HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuntington Beach Redevelopment Plan Amendment Feasibility St ]A Huntington Beach
® Redevelopment Plan
Amendment Feasibility Study
March 2, 2009
Project Overview
❖ Strategic Plan goal: create a land use plan for reuse
of critical parcels
Shopping Center Inventory Project accelerated in
2007 via approved H-item by Councilmember Hansen
Windshield survey of 50 centers completed/presented
in 2007
• Council Study Session
• Mayor's Forum - center owners and
managers
Staff directed to evaluate feasibility of including
shopping centers into existing Merged Project Area
❖ GRC retained in May 2008 to perform feasibility study
y
GRC's Project Role
❖ Assist Agency on the feasibility of a
Redevelopment plan Amendment to add
area
❖ Assess the physical and economic blight
conditions of 86 commercial centers
totaling 365 acres
% Conduct a parcel-by-parcel blight survey
of areas designated for commercial use
•2• Analyze information from various City
Departments
Agency's Direction
No residential properties to be
included in the Study Area
❖ No eminent domain authority in the
Study Area
2
Why Would it be Beneficial to
Amend the Project Area?
Enlarges the area and availability of
redevelopment tools to improve the
community's economy
Revitalizes the existing business community —
very competitive market area with limited land
♦o• Uses tax increment financing to:
• Rehabilitate existing commercial buildings
• Attract new businesses and retain existing
businesses
• Promote local Job opportunities
Requirements for
Plan Amendment to Add Area
❖ Adding area to an existing Project Area is a
similar process to creating a new Project
Area
Two key requirements:
1. Predominantly urbanized
2. Characterized by one or more conditions
of physical blight and one or more
conditions of economic blight
3
Blight Requirements
Physical Blight Economic Blight
Unsafe buildings Depreciated or stagnant
Structures vulnerable to property values
serious seismic damage Impaired property values
:• Substandard construction from hazardous waste
or obsolete design ❖ Vacancies and low lease
rates
Incompatible land uses
Excess of bars, liquor
:• Small or irregular shaped stores, adult-oriented
parcels with multiple businesses
owners
Inadequate sewer and High crime
water facilities
Examples of Blight
• Serious deterioration
• Substandard construction
r Vacant
Graffiti
x
/ f
a S
4
a
Examples of Blight
• Faulty electrical and code violations
y y
Examples ®f Blight
• Obsolete design for commercial use
ff • Adult entertainment
%i Environmental issues—
leaking underground storage tank
ZIA
3
4
fl3 S
5
O Blight ht Assessment
❖ 3 Centers — dilapidated/deteriorated buildings
❖ 5 Centers — inadequate water or sewer
❖ 16 Centers — within liquefaction areas and no
seismic retrofits
❖ 9 Centers — hazardous leaks from underground
storage tanks
❖ 9 Centers — Slow or declining sales revenues
❖ 3 Centers — Low lease rates
❖ 53 Centers — Relatively high crime rates
(crimes per acre)
Centers Exhibiting Both Physical and
Economic Blight
❖ 23 of the total 86 centers exhibited both
physical and economic blight
❖ 87 parcels within the 23 centers totaling
127 acres
❖ Total assessed property value in 2008
$164 million
6
Centers Exhibiting Both Physical and
Economic Blight
33 D
.... a dinner
Al � -
m ro c
w
U eA
$ Heil
34
85
Terry
9
._ 51 VFra'nCr ., - 44
4I
F3;45 Heim fj7E -GG �d8
J M46
- 23 = 2?
_ - WYU13rt
z Warne,
-
- _.24_ laif>erF -
Blighted Non-Blighted
Centers Centers
Centers Exhibiting Both Physical and
Economic Blight
za earnelr9
3� g
Or&f6
D
Adz '
12 q .
27MI MA26
e
Indianapolis -
a
2�
Atlanta
Blighted Non-Blighted
Centers Centers
7
e
Key Steps Public Input
Amendment Process
'tSeriesgf 1-2 years to complete
` Community amendment process,
« Workshops
including community
znd series of outreach program and
r` ` Community'' CEQA process
s a + Workshops -
: : • 2ublic Hearing
on Draft'EIR
« e «
Joint Public-Hearing
8
2/25/2009
ATJV ISO RS IN PUBLIC/PRI VATS REAL ESTATE DEVILOPMENT
Tax Allocation Bond Capacity and
Tax Increment Revenue Limit
Reasons Redevelopment Agencies
Issue Bonds
• Funding infrastructure improvements
• Blight elimination within the Project Areas
• Receipt of Tax Increment Revenue
contingent on RDA indebtedness
31c P-/,-AO 0
�V
2/25/2009
Tax Allocation Bond Capacity
Net bond proceeds =
® $12.4 million potentially
available to fund qualifying
projects
Tax Allocation Bond Scenarios
Hum .�.4.F?:�E'sEs".12{,HiS 'k', 3P,ti# Sato,
., ,- ':ate g - 4 .�.sue;
2
2/25/2009
Redevelopment Plan Limits
• Time Limit on Effectiveness of Plan
• Time Limit to Receive Tax Increment
• Time Limit on Incurring Debt
• Total Bonded Indebtedness Limit
• Total Tax Increment Revenue Limit
Merged Area = $850,000,000
Tax Increment Revenue Projected to FY 2036-37
so o0a
so 000 ■Incrennentb Redevelopment '
w m Base Year b Taxing En4tes
o
c
E
30,000
U ?
C j
X
N
H 20,000
N
N
Q
10,000
0
tio^a oti oti� otih oti pya o�� os� o�h o��
ti� ti ti `ti ti ti ry ti ti n. 1, ti M1 ti
Fiscal Year
3
2/25/2009
Forfeited Tax Increment Under the$850 million Cap
60,000 ....
®Inc � ,
ementForere
so 000 ®Nlocaed b Redevebpment Under the Caps
®Base Year b Taxing Erities v
„r.
g 40,000
so,00o
u ;
/i
ME
~ 20,000
w
i
(„ry 1111 lli /$3l1,,� fME3 tt�'`
i
10,000 rTe�.BtI
0
Fiscal Year
Tax tru�.xrffint R3evenue.Pac�ee:.t:+an
?,;1Ery�.d R�Sere&aprr2erft�wjetA.
�antlame Beach Ftedeapmant AzXanary'
7A,
x�N-CS'Sstl"-9YS31:C GR.`S£ $sFSt5i F855 '''1.£tt
;_ 'ax Gvnre T.
�ezd:*zrt}, +:.a';ss: Se:F.SEAB
Irs_rcn..erx'!. Ti F.ecat ti:;'M„, ( ?a e'dOA -:2 A. tam. 3ar�•gsr.szaztt
Id eM
,- �52'Fc w bfs _Tfr n"2
v
VIA
4-sue' &11K ax, ..,
s,- 41af''
4
2/25/2009
Amended Redevelopment Plan Limits
Redevelopment Plan Limits can only be
changed or increased by a Plan Amendment
— Prove significant blight remains in Merged Project
— Full plan amendment documentation and EIR
— Public Hearings, consultations with taxing agencies,
project area committees, etc.
Next steps . . .
• Direct RDA staff to proceed with Plan Amendment
• Identify specific areas that are blighted and those that
are not blighted
• Identify redevelopment projects, programs and activities
to eradicate remaining blight
• Justify the costs of such projects vis-a-vis the increase in
the proposed revenue cap
5