquisition of said real property in fee simple is most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. 16. That the Agency Attorney is hereby authorized and directed: to commence an action in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Orange, in the name and on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency against those persons who appear as owner or owners of record or who are known to have any claim or interest in the Property, for the purpose of acquiring the property by eminent domain for the public use described herein; to make application for possession of the Property prior to judgment; and to do all things necessary to prosecute the action to its final determination in accordance with the provisions of law applicable thereto. .17. That the Redevelopment Agency staff is hereby authorized and directed to take any appropriate action consistent with the purposes of this Resolution, including but not limited to 3 4\s\Resol:APN 024-143\07/19/94 the withdrawal of necessary sums to deposit with the court as the probable amount of compensation that will be awarded in the eminent domain proceedings to acquire the Property. 18. That the real property described herein, which is authorized for condemnation by this resolution, is located in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of August , 1994. Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Agency Clerk A geiic yAttorney REVIEWED APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: /W ez Executive Director Director of Economic Development 4 4\s\Resoi:APN 024-143\07/19/94 . i • r EXHIBIT A Legal Description THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS RESOLUTION IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: APN 024-143-12: LOTS 1 AND 3 IN BLOCK 304, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 36 . OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AND APN 024-143-17: LOTS 2, 4, 6, AND 8 IN BLOCK 304, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 36 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THE INTEREST IN THE NORTHWESTERLY 10 FEET OF SAID LOTS AS CONDEMNED BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BY FINAL DECREE RECORDED DECEMBER 3, 1923 IN BOOK 500, PAGE 278 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, AND APN 024-143-20: LOTS 12 AND 14 IN BLOCK 304 OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AS SHOWN ON A MAP, RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 36 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING ALL OIL AND MINERALS LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET OF THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM PAUL N. BOOS AND MARGARET ELAINE BOOS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, RECORDED MARCH 15, 1977 IN BOOK 12104, PAGE 709 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 5 4\s\Resol:APN 024-143\07/19/94 13 I I ! I I , I 24-14 I. AVENUE ORANGE • tl„I r,r'.` t �W►�., s---.c_i_"'-��I`,�'--__--�i:.a'6a�~i'r5J�`i_ �r:f.)w i e--• --_ •,ffC.v. __ vit a`''3!r —«i ,.tl�. ----a--__J f--JC--�-- \ •'Ji--'--�•-J!�—r----� ,f, u•!c•� IJ— fto ?a 1 RJ r IQ =2j7« 16 D- ------ a1a 11 l --� _2 � _ HUNT TON 1c 10 :9 w—J I 4— IS $ -13 BLK.� 30S '< x •��eo:a.r-, .I "BLK. ------- o \\\ \�� o tl, r 1 _ J04()). �"O to r: H. N :7 g �'t� tlf• t er,a-'0 8 _— —_ a:a 2C S ��' /� ___Q_�6 ------•-6 s-- -- wit V) w = ► w I i „• 1 I : EACH r--� nn• 1 s r••• ti —1A a:3a•• •o•,a « tlJa n•> « m,a a' E! N ; AVENUE OLIVE U] M •�. rf - n o• nfr a r:3r o' f,w „ tl:3o ,:..1.. I:) CO U ,�-� _ :s :s U.,, __ :Z6 I�: _ uf,w :5 1s--"' -- TRACT I ,. a,So- C ;r;� -a_c 1! ?_� t 2. 1J_ __ 14 1J — ---- PAJ_fCI 9J7_79�IX-233 E! N .'� Ii 11 ."-)m t _•j77 1f (Z5 221 1r — l0T ^ H W o (:9 BLK: 9 ��� „o• tlJ o- .a 1 20 I O' I p O 1 1' •- b _—: . �-___—_ —�0_ 1 • Zi o3.• t9r_ AC. ' xZ 2'► 17nfr . ; _BLS _fie ri BLK.47e :720 ._1 n.,r :3)nf r c (- _is 4 16t -- 3 `3)r,3w� ^ q x « 11 It A �3 11' ;j tl r. 2cl g • i3)ro w « �- 1r,a ly 7 to 6 17 �0 .tl_• g 7 (371ow. r' I .:nr • mfo- !�•- k ( h —�` 3 a J N0. 14133 w 1 r . •G 1 �: flfr tlr,a !C 1 O' I « �oJ So• fc' flaw e L - J WALNUT AVENUE ' 15 nJ.'E - ASSfSSC.4q 9LCCK G ASS:- MAP MARCH 1948 Hl1NT/NCTON BEACH M.M..J=J6 . PAF.fc r2MBER5 BCC'' 24 PAGE 14 TRACT N0. 14I11 M.M.,674 — 46,47,48 SHOMI rro CIPCLES CC�'Iir. CR. ?R.a;IGE First American Title Insurance Company Res. No. 259 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGl'ON BEACH) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a meeting of said Redevelopment Agency..held.on:the 1st day of August , 19 and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, winchell , � �1� l;van, Leipzig NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None Clerk of the Redevelqx1eZ Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, Ca. ATTACHMENT NO. 2YJ LAW OFFICES MENKE, FAHRNEY & CARROLL A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLEY C.FROST VICKIE LYNN 818R0 CENTER TOWER WIWAM MICHAEL HENSLEY + PATRICK O.CARROLL SUITE 1250 DENNIS V.MENKE CHRISTOPHER R.CLARK RICHARD L.FAHRNEY 11 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE RICHARD L.SEIDE p GOLNAR J.FOL COSTA MESA.CAUFORNIA 92626-1 93 1 TELEPHONE(714)556-71 1 1 FACSIMILE(714)556-6426 May 27, 1994 RECEIVED CONFIDENTIAL. MAY 311994 DEPARTMENT OF City of Huntington Beach ECONGMIC DEVELOPMENT 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention:. Barbara A. Kaiser Deputy City Administrator Economic/Economic Development Dear Ms. Kaiser: I represent Mrs. Koller and Dr. Gaurano. They have referred your letter of May 17, 1994 to me for response. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that we reject your offer. Should you wish to provide us with copies of any appraisals you have on the subject property, we will be happy to consider some other form of response. You should be aware that Mrs. Koller and Dr. Gaurano do also claim damages for the period of time that you have prevented their realistic use of the property. We also would not be willing to accept any offer that said that we took any responsibility for any soils problems. We previously entered into an arrangement with the City whereby we paid for additional soil studies on the basis that the City would pursue, claims against the prior owners for clean-up. It is my understanding that in the discussions between the City and the prior owners that it has been established that at least a portion -of the problem was created by tanks which were located under the City street. In addition, my clients were "innocent purchasers" and have no liability in the first place. Therefore you have to be clear that we will not accept .any responsibility for toxic clean- up. If you have any questions or comments, please give me a call. I would appreciate it if you send any further .communications. 1 MENKE. FAHRNEY & CARROLL City of Huntington Beach May 27, 1994 Page: Two .l in this matter to me. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, MENKE, FAHRNEY & CARROLL V DENNIS V. MENKE DVM:dl cc: Dr. Gaurano; and Mrs. Koller 9:\letter\dl\CityH8.001 • .1 ...• II II I I I I II II I I � U 13 24-14 - ORANGE AVENUE is - -(/^�r -t:EJ.`•:?SJ _ n sv__ '.•»,.Y••: ,+o- o•fo• x a Aw•So- - ,,,. wf fs .f ,,, -- n•x•_ _-°_1n,J:soI• --- _F aomso 19 172 1 J]a 1e - - -- -------° 26 13 -- - �1` 29 25 - - -- - n -2 �) 2J 23 ( 0 - -- -.•-•_24 1J_ _ a 13 II •I,y-- 1 •4i 21 (^• _-____i: 2_-__--_ -- -•12 4+ "' hIUNT TON `" s -21 — + h -- , �3r� C _ �_ {� .o ,'r'So• R 18 20 7 - •7 C CBLK. 306 -- --7B-L�K_.� ,�' „305 '4 r1 ^,ec"n_:o-i:_, ------•11 !1------- o ,i c to 9 �'9 _s �304( i Bl1s•!^ 3" H CV _ r e 7 o t- �:a n,. '�! 6 ' S �� ro• .. 2C. s 5 ��S t�. ---0--6 ---- 6 3_ _ a. --- - - 0 0 mil _ . .. r.•; ^ , s 1?.1 .3^ "- U) -- --? -- -- 1 --- - ------2 — --- ,,. ------ 2 r —��ACH •�,� .. -------------------- O H i OLIVE AVENUE % E, 69s n.,o• .mso-.•. "' ,rfo• C,o- » n:fr ! (DI _26 Is— —_— f,rLJ :e 2s---=) -- TRACT __ Z -,:c IJ _) - 2' 2J_ - =� 14 23 ------ PPJ-ECr 937-19 75Z-Z33 H CN : ) 11 21 3=)r _�12 1!----- (2� 12. it , _ Lcr 25, WA x (:9)BLK. + — " - : 3.,;o,.:T „' ^ 191a AC. H Z \ri 0 p O 2t 17 � „ BLZ ie BLK.•B„ 7204, I _ W (2-) J'' \/ ,J ., i,J 23i,+iil - (D8 W So-, _ 11 It _ (3- r2 R ~ g r (�3)mfr g 7 1� :0' '°_• B 7 67)—. .v sa o so S'1 2_f; 6 S 1p.. ," 1 ) 6 3^ -- ~ `3 6 Si_ 2t3).,�. s _ »' m so J^—C-�-- _Q, a J_ NO. 14133 ' •r ) St so ° nr,o � 1 e 1 .o+so- as ssJ " ' . WALNUT AVENUE • 15 r:0•'E — ASS�SS0.45 BLOCK a ASS:' MAP MARCH 1948 HUNTkVCTON BEACH M.M. 3-76 PAR.EL r,i,MBER5 BCCI' 24 PAGE 14 TRACT NO. 141JJ M.M. 674 — 46,47,48 SHOa"rr ,r, GPCLfS C0U err. C1. ?.4.a;iGE First American 7Ytle Insurance Company THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS NOT A PART OF THIS TITLE EVIDENCE ATTACHMENT N0. 3_.. y REQUES� FOR CITY COUNCI" _ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION ED 91--01 March 4, 1991 Date Honorable Mayor/Chairman & City Council/Redevelopment Agency )misted to: emitted by: Michael T.•Uberuaga, City Administrator/Chief Executive Officer Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Developmeff Director pared by: APPROVAL OF DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; THIRD )ject: BLOCK WEST; MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA isistent with Council Policy? J4 Yes I I New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,.Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Pursuant to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Newcomb-Tillotson Development Company, a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for the Third Block West has been completed and signed by the developer. On November 19, 1990, City Council/Agency continued this item for 60 days at which time March 4, 1991 was set as the hearing date. RECOMMENDATION• 1) Conduct the public hearing. 2) Approve Negative Declaration Number 90-41. 3) Approve and authorize the Clerk to execute the attached resolutions approving the attached Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of-Huntington Beach and Newcomb-Tillotson Development Company. 4) Approve and authorize the allocation of$4,620,000 to the project as project related costs received as developer land payment, $250;000 for hazardous substance remediation, and funds sufficient to complete site acquisition ($250,000 reserved) and $2,500,000 for the purchase of_200 public parking spaces if these are included in the approved project design. 5) Allocate not to exceed $4 million in proceeds from the Southern California Home Financing Authority Revenue Bond Issue 1990 Series B to the project and encumber $850,000 in Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-aside funds for use in the project. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Approve 2, 3, 4, & 5 above eliminating the $2,500,000 for 200 public parking spaces and substituting $270,000 for 18 parking spaces to satisfy a condition of approval for Town Square and authorizing the appropriate City/Agency officials to amend the DDA accordingly and authorizing its execution. i � RCA/RAA ED 91-01 March 4, 1991 Page two ANALYSIS: On March 19, 1990, the Agency approved an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Newcomb-Tillotson Development Company. This firm was selected through a Request for Proposal process commenced in October 1989 and completed with the firm's selection from the four responses received. A form of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) was signed prior to the expiration of the original exclusive and delivered to Agency staff on September 14, 1990. Subsequent revisions were made, and the Exclusive Agreement was extended for six months on November 19, 1990. On October 15, 1990 the Council/Agency established a hearing date on the Disoposition and Development Agreement of November 5, 1990, and subsequently continued the item to November 19 and then for a 60 day period. The basic parameters of the Agreement are: o The Agency agrees to sell the site for $4;620,000. According to the Keyser Marston analysis, the reuse value of the site is $3,710,000. The Agency/City originally purchased its portion of the site for $r1,824,770. o The Agency agrees to pay for the following at a cost not to exceed $4,620,000: - acquisition of the Third Party Parcels; (Mr. & Mrs. Koller & Koller/Guarano) -relocation benefits; all existing uses e.g. Huntington Beach News, First Interstate Bank (except Huntington Beach National Bank) - fixtures and equipment acquisitions; - demolition of existing structures; - some on and off-site improvements; e.g. curbs, gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, etc. all of which are identified in the Scope of Development. a The Developer agrees to advance funds to the Agency in an amount up to the total purchase price of the site ($4,620,000) for these activities. o The Agency agrees to pay for remediation of hazardous materials at a cost not to exceed $250,000. If the cost exceeds this amount the developer may advance additional funds to be repaid from tax increment. o The Agency agrees to pay for site acquisition costs in excess of 150 percent of appraised value ($250,000 reserved). If the costs exceed this amount, the developer may advance a matching amount and be repaid from tax increment. o The Agency agrees to purchase 200 public parking spaces upon completion for the fixed price of$2,500,000, if these spaces are included in the final design of the project approved by the Agency. If the Agency chooses to remove the" spaces from the project, the $2,500,000 expenditure will be reduced to $270,000 to purchase 18 parking spaces necessary to meet a condition of approval for Town Square. If this action is taken, City Council/Agency should adopt the "Alternative Recommendation" above. The developer has agreed to advance these funds to the Agency, if necessary, and be repaid from tax increment generated by the project. The business points of the Agreement are more fully described in_the attached Summary Report, prepared pursuant to Section 33433 of the California Health and Safety Code. RCA/RAA ED 91-01 March 4, 1991 Page three The project will consist of: 0 8,000 square feet of retail; 0 9,500 square feet of office; (or less depending on size of market) 0 10,000 square feet minimum of grocery market; and 0 68 residential units (10 restricted and 23 assisted). Land use entitlements for the project and` a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were approved by the Planning Commission on November 6, 1990. The benefits of the project include: o The Agency.is receiving fair market value for the parcel (see Keyser-Marston reuse analysis attached). o The Agency will collect the tax increment generated by the project for the duration of the Redevelopment Plan (approximately $182,0.00 per year) and-the city will collect sales tax revenues (approximately $26,000 per year) in perpetuity(See revenue projections attached). o Ten of the residential units will be affordable to moderate income buyers and will remain so for the balance of the life of the Redevelopment Plan. Up-to as many as twenty-three more units may be assisted by the Agency for first-time home buyers (see Housing Program Description attached). o The contribution it will make to the overall completion of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Plan including provision of visitor-serving commercial (including .the grocery market that was a condition of the Request for Proposal), office and residential uses necessary to stimulate around the clock activities. This project is consistent with the proposed revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan. The DDA and Summary Report were first posted with the Agency Clerk on September 28, 1990. Advertisements for the joint public hearing on the DDA were published to the requirements of the Health and Safety Code. The DDA and the approving resolutions have been approved by the Agency Attorney. An addendum to the Summary Report by Keyser Marston has also been prepared and is attached assessing the financial impact of the elimination of the public parking. FUNDING SOURCE: Site Acquisition and Preparation: Developer Land Advance of $4,620,000. Public Parking Spaces: (if included): $2,500,000 Remediation and Site Acquisition (in excess of 150% of value): Agency $500,000. RCA/RAA ED 91-01 March 4, 1991 Page four The Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area has no available funds after meeting current FY 1990-91 obligations. The City has issued Certificates of Participation (C.O.P.)'s for the Main-Pier area to construct the parking structure north of the Pier and approximately $8.7 million of these proceeds are remaining. It is proposed that funds of $3 million be allocated to the Third Block West development to meet Agency responsibilities for this project if the public parking is included. However; with this eliminated the Agency's financial requirements are reduced. However, if this full allocation is made and other obligations met, a C.O.P. balance of approximately $5.7 million will remain for the next fiscal year 1991-1992. The following projects require funding which, without new revenue sources, cannot be completely covered. Pier $ 2,000,000 Pierside Restaurants $ 6,000,000 Pier Plaza (design & construction) $ 3,350,000 North of Pier Parking $ 11,500,000 U.S. Post Office Rehabilitation $ 170,000 Celebration Plaza $ 625,000 Art Center Renovation $ 350,000 Main Promenade Parking Offsites $ 500,000 Main-Pier Phase H Unknown Additional project site acquisition Unknown Block 101 Unknown ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Refer the DDA back to staff with instructions for revision. 2. Do not approve the DDA. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council/Agency Resolutions 2. Negative Declaration 90-41 3. Summary (33433) Report 4. Reuse Analysis 5. Revenue Projections 6. Housing Program Description 7. Disposition and Development Agreement MTU/SVK:jar 8302r Page 3 - Council/Agency --jenda - 3/4/91 (3) D-1. (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) PUBLIC HEARING - DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - DRAFT NEGATIVE 600 .30 DECLARATION 90-41- NEWCOMB-TILLOTSON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - THIRD BLOCK WEST - MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Joint public hearing to consider approval of Draft Negative Declaration and Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Newcomb-Tillotson Development Company for the project commonly known as "Third Block West" bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street and Orange Avenue within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area . COMMENDED ACTION: (1 Conduct public hearing (2) pprove Negative Declaration No . 90-4 . (3) A t and authorize execution of th following res utions approving the Disposit' n and Development Agree ent between the Redevelopme Agency of the City o Huntington Beach and New omb-Tillotson Developm nt Company: Council Res lu i n No 6251 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL F THE CITY OF NTINGTON BEACH CONSENTING TO HE APPROVAL A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGR MENT BY A BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AG CY OF T E CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND NEWCOMB-TILLOT N DE ELOPMENT COMPANY AND MAKING OTHER FINDINGS. " Agency Resoluti n N 1 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF E CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE DISPO ITION ND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEV OPMENT A NCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ND NEWCOMB ILLOTSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND MAK G OTHER FIND GS . " (4) Approve and a horize the allocat ' on of $4 , 620, 000 to the project project related cos received as developer 1 d payment, $250 , 000 for hazardous substance emediation, . and funds suff ient to complete ite acquisition ($250 ,000 res rued) and $2, 500, 0 0 for the purchase of 200 publi parking spaces f these are included -in the appro d project design (5) Allo ate amount not to exceed $4 million in pr eeds fro the Southern California Home Financing Auth rity Re enue Bond Issue 1990 Series B to the project a e cumber $850, 000 in Redevelopment Agency Housing et-aside funds for use in the project . ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Approve 2 , 3 , 4 & 5 above eliminating the $2, 500 , 000 for 200 public parking spaces and substituting $270', 000 for 18 parking spaces to satisfy a condition of approval for Town Square and authorizing the appropriate City/Agency officials to amend the DDA accordingly and authorizing its execution.A� ,j�D hL_1 �Gc>inch�!/-r�o jc// - ab57uire ( -114 /41 ) ■ ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ] CfTY -C HUNTANGTON 13EA40 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NUNTINfTON BEACH TO: Scott Hess, Senior Planner FROM: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager SUBJECT: Background for Continuance of CUP; Thirri Block West Project DATE: February 8, 1993 , Pursuant to your "Voice mail" request I would like to provide you with the following history of the Third Block West Project which has created the need for an extension of the Conditional Use Permit: March 5, 1991 DDA approved by Redevelopment.Agency ♦ April 4, 1991 Petition filed by Plaintiffs: James and Joan Koller and Lauro Guarano ('property owners within site) ♦ May 7, 1991. Settlement Conference conducted ♦ May 15, 1991 Answers to Plaintiff's petitions filed by Agency Counsel ♦ June 21, 1991 Hearing set for August 6, 1991 ♦ July 24,1991 Parties agree to continue hearing to December 10,1991 Y ♦ July-December 1991 Agency negotiates for acquisition of Plaintiff s property and conducts Phase I hazardous materials investigation revealing subsurface petroleum contamination. Agency unable to reach agreement on. price for planaffs property. ♦ March 31, 1992 Hearing on Petitioner's Writ, Petitioner's CEQA claim denied, Petitioners given until . April 10, to file points and authorities. ♦ April 28, 1992 Court grants Agency/Developers Motion, dismisses Petition ♦ May 26, 1992 Petitioners amend an.. .e-file, second round of litigation begins. ♦ September 17, 1992 Hearing on Second Petition, Court rejects all causes of action brought by Petitioners except one regarding land use approval which is taken under submission. ♦ October 28, 1992 Court finds in favor of Petitioners regarding land use approval, Agency/Developer counsel file for reconsideration. ♦ December 2. 1992 Hearing on the reconsideration. ♦ December 8, 1992 Court issues Minute Order in favor of Agency/Developer on all causes of action. December 21, 1992 Petitioners file for reconsideration. ♦ December 30,- 1992 Judgment in favor of the. Agency/Developer As you can see from this abbreviated summary, the course of the litigation began shortly after the approval of the project by the City Council/Redevelopment.Agency in 1991, and continued until the end of last year. It is also important to note that the Agency/Developer have taken steps to further the project to the extent that was permitted by the litigation, particularly in regard to the hazardous material investigation. While not material to the land use considerations-for the extension of the CUP, but as a further testament to the good faith intentions of the applicant the developer has spent approximately$950,000 on pre-development and legal costs (excluding similaf types of costs incurred by the Agency). I hope this information will be of assistance in the preparation of your report to the Planning Commission. -If you have any questions, please call. xc: Barbara Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development Gail Hutton, City Attorney Sarah Lazarus, Deputy City Attorney John Newcomb, Newcomb Development John Tillotson, Tillotson Enterprises Dan Howse, Vice President, Klingbeil Co. Thomas Winfield, Brown, Winfield and Canzoneri, Inc. Dennis Roy, Brown, Winfield and Canzoneri, Inc. 7�3 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 S�eo�Q Kdt E' REQUEST FC. _ , REDEVELOPMENT . %GENCY ACTION RH 91-49 July 1, 1991 Date APPROVED BY CITY COUN Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members 7.. 19. Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Director Wes' . w/ TYC SRH Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Admin trator/Economic D Subject Acquisition of Property and Settlement of LawsuitfMird Block West Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area Consistent with Council Policy? bQ Yes [ j New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Pursuant to direction provided to the staff negotiators and legal counsel-by the Agency in closed session on May 28, 1991, staff is now in receipt of an offer from property owners, Mr. and Mrs. James E. Koller, and Dr. Lauro Guarano, for acquisition of property and the settlement of the Koller vs the Redevelopment Agency lawsuit. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to accept an offer from Barry Ross, Esq. (counsel to the property owners) as follows: 1) The acquisition of property at 302 Fifth Street and 303 Main Street for a sale price of $1,845,000; 2) The acquisition of property at 314 Fifth Street at a sales price of$500,000; 3) Which amounts are also to be considered as,settlement of the lawsuit James E. Koller, Joan Koller, Lauro Guarano vs the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington. Beach, et al (Case No. 654174); 4) According to the terms and conditions stipulated in correspondence from Barry A. Ross to Sarah Lazarus, Deputy City Attorney, dated June 17, 1991, and as modified only by the letter of Barry A. Ross dated June 21, 1991. 5) And, authorize the Executive Director, City Attorney, and all other staff as necessary to prepare all documents to conclude the transaction. - ANALYSIS: During the closed session on Tuesday, May 28, 1991, the Redevelopment Agency provided staff with direction to pursue negotiations for the acquisition of subject parcels within l .the Third Block West project site (bounded by Main Street, & Fifth Street, Olive & Orange Avenues): Negotiations have resulted in letters from the attorney representing the minority property owners within this-project site (Mr. and Mrs. James E. Koller and Dr. Lauro Guarano), submitting the attached offer (see letters of June 17, & 21, 1991). The basic terms of the offer are: 1) The property jointly owned by the Kollers and Dr. Guarano at 302 Fifth Street and 303 Main Street will be purchased at a sales price of$1,845,000. 2) The property owned by the Koller's individually, at 314 Fifth Street will be purchased at a sales price of$500,000. 3) The Redevelopment Agency will have a period of 90 days to investigate the status of toxic substances on the properties to be acquired(including both subsurface and asbestos within buildings). At the end of this period, the Agency MAY cancel escrow if the cost of toxic remediation exceeds $25,000, or the Redevelopment Agency will inform the property owners of its intent to close on the property in another 90 days (180-day total escrow). 4) The Agency will provide a letter stating that the acquisition is being done under threat of eminent domain. 5) The Redevelopment Agency will pay all escrow and closing costs. b) Each party warrants that there are no real estate brokers or fees involved in the transaction. 7) The owners agree to permit the Redevelopment Agency early entry to the site for the conduct of toxics investigation and/or remediation. 8) The property owners agree upon the acceptance of this offer to refrain from initiating any activity regarding the litigation now pending between the parties. These sale prices for the subject properties are consistent with the direction provided by the Agency at its closed session of May 28, 1991. It is also important to note that the price being paid for these parcels represents not only the acquisition of the real property and improvements, but also a negotiated settlement of the pending litigation between the property owners and the Redevelopment Agency. The other terms and conditions proposed in the offer have been investigated by staff and with legal counsel, and are acceptable. FUNDING SOURCE: According to the terms of the approved Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Newcomb-Tillotson, the developer is required to advance acquisition and relocation expenses to the Redevelopment Agency. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Do not accept this offer. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Letters from Barry A. Ross, dated June 17, & 21, 1991. MTU/BAK/SVK:ls 9245r ATTACHMENT N0.6- REQUEST ,':OR CITY COUNCIL tACTION March 4, 1991 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administratortgv''\\ Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Developmentot Subject: APPEAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 90-39 W/SPECIAL PERMITS COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 90-30/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 14352/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 90-41/GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO 90-9 Consistent with Council Policy? (fr Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: RX STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by James Koller of Newcomb-Tillotson Development' s proposed mixed use project on the west 300 block of Main Street. The proposed project as approved by Planning Commission consists of a 9,500 sq. ft. market, 9, 500 sq. ft. of general retail, 8, 000 sq. ft. of office, 68 residential condominiums,- a 200 space City parking garage, and other project-related parking. The Redevelopment Agency is the co-applicant for the project. Subsequent to the appeal, the applicant developed a project alternative which addresses many of the concerns raised at Planning Commission, and is more in line with the -"Village Concept" as currently conceived by the Council. This report will address the points of the appeal- submitted by Mr . Koller for the original project, and discuss the applicant' s revised plan as an alternate action. RECOMMENDATION• Motion to: "Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-41, Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 with Special Permits, Tentative Tract Map 14352, and General Plan - Conformance 90-9 with Findings and Conditions of Approval as outlined in Attachment 1 to the report dated March 4, 1991. " The Planning Commission made the above stated recommendation on November 6, 1990, by the following votes : 185 To approve Negative Declaration No. 90-41: AYES: Bourguignon, Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland NOES: Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None To approve Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30: AYES:— Bourguignon, Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland NOES: Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None To approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 with Special Permit: AYES: Bourguignon, Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland NOES: Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None To approve Tentative Tract No. 14352: AYES: Bourguignon, Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland NOES: Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None To approve General Plan Conformance No. 90-9 : AYES: Bourguignon, Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland NOES: Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council Approve Alternative Action No. 1, to Approve Negative Declaration No. 90-41, Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 with Special Permits as modified by the applicant, Tentative Tract Map 14352, and General Plan Conformance 90-9 with Findings and Conditions of Approval as outlined in Attachment 2. to the report dated March 4 , 1991. ANALYSIS• Applicant: Redevelopment Agency/Newcomb-Tillotson Development Appellant: James Koller Location: Full block bounded by Main St . , Olive Ave. , Fifth St. , and Orange Ave. , RCA 3/4/91 -2- (8726d) Project- Description: The proposed mixed use project as approved by the Planning Commission consists of a 9, 500 sq. ft. market, 9,500 sq. ft. of retail area, 8,000 sq. ft. of office area, 68 . residential condominiums, a 200-space City parking garage, and project-related parking and open space plazas. A thorough analysis of the project and its relationship to the City's General Plan, Coastal .Policies, Downtown Specific Plan, Downtown Design Guidelines, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , and other issues is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff reports . The following is a summary of general issues discussed by the Planning Commission: 1. Floor Area Ratio: The 200 public parking spaces provided on-site were over and above those spaces required for the commercial and residential uses on the block. Therefore, the developer was given commercial "credit" for the spaces at the rate of 200 square feet of commercial area per parking space (retail ratio) , for a total of 40,000 sq. ft. of credit. Combined with the actual amount of commercial area on the site of 27,000 sq. ft. , the 67,000 sq. ft. of commercial credit balanced the 67,000 sq. ft. of residential area. The l:l ratio of commercial to residential floor area required by the Downtown Specific Plan was therefore achieved. 2 . Affordable Housing: A minimum of 10 units will be restricted to low-moderate income families until 2018. Up to 23' additional units may be sold to low-moderate income families with the assistance of the Redevelopment Agency. These assisted units are not required to remain affordable for any specific length of time, but if sold to a non-qualifying household, the Agency will be repaid its investment as well as equity participation. The conditions of approval require and that 20% of the total number of units (14) be sold to low-moderate income families. This would include the 10 restricted units plus a minimum of 4 assisted units . 3 . Special Permits : One special permit will be required to exceed the ramp slope in the parking structure. A traffic Engineer ' s report, verified by the Public Works Department, has assured the safety and efficiency of the proposed design. .4 . Building Height: Pursuant to Planning Commission conditions, the applicant has agreed to reduce the height of the building from 5 stories to 4 stories . 5 . Size and Location of Market : Several speakers and Planning Commissioners expressed concern that the market was too small and located too far from Main Street (The applicant 's revised proposal has addressed these concerns) . RCA 3/4/91 -3- (8726d) Revised Proposal: The applicant has recently submitted .an alternative plan that addresses some of the concerns identified at the Planning Commission hearings. The plan moves the market forward to the northeast corner of Main Street and Orange Avenue, increases the square footage of the market and retail portions from 9,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet each, provides vehicular access from 5th Street only, reduces building height to a maximum of. 4 stories, and eliminates the proposed 200-space public parking component of the project. The alternative plan improves upon the original concept by moving the market to a more visible and accessible location at the corner of Main Street and Orange Avenue, and by increasing its size by 500 square feet. The building. height has also been lowered, bringing the maximum average height to 45 feet (reduced from 68 feet in the original plans. ) All access to the project would be taken from Fifth Street, with truck loading and maneuvering accommodated on-site. This eliminates potential vehicle conflicts at previous entry/exit points on Olive Avenue and Orange Avenue. One Special Permit will still be required for the ramp slope into the parking structure. Staff supports this request. Although the public parking spaces were used to credit the commercial square footage requirement in the original project, staff ' s preliminary analysis indicates that it is possible to' balance the overall residential and commercial square footage within District 5 as a whole. The required 1:1 ratio of commercial to residential square footage can be met if all existing uses and all currently projected uses within District 5 are -considered. This methodology would not restrict other applicants within the This from applying for mixed use projects as allowed by Code. It should also be noted that the required ratio of residential to commercial square footage for the District may be changed in the anticipated Specific Plan revisions to reflect the Village Concept by increasing the permissible amount of residential square footage. Appeal Issues • The following analysis is based on the appeal of .the project entitlements as approved by the Planning Commission. In his appeal of the Planning Commission' s approval of the project, Mr. Kollar has identified six (6) points as the basis for his appeal. The following section provides a summary of each point, followed by staff ' s response. Please refer to the attached letter (Attachment No. 3) for the complete text of each comment. 1. Notice was not mailed to the 73 condominium owners who reside above the commercial area in the Town Square Proiect. The condominiums at Townsquare are still listed under a single assessor ' s parcel number, rather than by individual unit. Therefore, notice was mailed to "Occupants" within a 300 foot radius of the project . For the appeal hearing before the City Council, the owners of all condominiums were notified. RCA 3/4/91 -4- (8726d) 2 . The project is not consistent with the 1982 Downtown Specific Plan or the Village Concept The Specific Plan requires that the residential component of the project comprise a maximum of 50% of the floor area. The proposed project includes a total of 27,000 sq. ft. of commercial area, and a total of 67,200 sq. ft. of residential area, thereby exceeding the 50% maximum by 40,200 sq. ft. The Planning Commission approved the request as proposed, however, by allowing commercial square footage credit for the 200 space City parking structure. If the extra 200 spaces within the project belonged to the developer, rather than to the City for public parking, the developer would be entitled to construct an additional 40,000 square feet of commercial square footage on the site (200 spaces x 200 sq. ft. equals 40, 000 sq. ft. )'. Therefore, combined with the proposed 27,000 sq. ft. of market, retail, and office space, the commercial credit is 67,000 square feet, which approximately balances with the proposed residential development. The developer has agreed to limit the residential square footage to a maximum of 67,000 square feet. Overall, the project is of a lesser height and intensity than is permitted in this District by the Downtown Specific Plan. The maximum allowable floor area ratio is 2. 5, for a permitted total -of 235, 606 sq. ft. of development on the site. - The project as proposed has a floor area ratio of 1.01, for a total area of .94, 000 sq. ft. The permitted height in this district is 6 stories; the developer has agreed to reduce the project height to 4 stories . 3 . The Proiect fails to provide sufficient neighborhood commercial. The project contains less commercial square footage than originally called for in the Request for Proposals . As vet , the developer has no tenant for the market. At the Planning Commission hearings, several speakers and Commissioners questioned whether a 9, 500 sq. ft. market would be adequate to serve the needs of the downtown area. They requested that a larger market be considered. However, the applicant ' s agent testified that a -large market would be infeasible at this location due to the limited target area. The applicant and Redevelopment Agency staff concurred with this assessment, and wished to proceed with the square footage as proposed, including that of the retail and office components. RCA 3/4/91 -5- (8726d) The original commercial square footage called for in the Request for Proposals (RFP) included a 13,000 sq. ft. market, 14, 000 sq. ft. of retail, and 14,000 sq. ft. of office. The current project includes a 9 , 500 sq. ft. market, 9,500 sq. ft. of retail, and 8,000 sq. ft. of office space. The commercial square footage of the project was reduced and the residential count increased as the project evolved through negotiations between the developer and the Redevelopment Agency staff. The developer was encouraged to provide higher intensity residential development to help support the growing downtown commercial core. The increased number of units, in combination with a- reduction in commercial space, allowed the developer to rescind his original request for the Redevelopment Agency to subsidize the market. While it is true that no tenant for the market has yet been secured, this is not an unusual circumstance at this stage of a project. Typically, potential tenants are not secured at least until the building is under construction. 4. After receiving the bid. the developer intensified the residential component and reduced the commercial component, boosting profits to the developer and thwarting the goal of a substantial neighborhood-serving center for downtown. The project developer was not selected through a bidding process, but rather by the submission of proposals. The price of the Agency' s property was not the sole factor upon which proponents were considered. Agency staff state that creation of a "substantial neighborhood-serving center" was never a stated objective of the Agency for the redevelopment of this block. The proposal as presented is still the most appropriate among those submitted, according to the Agency' s financial advisors (Keyser Marston) . 5 . The traffic impacts of this_project and associated cumulative impacts have not been analyzed. The 1982 Environmental Impact Report is inadequate. The project site was analyzed with regard to potential traffic impacts by the City' s Department of' Public Works. In an August 23, 1990, memo from Jim Otterson, Traffic Engineer, to Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director, it is stated: "The project will not require a Traffic Impact Study. Our review indicates that the project generated traffic would represent less than one percent of the total cumulative peak hour traffic entering key intersections, and no potential cumulative traffic impacts are anticipated: " RCA 3/4/91 -6- (8726d) The Traffic Engineer notes that the project may result in some congestion while the street system is being improved to the ultimate design from existing conditions. Staff is recommending as a mitigation measure that the Public Works Department provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if necessary. Adequate signage must be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction. This impact is considered temporary and not significant . The Traffic Engineer also notes in the August 23 memo, several design and access problems which could cause on-site and off-site friction and delays . The developer agreed to revise the plans to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer prior to staffs determination that a Negative Declaration should be prepared. No significant traffic-related impacts are anticipated. Furthermore, the developer will be required to make improvements to the circulation system as part of the project. These include dedication of property for street purposes, and full public works improvements to the center lines of Fifth St. , Olive Ave. , Main St. - and Orange Ave. (pavement, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, etc. ) . A Traffic Impact fee, as approved by the City Council, will also be required. With regard to the adequacy of the environmental documents Prepared, CEQA encourages tiering of environmental documentation in order to promote efficiency in -the process . Tiering is an effort to focus environmental review on the environmental issues which are relevant to the approval being considered. EIR 82-2 was prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan, and, as such, could not contain the -degree of detailed. analysis and mitigation that is possible for project specific environmental documents . In the initial study, staff determined that EIR 82-2 provided adequate description of the broad effects considered at that stage. The project specific effects were analyzed against this baseline, and any potential new impacts that could occur as a result of changed circumstances and/or knowledge of the details of the project are noted. A total of 18 mitigation measures are recommended to be incorporated as conditions of approval which will reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Negative Declaration is appropriate for this project . 6 . The appellant , as a property owner on the subiect block has not been included by the developer or the Agency. The applications do not list appellant as an owner. RCA 3/4/91 -7- (8726d) It is not possible .for staff to comment on the relationship between the appellant and the developer, however both parties maintain that they met on more than one occasion prior to the selection of the developer by the Agency. Further, Agency Staff and special Agency Counsel have, on separate occasions, met with the appellant to discuss acquisition of his property or participation in the project. From Staff ' s perspective, the principle obstacle to the conclusion of these negotiations is the appellant' s unrealistic opinion of the value of his property. The Agency .Ezecutive Director is empowered to authorize an application for entitlements for sites not wholly under the developer' s control. Under these circumstances it is neither legally required nor customary to list as an applicant any property owner -beyond the Agency or developer. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Pursuant to the regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised Draft Negative Declaration for a twenty-one (21) day review and comment period, and one written comment was received from the Huntington Beach Environmental Board. The draft Negative Declaration, comment letter, and response to comments are attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 16, 1990. Staff recommends that a Negative Declaration be issued. All recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated as suggested conditions of approval . Prior to any action on Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30, Conditional Use Permit No . 90-39 with Special Permit, Tentative Tract No. 14352, or General Plan ' Conformance No. 90-9 , it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No . 90-41. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may: 1. Approve Coastal Development 90-30,. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 with Special Permit as modified by the applicant, Tentative Tract Map No. 14352, and General Plan Conformance No. 90-9, with findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Attachment 2; or 2 . Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 with Special Permit, and Tentative Tract No. 14352 and General Plan Conformance No. 90-9 with findings . RCA 3/4/91 -8- (8726d) ATTACE KWNTS 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval (Planning Commission) 2. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval (staff) 3 . Appeal Letter dated November 13, 1990 4 . Staff Report dated November 6, 1990 5. Staff Report dated October 16, 1990 MTU:MA:LP: lp RCA 3/4/91 -9- (8726d) • JA& JL Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 November 8, 1990 City of Huntington Beach Department of Administrative Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO.. 90-9 REQUEST: Determine that the conveyance of 1.24 acres of real property from the City of Huntington Beach to the Redevelopment Agency is in conformance with the General Plan. LOCATION: Nine parcels located on the block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, Fifth Street, and Orange Avenue DATE OF APPROVAL: November 6, 1990 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Conveying the subject parcels to the City.' s Redevelopment Agency to allow for Mixed Use-Commercial/Residential development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element . These include: 3 .4 . 2 . 5 Housing - To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach by providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City. 3 .4 . 2 . 7 Residential Development - To encourage and maintain a well balanced variety of residential densities and uncrowded living environments by encouraging rational use of land and other natural resources . 3 . 4 . 2 . 8 Commercial Development and Tourism - To ensure commercial development that is economically viable, attractive, well related to other land uses, and satisfies the needs of the City" s residents . �O ATTACHMENT NO.7- xC= S Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. 90X 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Date: March 5 , 1993 NOTICE OF ACTION Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Economic Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14352/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-30 (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 17, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on March 2, 1993 and your request was: WITHDRAWN APPROVED XX (see attached) APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DISAPPROVED TABLED CONTINUED UNTIL Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the Planning Commission is final unless an appeal is filed to the City Council by you or an interested party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of five hundred ($500) dollars and be submitted to the City Clerk's office within ten' (10) days of the date of the Commission's action. . In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is not applicable Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has started. (6100d-8) ATTACHMENT NO.8 . i In Attendance: Grace Winchell, Victor Leipzig, Michael Uberuaga, Ray Silver, Barbara Kaiser, Mike Adams,.Stephen Kohler, Sarah Lazarus, Absent: Ralph Bauer 1) Affordable Housing - Mike Adams has prepared a request for a revenue bond inducement resolution to be considered by the Redevelopment Agency on March 21. City staff was approached by a developer/investment group to issue and sell tax-exempt revenues bonds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the 42-unit apartments at Garfield Avenue and Mora Kai Lane. Adams provided the committee members with background information on the developer, and other affordable projects completed in other cities. Identifying that this project is not in a redevelopment project area, Grace Winchell asked Mike if an affordable covenant.would be placed on the property, and if the Agency could get credit towards its housing obligations. A 35-year affordability covenant would be set on the project, and the Agency would be eligible for one-half credit toward its housing obligations. Further, Mike added that the developer is committed to staying in the project for at least 15 years. Victor Leipzig would like to see a CAP on the improvement expenditures to include a walk-through evaluation of the improvements. 2) Downtown Speciflc Plan - Mike Uberuaga talked briefly about the status of the Downtown Specific Plan coming back to Council on Monday, April 4, 1994. In conjunction with the Specific Plan, he gave the committee members options to consider related to eminent domain. Staff shared its perspective to the committee related to the importance of maintaining the flexibility of eminent domain in the Huntington Center and Main-Pier Project Areas, and Mr. Uberuaga asked Sarah Lazarus to look into the legality of amending a redevelopment plan. He asked Economic Development staff to prepare a comprehensive paper amending the plans and potential uses of eminent domain. The paper is to outline all options to be considered as it relates to specific areas within the project areas. The committee agreed to get together on Friday, March 25, 1994, to review the staffs report before the Council meeting on April 4. 3) Third Block West- Sarah Lazarus advised the group that special counsel, Daley & Heft, and city attorney office staff recently met with potential responsible parties for the cleanup of hazardous materials on and adjacent to 301-303 Main Street (privately owned by James Koller and Dr. Laurel Guarano). Legal counsel for Texaco, Inc., informed special counsel that, at this time, they do not intend to participate in any cleanup. Wells Fargo Bank (previous owners of the site), indicated that it may participate but wants additional time to conduct its own studies. Of recent discovery, and difficulty to determine, is two sources of hazardous waste materials that are mixed up, without detection of source. Grace Winchell asked staff to please try to keep testing to a minimum -- when the streets are torn up, it creates traffic problems, as well as problems for merchants. All Agency-owned structures on the Third Block West site have been demolished and removed. Public Works crews are paving the sites, and enclosing Agency-owned property within a chain link fence. Barbara Kaiser added that appraisals for Koller/Guarano site are being updated and staff will present the acquisition of the property to Council in May. The next Redevelopment Committee will be held at 10:00 AM, on Friday, March 25, fourth floor conference room. /Is xc: Mayor and City Council Department Heads O1 2 ATTACHMENT NO. ga. .. In Attendance: Grace Winchell, Linda Moulton Patterson, Jim Silva, Mike Uberuaga, Barbara Kaiser, Ray Silver, Stephen Kohler, Jim Lamb 1) Commercial Rehabilitation - Jim Lamb reminded the Council Committee that the concept of the city providing rehabilitation assistance to businesses was introduced to the committee a year ago. The purpose of the Program is to improve the overall appearance of commercially-zoned and operated property within the target area-(west side of Beach Boulevard from Warner Avenue to the north and Indianapolis Avenue to the south). Hopefully, through these efforts, reinvestments will be encouraged, and commercial retail business activities will be stimulated. The program will be administered by the Business Development division of the Economic Development Department. Council members referred to the Program's regulations, and were assured by staff that Housing and Urban Development regulations must be followed. Councilman Silva asked for types of improvements authorized under this Program, and Jim Lamb stated-that eligible properties could be awarded grants of up to a maximum of $20,000 for facade/exterior work only, to include painting, awnings, signs on buildings, landscaping, parking lot improvements, Health & Safety Code improvements, etc. Solicitation letters of interest-have been sent to businesses that would qualify for the improvements. On Monday, October 25, staff will seek Council authorization to approve the Program Guidelines, and execute the Council resolution authorizing the commercial rehab agreements, using CDBG funds. For the study session, Committee members asked staff to prepare a comprehensive chart to outline project deal points and schedule, and all related backup materials. 2) Third Block West - Stephen Kohler distributed a proposed schedule of key dates over the next 6 months for Committee review. He also provided an updated appraisal summary for the Koller/Guarano properties. Councilman Silva asked staff what their best estimate of the total dollars expended by the developer on the project to date, and staff replied $1,000,000. Agency Special Counsel previously notified the property owners of their responsibilities for remediation of the site, and the nature of this responsibility under state and federal law. At the conclusion,of a recent meeting with Dr. Lauro Guarano, the property owner had agreed to take the necessary steps to commence the remediation process. Hopefully, the work will begin within the next two weeks. 1 Grace expressed her satisfaction in the progress being made, and following a discussion of staff addressing the entire Council, it was the consensus of the committee that staff provide a brief presentation during closed session on November 1. Staff will review the project's history, and current status, and Council will be able to provide instructions to the negotiators and staff on how to best proceed with this project site. 3) Brisas del Mar - The developer of this project has requested financial assistance from the Redevelopment Agency to provide second trust deed assistance to make the units affordable to low-income households. The program developed with Sanwa Bank would allow the developer to buy down the interest rates for the first two years. The Agency would provide second trust deeds that have no payments for 30 years, and this combination lowers the monthly payments sufficiently to allow for low-income households to qualify for a first mortgage with Sanwa Bank. Agency .financial assistance will be limited to $25,000 for one and two-bedroom units, and $32,000 for three bedroom units. For Council consideration on Monday, October 25, staff is seeking Council/Agency authorization to appropriate a maximum of $400,000 of redevelopment set aside housing funds for the second trust deed program, and $100,000 in CDBG funds for down payment assistance to be used for any of the Brisas 44 eligible households. Barbara Kaiser stated that the city attorney's office has requested Economic Development staff to include in its staff report, each applicant's name, unit number, and loan amount recommended for each application submitted. The Attorney's Office has now ruled it necessary for Council to approve each applicant by name in this manner. The next Redevelopment Committee is scheduled for Thursday, October 21, 1993, at 4:15 PM. xc: Mayor and City Council Department Heads 572 2 ATTACHMENT NO. gb TES REDEVELOPMENT COM[MTrrEE MEETING August 19, 1993 In Attendance: Linda Moulton Patterson, Jim Silva, Grace Winchell, Ray Silver, Barbara Kaiser, Stephen Kohler 1) Habitat for Humanity Exclusive Negotiating Agreement- Habitat for Humanity is a national organization interested in sponsoring an affordable housing project on a former water well site located on Ronald Road (Talbert-Beach Project Area). A lengthy discussion followed related to costs affiliated with the production of 2 - 4 affordable homes (e.g offsite improvements, cost of the land, Habitat's responsibility to coordinate construction, and resale restrictions on the properties). Jim Silva would like to see Huntington Beach residents given priority to occupy the units, if legally possible. Grace asked staff to prepare a comprehensive chart for Council to include the Agency's total housing obligations. Council asked if the units would count towards the city's SCAG additional units requirements, and Ray Silver agreed to investigate that with our Community Development staff. Grace asked staff to schedule a closed session on September 7 to introduce this whole concept to the entire Council, and agendize a staff report on September 20. 2) Third Block West - Stephen Kohler stated that the city attorney's' office has contracted with the law firm of Daley & Heft in Solana Beach to request a remediation plan from property owners Koller/Guarano. Since the California Health & Safety Code requires responsible parties (Koller/Guarano) to take corrective action, the Agency is protected if compliance is not met. A meeting will be scheduled in the next week with city and property owner attorneys. 3) Economic Development Upcoming Reports - A CDBG Progress Report has been prepared by staff which summarizes all enhancement areas from the inception of the housing program through the 18th Year. Copies will be distributed to Council and department heads. At first glance, Grace commented on how extensive the report appeared, and that to her knowledge, it was the first of its kind in print. t Redevelopment Biennial Report will be completed by Council's first meeting in November. Fact Sheets include definitions of all projects and developers in the downtown area. The document used to be typeset and printed by Public Information, however, with the new personal computer system, Economic Development staff is able to prepare, update, and print the document as updates become apparent. This publication will be available in the next two weeks. Barbara Kaiser advised Council members to feel free to contact Economic Development staff whenever they give public presentations and would like copies of these editions for handouts. 4) Comprehensive Housing Assistance Strategy (CHAS) - Prior to receiving federal housing assistance, each state and local government entity is required to prepare a strategy for addressing affordable housing needs within the community. Economic Development staff is requesting approval of a contract with Cotton/Beland and Associates, Inc., to prepare the city's five-year Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and one year Performance Report. Barbara Kaiser asked Committee members if they preferred to conduct a public hearing on this item, (even though it is not required by law), and Moulton-Patterson and Winchell would"like to see the staff report prepared as a F-item, allowing public comments, if necessary. The next Redevelopment Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, September 1, 1993, at 4:15 PM. xc: Mayor and City Council Department Heads 01 2 ATTACMENT NO._ 8c. MINUTES REDEVELOPMENT COIVII R=E MEETING July 7, 1993 In Attendance: Grace Winchell, Linda Moulton Patterson, Jim Silva, Mike Uberuaga, Ray Silver, Barbara Kaiser, Sarah Lazarus, Jim Lamb, Stephen Kohler, Bob Franz I) HB Conference & Visitors Bureau - On July 19, 1993, the Economic Development staff will be presenting to Council the renewal of the Conference & Visitors Bureau's annual contract. Mr. Uberuaga stated that while the budget constraints are still unknown, he would prefer to wait until pending consideration of Budget B is decided (August 16), to determine funding of the Conference & Visitors Bureau for fiscal year 1993/94. After discussion of city priorities, Mayor Grace Winchell asked staff to modify the existing Grant Agreement from 12 months to 90-days to be considered by Council on July 19. This action would provide continued funds for the Bureau's operational expenses, and could be reconsidered at the end of 90-days. 2) Third Block West- The recent intent to appeal filed in court by Koller/Guarano has been abandoned.- The city can now proceed with this project, since there is no further pending litigation. The city attorney is proposing to contract with special outside counsel to represent the Redevelopment Agency in gaining access to private property within the project site for the purpose of testing for subsurface contamination. As the result of an underground tank uncovered in the Main Street improvement construction, the County of Orange has now found the city to be the "responsible party" for this contamination located at the southeast corner of the project site, and responsible for the preparation of a remediation plan. Discussion ensued related to parking issues, and the feasibility of the Third Block site being considered for parking, instead of development. Grace indicated that she would like to see the downtown parking problem resolved before she feels comfortable proceeding with this project. Jim Silva does not support parking on this site, and believes that staff and Council need to support the existing agreement with the site's developer. Mr. Uberuaga addressed one or two potential sites, identified by Community Development staff, that could be used for a small structure, or alternative sites that could be used for surface parking. Further, Mike stated that the problem remains because the requirements for parking are not realistic. t 1 ' }4 The Committee agreed with the City Attorney in regard to hazardous material action, and that an appraisal of the privately-owned parcels should be ordered. Barbara Kaiser also reminded the Committee that there is a binding contractual obligation through the Disposition and Development Agreement, and that the entitlements for the planned project are valid. 3) MaceRich Presentation - MaceRich representatives, Art Coppola, President and Lori Gatto, Vice President, gave an update to the group on the status of the BB Mall. With the recent announcement of J.C. Penney relocating to the Westminster.Mall, the Mall owners are strategizing the best means to recover. Mr. Coppola provided a comprehensive history of the Mall, and he believes now is the time for the Mall to make the transition from a traditional mall. He talked about previous negotiations conducted with major retailers like Nordstrom and Bullock's. Both retailers had constraints that, at this time, would not allow them to come to the.HB Mall. Knowing this, Art is having ongoing negotiations with users such as volume retailers, theaters, and sporting goods. Mr. Uberuaga asked Art how long before he has commitments with these users, and Art indicated that in some cases, confirmation would be possible within 60 days. Barbara Kaiser asked Art what city staff could do to assist MaceRich with their revitalization of the Mall, and Art said it is premature at this time to ask the city for any help - but as-deals get tied down, MaceRich will be in contact with staff. MaceRich is invited back in October to provide the group with an update. The next Redevelopment Committee is scheduled for Thursday, July 22, 1993, at 4:15 PM. BAK:ls xc: Mayor and City Council Department Heads 01 2 ATTACHMENT NO: g d • n •,J AUMYMS . REDEVELOPMENT COATM TrTEE MEETING May 5, 1993 In Attendance -Grace Winchell, Dave Sullivan, Mike Uberuaga, Barbara Kaiser, Stephen Kohler, Bob Franz, Jim Engle, Sarah Lazarus, Keith Bohr Absent: Jim Silva and Linda Moulton Patterson 1) City Pool and Gym - Jim Engle, Community Services, distributed the attached fact sheet on the status of the city gym and pool renovation plans. Jim provided an historical background on the project, and added that the Human Resources Board has identified this site as the#1 historical building in our city. It's the only public facility with an indoor pool, and he described all community service programs currently offered at the gym. A consultant, Howard T. MacDonald & Associates, has recently concluded a structural analysis of the building, and determined that the building is "structurally sound," and the city can renovate it for one-half the cost ($2,000,000) of building new-($4,000,000). At this time, Community Services has identified $693,000 of total funds available for restoring the city pool and gym. Staff asked for the committee's direction to go forward with the first phase of work and the financing plan as outlined on the attached sheet. A staff report will be prepared for consideration at an upcoming City Council meeting. 2) Third Block West - Stephen Kohler advised the Council committee that the project's developer, Newcomb/Tillotson, recently met with the three newest members of the Council/Agency to familiarize them with the project. Stephen distributed the attached excerpt (Remediation Action Plan), from the hazardous materials testing study, and discussion ensued on the phases of the remediation process and projected costs. Grace Winchell asked staff who will be monitoring the testing, and Stephen named Water and Air Quality Control agencies, and other county agencies, in addition to staff. Grace asked at what point in this process can the project go forward, and staff explained that remediation must be complete before the project can proceed. In conjunction with this project, Council asked staff the status of the Koller/Guarano lawsuit. Sarah Lazarus stated that the suit could be a lengthy process, and recently the plaintiffs received an extension from the court for filing causes of action. In the meantime, staff has sent a License Agreement to the property owner through which the Agency's consultant can gain access to the private property. Barbara Kaiser assured the committee that staff is on hold right now, but will keep Council apprised as staff receives updates from the court. 3) California Resorts Remmbursables - On May 17, 1993, Council will consider the finalization of outstanding reimbursables due to California Resorts, the developer of the Main- Pier Phase I project, Pierside Pavilion. The Disposition and Development Agreement requires the Agency be responsible for the cost of constructing offsite improvements. California Resorts has requested reimbursements that total $314,000. Staff recently met with Gary Lubliner, (principal connected with the project), and his attorney, Jerry Bame, to resolve this issue and mutually agreed to a final settlement for reimbursables, totaling $307,268. The developer presented invoices that substantiate$277,871, and with 10 months interest computed at 8%, staff will be recommending Council approve the $307,268 amount agreed upon by all parties. Grace Winchell asked staff how a timely monitoring system could be in place for future projects with-similar requests for reimbursable fees, and Dave Sullivan asked how staff verifies the fees expended. Barbara Kaiser assured the committee that staff is now pre-approving amounts as the work is performed, and the Abdelmuti project currently being developed, was given as an example. Further, Barbara has requested a waiver from the City Attorney's office to be signed by participants that would eliminate any future claims as the city's responsibility. Mola Development - Not on the agenda, but an item of interest to Mayor Winchell, was the status of payments from Mola Development related to the Town Square and Charter Center projects. Bob Franz responded that Frank Mola is still obligated and paying monthly fees through the city treasurer's office, related to.the Charter Center development. The Parks and Recreation fees (approximately $121,000) related to the Town Square project are still outstanding. The RTC has recently agreed to release funds currently in escrow from the sale proceeds of the residential units to be applied towards this obligation. A further update was provided in the City Administrator's Weekly Report. 4) City of Alhambra versus the State of California - Recently, in a lawsuit directed to the Supreme Court of California, the City of Alhambra has asked the court to determine whether this budget scheme meets the requirement of California Constitution, that tax increments be spent to pay the principal and interest on indebtedness incurred by an agency to finance redevelopment projects. The Community Redevelopment Association has formally supported the Alhambra litigation and is encouraging other cities to join the suit. In addition to informing the Council committee of the pending litigation, Barbara Kaiser asked Council members what their feelings were in supporting a class action suit in the future. Mike Uberuaga recommends against being passive, however, he does not support using Redevelopment funds to sue the state. The attorneys representing the CRA believe if a consolidation of all cities' concerns were filed in the form of a class action suit, all cities could benefit through this process, and CRA could find the ideal plaintiff. 2 Barbara Kaiser and Mike Uberuaga recommends we not support taking the lead in this, however, if the majority of the cities in Orange County decide to join the suit, the contribution is $1,000. Sarah Lazarus believes over the next three weeks more issues will be resolved, and we can determine the right time to join if necessary. 5) Industrial Business GYty Council Contacts- Recently, all Council members were provided a Business Industrial Directory" packet by Economic Development. The Council has decided to divide among them the names of businesses listed in the directory, and contact them directly to introduce themselves, chat with the business owners, and let them know how important their businesses are to the city. This campaign effort has been extended through the end of May, and Grace thanked Barbara and staff for providing wonderful packets. The next Redevelopment Committee is scheduled for Thursday, May 20, 1993, at 4:15 PM. Attachments xc: Mayor and City Council Department Heads O1 3 4/29/94 KOLLER/GAURANO PARCELS History of Value/Offers <:>:> :n::::Y::.�::.•i':::::::.:�.:::.i'::::::::::."r::::::::ni'.::.:�::ii::i4i'::::n::.:iiw:::v4i"::.:i4:4i:4::::.:�:::..: :n:::n•::.�.:::::::::::n:.:::::::::::.�::::::::.:n:.�.::::n:..:::::::::::::::::,.:n:v.::::nw.::n:.:::::n:.v:::. .:::.::.�::... .... ..... .... .i::1'.:nwn•::::::A::::::.::. .::::: :::::w::is .... 4. 303 Main & 302 5th 1,500,000 1,845,000 1,192,111 1,062,500 314 5th 350,000 500,000 350,000 300,000 Total 1,850,000 2,345,000 1,542,111 1,362,500 y 7 y z 0 Page 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development SUBJECT: , Order of Procedure--Resolution of Necessity DATE: July 22, 1994 Attached is the captioned document which we have prepared and which should accompany the agenda item for the City Council/Redevelopment Agency adjourned meeting of Monday, August 11 1994, regarding consideration of a Resolution of Necessity in the Third Block West project of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. This procedure is intended as a guide for the Chairperson through the course of the Administrative Hearing. Also attached is the "Chairman's Statement" as prepared by the Agency Attorney, which the Chairperson must read after announcing this agenda item on the first. If you have any questions please call. l SVK:jar ` o 1251jFAV/ �G�J j, ► City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALffORNIA 92"S From the desk of: CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK (714)536-5227 le- h� Oo• �3ox ,� 1V D i � I �w r � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK a�, 1 �5y etc (Telephone:714-536-5227) E­ CITY OF HUNTINGTON EACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK July 15, 1994 Ms. Janet Marston-Hartwell P. O. Box N Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Marston-Hartwell: I forwarded your letter dated July 11, 1994, to the Mayor and members of the City Council; also, to the City Administrator, Community Development Director, Economic Development Director, and Public Works Director for their information. Would you please inform me if you wrote this letter to be forwarded for the public hearings on the Downtown Specific Plan? Sincerely, 4n4 Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:jgh g:jgh\hartwell v (Telephone:714536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY " CITY CLERKcf- July 15, 1994 Ms. Janet Marston-Hartwell P. O. Box N Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Marston-Hartwell: I forwarded your letter dated July 11, 1994, to the Mayor and members of the City Council; also, to the City Administrator, Community Development Director, Economic Development Director, and Public Works Director for their information. Would you please inform me if you wrote this letter to be forwarded for the public hearings on the Downtown Specific Plan? Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC RECEIVED City Clerk CB:jgh JUL 18 1994. ECONOM�DEPAF?TMENT Op DEVELOPMENT B7gh�hartwell r. • (Telephone:714-536-5227) J� 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator FROM:. ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: REQUESTED APPROPRIATION FOR THIRD BLOCK WEST ACQUISITIONS, FIS 94-46 DATE: J U LY 20, 1994 As required by Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared for the proposed appropriation of $1,362,500 for purposes of acquiring the last remaining privately owned parcels in the Third Block West Project site. Upon approval of the City Council, the balance of the unaudited, undesignated Housing Set-Aside Fund would be reduced to $110,000, ROB RANZ Deputy Ci y Administr or RJF:skd 0004822.01 07/20/94 2:52 PM i /�ttu�ti�t ��•o. I l ........ .... .........:.......::::... ::::.:::.......:. : ... ��...:.....::...................:..................;................:......:. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Julie Osugi, Associate Planner DATE: July 26,1994 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 94-5 LOCATION: Three parcels located within the Third Block West project site, on the block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, Fifth Street and Orange Avenue. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: General Plan Conformance No. 94-5 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach Economic Development Department to determine whether the acquisition of 3 parcels (totaling approximately 0.5 acre)by the City of Huntington Redevelopment Agency is in compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Adopt Resolution No. 1494, approving General Plan Conformance No. 94-5 with findings." GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Economic Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: James Koller, 16001 Ballantine,Huntington Beach, CA 92647 REQUEST: To determine whether the acquisition of three parcels of property is in compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. DATE ACCEPTED: July 13, 1994 CWIZ " 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE,ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subiect.Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use-Office/Residential ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan-District 5 (Mixed Use-Commercial/Office/Residential) LAND USE: Combination of Commercial Buildings and Vacant Parcel North of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use-Office/Residential ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan-District 5 (Mixed Use-Commercial/Office/Residential) LAND USE: Vacant East of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use-Office/Residential ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan-District 5 (Mixed Use-Commercial/Office/Residential) LAND USE: Combination of Commercial and Vacant South of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use-Office/Residential ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan-District 5 (Mixed Use-Commercial/Office/Residential) LAND USE: Commercial West of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use-Office/Residential ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan-District 5 (Mixed Use-Commercial/Office/Residential) LAND USE: Combination of Single Family Detached Residences and Commercial Staff Report-7/26/94 2 (pcsr064) PROJECT PROPOSAL: General Plan Conformance No. 94-5 is a request to review the acquisition of approximately 0.5 acres by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency for conformance with the General Plan. The 0.5 acres consists of three(3)parcels, under private ownership, as depicted on Attachment No. 2. The parcels are located within Downtown Specific Plan, District 5 which is intended for mixed uses and are within the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area. The Government Code of the State of California, Section 65402, provides that a local agency(including a Redevelopment Agency).shall not acquire real property, nor dispose of any real property, nor construct a public building or structure in any County or City until the location, purpose and extent of such activity has been reported upon as to its conformity with the adopted General Plan. ISSUES: The subject property currently has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed Use- Office/Residential and is zoned Downtown Specific Plan, District 5 (Mixed Use- Commercial/Office/Residential). These designations are defined as follows: Land Use: Mixed Use- Office/Residential: The intent of this designation is to allow a mix of medium to high density condominium or apartment units with professional office space. This can be accomplished by integrating residential and office uses within the same general area or by vertically mixing these uses within the same building. Limited ancillary retail commercial and service uses are also conditionally allowed; however, the emphasis is on the office/residential mix. In an urban center, office and residential uses are compatible uses which complement each other. In the Downtown, intensified residential uses would provide housing close to employment and add support for planned general and visitor serving commercial uses. The offices and limited commercial uses would provide work opportunities and services to the residential community. Zoning: Downtown Specific Plan -District 5: The purpose of this District is to re-establish the area as the Downtown for the City by creating a more urban atmosphere, encouraging relatively higher intensity development with viable commercial office and residential uses. F Staff Report-7/26/94 3 (pcsr064) The subject property currently includes mixed commercial and parking/vacant parcels and is part of an approved mixed use project. This project, commonly referred to as Third Block West, consists of a 27,000 square foot commercial facility, 68 residential condominiums with subterranean parking and a City parking garage(Tentative Tract Map No. 14352, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 and Coastal Development Permit No. 90- 30). The Third Block West project will also include approximately 33 units affordable to moderate income households. General Plan Conformance: The acquisition of the subject parcels will allow for construction of a Redevelopment Project which includes 68 condominium units of varying size, of which approximately 33 will be designated affordable to moderate income households. Development of these units will provide additional housing opportunities and will increase the variety of residential units in the Downtown area. In addition, the redevelopment project includes a commercial component which will provide both services and employment opportunities for residents of the project and surrounding areas. As such, acquisition of the subject parcels is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan: Land Use: 1. 3.4.20.5 Housing: To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach by providing a variety of housing types.in all areas of the City. 2. 3.4.2.7 Residential Development: To encourage and maintain a well balanced variety of residential densities and uncrowded living environments by encouraging the rational use of land and other natural resources. 3. 3.4.2.8 Commercial Development and Tourism: To ensure commercial development that is economically viable, attractive, well related to other land uses, and satisfies the needs of the City's residents. 4. 3.4.2.8 Commercial Development and Tourism: To promote the development of services and facilities necessary to support a tourist industry by: a) Encouraging planned commercial development that will coincide with residential growth. b) Continuing to diversify the economic base of the City and increasing the tax base. c) Promoting the revitalization of the Downtown area. Staff Report-7/26/94 4 (pcsr064) Housing 5. 3.3.3.1(3)Adequate Provision: To assure the adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the community, the City of Huntington Beach shall encourage mixed-use projects containing residential and non-residential uses which can take advantage of shared land costs to reduce the cost of land for residential uses. 6. 3.3.3.1(6) Adequate Provision: To assure the adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the community, the City of Huntington Beach shall undertake economically feasible programs to provide housing throughout the community to meet the needs of low and moderate income households. 7. 3.3.3.1 (10) Adequate Provision: To assure the adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the community, the City of Huntington Beach shall encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. 8. 3.3.4.1 (1)(a) Standards and Plans for Adequate Sites: To assure the adequate provision of sites for housing, the City of Huntington Beach shall utilize the following criteria for identifying and evaluating potential sites for low and moderate cost housing. Sites should be located with convenient access to arterial highways and public transportation, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, shopping areas and employment opportunities. Environmental Status: The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. This section states that CEQA"...applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have.a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." The review of the subject acquisition for consistency with the General Plan will not result in any effect on the environment and, therefore, is exempt from CEQA. Environmental review of the Third Block West project was covered under Negative Declaration No. 90-41, adopted prior to approval of entitlements for the project. Coastal Status: The subject parcels are located within the coastal zone; however, a determination of conformance with the General Plan does not constitute development and, therefore, is exempt from coastal development permit requirements. The mixed use development proposed for the site was subject to coastal development permit processing and was approved under Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30. Staff Report-7/26/94 5 (pcsr064) Redevelopment Status: The subject parcels are located within a redevelopment project area. Acquisition of the parcels will permit development of an approved redevelopment project which includes a mix of commercial and residential uses. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. SUMMARY: General Plan Conformance No. 94-5 is a request to determine if acquisition of the subject three(3)parcels is in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Acquisition of the subject parcels by the Redevelopment Agency will facilitate development of an approved project which will provide a variety of residential units, including affordable units, in conjunction with commercial uses which will provide services and employment opportunities to residents of the project and surrounding area. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the acquisition in conformance with the General Plan based upon the fact that the acquisition is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may deny General Plan Conformance No. 94-5 with findings. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings for Approval 2. Project Vicinity Map 3. Resolution No. 1494 finding the acquisition of 3 parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to be in Conformance with the General Plan. SH:Jpikjl c� Staff Report-7/26/94 6 (par064) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 94-5 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 94-5: 1. Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will promote the provision of a quality living environment for members of all economic, social and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach by providing a variety of housing types in the City. The acquisition will allow for development of a mixed use development which includes 68 residential units of which approximately 33 will be designated affordable to moderate income households and, therefore, will increase housing opportunities in the Downtown area of the City. 2. Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will allow for development of a mixed use development which encourages the rational use of land by incorporating a mix of residential and commercial uses in convenient proximity to one another. 3. Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to ensure commercial development that is economically viable, attractive, well related to other land uses, and satisfies the needs of the City's residents by facilitating development of a commercial development which will provide services and job opportunities to occupants of the residential component of the project as well as the surrounding area. 4. Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to promote the development of services and facilities necessary to support a tourist industry by facilitating construction of a project which includes commercial development in conjunction with residential growth; will help to diversify the economic base and increase the tax base of the City by providing opportunities for additional commercial uses; and will promote the revitalization of the Downtown area through better use of existing vacant and under utilized parcels. 5. Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to assure the adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the community, by encouraging development of a mixed-rise project which contains residential and non-residential uses which take advantage of shared land costs to reduce the cost of land for residential uses. Attachment-7/26/94 (pcsr064-7) 6. Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment F- Agency will help to assure the adequate provision of housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households of the community by facilitating development of a project which will provide affordable housing units. 7. Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to assure the adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the community by facilitating development of a project which will provide residential units with variety in the number of rooms and amenities. 8. Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to assure the adequate provision of sites for housing which are located with convenient access to arterial highways and public transportation, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, shopping areas and employment opportunities since the subject property is located within a mixed commercial/residential development with convenient access to transportation and educational facilities. Attachment-7/26/94 (pcsr064-8) l 'J v C. 10 A. I is ,." � `� l f) Sri• �1 / A,,.W rill •J Fes. Ln Cv c - z z AIMS T / Attachment No. 2 (Cont'd). GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 94-5 (Acquisition of Three Parcels in the Third Block West Project Area by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency) PARCEL INFORMATION Parcel# Size in Size in on May APN# Square Feet Acres 1 024-143-20 5,375 0.12 2 024-143-17 10,750 0.25 3 024-143-12 5.875 0.13 Total 2 ,- RESOLUTION NO. 1494 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACQUISITION OF THREE PARCELS, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 00.5 ACRE, WITHIN THE THIRD BLOCK WEST PROJECT AREA THE TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 94-5) WHEREAS, the Government Code of the State of California, Section 65402, provides that a local agency shall not acquire real property, nor construct a public building or structure in any county or city until the location, purpose and extent of such activity has been reported upon as to conformity with the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the description of the proposed acquisition of the property, as depicted on Exhibit A(attached), and described as follows: Parcel 1: Approximately 5,375 square feet(approximately 0.12 acres) generally located approximately 125 feet northeast of the corner of the intersection of Olive Avenue and Fifth Street. Parcel 2: Approximately 10,750 square feet (approximately 0.25 acres)generally located on the northeast of the corner of the intersection of Olive Avenue and Fifth Street. Parcel 3: Approximately 5,875 square feet(approximately 0.13 acres) generally located on the northwest of the corner of the intersection of Olive Avenue and Main Street. NOW, THEREFORE the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach makes the following findings and does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will promote the provision of a quality living environment for members of all economic, social and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach by providing a variety of housing types in the City. The acquisition will allow for development of a mixed use development which includes 68 residential units of which approximately 33 will be designated affordable to moderate income households and, therefore, will increase housing opportunities in the Downtown area of the City. SECTION 2: Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will allow for development of a mixed use development which encourages the rational use of land by incorporating a mix of residential and commercial uses in convenient proximity to one another. SECTION 3: Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to ensure commercial development that is economically viable, attractive, well related to other land uses, and satisfies the needs of the City'.s residents by facilitating development of a commercial development which will provide services and job opportunities to occupants of the residential component of the project as well as the surrounding area.- SECTION 4: Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to promote the development of services and facilities necessary to support a tourist industry by facilitating construction of a project which includes commercial development in conjunction with residential growth; will help to diversify the economic base and increase the tax base of the City by providing opportunities for additional commercial uses; and will promote the revitalization of the Downtown area through better use of existing vacant and under utilized parcels. SECTION 5: Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to assure the adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the community, by encouraging development of a mixed-use project which contains residential and non-residential uses which take advantage of shared land costs to reduce the cost of land for residential uses. SECTION 6: Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to assure the adequate provision of housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households of the community by facilitating development of a project which will provide affordable housing units. SECTION 7: Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to assure the adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the community by facilitating development of a project which will . provide residential units with variety in the number of rooms and amenities. SECTION 8: Acquisition of the subject parcels by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will help to assure the adequate provision of sites for housing which are located with convenient access to arterial highways and public transportation, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, shopping areas and employment opportunities since the subject property is located within a mixed commercial/residential development with convenient access to transportation and educational facilities. SECTION 9: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission does hereby resolve that the acquisition of the subject parcels is in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July, 1994, by the following roll can vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson, Planning Commission (psr063-10,11) AM co op O A� tj Z. cov rill ., z 1. z �C It ORDER OF PROCEDURE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY THIRD BLOCK WEST PROJECT MONDAY. AUGUST 1, 1994 CHAIRPERSON ANNOUNCES AGENDA ITEM AND READS "CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT" (see attached) CLERK READS FULL TITLE FROM AGENDA MAYOR ASKS IF THERE WILL BE A STAFF PRESENTATION UBERUAGA ANSWERS AFFIRMATIVELY: BARBARA KAISER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WILL PROVIDE STAFF PRESENTATION ON HISTORY OF THIRD BLOCK WEST MAYOR ASKS IF THOSE WITH AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY HAVE REQUESTED TO SPEAK AND PROVIDED PROPER NOTICE TO THE CLERK WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME CLERK AFFIRMS THAT NOTICE WAS RECEIVED AND PROVIDES THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK MAYOR REQUESTS THAT THOSE REQUESTING TO SPEAK COME FORWARD PROPERTY OWNERS, TENANTS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SPEAK (TIME LIMIT PER SPEAKER: 1 QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY COUNCIL VOTE AND OUTCOME ANNOUNCED BY CLERK NEXT AGENDA ITEM } [lmCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Linda Moulton-Patterson, Chairperson, Redevelopment Agency, and Me bers of the Redevelopment Agency FROM: Gail Hutton,Agency Counsel DATE: July 21, 1994 SUBJECT: Chairman's Statement Before Hearing on Eminent Domain Resolution Agency Meeting: August 1, 1994 Agenda Item: D- 7 Before the hearing on the Resolution of Necessity at the Redevelopment Agency meeting on August 1, 1994, the Chairman should announce the following: 1. This agenda item is a specially noticed hearing held under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235. Only those persons who have been specially noticed and have previously requested to appear and be heard,or their designees, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235, shall be heard at this time. 2. The subject matter of this special hearing is limited to the following items: A. Whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project. B. Whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. C. Whether the property described in the resolution is necessary for the proposed project. 3. The amount of compensation is not at issue during this public hearing. It will be decided by the courts at a later date,should the resolution be adopted. • r Chairperson and Members of the Redevelopment Agency July 21, 1994 Page 2 4. A two-thirds majority is required to adopt the resolution. Other comments by the Chairperson, as appropriate, may also be made, but the above items 1 through 4 must be stated before opening the special hearing. Gail Hutton City Attorney cc: Michael Uberuaga, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency Connie Brockway, Agency Clerk Barbara Kaiser, Director of Economic Development Stephen Kohler, Project Manager - ` ^ ' ^ � JANET MARSTON-HARTWELL P. O. BOX N HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92648 �� ^ ~ /� l^ v ~�^ w�~ .. `�, � July 11 , 1994 . Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA,, 92648 Dear Ms,, Brockway, I am a tenant at 302 5th Street. I learned today that, once again, our building is threatened by the bulldozer. As a long-time resident of Huntington Beach, I have watched my tax dollars wasted on "improvements" and "redevelopment. " I watched as Main Street, downtown, was torn up and repaved, only to have it torn up again later to install a new pipeline. I had my peace and quiet disrupted for over at year as the old hotel on PCH was razed and the Waterfront Hilton built, at hotel that is now fighting bankruptcy because of its low occupancy rate. I don` t know 'what the plans are for this particular corner, but in view of the vacancy factor in the new buildings downtown, it would seem prudent to allow things to stabilize before putting yet another new building into competition with the exisiting inventory. At the very least, that vacancy factor should preclude any pretense of "necessity" that would justify acquisition of the property by eminent domain. Those of us who are tenants at 302 5th Street are very happy with our cozy offices. It would be impossible to duplicate the convenience and affordability of what we have here, and I can almost guarantee that none of us would be candidates for the new, high-priced office space that is replacing the older structures. I trust you will make certain that these factors are taken into consideration in the decision-making process. 2 5th Street #1 Ile � A� J-/6,07;& r4. sZ& d18 7/4 J 711 -/8 7 7 r )5;--n C, rn j t.5t-c/- 60 Cp .3- C. / r AIX M-1 � 8 y y Ili ifIf1111111M1„11 fill Hl,11,,,1:III,,,11{11,,,11,111,11E1 .S`7 �sr- . . - y - h cu - ---- _ - -• - - ---- -� - . - - - .- .___. __. - �- - -. ._ .._-. . . _ _ _�� �^/off ._ LctM� f k"4ur"- jsv,� C19-1 U-A- e- CIT� C+ #-LtKTtAjT&2A -;r� a000 mg-jili HUNTINGTON BEACH AVIATION SUPPLY 7- ('01"TE17 9pcc-k-lu)4vjc(7-vCLI�IZ I[4 C 17 . ©P 4oA)rtt)Rc� �000 144A14) r- � x �C7 r_ T -�e p--J 2�. - D c, . 9 ' rl Pin USA 29 0,4 c� , e T�EtyfD HUyr1ycT CITY--ERA. f- . Ronald J. Dreyer Ail c.;trF 302 5th Street#s 104 & 105 l8 11 yg.P19 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 3q (714) 960-6112 July 14, 1994 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Ms. Brockway, This is my 'written request to appear' at the meeting of the Redevelopment Agency to be held on August 1, 1994 regarding the cities intension to adopt a Resolution of Necessity authorizing the acquisition by eminent domain of the private property location in the 3rd block west of downtown Huntington Beach. �g /".(I-,. jkonald J. Dr er CommonweSilh of-the ff Vorthern Marianaxslands� 0 KkA 6()117) (f667e-< Cll� Z'000 ck ocl k w a y G i�v C ,�e r) G i v o- N v t �dv) 8 �. �o o M �, Sfi _ Nunn 1 �o`n 1�e��, C� c1 z61� TM ocksery LLb ♦r O S veV- -Yo0I\rl IQ-fifie\ o -S vvv�a\fl e d sUi y 6 t� (TQy V-ov"r\ &-/CAC.,Vedorme`,\t �o\,/' propose CAG7vlstc)"l II � U 0 Sfi � i qq� Z A 1r�(V'i��eY� Y e �U eS �n�et�� i av� �p a 10ery� . -k St. STE . #206 , � P-CAc � Th\s re- C ; C AIA P u �1 Ca e o� I \ S �aT te V- � fi 1 koor\ k00 , 302 5th Street,Suite 206 S 14 DUI t4 C".""."�s:. ,z ` .Huntington Beach, California 92648 �99 n r 2 n U0023. °-uL . a ►' Hung-RECEIPT Broc"kWO(yJ ..Git� C C k REQUESTEIV C . . . . . Y right2-000 ST CERTIFIED H ,)IVT -Ttv &t o fv '6 f�A G H q� P 394 649 844 MAIL