The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAmendment of Five Redevelopment Project Areas/Main-Pier/H FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT APPROVED BY UMMMM AGENCY ACTION ED 94-48 ii'YCL = Date: October 17, 1994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor/Chairman and City Council/Agency Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator/Executive Dire r / Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development Subject: ADOPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS ANP IMPLEMENTATION PLANS - FIVE PROJECT AREAS Cyr l t-P 10 7 0-11� 3 a 6,3 Gam✓ _3 P3 Cv 5! ,• { C 3 Z Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, „ Attachments: ' STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Redevelopment Reform Act of 1993 added specific language to the Health and Safety Code which requires all redevelopment agencies to: (1) amend project areas to conform to the mandated timing requirements of the Act, and (2) to prepare five year "Implementation Plans." RECOMMENDED COUNCIL/AGENCY ACTIONS: 1. Open public hearing and receive testimony. Close hearing. 2. Consider testimony. 3. Approve introduction of Ordinance No. ` '_ amending the Huntington Center Redevelopment Plan. 4. Approve introduction of Ordinance No. amending the Main Pier Redevelopment Plan. 5. Approve introduction of Ordinance No. amending the Oakview Redevelopment Plan. 6. Approve introduction of Ordinance No. ` amending the Talbert- Beach Redevelopment Plan. 7. Approve introduction of Ordinance No. G amending the Yorktown- Lake Redevelopment Plan. RCA/RAA ED 94-48 October 17, 1994 Page two ANALYSIS: 1. Plan Amendments - The Redevelopment Reform Act requires all redevelopment agencies to amend redevelopment plans regarding: • The term of the plan; • The term in which to collect tax increment; • The term to incur debt; and • The term in which to repay debt. The alterations in timing are unique to each agency and redevelopment project area. The specific changes to each of the five Huntington Beach project areas are summarized in Attachment Number One. 2. Implementation Plans - The Redevelopment Reform Act also created a new requirement for redevelopment agencies to prepare five year Implementation Plans. The law requires that these plans include: A statement of the goals and objectives included in the original plan adoption; A prioritized listing of goals for the project area for the next five years; A restatement of the findings of blight made in the Report to the City Council at the time of the original project area adoption; • A statement of previous actions taken to address blight; • A summary of outstanding conditions of blight; and A reconciliation of the goals, cost of projects, funding sources, and priorities which also identifies the outstanding elements of blight which will be addressed by each of these activities. Lastly, each Implementation Plan must include a cash flow analysis of tax increment for the general purpose (80%) tax increment as well as the 20% housing set aside. The housing set aside cash flow also serves as the required five one year plans for the implementation of a comprehensive housing program to address the Agency's housing obligations. RCA/RAA ED 94-48 October 17, 1994 Page three The Redevelopment Plan Amendments, by law, must be accomplished through adoption of approving Resolutions of both the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency and by adoption of local ordinances. However, many of the procedures normally required to adopt or amend a redevelopment project area were waived by the State Legislature to stream-line adoption of these mandated and limited scope amendments. Therefore, technical reports and creation of a project area committee are not required. The entire fiscal review process through which the agency consulted with other taxing entities has been permanently ended by the Redevelopment Reform Act. FUNDING SOURCE: None required for this action. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Direct staff to amend the Ordinances or Implementation Plans and return documents for consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Matrix of Changes to Redevelopment Plans 2. Ordinance No. Regarding Huntington Center Redevelopment Plan. 3. Ordinance No. Regarding Main Pier Redevelopment Plan. 4. Ordinance No. Regarding Oakview Redevelopment Plan. 5. Ordinance No. Regarding Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Plan. 6. Ordinance No. Regarding Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Plan. Stephen/RCAAmplplan 0//7 s r rerlrl ORDINANCE NO. 3265 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING OR ADDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS TO THE TALBERT-BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH RESPECT TO AREAS OF THE PROJECT AREA INCLUDED, ADDED, OR INCORPORATED INTO SAID REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1994 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency"), is a public body, corporate and politic, formed, organized, existing and exercising its powers pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq. (the "CRL"); and The City established the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project (the "Project") by Ordinance No. 2577 on September 20, 1982, which ordinance approved a redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") in connection with the Project; and The California Legislature by Assembly Bill 1290, Statutes of 1993, Chapter 942, amended the CRL, and particularly in relation to this Ordinance Section 33333.6 was added to the CRL, which provides in part that all redevelopment plans adopted and amended prior to January 1, 1994 are required to contain certain time limitations, and cities are required on or before 1 7/timlimit/1 0/3/94 �r �r December 31, 1994 to amend their redevelopment plan(s) by ordinance to include such limitations; and Section 33333.6(a)(1) of the Community Redevelopment Law provides: "The time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness adopted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33333.2 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33333.4 shall not exceed 20 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2004, whichever is later, but does not prevent agencies from incurring debt to be paid from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund or establishing more debt in order to fulfill the agency's housing obligations under Section 33413"; and Section 333331.6(a)(2) provides: "The time limitation may be extended, only by amendment of the redevelopment plan, after the agency finds, based on substantial evidence that: (A) significant blight remains within the project area; and (B) this blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt. However, this amended time limitation may not exceed 10 years from the time limit established pursuant to this subdivision or the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan established pursuant to subdivision (b), whichever is earlier"; and Section 33333.6(b) provides: "The effectiveness of every redevelopment plan subject to the provisions of Section 33333.6 shall terminate at a date which shall not exceed 40 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2009, whichever is later. After the time limit on the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan, the agency shall have no authority to act pursuant to 2 7/timlimith 0/3/94 the redevelopment plan except to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations"; and Section 33333.6(c) provides that except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h), a redevelopment agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Section 33670 after 10 years from the termination of the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan pursuant to subdivision (b); and Section 33333.6(e)(1) provides that unless a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, contains all of the limitations required by this section and each of these limitations does not exceed the applicable time limits established by this section, the legislative body, acting by ordinance on or before December 31, 1994, shall amend every redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, either to amend an existing time limit that exceeds the applicable time limit established by this section or to establish time limits that do not exceed the provisions of subdivision (a)(b), or (c); and Section 33333.6(e)(2) provides that the limitations established in the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall apply to the redevelopment plan as if the redevelopment plan had been amended to include those limitations; however, in adopting the ordinance required by this section, neither the legislative body nor the agency is required to comply with Article 12 (commencing with Section 33450) or any other provision of this part relating to the amendment of redevelopment plans; and Section 33333.6(f)(1) provides that if a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, contains one or more limitations required by this section, 3 7/timlimit/10/3/94 1W .4 and the limitation does not exceed the applicable time limit required by this section, this section shall not be construed to require an amendment of this limitation; and WHEREAS, Section 33333.6(f)(2) provides that a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, that has a limitation shorter than the terms provided in this section may be amended to extend the limitation, within the applicable time limit established by this section, pursuant to Section 33354.6; and Section 33333.6(g) provides: "The limitations established in the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall not a applied to limit allocation of taxes to an agency to the extent required to eliminate project deficits created under subdivision (e) of Section 33320.5, subdivision (g) of Section 33334.6, or subdivision (d) of Section 33487, in accordance with the plan adopted pursuant thereto for the purpose of eliminating the deficits or to implement a replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413. In the event of a conflict between these limitations and the obligations under Section 33334.6 or to implement a replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413, the legislative body shall amend the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to modify the limitations to the extent necessary to permit compliance with the plan adopted pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 33334.6 and to allow full expenditure of moneys in the agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in accordance with Section 33334.3 or to permit implementation of the replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413. The procedure for amending the ordinance 4 7/timlimit/10l3/94 pursuant to this subdivision shall be the same as for adopting the ordinance under subdivision (e)"; and Section 33333.6(h) provides: "This section shall not be construed to affect the validity of any bond, indebtedness, or other obligation, including any mitigation agreement entered into pursuant to Section 33401, authorized by the legislative body, or the agency pursuant to this part, prior to January 1, 1994. Nor shall this section be construed to affect the right of an agency to receive property taxes, pursuant to Section 33670, to pay the indebtedness or other obligation"; and Section 33333.6(i) provides that a redevelopment agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Section 33670, with respect to a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, after the date identified in subdivision (c) or the date identified in the redevelopment plan, whichever is earlier, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) or in subdivision (h); and Section 33333.60) provides that the Legislature finds and declares that the amendments made to this section by the act that adds this subdivision are intended to add limitations to the law on and after January 1, 1994, and are not intended to change or express legislative intent with respect to the law prior to that date, and further that it is not the intent of the Legislature to affect the merits of any litigation regarding the ability of a redevelopment agency to sell bonds for a term that exceeds the limit of a redevelopment plan pursuant to law that existed prior to January 1, 1994; and 5 7/timlimit/10/3/94 4 MW In the current Redevelopment Plan there are certain time limitations which may not accord with those time limitations required by Section 33333.6; and It is the desire of the City by this Ordinance to comply in all respects with all applicable requirements of Section 33333.6 of the CRL. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Establishing or Amending Certain Time Limitations. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby amended by the addition of certain time limitations as set forth in subsections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, as follows. Section 1.1 Limitation of Incursion of Indebtedness. Except to the extent a longer period of time may be allowed pursuant to Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h) or other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, as of January 1, 2004, the Agency's ability to establish loans, advances, and indebtedness to be paid with the proceeds of property taxes received pursuant to Section 33670 of the CRL to finance in whole or in part the Redevelopment Project shall terminate. Section 1.2 Term of Effective Dates of the Redevelopment Plan. Except as provided by Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h), other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, and except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions which shall run in perpetuity, the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan shall be effective and the provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan may be made effective until September 20, 2022. After such time limit on the 6 7/timlimit/10/5/94 effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency shall still have the authority to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations. Section 1.3 Limitation on Receipt of Tax Increment to Pay Certain Debt. Except to the extent a longer period of time may be allowed pursuant to Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h) or other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, the Agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property tax increment generated from the Redevelopment Project after September 20, 2032, provided however, nothing in the foregoing limitation shall be construed to or shall affect the validity of any bond, indebtedness, or other obligation, including any mitigation agreement entered into pursuant to Section 33401 of the CRL, authorized by the City or the Agency prior to January 1, 1994, nor shall the foregoing limitation be construed to affect the right of the Agency to receive property tax increment to pay such indebtedness or obligation. Section 2. New Limitations Prevail if Conflict with Existing Limitations. Section 1, and each subdivision thereof inclusive, of this Ordinance shall, to the extent of a conflict, if any, take precedence over those limitations in the Redevelopment Plan concerning such limitations. Section 3. Right to Extend Such Limitations. No actions with respect to further extending the time limitations set forth herein pursuant to Section 33333.6(a)(2) or other provisions of the CRL are being taken at this time, but the right to consider such extension(s) of the time limitations is reserved. 7 7/imlimit/l0/3/94 Section 4. Compliance with Section 33333.6. The City Council finds and determines amendments to the Redevelopment Plan as adopted by this Ordinance are in compliance with the requirements and time limitations set forth in Section 33333.6 of the CRL. Section 5. Redevelopment Plan Otherwise in Full Effect. The Redevelopment Plan is and shall remain in full force and effect, unmodified except to the extent of those particular amendments expressly set forth in this Ordinance. Section 6. Publication of Ordinance. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same to be published with the names of Councilmembers voting for and against the same in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Huntington Beach. 8 7/timlimit/10/3/94 Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held thereof on the 7th day of November , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: INITIATED AND APPROVED: - City Clerk Director of Economic Development APPROVED AS TO FORM: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: ttyy tttorney AAity Administrator v- 3 `�� Io 3 q`f 9 7/timlimit/10/3/94 Ord. No. 3265 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of October, 1994, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th of November, 1994, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmembers: Bauer, Robitaille, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Silva, Moulton-Patterson (out of room) City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California �17//7 ORDINANCE NO. 3266 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING OR ADDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS TO THE YORKTOWN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH RESPECT TO AREAS OF THE PROJECT AREA INCLUDED, ADDED, OR INCORPORATED INTO SAID REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1994 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency"), is a public body, corporate and politic, formed, organized, existing and exercising its powers pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq. (the "CRL"); and The City established the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project (the "Project") by Ordinance No. 2576 on September 20, 1982, which ordinance approved a redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") in connection with the Project; and The California Legislature by Assembly Bill 1290, Statutes of 1993, Chapter 942, amended the CRL, and particularly in relation to this Ordinance Section 33333.6 was added to the CRL, which provides in part that all redevelopment plans adopted and amended prior to January 1, 1994 are required to contain certain time limitations, and cities are required on or before 1 7/timlimit/l 0/5/94 ter► aw► December 31, 1994 to amend their redevelopment plan(s) by ordinance to include such limitations; and Section 33333.6(a)(1) of the Community Redevelopment Law provides: "The time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness adopted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33333.2 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33333.4 shall not exceed 20 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2004, whichever is later, but does not prevent agencies from incurring debt to be paid from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund or establishing more debt in order to fulfill the agency's housing obligations under Section 33413"; and Section 333331.6(a)(2) provides: "The time limitation may be extended, only by amendment of the redevelopment plan, after the agency finds, based on substantial evidence that: (A) significant blight remains within the project area; and (B) this blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt. However, this amended time limitation may not exceed 10 years from the time limit established pursuant to this subdivision or the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan established pursuant to subdivision (b), whichever is earlier"; and Section 33333.6(b) provides: "The effectiveness of every redevelopment plan subject to the provisions of Section 33333.6 shall terminate at a date which shall not exceed 40 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2009, whichever is later. After the time limit on the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan, the agency shall have no authority to act pursuant to 2 7ltimlimit/10/5/94 the redevelopment plan except to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations"; and Section 33333.6(c) provides that except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h), a redevelopment agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Section 33670 after 10 years from the termination of the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan pursuant to subdivision (b); and Section 33333.6(e)(1) provides that unless a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, contains all of the limitations required by this section and each of these limitations does not exceed the applicable time limits established by this section, the legislative body, acting by ordinance on or before December 31, 1994, shall amend every redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, either to amend an existing time limit that exceeds the applicable time limit established by this section or to establish time limits that do not exceed the provisions of subdivision (a)(b), or (c); and Section 33333.6(e)(2) provides that the limitations established in the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall apply to the redevelopment plan as if the redevelopment plan had been amended to include those limitations; however, in adopting the ordinance required by this section, neither the legislative body nor the agency is required to comply with Article 12 (commencing with Section 33450) or any other provision of this part relating to the amendment of redevelopment plans; and Section 33333.6(f)(1) provides that if a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, contains one or more limitations required by this section, 3 7/timlimiU10/5/94 4 MW W and the limitation does not exceed the applicable time limit required by this section, this section shall not be construed to require an amendment of this limitation; and WHEREAS, Section 33333.6(f)(2) provides that a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, that has a limitation shorter than the terms provided in this section may be amended to extend the limitation, within the applicable time limit established by this section, pursuant to Section 33354.6; and Section 33333.6(g) provides: "The limitations established in the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall not a applied to limit allocation of taxes to an agency to the extent required to eliminate project deficits created under subdivision (e) of Section 33320.5, subdivision (g) of Section 33334.6, or subdivision (d) of Section 33487, in accordance with the plan adopted pursuant thereto for the purpose of eliminating the deficits or to implement a replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413. In the event of a conflict between these limitations and the obligations under Section 33334.6 or to implement a replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413, the legislative body shall amend the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to modify the limitations to the extent necessary to permit compliance with the plan adopted pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 33334.6 and to allow full expenditure of moneys in the agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in accordance with Section 33334.3 or to permit implementation of the replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413. The procedure for amending the ordinance 4 7/timlimit/10/5/94 pursuant to this subdivision shall be the same as for adopting the ordinance under subdivision (e)"; and Section 33333.6(h) provides: "This section shall not be construed to affect the validity of any bond, indebtedness, or other obligation, including any mitigation agreement entered into pursuant to Section 33401, authorized by the legislative body, or the agency pursuant to this part, prior to January 1, 1994. Nor shall this section be construed to affect the right of an agency to receive property taxes, pursuant to Section 33670, to pay the indebtedness or other obligation"; and Section 33333.6(i) provides that a redevelopment agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Section 33670, with respect to a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, after the date identified in subdivision (c) or the date identified in the redevelopment plan, whichever is earlier, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) or in subdivision (h); and Section 33333.60) provides that the Legislature finds and declares that the amendments made to this section by the act that adds this subdivision are intended to add limitations to the law on and after January 1, 1994, and are not intended to change or express legislative intent with respect to the law prior to that date, and further that it is not the intent of the Legislature to affect the merits of any litigation regarding the ability of a redevelopment agency to sell bonds for a term that exceeds the limit of a redevelopment plan pursuant to law that existed prior to January 1, 1994; and 5 7/timlimit/10/5/94 r In the current Redevelopment Plan there are certain time limitations which may not accord with those time limitations required by Section 33333.6; and It is the desire of the City by this Ordinance to comply in all respects with all applicable requirements of Section 33333.6 of the CRL. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES ORDAIN A.`_: FOLLOWS: Section 1. Establishing or Amending Certain Time Limitations. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby amended by the addition of certain time limitations as set forth in subsections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, as follows. Section 1.1 Limitation of Incursion of Indebtedness. Except to the extent a longer period of time may be allowed pursuant to Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h) or other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, as of January 1, 2004, the Agency's ability to establish loans, advances, and indebtedness to be paid with the proceeds of property taxes received pursuant to Section 33670 of the CRL to finance in whole or in part the Redevelopment Project shall terminate. Section 1.2 Term of Effective Dates of the Redevelopment Plan. Except as provided by Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h), other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, and except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions which shall run in perpetuity, the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan shall be effective and the provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan may be made effective until September 20, 2022. After such time limit on the 6 7/timlimit/10/5/94 effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency shall still have the authority to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations. Section 1.3 Limitation on Receipt of Tax Increment to Pay Certain Debt. Except to the extent a longer period of time may be allowed pursuant to Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h) or other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, the Agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property tax increment generated from the Redevelopment Project after September 20, 2032, provided however, nothing in the foregoing limitation shall be construed to or shall affect the validity of any bond, indebtedness, or other obligation, including any mitigation agreement entered into pursuant to Section 33401 of the CRL, authorized by the City or the Agency prior to January 1, 1994, nor shall the foregoing limitation be construed to affect the right of the Agency to receive property tax increment to pay such indebtedness or obligation. Section 2. New Limitations Prevail if Conflict with Existing Limitations. Section 1, and each subdivision thereof inclusive, of this Ordinance shall, to the extent of a conflict, if any, take precedence over those limitations in the Redevelopment Plan concerning such limitations. Section 3. Right to Extend Such Limitations. No actions with respect to further extending the time limitations set forth herein pursuant to Section 33333.6(a)(2) or other provisions of the CRL are being taken at this time, but the right to consider such extension(s) of the time limitations is reserved. 7 7/timlimit/10/5/94 Section 4. Compliance with Section 33333.6. The City Council finds and determines amendments to the Redevelopment Plan as adopted by this Ordinance are in compliance with the requirements and time limitations set forth in Section 33333.6 of the CRL. Section 5. Redevelopment Plan Otherwise in Full Effect. The Redevelopment Plan is and shall remain in full force and effect, unmodified except to the extent of those particular amendments expressly set forth in this Ordinance. Section 6. Publication of Ordinance. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same to be published with the names of Councilmembers voting for and against the same in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Huntington Beach. 8 7/timlimit/10/5/94 Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held thereof on the 7th day of November , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: INITIATED AND APPROVED: .4wi &�A (�A_cz:�4�- City Clerk Director of Economic Development APPROVED AS TO FORM: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: 01 City Attorney �� CI Administrator G� A 1 9 7/timlimit/10/3/94 r Ord. No. 3266 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at an re ular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of October. 1994, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th of November, 1994, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmembers: Bauer, Robitaille, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Silva, Moulton-Patterson (out of room) City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 1011 -7 ORDINANCE NO. 3262 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING OR ADDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS TO THE HUNTINGTON CENTER COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH RESPECT TO AREAS OF THE PROJECT AREA INCLUDED, ADDED, OR INCORPORATED INTO SAID REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1994 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency"), is a public body, corporate and politic, formed, organized, existing and exercising its powers pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq. (the "CRL"); and The City established the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project (the "Project") by Ordinance No. 2743 on November 26, 1984, which ordinance approved a redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") in connection with the Project; and The California Legislature by Assembly Bill 1290, Statutes of 1993, Chapter 942, amended the CRL, and particularly in relation to this Ordinance Section 33333.6 was added to the CRL, which provides in part that all redevelopment plans adopted and amended prior to January 1, 1994 are required to contain certain time limitations, and cities are required on or before 1 7/timlimit/l 0/3/94 December 31, 1994 to amend their redevelopment plan(s) by ordinance to include such limitations; and Section 33333.6(a)(1) of the Community Redevelopment Law provides: "The time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness adopted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33333.2 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33333.4 shall not exceed 20 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2004, whichever is later, but does not prevent agencies from incurring debt to be paid from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund or establishing more debt in order to fulfill the agency's housing obligations under Section 33413"; and Section 333331.6(a)(2) provides: "The time limitation may be extended, only by amendment of the redevelopment plan, after the agency finds, based on substantial evidence that: (A) significant blight remains within the project area; and (B) this blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt. However, this amended time limitation may not exceed 10 years from the time limit established pursuant to this subdivision or the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan established pursuant to subdivision (b), whichever is earlier"; and Section 33333.6(b) provides: "The effectiveness of every redevelopment plan subject to the provisions of Section 33333.6 shall terminate at a date which shall not exceed 40 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2009, whichever is later. After the time limit on the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan,the agency shall have no authority to act pursuant to 2 7/timlimit/l 0/3/94 the redevelopment plan except to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations"; and Section 33333.6(c) provides that except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h), a redevelopment agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Section 33670 after 10 years from the termination of the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan pursuant to subdivision (b); and Section 33333.6(e)(1) provides that unless a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, contains all of the limitations required by that section and each of these limitations does not exceed the applicable time limits established by that section, the legislative body, acting by ordinance on or before December 31, 1994, shall amend every redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994; and Section 33333.6(e)(2) provides that the limitations established in the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall apply to the redevelopment plan as if the redevelopment plan had been amended to include those limitations; however, in adopting the ordinance required by this section, neither the legislative body nor the agency is required to comply with Article 12 (commencing with Section 33450) or any other provision of this part relating to the amendment of redevelopment plans; and Section 33333.6(f)(1) provides that if a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, contains one or more limitations required by that section, and the limitation does not exceed the applicable time limit required by that 3 7/timlimit/1013194 section, that section shall not be construed to require an amendment of this limitation; and Section 33333.6(g) provides: "The limitations established in the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall not be applied to limit allocation of taxes to an agency to the extent required to eliminate project deficits created under subdivision (e) of Section 33320.5, subdivision (g) of Section 33334.6, or subdivision (d) of Section 33487, in accordance with the plan adopted pursuant thereto for the purpose of eliminating the deficits or to implement a replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413. In the event of a conflict between these limitations and the obligations under Section 33334.6 or to implement a replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413, the legislative body shall amend the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to modify the limitations to the extent necessary to permit compliance with the plan adopted pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 33334.6 and to allow full expenditure of moneys in the agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in accordance with Section 33334.3 or to permit implementation of the replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413. The procedure for amending the ordinance pursuant to this subdivision shall be the same as for adopting the ordinance under subdivision (e)"; and Section 33333.6(h) provides: "This section shall not be construed to affect the validity of any bond, indebtedness, or other obligation, including any mitigation agreement entered into pursuant to Section 33401, authorized by the legislative body, or the agency pursuant to this part, prior to January 1, 1994. 4 7Rimlimit/1013/94 Nor shall this section be construed to affect the right of an agency to receive property taxes, pursuant to Section 33670, to pay the indebtedness or other obligation"; and Section 33333.6(i) provides that a redevelopment agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Section 33670, with respect to a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, after the date identified in subdivision (c) or the date identified in the redevelopment plan, whichever is earlier, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) or in subdivision (h); and Section 33333.66) provides that the Legislature finds and declares that the amendments made to this section by the act that adds this subdivision are intended to add limitations to the law on and after January 1, 1994, and are not intended to change or express legislative intent with respect to the law prior to that date, and further that it is not the intent of the Legislature to affect the merits of any litigation regarding the ability of a redevelopment agency to sell bonds for a term that exceeds the limit of a redevelopment plan pursuant to law that existed prior to January 1, 1994; and In the current Redevelopment Plan there are certain time limitations which may not accord with those time limitations required by Section 33333.6; and It is the desire of the City by this Ordinance to comply in all respects with all applicable requirements of Section 33333.6 of the CRL. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 5 7/timlimit/10/3/94 Section 1. Establishinq or Amendinq Certain Time Limitations. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby amended by the addition of certain time limitations as set forth in subsections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, as follows. Section 1.1 Limitation of Incursion of Indebtedness. Except to the extent a longer period of time may be allowed pursuant to Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h) or other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, as of November 26, 2004, the Agency's ability to establish loans, advances, and indebtedness to be paid with the proceeds of property taxes received pursuant to Section 33670 of the CRL to finance in whole or in part the Redevelopment Project shall terminate. Section 1.2 Term of Effective Dates of the Redevelopment Plan. Except as provided by Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h), other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, and except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions which shall run in perpetuity, the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan shall be effective and the provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan may be made effective until November 26, 2019. After such time limit on the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency shall still have the authority to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations. Section 1.3 Limitation on Receipt of Tax Increment to Pay Certain Debt. Except to the extent a longer period of time may be allowed pursuant to Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h) or other provisions of the 6 Wtimlimit/l 0/5194 CRL, and as further stated herein, the Agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property tax increment generated from the Redevelopment Project after November 26, 2029, provided however, nothing in the foregoing limitation shall be construed to or shall affect the validity of any bond, indebtedness, or other obligation, including any mitigation agreement entered into pursuant to Section 33401 of the CRL, authorized by the City or the Agency prior to January 1, 1994, nor shall the foregoing limitation be construed to affect the right of the Agency to receive property tax increment to pay such indebtedness or obligation. Section 2. New Limitations Prevail if Conflict with Existinq Limitations. Section 1, and each subdivision thereof inclusive, of this Ordinance shall, to the extent of a conflict, if any, take precedence over those limitations in the Redevelopment Plan concerning such limitations. Section 3. Right to Extend Such Limitations. No actions with respect to further extending the time limitations set forth herein pursuant to Section 33333.6(a)(2) or other provisions of the CRL are being taken at this time, but the right to consider such extension(s) of the time limitations is reserved. Section 4. Compliance with Section 33333.6. The City Council finds and determines amendments to the Redevelopment Plan as adopted by this Ordinance are in compliance with the requirements and time limitations set forth in Section 33333.6 of the CRL. Section 5. Redevelopment Plan Otherwise in Full Effect. The Redevelopment Plan is and shall remain in full force and effect, unmodified 7 Wtimlimit/10/5/94 4W 4W except to the extent of those particular amendments expressly set forth in this Ordinance. Section 6. Publication of Ordinance. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same to be published with the names of Councilmembers voting for and against the same in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Huntington Beach. 8 7/timlimit/1013/94 Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held thereof on the 7th day of November , 1994. {/�J Mayor ATTEST: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Clerk Director of Economic Development APPROVED AS TO FORM: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: L City Attorney ( Ity Administrator ,a _ i 9 7/timlimit/1 0/3194 Ord. No. 3262 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of October, 1994, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th of November, 1994, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmembers: Bauer, Robitaille, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Silva, Moulton-Patterson (out of room) City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California /0117 ORDINANCE NO. 3263 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING OR ADDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS TO THE MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH RESPECT TO AREAS OF THE PROJECT AREA INCLUDED, ADDED, OR INCORPORATED INTO SAID REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1994 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency"), is a public body, corporate and politic, formed, organized, existing and exercising its powers pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq. (the "CRL"); and The City established the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project (the "Project") by Ordinance No. 2578 on September 20, 1982, and amended September 6, 1983 by Ordinance No. 2634, which ordinance approved a redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") in connection with the Project; and The California Legislature by Assembly Bill 1290, Statutes of 1993, Chapter 942, amended the CRL, and particularly in relation to this Ordinance Section 33333.6 was added to the CRL, which provides in part that all redevelopment plans adopted and amended prior to January 1, 1994 are required to contain certain time limitations, and cities are required on or before 1 7/timlimit/l 0/5/94 0 A4 VW �r December 31, 1994 to amend their redevelopment plan(s) by ordinance to include such limitations; and Section 33333.6(a)(1) of the Community Redevelopment Law provides: "The time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness adopted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33333.2 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33333.4 shall not exceed 20 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2004, whichever is later, but does not prevent agencies from incurring debt to be paid from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund or establishing more debt in order to fulfill the agency's housing obligations under Section 33413"; and Section 333331.6(a)(2) provides: "The time limitation may be extended, only by amendment of the redevelopment plan, after the agency finds, based on substantial evidence that: (A) significant blight remains within the project area; and (B) this blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt. However, this amended time limitation may not exceed 10 years from the time limit established pursuant to this subdivision or the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan established pursuant to subdivision (b), whichever is earlier"; and Section 33333.6(b) provides: "The effectiveness of every redevelopment plan subject to the provisions of Section 33333.6 shall terminate at a date which shall not exceed 40 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2009, whichever is later. After the time limit on the effectiveness of 2 7/timlimit/10/5/94 the redevelopment plan, the agency shall have no authority to act pursuant to the redevelopment plan except to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations and Section 33333.6(c) provides that except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h), a redevelopment agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Section 33670 after 10 years from the termination of the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan pursuant to subdivision (b); and Section 33333.6(e)(1) provides that unless a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, contains all of the limitations required by this section and each of these limitations does not exceed the applicable time limits established by this section, the legislative body, acting by ordinance on or before December 31, 1994, shall amend every redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, either to amend an existing time limit that exceeds the applicable time limit established by this section or to establish time limits that do not exceed the provisions of subdivision (a)(b), or (c); and Section 33333.6(e)(2) provides that the limitations established in the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall apply to the redevelopment plan as if the redevelopment plan had been amended to include those limitations; however, in adopting the ordinance required by this section, neither the legislative body nor the agency is required to comply with Article 12 (commencing with Section 33450) or any other provision of this part relating to the amendment of redevelopment plans; and 3 7/timlimiVl 0/5/94 Section 33333.6(f)(1) provides that if a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, contains one or more limitations required by this section, and the limitation does not exceed the applicable time limit required by this section, this section shall not be construed to require an amendment of this limitation; and WHEREAS, Section 33333.6(f)(2) provides that a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, that has a limitation shorter than the terms provided in this section may be amended to extend the limitation, within the applicable time limit established by this section, pursuant to Section 33354.6; and Section 33333.6(g) provides: "The limitations established in the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall not a applied to limit allocation of taxes to an agency to the extent required to eliminate project deficits created under subdivision (e) of Section 33320.5, subdivision (g) of Section 33334.6, or subdivision (d) of Section 33487, in accordance with the plan adopted pursuant thereto for the purpose of eliminating the deficits or to implement a replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413. In the event of a conflict between these limitations and the obligations under Section 33334.6 or to implement a replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413, the legislative body shall amend the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to modify the limitations to the extent necessary to permit compliance with the plan adopted pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 33334.6 and to allow full expenditure of moneys in the agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in accordance 4 7/timlimit/10/5/94 with Section 33334.3 or to permit implementation of the replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413. The procedure for amending the ordinance pursuant to this subdivision shall be the same as for adopting the ordinance under subdivision (e)"; and Section 33333.6(h) provides: "This section shall not be construed to affect the validity of any bond, indebtedness, or other obligation, including any mitigation agreement entered into pursuant to Section 33401, authorized by the legislative body, or the agency pursuant to this part, prior to January 1, 1994. Nor shall this section be construed to affect the right of an agency to receive property taxes, pursuant to Section 33670, to pay the indebtedness or other obligation"; and Section 33333.6(i) provides that a redevelopment agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Section 33670, with respect to a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, after the date identified in subdivision (c) or the date identified in the redevelopment plan, whichever is earlier, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) or in subdivision (h); and Section 33333.60) provides that the Legislature finds and declares that the amendments made to this section by the act that adds this subdivision are intended to add limitations to the law on and after January 1, 1994, and are not intended to change or express legislative intent with respect to the law prior to that date, and further that it is not the intent of the Legislature to affect the merits of any litigation regarding the ability of a redevelopment agency to sell bonds for 5 7/timlimitll 0/5/94 In the current Redevelopment Plan there are certain time limitations which may not accord with those time limitations required by Section 33333.6; and It is the desire of the City by this Ordinance to comply in all respects with all applicable requirements of Section 33333.6 of the CRL. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Establishinq or Amending Certain Time Limitations. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby amended by the addition of certain time limitations as set forth in subsections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, as follows. Section 1.1 Limitation of Incursion of Indebtedness. Except to the extent a longer period of time may be allowed pursuant to Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h) or other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, as of January 1, 2004, the Agency's ability to establish loans, advances, and indebtedness to be paid with the proceeds of property taxes received pursuant to Section 33670 of the CRL to finance in whole or in part the Redevelopment Project shall terminate. Section 1.2 Term of Effective Dates of the Redevelopment Plan. Except as provided by Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h), other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, and except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions which shall run in perpetuity, the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan shall be effective and the provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan may be made effective until September 6, 2018. After such time limit on the 6 Vtimlimit/10/5194 effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency shall still have the authority to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations. Section 1.3 Limitation on Receipt of Tax Increment to Pay Certain Debt. Except to the extent a longer period of time may be allowed pursuant to Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h) or other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, the Agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property tax increment generated from the Redevelopment Project after September 6, 2028, provided however, nothing in the foregoing limitation shall be construed to or shall affect the validity of any bond, indebtedness, or other obligation, including any mitigation agreement entered into pursuant to Section 33401 of the CRL, authorized by the City or the Agency prior to January 1, 1994, nor shall the foregoing limitation be construed to affect the right of the Agency to receive property tax increment to pay such indebtedness or obligation. Section 2. New Limitations Prevail if Conflict with Existing Limitations. Section 1, and each subdivision thereof inclusive, of this Ordinance shall, to the extent of a conflict, if any, take precedence over those limitations in the Redevelopment Plan concerning such limitations. Section 3. Right to Extend Such Limitations. No actions with respect to further extending the time limitations set forth herein pursuant to Section 33333.6(a)(2) or other provisions of the CRL are being taken at this time, but the right to consider such extension(s) of the time limitations is reserved. 7 7/timlimM 0/5194 Section 3. Right to Extend Such Limitations. No actions with respect to further extending the time limitations set forth herein pursuant to Section 33333.6(a)(2) or other provisions of the CRL are being taken at this time, but the right to consider such extension(s) of the time limitations is reserved. Section 4. Compliance with Section 33333.6. The City Council finds and determines amendments to the Redevelopment Plan as adopted by this Ordinance are in compliance with the requirements and time limitations set forth in Section 33333.6 of the CRL. Section 5. Redevelopment Plan Otherwise in Full Effect. The Redevelopment Plan is and shall remain in full force and effect, unmodified except to the extent of those particular amendments expressly set forth in this Ordinance. Section 6. Publication of Ordinance. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same to be published with the names of Councilmembers voting for and against the same in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Huntington Beach. 8 Mmlimit/10/5/94 Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held thereof on the 7th day of November , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Clerk Director of Economic`Development APPROVED AS TO FORM: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Attorney ,3,q City Administrator 9 Mmlimit/10/3/94 Ord. No. 3263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at an reg_lar meeting thereof held on the 17th day of October, 1994, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th of November, 1994, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmembers: Bauer, Robitaille, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Silva, Moulton-Patterson (out of room) City Clerk and ex-officio dierk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ' /0//7 ORDINANCE NO. 3264 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING OR ADDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH RESPECT TO AREAS OF THE PROJECT AREA INCLUDED, ADDED, OR INCORPORATED INTO SAID REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1994 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency"), is a public body, corporate and politic, formed, organized, existing and exercising its powers pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq. (the "CRL"); and The City established the Oakview Redevelopment Project (the "Project") by Ordinance No. 2582 on November 1, 1982, and amended July 5, 1989 by Ordinance No. 3002, which ordinance approved a redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") in connection with the Project; and The California Legislature by Assembly Bill 1290, Statutes of 1993, Chapter 942, amended the CRL, and particularly in relation to this Ordinance Section 33333.6 was added to the CRL, which provides in part that all redevelopment plans adopted and amended prior to January 1, 1994 are required to contain certain time limitations, and cities are required on or before 1 7ttimlimit/10/3/94 ky December 31, 1994 to amend their redevelopment plan(s) by ordinance to include such limitations; and Section 33333.6(a)(1) of the Community Redevelopment Law provides: "The time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness adopted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33333.2 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33333.4 shall not exceed 20 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2004, whichever is later, but does not prevent agencies from incurring debt to be paid from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund or establishing more debt in order to fulfill the agency's housing obligations under Section 33413"; and Section 333331.6(a)(2) provides: "The time limitation may be extended, only by amendment of the redevelopment plan, after the agency finds, based on substantial evidence that: (A) significant blight remains within the project area; and (B) this blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt. However, this amended time limitation may not exceed 10 years from the time limit established pursuant to this subdivision or the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan established pursuant to subdivision (b), whichever is earlier"; and Section 33333.6(b) provides: "The effectiveness of every redevelopment plan subject to the provisions of Section 33333.6 shall terminate at a date which shall not exceed 40 years from the adoption of the redevelopment plan or January 1, 2009, whichever is later. After the time limit on the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan, the agency shall have no authority to act pursuant to 2 7/timlimiVI O/3/94 the redevelopment plan except to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations"; and Section 33333.6(c) provides that except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h), a redevelopment agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Section 33670 after 10 years from the termination of the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan pursuant to subdivision (b); and Section 33333.6(e)(1) provides that unless a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, contains all of the limitations required by this section and each of these limitations does not exceed the applicable time limits established by this section, the legislative body, acting by ordinance on or before December 31, 1994, shall amend every redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, either to amend an existing time limit that exceeds the applicable time limit established by this section or to establish time limits that do not exceed the provisions of subdivision (a)(b), or (c); and Section 33333.6(e)(2) provides that the limitations established in the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall apply to the redevelopment plan as if the redevelopment plan had been amended to include those limitations; however, in adopting the ordinance required by this section, neither the legislative body nor the agency is required to comply with Article 12 (commencing with Section 33450) or any other provision of this part relating to the amendment of redevelopment plans; and Section 33333.6(f)(1) provides that if a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, contains one or more limitations required by this section, 3 7/timlimit/l 0/3/94 MW and the limitation does not exceed the applicable time limit required by this section, this section shall not be construed to require an amendment of this limitation; and WHEREAS, Section 33333.6(f)(2) provides that a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, that has a limitation shorter than the terms provided in this section may be amended to extend the limitation, within the applicable time limit established by this section, pursuant to Section 33354.6, and Section 33333.6(g) provides: "The limitations established in the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall not a applied to limit allocation of taxes to an agency to the extent required to eliminate project deficits created under subdivision (e) of Section 33320.5, subdivision (g) of Section 33334.6, or subdivision (d) of Section 33487, in accordance with the plan adopted pursuant thereto for the purpose of eliminating the deficits or to implement a replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413. In the event of a conflict between these limitations and the obligations under Section 33334.6 or to implement a replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413, the legislative body shall amend the ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to modify the limitations to the extent necessary to permit compliance with the plan adopted pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 33334.6 and to allow full expenditure of moneys in the agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in accordance with Section 33334.3 or to permit implementation of the replacement housing program pursuant to Section 33413. The procedure for amending the ordinance 4 7/timlimit/1 a/3/94 pursuant to this subdivision shall be the same as for adopting the ordinance under subdivision (e)"; and Section 33333.6(h) provides: "This section shall not be construed to affect the validity of any bond, indebtedness, or other obligation, including any mitigation agreement entered into pursuant to Section 33401, authorized by the legislative body, or the agency pursuant to this part, prior to January 1, 1994. Nor shall this section be construed to affect the right of an agency to receive property taxes, pursuant to Section 33670, to pay the indebtedness or other obligation"; and Section 33333.6(i) provides that a redevelopment agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property taxes pursuant to Section 33670, with respect to a redevelopment plan adopted prior to January 1, 1994, after the date identified in subdivision (c) or the date identified in the redevelopment plan, whichever is earlier, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) or in subdivision (h); and Section 33333.60) provides that the Legislature finds and declares that the amendments made to this section by the act that adds this subdivision are intended to add limitations to the law on and after January 1, 1994, and are not intended to change or express legislative intent with respect to the law prior to that date, and further that it is not the intent of the Legislature to affect the merits of any litigation regarding the ability of a redevelopment agency to sell bonds for a term that exceeds the limit of a redevelopment plan pursuant to law that existed prior to January 1, 1994; and 5 7/timlimitll 0/3/94 VW rr In the current Redevelopment Plan there are certain time limitations which may not accord with those time limitations required by Section 33333.6; and It is the desire of the City by this Ordinance to comply in all respects with all applicable requirements of Section 33333.6 of the CRL. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Establishing or Amending Certain Time Limitations. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby amended by the addition of certain time limitations as set forth in subsections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, as follows. Section 1.1 Limitation of Incursion of Indebtedness. Except to the extent a longer period of time may be allowed pursuant to Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h) or other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, as of January 1, 2004, the Agency's ability to establish loans, advances, and indebtedness to be paid with the proceeds of property taxes received pursuant to Section 33670 of the CRL to finance in whole or in part the Redevelopment Project shall terminate. Section 1.2 Term of Effective Dates of the Redevelopment Plan. Except as provided by Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h), other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, and except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions which shall run in perpetuity, the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan shall be effective and the provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan may be made effective until September 20, 2022. After such time limit on the 6 7/timlimit/10/3/94 effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency shall still have the authority to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants, contracts, or other obligations. Section 1.3 Limitation on Receipt of Tax Increment to Pay Certain Debt. Except to the extent a longer period of time may be allowed pursuant to Section 33333.6, subdivisions (a)(2), (f)(2), (g), and (h) or other provisions of the CRL, and as further stated herein, the Agency shall not pay indebtedness or receive property tax increment generated from the Redevelopment Project after September 20, 2032, provided however, nothing in the foregoing limitation shall be construed to or shall affect the validity of any bond, indebtedness, or other obligation, including any mitigation agreement entered into pursuant to Section 33401 of the CRL, authorized by the City or the Agency prior to January 1, 1994, nor shall the foregoing limitation be construed to affect the right of the Agency to receive property tax increment to pay such indebtedness or obligation. Section 2. New Limitations Prevail if Conflict with Existing Limitations. Section 1, and each subdivision thereof inclusive, of this Ordinance shall, to the extent of a conflict, if any, take precedence over those limitations in the Redevelopment Plan concerning such limitations. Section 3. Right to Extend Such Limitations. No actions with respect to further extending the time limitations set forth herein pursuant to Section 33333.6(a)(2) or other provisions of the CRL are being taken at this time, but the right to consider such extension(s) of the time limitations is reserved. 7 7/timlimit/10/3/94 Section 4. Compliance with Section 33333.6. The City Council finds and determines amendments to the Redevelopment Plan as adopted by this Ordinance are in compliance with the requirements and time limitations set forth in Section 33333.6 of the CRL. Section 5. Redevelopment Plan Otherwise in Full Effect. The Redevelopment Plan is and shall remain in full force and effect, unmodified except to the extent of those particular amendments expressly set forth in this Ordinance. Section 6. Publication of Ordinance. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same to be published with the names of Councilmembers voting for and against the same in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Huntington Beach. 8 7/imlimiV10/3/94 Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held thereof on the 7th day of November , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Clerk Director of Economic Development APPROVED AS TO FORM: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Attorney i .Administrator 9 7/timlimit/10/3/94 Ord. No. 3264 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of October, 1994, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th of November. 1994, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmembers: Bauer, Robitaille, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Silva, Moulton-Patterson (out of room) ti_ • City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REDEVELOPMENT REFORM ACT OF 1993 IMPACT ON HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PLANS Existing ing Limit P.o st on Incurring ............. Exi Plan e R deve to went Plan Debt ::>1itur�r><n eb�t. Termination Plain Teliatan,;` I3ebk R Huntington Center Commercial District Nov. 26, 2004 Nov. 26, 2004 Nov. 26, 2019 Nov. 26, 2019 Nov. 26, 2029 Adopted 11/26/84 Amended Main Pier Redevelopment Project Amendment 9/6/83 Sept. 6, 2003 Jan. 1, 2004 Sept. 6, 2018 Sept. 6, 2018 Sept. 6, 2028 Adopted 9/20/82 Oakview Adopted 9/20/82 July 5, 2009 Jan. 1, 2004 July 5, 2024 Sept. 20, 2022 Sept. 20, 2032 Amended 7/5/89 35 years or Talbert-Beach Sept. 20, 2002 Jan. 1, 2004 until all debt Sept. 20, 2022 Sept. 20, 2032 9/20/82 paid 2017 35 years or Yorktown-Lake Sept. 20, 2002 Jan. 1, 2004 until all debt Sept. 20, 2022 Sept. 20, 2032 9/20/82 1 1 paid 2017 S tephen/RCA/implplan REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1995 - 2000 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1995 - 2000 • (ITY 0T HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FORWARD In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of "Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. The following Implementation Plans cover the five redevelopment project areas of Main-Pier, Huntington Center, Oakview, Talbert-Beach, and Yorktown-Lake. 2 REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1995-2000 Table of Contents I._ Outline of Each Implementation Plan II. Main-Pier III. Huntington Center IV. Oakview V. Talbert-Beach VI. Yorktown-Lake VII. Housing Set-Aside Financing Plans 3 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OUTLINE 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives a) Prioritization of goals and objectives b) Reasons for inclusion 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight a) Summary of previous blight findings (Report to Council) b) Overview of past projects/programs to eliminate blight c) Summary of outstanding conditions of blight d) Identification of locations of blight 2.2 Five Year Target Projects and Programs a) Description of specific projects and programs b) Estimate of project and program costs c) Identification of potential funding sources d) Prioritization of projects and programs e) Linkage between blighting conditions and projects/programs 3. Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals a) Identification of AB 315 annual housing production goals (units to be developed, rehabilitated, price restricted, assisted) b) Estimate of number of low/moderate units to be destroyed c) Identification of replacement housing sites Technical Appendix A Cash flow and financing plan for the Agency including identified resources and expenditures, Housing Set Aside Fund deposits, proposed bonding program, etc. Technical Appendix B Cash flow and financing plan for the Low and Moderate Income Housing Set Aside Fund indicating deposits and expenditures and commitment of "excess surplus" funds. (This is included for all project areas under "Housing Set-Aside Financing Plan"). 4 MAIN - PIER REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1995 - 2000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 5 MAIN-PIER IMPLEMENTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of "Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. This implementation plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project area complies with the provisions of Section 33490 et seq. of AB1290. This plan is intended to provide policy direction for the Agency activities during the ensuing five years. The plan is organized as follows and contains: ♦ Five year goals (prioritized), potential programs and projects with costs and funding sources identified. ♦ Blight findings from the original Redevelopment Plan, past projects to eliminate blight, outstanding conditions of blight and a map of these conditions. ♦ Five year housing goals and annual production goals, estimate of units to be destroyed and identification of replacement sites. ♦ Five year strategy to alleviate blight. ♦ Appendices A & B identifying cash flow for redevelopment and housing programs. 6 MAIN-PIER 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan General Objectives of Redevelopment Plan "In creating the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, the City -Council of the City of Huntington Beach declared its desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the City and in particular those areas within the City which have become blighted because of deterioration, disuse and economic, physical and social maladjustments. As a part of the City's ongoing redevelopment efforts, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared this Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the objectives of this Redevelopment Project are as follows: ♦ Eliminating blighting influences, including deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, inadequate public improvements, obsolete structures, and other physical, economic and social deficiencies; improve the overall appearance of streets, parking areas and other facilities, public and private; and assure that all buildings are safe for persons to occupy. ♦ Encouraging existing owners, businesses and tenants within the Project Area to participate in redevelopment activities. ♦ 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. ♦ Mitigating development limitations which have resulted in the lack of proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. ♦ Providing adequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. 7 ♦ Providing construction and employment opportunities in the, development of these facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of the proposed commercial and recreational facilities. ♦ Implementing the construction or reconstruction of adequate streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, storm drains, and other improvements as necessary to assist development of the Project Area to conform to the General Plan as a master-planned development and to correct existing environmental deficiencies. ♦ Establishing development criteria and controls for the permitted uses within the Project Area in accordance with modern and competitive development practices, thus assuring the highest design standards and environmental quality. ♦ Providing for relocation assistance and benefits to Project Area residents which may be displaced, in accordance with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law and the government code of the State of California. To obtain the objectives of this Plan as set forth, the Agency is authorized to undertake most or all of the following implementing actions: ♦ Acquisition of property. ♦ Participation by owners and tenants in the redevelopment project. ♦ Relocation assistance to displaced residential occupants as required by law. ♦ Development of adequate parking, landscaping, public improvements and facilities. 8 ♦ Demolition, clearance of properties acquired, and site preparation. ♦ Other actions as appropriate, including, but not limited to, actions to assist property owners and tenants in the improvement of their properties to carry out the objectives of the redevelopment plan. ♦ Assist in providing financing for private and public development in the Project Area." 9 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives 1.2(a) Prioritization of Goals and Objectives Project Area Size: 336 Acres Adoption Date: September 1982 Amended: September 1983 Life of Plan: 35 Years Tax Increment Cap: $15,250,000 annually PROJECT-GOALS FOR 1995-2000 1. Achieve City and California Coastal Commission approval of Downtown Specific Plan, Parking Master Plan and In-Lieu Parking Fee. 2. In conjunction with developer, create development scheme for next phase of The Waterfront and seek approvals. 3. Encourage private development. 4. Encourage development of 4th Block East. 5. Encourage development of 6th Block East site. 6. Prepare Master Plan for Huntington Beach Company owned site at Pacific Coast Highway and First Street. 7. Commence construction of: - Main-Pier Phase II (Coultrup) - Third Block West - South Beach Improvements - Pier Plaza - New Maxwell's Restaurant 8. Complete sale of Town Square Commercial. 9. Continue to pursue redevelopment of Southeast corner of Main Street and Walnut Avenue (Standard Market). 10. Investigate owner interest in renovation of Atlanta-Beach shopping center. 11. Cooperate and assist in the leasing of new commercial and office space. 10 12. Complete renovation and leasing of 438 Main Street. 13. Prepare plan to meet housing requirements (see "Housing Set-Aside Implementation" section). 1.2(6) Reasons for Inclusion These goals originated in the Agency's most recent Biennial Report published in December, 1993 and have been subjected to public review and approval by the Agency. Together they represent what can reasonably be accomplished within the period of this plan. 11 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight 2.1a Summary of Previous Blight Findings (from "Report to City Council", September, 1982 PP 34) "A. Approximately ten percent of the lots in this area (particularly along Second and Third Streets) are developed as residential. This is inconsistent with the existing zoning in the area which is C3, General Business District. The number of parking spaces for these residential units is inadequate to satisfy parking requirements of current residential zoning standards (i.e., Oldtown Specific Plan). Some of these units do not meet the current Building Security Provisions of the City's Ordinance Code which requires enclosed garages for multiple dwellings. With respect to the existing commercial units in the area, off-street parking areas are not landscaped and screened in accordance with the standards of Article 979. Structural fire protection is lacking because of openings in some of the structures at the zero lot line. There is considerable dilapidation of the commercial and residential structures. B. The condition of structures, including the conditions of the municipal pier, economic disuse, irregular subdivision, fragmented ownerships and lack of capital improvements make the property unsuitable for development by private enterprise acting alone. These negative conditions can only be dealt with by the positive powers of a redevelopment agency. A more detailed description of each of the conditions contributing to growing blight in the area follows. 3.1 Condition of Buildings and Structures According to the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Planning Area, December, 1975, approximately 15 percent of the structures are beyond reasonable repair, 33 percent are in need of major repair, and 31 percent need minor repairs. According to the Seismic Resistant Capabilities of Existing Buildings for the City of Huntington Beach, February 8, 1980, approximately 50 percent of the structures of the two blocks facing Main Street are considered to be excessive hazards. 12 According to the Structural Survey of the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, completed in August 1979: The current conditions of the main structural members in the older portion of the pier is unacceptable. The reinforcing steel has completely oxidized in some areas and the presence of large cracks in most of the structural members indicates that this condition is widespread throughout the first 57 bents in the pier. The middle portion of the pier was virtually reconstructed in 1970 when the wooden deck structure was replaced by reinforced concrete joist and deck. The existing pilings that were not replaced in the 1970 rework are now beginning to show signs of deterioration, as evidenced by longitudinal cracks and rust stains. The end portion of the pier, consisting of wood pilings, cp beams and deck, was found to be relatively undamaged. Minor repairs, consisting of replacing hardware that shows excessive corrosion, would be recommended. 3.2 Economic Disuse and Depreciated Values The intensity of development within the Main-Pier Area is much less than other beachfront areas such as Peter's Landing, Newport Beach, Dana Point, Marina Del Rey and the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor Areas. Because of the quality of available space, rents are lower than they could be and lower than other more modern facilities with similar locational characteristics. Many studies have concluded that this area is not living up to its full economic potential. The most recent summary, Downtown and Pier Revitalization, indicated that "the first significant effort to upgrade Downtown began in 1965 when the City contracted with the Urban Land Institute to assess land use and economic issues on a City-wide basis and make recommendations on the future direction to be followed. The Urban Land Institute Study concluded that the City's economic future lay in improving its "Front Window" (the ocean front) and revitalizing the Downtown area. 13 3.3 Irregular Subdivision and Multiple Ownership Within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Area, approximately one- third of the lots are 25 feet in width. These narrow lots can be found in each of the five blocks north of Pacific Coast Highway. There are over forty different individual ownerships within the five blocks of the downtown area within the Main-Pier Project. This fragmented pattern of existing ownership prevents the development of any modern retail, office or residential mixed-use development. The Downtown Specific Plan, which is currently in draft form, indicates that the subject blocks north of Pacific Coast Highway should be consolidated for new development. 3.4 Lack of Public Improvements The Draft Downtown Specific Plan indicates that the Main-Pier Area is deficient in adequate water improvements; that sewer facilities, while adequate today, are 70 years old and may be a problem in the near term future; that circulation improvements are necessary to relieve congestion on Pacific Coast Highway; that parking facilities are inadequate; and that the Huntington Pier is in need of major repair. 3.5 Flooding In 1979, L.D. King and Associates prepared a Master Plan of Drainage for the City. This plan identified serious deficiencies in the downtown and town lot areas which include portions of four of the city's 34 drainage districts. These deficiencies are not primarily in the project area itself, but reflect a more widespread problem in the townlot area adjacent to the project area. 3.6 Stagnant of Improper Utilization As documented in previous sections, the existing mixed land uses have changed very little in the last twenty or more years, and the structures are continuing to age. The existing land uses are well below their economic potential. 3.7 Increased Crime Rates According to the Police Department, the crime rates in the project are substantially higher than average reflecting one of the highest rates within the City." 14 2.1(b) Overview of Past Projects to Eliminate Blight • The new pier was completed July, 1992. ♦ Plan for beach improvements completed (parking; landscape, lighting, concessions, restrooms, bike/pedestrian paths). ♦ New plan for Maxwell's Restaurant and Pier Plaza prepared. ♦ Improvements in most sections of Main Street have been completed including paving, sidewalk textures, pedestrian crossings, bollards, landscape lighting and water features. ♦ Consolidation of parcels, relocation, demolition and construction for Pierside Pavilion theaters, restaurants, retail and office totaling 90,000 square feet and Pier Colony: 130 condominiums. ♦ Clearance, relocation and construction for Main Promenade, a 32,000 square foot retail center and a 830 space public parking garage. ♦ Acquisition of approximately 80% of full block site for Third Block West, project clearance and relocation on Agency owned parcels. ♦ Financial assistance for rehabilitation or new construction of buildings within the Demonstration Block (Second Block West) to eliminate seismic hazards and modernize. ♦ Construction of alley improvements within Demonstration Block (Second Block West) including undergrounding of utilities, landscape, street furniture, and water feature. ♦ Clearance, relocation and financial assistance to Oceanview Promenade--a mixed retail/office building of 47,000 square feet (in First Block West). ♦ Approval of Owner Participation Agreement for new construction on two block site: Main-Pier Phase H (Coultrup) 40,000 square feet commercial with 80 residential units. ♦ Site consolidation, clearance, street abandonment, relocation and construction of Town Square project was completed including 10,000 square feet of commercial space and 89 residential units. 15 2.1 (c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight A. Substandard housing conditions present. B. Deteriorated, unsafe, vacant/abandoned buildings present. C. Substandard lots and multi-ownerships predominate. D. Marginal retail uses remain. E. Commercial and office lease rates are below standards of balance of the community and region. F. Public improvements (streets, alleys, Pacific Coast Highway capacity, water and sewer and overhead utilities) are aged and inadequate. G. Hazardous materials and oil operations inhibit redevelopment. H. Flood protection is inadequate. I. Beach improvements (parking, landscape, lighting, restrooms, and bike/pedestrian paths) are outdated and inadequate. J. Beach concessions are outdated and too small. K. Maxwell's restaurant is outmoded, in physical disrepair, blocks views, and lacks meeting and banquet space. L. New pier lacks new public safety facilities (lifeguard tower), restrooms, and concessions. M. Pier entry creates auto/pedestrian conflict, blocks views, lacks design statement. N. Level of police resources at a level higher than the standard prevalent in the balance of the community. O. Economic Blight: Area does not contribute significantly to the city's tax base. 16 O oD � O 00 a D O oo 000 D�O 00 d# �uuuu� � 0000aaooaaoaoaa �f .rf � o••I$Y#'` . aoa000aaa0000aaa a oo ao 0o ao as 33•� f ..3..� o - :�f� s,`: f?f »###'•:; sad#��.'-i;r`s, ^'#>,:,} o�ao as a ao�oa oo a�a oa as as oo ao � � �' • ��: � �� . '�t: �$f.�f,..'�} ��'f» #` �� .� �.f{#t,4.{' `'t f #1•Y ,;"# #�'�.•••.',•'».+d,kr, , £%:d,#�:,: d ' n# <r�#�#s£y��•stt} s t•' � Y if} #;sr 3,�#t#s� d{f #739' '.s'�" £2tc's## 'J:Jysrn£�£'t#}.. � r : d ''�£:ftl;•S/.ttS'S'd:yr; 3# ,» Y r• .. .,f.'YDECIDE U110 BORMAU C'd':#%s'?• K�. ;%#' :tf' H:`££££fY#££N#s%#3'�`; o� �a as oa as o0 00 oa ao ao ao ao 0o as rr�� Ilru�+I�yII� if <�jf:j#:•,��+di's :'£�t£$'�'35i: /Yr7ffif�'''J'iiN'ti'I'r»f•»3 Jf 3,�..,.,}fhf:i•<i%ild ,d jnf ' 333 :fi` •}fir»,: f !,, t.f: 4'tY• .t, "'tt'3'••^.: : 7•' :A'£.dCyxi}3,I,Y''h'3H'f:•rSf' ' 's f#'`.£rsfsf S.f;$}r:t:.. .{r tY.Yd f'o r.• fit z#N £# ? # $ • 3»# 't�I # f rv£`< .,t.. :d?s »s» :fSf; 3G: '#:'tY.•tfitf/.•J::: ".#:Sfh/ 3st <;«•}::.�»:}.;.;,:::,r:.t»;,,:...: t}t'Jdds:x:?is,:.<s� : : i'ss'ss"s`;Yfr-.'st sf�: r.tr'�t£#is f#r d ...f.::.::»s�:;tt#:;ss#��fr:##t%t#fi:»»:..:• :..•�t». s>s:s.. `��#six>pS,,>:hf''s':ss::: tYsAGrd»t»» #sf • a• �.£#`#'ssfs#::�:••,a»,:• yf's,WON- '#�;tsd. :.:... tfis'S' it ...I:.:.::y.:;:,''•tS:ts;s::-:}:..•%3£'''•it^Yf:r..•:'I:tttd:::;cr,.� „•3:fd/f..td}.: : ##;.t#:£irf'!:.'s,.,.: } :..•{..:.,.»:::...:::•:::»:::»:r.•tff»:»:»:::::.:c-�:.;:�..r :f:f.S:::.,:,»:.;,::,�df�s::f.^f.'•:: If.:r.:::s}:i..:.?'' :3 f ��. r, ',/,.£ SSt.£}.,.,',,.#£?... ,.:;<.;•::::'}};:}wt»f:N£y::.'•.:rft3t3S}SS£;:u£#Y.f.:•fff:)aJ.:.,.::::::.: �..,5. 3'/f.�£:: .,t»:;;.r:::••' ..................::.:.:»::..::•:•:s... ..•:�:.:/::'d:::,r.•:rtkFt:Gtif}3#s'f;f:G.#:}#;�r,':"#y{3:.:3£:St»5t•„£S•',.'',iS»:9I3. ' �t•##'�:.:... .....:. :: i.I::./...t dt#..:•»:f'fs'..�:t:Ssf/.:� : '/. : :f y' Areas of outstanding blight. 2,2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects ..id Programs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Programs/Projects Estimated Funding Priority Blight* Costs Sources f l-3) Addressed 1. Achieve City and California Nominal City 1 B,C,D Coastal Commission General Fund approval of Downtown Specific Plan, Parking Master Plan and In-Lieu Parking Fee. 2. In conjunction with 100,000 T.I. 1 A,B,F,G,J,O, developer, create development scheme for next phase of The Waterfront and seek approvals. 3. Encourage Private Unknown T.I. 2 B,C,D,F,G,N,O Development/Redevelopment. 4. Encourage development of 40,000 T.I. 3 A,B,C,D,F,G,N,O 4th Block East. 5. Encourage development of 3.75M SAS/Developer 1 A,C,F,G,O 6th Block East. 6. Prepare Master Plan for 50,000 T.I./Developer 2 F,G,O Huntington Beach Company owned site at PCH and 1st Street. 7. Commence construction of: - Main-Pier Phase II (Coultrup) 1.8M T.I./Developer 1 B,C,D,E,F,G,O - Third Block West 18M T.I./Developer 1 B,C,D,E,F,G,O - South Beach Improvements 7M Unknown 2 I,J Pier Plaza 3.5M Unknown 2 L,M - New Maxwell's Restaurant 4.5M Developer 2 K,M 8. Complete sale of Town Square None N/A 1 E,O Commercial. 9. Continue to pursue redevelop- Unknown T.I. 2 B,C,D,E,F,O ment of southeast corner of Main Street (Standard market et al). 18 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs (Continued) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Programs/Projects Estimated Funding Priority Blight* Costs Sources �1-3) Addressed 10. Investigate owner Nominal T.I 3 C,D,E,O interest in renovation of Atlanta-Beach shopping center. 11. Cooperate and assist Nominal T.I. 2 E,O in the leasing of new commercial and office space. 12. Complete renovation Nominal T.I. 2 E,D and leasing of 438 Main Street. 13. Prepare plan to meet Nominal T.I. 1 A,C,F,O housing requirements (see "Housing Set-Aside Implementation" section). TI = Tax Increment SAS = Set Aside NA = Not Applicable *Refer to Section 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight. 19 3.0 Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals 3.1(a) Identification of AB 315 Annual Housing Production Goals* PROPOSED/CONTRACTED PROJECTS- All Units are Assisted Date Expected Units L/M Regd. L/M Provided VL Regd. VL Provided Third Block West 1997 68 6 33 4 0 The Waterfront Residential 1996-2000 639 58 0 38 0 Main-Pier Phase II 1996 82 7 0 5 0 * The AB 315 Report for all project areas is included in the Housing Set-Aside Section. 20 3.1(b) Estimation of Number of Low/Moderate Units to be Destroyed and 3.1(c) Identification of Replacement Housing Sites Main-Pier Project Area: Destroyed: - Units Low Very Low Huntington Shores MH Park (PCH) -21 -10 -7 Huntington Bay Shore (430 Lake Street) -1 -1 0 Pierside & Pier Colony (200 PCH) -19 -2 -7 Main Promenade (200 Main Street East) -25 -24 0 Town Square (400 Block Main West) -4 -4 0 Driftwood (21462 PCH) -76 -8 -25 Main-Pier Phase II (500 PCH) -8 -1 -6 Planned Replacement Units: Five Points Senior Villas 48 8 32 Main-Pier Phase II (Ronald Road) 4 4 0 313 llth Street 9 0 9 :» .> 21 Ten Year/Life of Plan Housing Program The estimated residential capacity of the Main-Pier Project Area is approximately 1600 new units, of which 1100 remain to be built. The Agency may use tax increment, housing bonds, other local, federal or state programs to finance these units. Sites for the required fifteen percent production units (240 units) will likely be within the project area and may include mixing production units with market rate housing. Over the remaining life of the plan, it may be possible that as many as 100 additional existing units may be destroyed. These units will be replaced within the project area within the 1100 unit capacity for new development. 22 MAIN-PIER TECHNICAL APPENDIX A 23 MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 9/30/94 Be"Analysis 199&" 1 1998197 1997198 1 1998/99 1999/00 Total Sources Goals& Ives Explanation EST CASH BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR 668,467 908,358 1,021,508 1,525,954 2,056,550 INCOME Tax Increment(100%) 2,350,000 2,400,000 2,450,000 2,500,000 2,550,000 12,250,000 Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 T.O.T.(Waterfront) 525,000 551,250 578,813 607,753 638,141 2,9W.956 Abdelmuti Loan 333.5% 333,555 333,555 333,555 333,555 1,867,775 RLM Ground Leese 253,834 253,834 253,834 253,834 253,834 1,269,170 Lease Payments(438 Main) 19,200 0 0 0 0 19.200 Land sale(Town Sq.) 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 270,000 TOTAL INCOME 3,535,589 3,592,639 3,670,202 3,749,142 3,829,530 18.377,101 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 1,175,9W 1,175,665 1,180,985 1,179,585 1.179,585 5,891,725 Tax Inc. Eoon.Day. Project Area Admin. Huntington National Bank Note 100,000 95,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 465,000 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. City Debt 450,000 450,000 450.000 450,000 450,000 2,250,000 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. T.O.T.Reimb(Waterfront) 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Econ.Day. Project Area Admin. Operating 171,960 180,558 189,586 199,065 209,018 950,188 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev, Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(30%) 191,203 200,763 210,801 221,341 232,408 1,056,517 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services 200,000 10o,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Servkm Admin(30%) 23,370 23.370 23.370 23,370 23,370 116,850 Tax Inc. Edon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Business Development(30%) 87,260 88,133 80,014 89,904 90,803 445,114 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Capital Projects: Funded In Third Block West Prior Yeast 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Edon.Dev. Eliminate Blight Funded in TBW Site Remedlation Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Eliminate Blight Town Square Parking 0 270,000 0 0 270,000 Tex Inc. Eoon.Dev. Eliminate Blight DrkRwood Buyouts 800,000 800,000 832,000 865,280 899,891 4,197,171 Tax Inc. Edon.Dev. Buy Coaches Abdelmud Rent Subsidy/Misc. 96,000 96,000 0 0 0 192.000 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Eliminate Blight TOTAL EXPENSES 3,295,698 3.479,489 3,165,756 3,218,548 3,275,076 18,434,565 NET INCOME 239,891 113,150 504,445 530,596 554,454 1,942,537 EST CASH BALANCE, END OF YEAR.E:i. :$Q8,358.. ,,.,, ,3(Id MAIN-PIER TECHNICAL APPENDIX B SET-ASIDE FINANCING PLAN (See Housing Section) 25 HUNTINGTON CENTER REDEVELOPMENT E"PLEMENTATION PLAN 1995 - 2000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 26 HUNTINGTON CENTER IMPLEMENTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of "Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. This is the implementation plan for the Huntington Center Redevelopment Project area and contains: ♦ Five year goals (prioritized), projects with costs and funding sources identified. ♦ Blight findings from the original Redevelopment Plan, past projects to eliminate blight, outstanding conditions of blight and a map of these conditions. ♦ Five year housing goals and annual production goals, estimate of units to be destroyed and identification of replacement sites. ♦ Five year strategy to alleviate blight. ♦ Appendices A & B identifying cash flow for redevelopment and housing programs. 27 HUNTINGTON CENTER COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan General Objectives of Redevelopment Plan "In creating the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach declared its desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the City and in particular those areas within the City which have become blighted because of deterioration, disuse and economic, physical and social maladjustments. As a part of the City's ongoing redevelopment efforts, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared this Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the objectives of this Redevelopment Project are as follows: ♦ The elimination of environmental deficiencies including among others aging, deteriorating and poorly maintained structures, relocation of utilities, modification and improvements to the onsite and offsite circulation, and increased and improved parking. ♦ The replanning, redesign, and development of underutilized areas. ♦ The elimination and mitigation of existing and anticipated visual, economic, physical, social, and environmental blight within the Project Area. ♦ The rehabilitation, recycling, and development of property within a creative, coordinated land use pattern in the Project Area consistent with the goals, policies, objectives, standards, guidelines, and requirements as set forth in the adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. ♦ The implementation of techniques to mitigate blight characteristics resulting from exposure to highway and public right-of-way corridor activity affecting adjacent properties within the Project Area. 28 ♦ Beautification activities to eliminate those forms of blight including, but not limited to, visual blight, in order to encourage community identity. ♦ The encouragement, promotion, and assistance in the development and expansion of local commerce. ♦ Providing construction and employment opportunities in the development of these facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of the proposed new commercial facilities. ♦ Mitigating development limitations which result in the lack of proper utilization of the Project Area of such an extent that it constitutes a physical, social, and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. ♦ To provide for affordable housing as required by county, region, or state law and requirements, as necessary and desirable, consistent with the goals and objectives of the community, its General Plan, and Housing Element. ♦ To encourage the coordination, cooperation, and assistance of county, state, and federal agencies as may be deemed necessary to ensure that projects undertaken by this Agency are implemented to their fullest and most practical extent. ♦ The achievement of a physical environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural and urban design principles deemed important by the community. ♦ To encourage community involvement and citizen participation in the adoption of policies, programs and projects so as to ensure that the Redevelopment Plan is implemented in accordance with the objectives and goals of the General Plan. ♦ To provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Agency can assist, complement, and coordinate public and public and private development, redevelopment, revitalization, and enhancement of the community. 29 ♦ To provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Agency can assist, complement, and coordinate public and public and public and private development, redevelopment, revitalization, and enhancement of the community. ♦ Provide for relocation assistance and benefits to Project Area businesses in the event displacement is necessary, in accordance with the provisions of the community redevelopment law and the government code of the State of California. To obtain the objectives of this Plan as set forth, the Agency is authorized to undertake most or all of the following implementing actions: ♦ Acquisition of property. ♦ Participation by owners and tenants in the redevelopment project. ♦ Relocation assistance to displaced occupants as required by law. ♦ Development of adequate parking, landscaping, public improvements and facilities. ♦ Demolition clearance of properties acquired, and site preparation. ♦ Other actions as appropriate, including, but not limited to, actions to assist property owners and tenants in the improvement of their properties to carry out the objectives of the redevelopment plan. ♦ Assist in providing financing for private and public development in the Project Area." 30 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives 1.2(a) Prioritization of Goals and Objectives Project Area Size: 160 Acres Adoption Date: November 1984 Life of Plan: 35 Years Tax Increment Cap: $84.5 million PROJECT GOALS FOR 1995-2000 1. In conjunction with owner, prepare a market and development strategy for the Huntington Beach Mall. 2. Complete construction of: Center Avenue improvements and traffic signal ♦ Readerboard sign landscaping 3. Complete Public Utilities Commission review of Gothard-Hoover connection, complete plans, formulate a funding plan and begin construction. 4. Seek adoption of Edinger Avenue Specific Plan of Street Alignment. 5. Complete I-405 Cloverleaf landscaping. 6. Complete Mall pole sign. 7. Complete plans for Modification of I-405 off-ramp for access to mall. 8. Complete plans and construct McFadden I-405 overpass widening. 31 1.2(b) Reasons for Inclusion These goals originated in the Agency's most recent Biennial Report published in December, 1993 and have been subjected to public review and approval by the Agency. Together they represent what can reasonably be accomplished within the period of this plan. 32 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight 2.1(a) Summary of Previous Blight Findings (from "Report to City Council", October, 1984 Part II, PP H-1 through U-5) Part H - A-3-b., P.P. H-6 through U-7 "b. Obsolescent Design and Lack of Physical Integration The Project Area to the north and south of Edinger Avenue, Sub- Areas D through G, are all retail and personal service oriented businesses but there is a lack of physical integration that would give shoppers the perception that the area is a cohesive and attractive shopping district. There are no paths articulated to encourage internal circulation or natural flow from one sub-area to another. Each sub-area is a disparate separate unit, especially Sub-Area G with its seven egress/-ingress points. The disjointed development in terms of building size and shape, and the lack of sign controls and uniformity in the facade treatments, landscaping and street furniture among the different blocks deters shoppers from viewing the area as a pleasant, large commercial district offering many and varied services. The contrasting character of the buildings (color, materials, form) in the area south of Edinger Avenue, especially Sub-Area F next to Sub-Area E, is particularly noticeable. The development of this area occurred over time and does not meet current standards; the physical layout can be considered obsolete. The site plan of the Huntington Center, constructed in 1966 with the separate building of fourteen businesses some hundred feet to the east is an obsolescent design by contemporary standards. Shoppers prefer to remain in a climate controlled environment. To cross an open parking lot subject to the elements to gain access to additional businesses can contribute to an unpleasant shopping experience. With only 44 mall shops and 6 kiosk businesses to complement its three anchor department stores, the Huntington Center is obsolete and at a competitive disadvantage to other more modern centers often containing over 100 shops. 33 There is also no physical integration of the Huntington Center and One Pacific Plaza. The Southern California Edison right-of- way prohibits the integration of these two areas. Although there could be a symbiotic relationship of the office employees and customers of the restaurants and service oriented businesses, and the retail customers of the commercial area to the south, there are no design features that physically link the two areas or convey a relationship. Circulation paths between the two areas are indirect: ingress/egress points on Center Drive are off-centered from each other. Part H - A-3-c., P.P. U-12 through U-13 The inadequate public improvements in the Project Area are related to traffic circulation exclusively and can be summarized as follows: -- Intersections with present level of service ratings C through E: -- Beach/Edinger -- Edinger/Gothard -- Center/1-405 Ramps -- Beach/Center -- Edinger Avenue Deficiencies -- Excessive (twenty-three) curb cuts -- awkward circulation, especially between Huntington Center and the businesses on the south side -- One unnecessary traffic signal -- Railroad tracks acting as a barrier between properties on east and west; tracks can only be crossed on Center Drive and Edinger Avenue -- Center Drive: Huntington Village Way and driveways from Huntington Center and One Pacific Plaza are not aligned. -- 1-405 interchanges with Beach Boulevard and Golden West Street suffer heavy traffic volumes which could be relieved through construction of an additional interchange at Gothard. I-405 southbound ramp at Center Drive has heavy traffic volumes and awkward configuration for flow into Huntington Center and One Pacific Plaza. 34 -- Gothard Street dead ends at McFadden Avenue, rather than continuing north to act as another north-south arterial serving the area. The above traffic circulation problems have a heavy impact upon the Project Area in terms of its attractiveness to potential shoppers. For the commercial businesses within the Project Area to remain competitive, the traffic circulation problems must be addressed. An essential element in solving such problems is the need to anticipate and encourage growth within the Huntington Center, One Pacific Plaza, and the area south of Edinger. Huntington Center, in particular, must revitalize and grow to keep pace with its trade area competition. The City of Huntington Beach has a direct stake in such growth. As described in more detail below, a decline in gross retail sales is reflected in a corresponding decline in sales tax revenues. Part U. A-3-c., PP II-14 through U-15 C. Existing Economic Conditions Land uses in the Project Area are devoted entirely to commercial uses (including office), with the exception of the utility rights-of-way discussed earlier and a small amount of light industrial use in Sub-Area A. The Huntington Center shopping center, containing 838,715 of gross leaseable square footage, was built in 1966. Businesses to the south of Edinger Avenue have developed over time. The mixed use development to the north of Center Avenue, One Pacific Plaza, has been planned since 1976. Construction of the first phase, an office building and two restaurants, has been completed. 1. Economic Disuse Resulting from Faulty Planning Faulty planning of the circulation system in the Project Area has impeded full utilization of its economic potential. Awkward access generally contributes to discouraging retail shoppers from utilizing retail outlets in the area. The intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue has a service level of "E" as discussed previously. Both Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard experience heavier traffic than would prevail if Gothard Street was linked to Hoover and Street north of the San Diego Freeway, and a partial interchange was available. The flow of traffic on Edinger Avenue is interrupted by the eight eastbound left turn lanes, and 23 curb 35 cuts, with traffic entering into and exiting from the various curb cuts in an uncontrolled manner. Pedestrians are discouraged from moving from one portion of the Project Area to another by the distances separating the various areas, the lack of clearly articulated paths, and the absence of a unifying architectural theme. The right-of-way for the high voltage overhead transmission lines on the north side of Huntington Center is a land use that may be inappropriate to current needs for a commercial area. It could be argued -that the highest and best use for the land occupied by the lines would be for expansion of the area's commercial uses. The 200 foot-wide right-of- way creates a significant barrier between the commercial development of One Pacific Plaza to the north of Center Drive and the Huntington Center shopping mall, and contributes to the lack of physical integration of the two areas. The barriers of distance, awkward street circulation and uncoordinated physical design are responsible for the lack of physical integration of the Huntington Center and the strip commercial development south of Edinger Avenue. The movement of shoppers from one area to another is impeded, resulting in the loss of economic potential. 2. Existence of Inadequate Public Improvements Details of the deficiencies in the street system, and freeway interchange design, intersection capacity and pedestrian access were described in the preceding section. The economic impact of these inadequate public improvements is that businesses may be discouraged from locating in the area due to the confusing circulation system, and the difficulties caused for potential customers and employees. Similarly, the sales volumes of existing businesses may be reduced. If not corrected, the economic impact of the inadequate public improvements would become greater over time As conditions in the area get worse, the City would become forced to impose conditions on new development in an attempt to alleviate the circulation problems. Such conditions could result in increased development costs that would serve to further discourage new development and growth in the area. 3. Economic Maladjustment and Impaired Investments Impaired investments in the Project Area have resulted from economic maladjustment. A key indicator of economic maladjustment is sales performance figures for the Huntington Center over time. The 36 following discussion presents an analysis of retail sales and the loss of potential sales. The deficiencies in the public improvements serving the area are a key factor in inhibiting shoppers from utilizing the services offered in the area. The annual retail sales figures for the Huntington Center from 1978 to 1983 are exhibited in Table II-3, on file. While sales figures have risen fairly steadily since 1978, the percentage increase from year to year has declined from 7.7% between 1979 to 5.1% between 1982 and 1983. Given the rates of inflation during that period, and the resulting price increases, although the sales figures have increased, such figures may -reflect little growth in volume." 37 2.1(b) Overview of Past Projects to Eliminate Blight ♦ Improved traffic circulation - Center Avenue was widened, repaved and improved freeway signage was completed. ♦ Improved traffic circulation - a plan for widening and relandscaping the Edinger Corridor was approved. ♦ Improved traffic circulation - plans are being prepared for the McFadden Overcrossing. ♦ Improved traffic circulation - the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger was widened via the Orange County Transportation Authority and the Huntington Center Project contributed funds for undergrounding of utilities on Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. ♦ Improved traffic circulation - An electronic readerboard was constructed which provides easier identification of this area by motorists. ♦ Improved traffic circulation - Construction plans are near completion for the Gothard Hoover connection, hearings were held before the Public Utilities Commission and funding plans are being formulated. The Berge DDA assisted in ensuring right-of-way acquisition for a portion of the project. ♦ Improved Public Transportation - The Orange County Transportation Authority completed its transportation center which included 118 parking spaces in off- load bus loading and unloading for the 57 buses that will use the facility on a daily basis. ♦ Obsolescent design and lack of physical integration - The Agency has purchased an estimated 1.1 acres at the corner of Aldrich and Parkside and is working with potential businesses to produce an integrated development in this area. 38 2.1 (c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight A. Inadequate public improvements still exist relative to traffic circulation around the project on Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue and Gothard Avenue. B. Economic disuse is reflected in the Huntington Beach Mall and is reflected by 'the loss of Penneys, Barker Bros. and many smaller businesses. C. Obsolescent design and lack of physical integration of all businesses in the project area still exists. The physical layout of the area is not designed to give the perception to customers that the area is an attractive shopping district. 39 i � fif F � ,p 39 _ �l Ikd !-L tLI:H&� .I t.0 F - r=-.:-s- rP. re Fr t..Yrr^:.t_..t... . � .�_r,r•... �r:-ab>�lk��-,.�rv..-� .-'._ .,--. - f i F Ih BBB � . E - k kit s W' �---T 1 •; I , 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Programs/Projects Estimated Funding Priority Blight Costs Sources (1_3) Addressed 1. Center Avenue $200,000 T.I. 1 A complete signal and Property owner access improvements Street funds 2. Gothard - Hoover $7 million T.I. 1 A Street funds 3. Edinger Avenue $3 million T.I. 2 A Property owner Street funds 4. Huntington Beach Mall Unknown T.I. 1 B,C Marketing & Development Property owner Strategy 5. Southwest Corner of Edinger Unknown T.I. 2 B,C and Beach Boulevard Property owners 6. Berge DDA (vacant land) Unknown T.I. 3 B Property owners *Refer to Section 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight 41 3.0 Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals 3.1(a) Identification of AB 315 Annual Housing Production Goals* None required as per Table 1 Redevelopment Agency Housing Policy and Housing Compliance Plan * The AB 315 Report for all project areas is included in the Housing Set-Aside Section. 42 3.1(b) Estimation of Number of Low/Moderate Units to be Destroyed and 3.1(c) Identification of Replacement Housing Sites Huntington Center Project Area: Destroyed: Units Low Very Low Sher Lane 1 0 1 Planned Replacement Units: 1 0 1 Ten Year/Life of Plan Housing Program There is no residentially zoned land within the project area and no additional units are expected to be destroyed (one unit is identified in the AB315 plan). Therefore there is no production requirement over the remaining life of the plan. The one replacement unit will be provided, likely in another project area as part of a larger project. 43 HUNTINGTON CENTER TECHNICAL APPENDIX A 44 HUNTINGTON CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 9/30/94 1995/96 1 199M7 I 1997M 1 199&S9 1 1999100 1 Total Sources Goals&Objectives Explanation EST FUND BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR 4,694,270 3,539,769 2,269,368 1,370,341 383,531 INCOME Tax Increment(80%) 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 4,5W,000 Interest 328,599 247,784 158,856 95,924 26,847 858,010 TOTAL INCOME 1,228,599 1,147,784 1.058,856 995,924 926,847 5,358,010 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 1,040,073 1,043,313 1,040,230 1,041,163 1,041,163 5,205,942 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. City Debt-(M.P.$450WH.C.$475k) 350.000 350,000 350.000 350,000 350,000 1,750,000 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. School Pass-Through 4,895 5,045 5,045 5,045 5,045 25,075 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating 242,699 254,834 267,576 280,954 295,002 1,341,065 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(30%) 191,203 200,763 210,801 221,341 232,408 1,056,516 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services 5,060 5,060 5,060. 5,060 5,060 25,300 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services Admin Portion(30%) 23,370 23,370 23.370 23,370 23,370 116,850 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. to Business Development(40%) 55,8W 55,8W 55,800 55,800 55,800 279,000 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Capital Projects Housing Additional Set-Aside-MP 470,000 480,000 0 0 0 950,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 2,383,100 2,418,185 1,957,882 1,982.734 2,007,849 10,749,750 NET INCOME -1,154,501 -1,270.401 -899,026 •986,810 -1,081,002 5,391,740 EST FUND BALANCE,END OF YEAR 3;S 769.. ,269,36$ t, $14 ,.3&;53t 693,a7�.: HU TTINGTON CENTER TECHNICAL APPENDIX B SET-ASIDE FINANCIAL PLAN (See Housing Section) 46 OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT EM PLEMENTATION PLAN 1995 - 2000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 47 OAKVIEW IMPLEMENTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of "Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. This is the implementation plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area and contains: ♦ Five year goals (prioritized), projects with costs and funding sources identified. ♦ Blight findings from the original Redevelopment Plan, past projects to eliminate blight, outstanding conditions of blight and a map of these conditions. ♦ Five year housing goals and annual production goals, estimate of units to be destroyed and identification of replacement sites. ♦ Five year strategy to alleviate blight. ♦ Appendices A & B identifying cash flow for redevelopment and housing programs. 48 OAKVIEW 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan (From Oakview Redevelopment Plan, July 1989, PP 81, 83-84) General Objectives of Redevelopment Plan "In creating the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach declared its desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the City and in particular those areas within the City which have become blighted because of deterioration, disuse and economic, physical and social maladjustments. As a part of the City's ongoing redevelopment efforts, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared this Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the objectives of this Redevelopment Project are as follows: ♦ Eliminating blighting influences, that persist in the Project Area, including deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, inadequate public improvements, obsolete structures, and other physical, economic and social deficiencies; improve the overall appearance of streets, parking areas and other facilities, public and private; and assure that all buildings are safe for persons to occupy. ♦ Encouraging existing owners, businesses and tenants within the Project Area to participate in redevelopment activities. ♦ 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. ♦ Mitigating development limitations which have resulted in the lack of proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. 49 + Providing adequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. ♦ Providing construction and employment opportunities in the development of these facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of the proposed commercial and recreational facilities. ♦ Implementing the construction or reconstruction of adequate streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, storm drains, and other improvements as necessary to assist development of the Project Area to conform to the General Plan as a master-planned development and to correct existing environmental deficiencies. ♦ Establishing development criteria and controls for the permitted uses within the Project Area in accordance with modern and competitive development practices, thus assuring the highest design standards and environmental quality. ♦ Expanding the commercial base of the community through the promotion of new and continuing private sector investment in the Project Area. ♦ Providing opportunities and mechanisms to increase sales taxes, business licenses, and other sources of revenue to the City. ♦ Providing opportunities to increase and improve the City's supply of housing on a Citywide basis, including housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. To attain the objectives of this Plan as set forth above, the Agency is authorized to use all of the powers provided in this Plan and all the powers now or hereafter permitted by law including the following implementation actions: ♦ Installation, construction, reconstruction, redesign, or reuse of streets, utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other public improvements. ♦ Acquisition of property by gift, purchase, lease, or condemnation as permitted by this Plan. 50 ♦ Disposition of property by sale or lease at a value to be determined by the Agency for reuse in accordance with this Plan. ♦ Redevelopment of land by private enterprise or public agencies for uses in accordance with this Plan. ♦ Provide for relocation assistance and benefits to project area businesses and residents who may be displaced, in accordance with the provisions of the Redevelopment Law and the Government Code of the State of California. ♦ Rehabilitation, remodeling, reconstruction, demolition, or removal of buildings, structures, and improvements. ♦ Financing of the construction of residential and commercial buildings and the permanent mortgage financing of residential and commercial buildings, as permitted by applicable State and local laws. ♦ Provide opportunities for owner participation and extend reasonable preferences to owners, operators of businesses, and tenants. ♦ Negotiate with taxing agencies to address any financial burdens or detriments caused to such entities as a result of adoption of this Plan. ♦ Such other action as may be permitted by law." 51 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives 1.2(a) Prioritization of Goals and Objectives Project Area Size: 68 Acres Adoption Date: November 1982 Amended: July 1989 Life of Plan: 35 Years Tax Increment Cap: $90 million PROJECT GOALS FOR 1995-2000 1. Continue the Housing Rehabilitation Program with a production goal of 20 units annually. 2. Continue the Housing Code Enforcement Program. 3. Review Oakview Neighborhood Plan and update recommendations as appropriate. 4. Continue Community Services Police Assistance for gang prevention. 5. Continue youth employment neighborhood cleanup program-Operation LOGOS 6. Complete construction of a branch library. 7. Complete storm drain improvements. 8. Complete improvements to streets, street lights, alleys and landscape. 1.2(b) Reasons for Inclusion These goals originated in the Agency's most recent Biennial Report published in December, 1993 and have been subjected to public review and approval by the Agency. Together they represent what can reasonably be accomplished within the period of this plan. 52 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight 2.1a Summary of Previous Blight Findings (from "Report to City Council", June 1989 PP. 9, 13-159 179 229 259 28-319 37-38, 42, 44-459 50-52) "Description of the physical, social and economic conditions in the project area: A. Existing Physical Conditions The purpose of this section is to provide a description of the existing conditions within the proposed Project Area for Amendment No. One to the Oakview Redevelopment Project, which for the purpose of analysis in this document is referred to as the "Project Area." 1. Project Location The Project Area in its regional context is shown in Figure 1. Which entails the overall location and boundaries of the approximately 68 acre Project Area, is presented in Section 2.l(d). The legal description of the Project Area is provided in Appendix A (on file). 2. Land Uses and Acreages The breakdown of land uses within the Project Area by approximate acreage is shown in Table 1. Figure 3 illustrates the existing land uses throughout the project Area. Table 1 Land Uses in the Project Area Land Use Acres % of Project Area Single Family Residential 8.04 11.82% Multi-Family Residential 26.12 38.41% Commercial 10.47 15.40% Vacant 1.15 1.69% Streets, Alleys, and R-O-W 22.22 32.68% oa 10 ti Source: Urban Futures, Inc. 1988 53 The makeup of existing land uses within the Project Area clearly differentiates the northern and southern portions of the Project Area. The northern portion is characterized by a mixture of older single family houses, sometimes more than one on the same lot, and newly constructed multi-family structures. Many of these older single family houses are in need of substantial rehabilitation and do not have adequate front yard setbacks. The northeast corner of the Project Area contains the Charter Center, a 400,000 square foot commercial retail and office complex. The southern portion of the project area primarily consists of multi-family 4-plex structures, most of which are in need of some rehabilitation. 3. Buildings and Structures a. Deficiencies. Deterioration and Dilapidation One of the causal factors evidencing the presence of structural blight within the Project Area is the existence of deficient buildings. A windshield survey was conducted in December 1988 by Urban Futures staff to determine the condition of structures in the Project Area. Structures within the Project Area were rated separately according to a predetermined scale based upon criteria of structural integrity and level of maintenance. Only primary structures capable of containing a major land use activity were evaluated. Due to the nature of the survey, the ratings were derived from a visual evaluation and do not represent a detailed building by building structural analysis. Each structure received one of four possible ratings. A structure was rated sound if it appeared well maintained and no physically blighting characteristics were evident. Structures displaying some degree of physical decline were rated either deficient, deteriorated, or dilapidated, depending upon the severity of the degeneration. The following is the general guideline for these ratings, which are derived from nationally accepted rating standards. Sound The structure is no more than 25 years old and has no noticeable deficiencies in the structural condition of roof, walls, or foundation. It appears to have adequate plumbing and electrical service and is subject to a regular program of maintenance. Exterior walls and other surfaces are well painted and clean, and windows and doors are intact. 54 WARNER AVE. 111111 i FIR D :: :: z r3'te ...........: ...................... `( A R AVE n i :i••i=ii:i:R�A ..�t•:i:i"::.i• J r N SELS`ITO 0 —s = Im W CYPRESS AVE :Sii'i 'iii} s �} :: i5'G tT s'i} •. CYPRESS i' ��'' +II '':� �� :�:•i,;; €1}tii i'f P 1�3 uy}}iiiit 1: 'ni== s:s•ii:i:a:ii Y � • a 0 MANDRELL OR KRISTIN CR. z > J m Z QUQ \ W w BARYON DR. 0° J O O J Z J ` U - J ' NAGON OR Z 3 J 2 W ? z - Z U o 7) d Y SLATER AVE. J AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Existing Land Uses Map wm/, Project Area Boundaries N Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential SCALE tt L._._._.[._ Commercial 0 200 400 feet Vacant 55 FIGURE 3 Deficient The structure could be older than 25 years, however, has been maintained adequately to eliminate any major structural defects. It may show signs of deferred maintenance such as peeling paint, broken windows, or cracked plaster. The roof may show signs of minor water leaks. Deteriorated The structure shows signs of structural deterioration such as sagging roof or walls or crumbling foundation. It may appear to have leaky plumbing or hazardous electrical service illustrated by exposed wiring, and holes may be apparent in roof or walls. Paint may be largely peeled or faded or even nonexistent, and broken windows are often apparent. Dilapidated The building is structurally unsound and maintenance is nonexistent. Its fitness for human occupation is highly questionable and the state of deterioration and neglect is such that it is a candidate for demolition. Table 2 Structural Conditions In The Project Area Rating Number of Structures Sound 23 Deficient 122 Deteriorated 51 Dilapidated 0 XX M. Source: Urban Futures, Inc. 1988 Out of the total 196 structures rated, 173 or 88.27% are at least deficient and in need of some rehabilitation. It can be generally stated that maintenance is irregular and such conditions as peeling paint, loose roof shingles, weathered facades, and cracked foundations are common. A total of 26.02% of all structures are deteriorated such that these structures require substantial upgrading. The existing structures 56 present the Project Area with an image problem which negatively impacts potential development opportunities. When clustered together, such structures create definite pockets of substandard quality and blight. The breakdown of this structural rating by existing land uses in presented in Table 3. The locations of all properties containing deteriorated structures is shown in Figure 4. Table 3 Structural Conditions In The Project Area By Existing Land Use Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Total Sound 3 11 9 23 Deficient 27 94 1 122 Deteriorated 23 28 0 51 Dilapidated 0 0 0 0 Source: Urban Futures, Inc. 1988 (Photographs are on file that depict blighted conditions of buildings.) The existence of structural blight within a Project Area constitutes a social liability upon the community because of the social problems associated with living or working in deficient structures. These problems include increased safety risks from fire, accidents, floods, and other unpredictable events. It also creates unhealthy conditions resulting from poor heating, ventilation, insulation, and sanitation, as well as personal alienation, maladjustment, and the loss of community cohesion and pride. The physical blight caused by structural deficiencies also constitutes an economic liability for the City. Its presence depresses property values and tax revenues as well as commercial/business sales tax revenues. Additionally, such conditions negatively impact potential development opportunities. The residential structures within the Project Area are typically characterized by a lack of adequate maintenance such that rehabilitation efforts are now required to insure the safety, health, and welfare of Project Area residents. However, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency presently does not have adequate fiends to finance the needed rehabilitation programs. 57 WARNER AVE FIR D i Y A )RE AVE f, ELSIT s rn f W CYPRESS AVE CYPRESMN S' — - i = a \V1 J < W Y � a 0 MANDRELL DR KRISTIN CR. J aUa 0 W W BARYON DR. m Y U - - J WAGON OR - - Z —- -- - } Z - 2 a Q J37MY SLATER AVE 1 1 z J AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Structural Deterioration Map N I////I Project Area Boundaries µ~ Locations of Properties Containing Deteriorated Structures SCALE 0 200 400 feet 58 FIGURE 4 b. Defective Design and Character of Physical Construction Many residential structures within the Project Area clearly display poor construction quality in terms of both physical size and structural composition. This condition is particularly evident in many of the single family homes in the northern portion of the Project Area, particularly on Sycamore Avenue, Cypress Avenue, and Ash Street. Many single family structures are of such diminutive proportions that overcrowded living conditions are likely to occur. Examples of such structures are shown in photos #9 and #10 (on file). These structures also display defective physical characteristics due to both low quality construction materials and -deferred maintenance. Photo #11 (on file) illustrates a residential structure characterized by roll-on asphalt roofing and deferred maintenance. The southern portion of the Project Area also displays physical defects in many of the multi-family residential structures. Many of these structural deficiencies, such as cracked foundations and neglected exterior surfaces, relate to deferred maintenance of such a prolonged period that some degree of rehabilitation is now necessary. All streets in the southern portion of the Project Area display these conditions, with the most notable examples on Mandrell Drive, Koledo Lane, Queens Lane, and Barton Drive (Photo is on file). c. Faulty Interior Arrangement and Exterior Spacing As previously mentioned, many Project Area residential structures are of proportions that are likely to create overcrowded housing conditions. Overcrowding not only diminishes personal privacy and the quality of life for Project Area residents, but also provides an environment where communicable diseases can readily flourish. In terms of exterior spacing, many single family residential structures in the northern portion of the Project Area are characterized by inadequate front yard setbacks. Many residential structures on Warner Avenue, Sycamore Avenue, Ash Street and Cypress Avenue have front yard setbacks of only 10-15 feet. Photos #13 and #14 (on file) display the close proximity of two single family residences to Sycamore Avenue. The house in photo #13 (on file) has no continuous buffers between the structure and roadway, and is further impacted by the parking structure located directly across the street. Photo #15 (on file) displays a single family structure with an inadequate front yard setback from Warner Avenue. This situation creates congested living conditions by subjecting residents to higher levels of noise, dust, air pollution, and visual impacts from passing motor vehicles, particularly for those residents on or adjacent to Warner Avenue, which is a major arterial for the City. 59 The southern portion of the Project Area is characterized by multi-family 4-plex structures with rear garages containing two second floor dwelling units. These garage/duplexes are located directly adjacent to the rear alleys, without any provision for setbacks or other buffers that would reduce the noise impacts of vehicular activities. Photo #16 (on file) displays a residential unit of a multi-family structure fronting an alley, with the structure and alley separated only by a series of bollards. The 4-plexes on Jacquelyn Lane, Koledo Lane, Queens Lane, Barton Drive, and Mandrell Drive are characterized by a lack of adequate setbacks or landscape buffers between buildings, thereby creating a congested environment for local residents. d. Age and Obsolescence The overall condition of a City's housing stock is determined by the following factors: age, quality of construction, and regularity of maintenance. Obsolescence applies mainly to residential and commercial buildings where size, layout, and other design features are no longer suitable for current uses. The obsolescence of throughout the Project structures and identifying blight important implications for Area has justifying redevelopment. Residential structures throughout the Project Area are characterized by declining structural conditions due to the cumulative effects of age and deferred maintenance. Many Project Area structures which are over 25 years old have not been subject to an adequate program of maintenance. These findings are essential to the community since residential structures over 25 years in age are most likely to display- signs of deterioration resulting from deferred maintenance. The 4-plexes which characterize the southern portion of the Project Area are generally 25-30 years old and clearly display signs of age and neglect, such as weathered facades and cracked foundations. Many of the single family structures in the northern portion of the Project Area, particularly on Sycamore Avenue, Cypress Avenue, Ash Street, and the northern portion of Oak Lane, are well over 25 years in age and display varying signs of advanced deterioration. Although many Project Area residential structures are in urgent need of rehabilitation, the Redevelopment Agency presently does not have adequate funds to support such efforts. In terms of obsolescence, the diminutive size and inadequate setbacks characteristic of many single family structures in the northern portion of the Project Area severely impair the ability of such structures to provide safe, sanitary, and decent housing for Project Area residents. These features negatively impact the functional usefulness of such residences, thereby accelerating their structural obsolescence. 60 Due to the age of the existing buildings located throughout the Project Area and the high cost involved in maintenance and upkeep, it is very likely that most of these structures will continue to decline in appearance and structural soundness, further contributing to the blighting conditions within the Project Area. Although there is a need to provide new affordable housing for many Project Area residents, the Redevelopment Agency does not presently have adequate funds to aid in the construction of new replacement housing. e. Mixed and Incompatible Buildings and Land Uses -There are portions of the Project Area which are characterized by an incompatible mixture of residential and commercial land uses. Many patrons of the Charter Centre complex use local Project Area streets for access to the parking garage on Ash Street, and sometimes park on local streets such as Elm Street and Cypress Avenue. Residents adjacent to this commercial/office complex are therefore subjected to higher levels of noise, dust, air pollution, and visual impairments from non-resident vehicular use of local streets. Conversely, business owners and patrons of the Charter Centre are negatively impacted by the structural deterioration evident in many adjacent residences. The physical decline of these residential structures creates the potential for a negative experience due to the unattractive visual impacts of this neighborhood, and may discourage patrons from returning to the Charter Centre. Structural rehabilitation and proper landscaping are needed to mitigate the negative visual impacts and provide some level of noise insulation. Conflicting mixtures of land uses and structures create a more difficult and expensive need to establish mitigating measures to reduce and/or eliminate incompatibility. Mixed and incompatible negatively influence property values and the resultant quality of developments. In many cases, maintenance of land and structures neglected due to the negative physical, social, and economic atmosphere created by these conflicts. All of these factors interrelate and result in reduced tax revenue to the community, increased costs of public services (e.g., police, fire), and a decline in public services and facilities. In summary, the existing structural deficiencies, age, and conflicting land uses all contribute to the blighting influences evident in the Project Area. Redevelopment will provided the necessary mechanisms for alleviating and/or reversing these deficiencies in a rational, comprehensive long-range approach. 61 C unnun�life AVE I FIR D z 116 fill w BELSI r W f W CYPRESS f \ a � 0 MANDRELL DR = KRISTlN CR. z o J m U O I I W \ — m BAfiftrlttf••fiR�W J� G O Y � Z J WAGON CR --- —' - - — - Z W O Y SLATER AVE I � Z ' I � AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Street Infrastructure Deficiencies Map Project Area Boundaries N • Locations of Inadequate Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Facilities •••••••••• Locations of Inadequate Lighting Facilities SCALE 0 200 400 feet as Locations of Deteriorating Street Pavements 62 FIGURE 5 4. Properties Some properties within the Project Area are suffering from economic maladjustment, deterioration or disuse because of inadequate public improvements, facilities and utilities, and parcels of irregular form, shape or size. a. Traffic Circulation Deficiencies The Project Area contains portions of the following arterials: Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue, and Slater Avenue. All other Project Area -streets are considered to be local streets (60 foot right-of-way).As detailed in a technical memorandum from POD, Inc., to City staff, Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue are classified as major arterials (120 foot right-of-way) and Slater Avenue is considered a secondary arterial (80 foot right-of-way). Beach Boulevard, which is also a State Highway under the jurisdiction of CalTrans, is the heaviest traveled street in the City. The internal circulation system within the Project Area is considered to be an incomplete grid pattern which restricts access between the northern and southern portions of the Project Area. Although four Project Area streets intersect with Slater Avenue, only Queens Avenue enables passage to the northern section via Barton Drive to Koledo Lane to Mandrell Drive, which connects with both Oak Lane and Ash Street. The northern portion of the Project Area is considered to be an incomplete grid system in that access to Beach Boulevard is interrupted by the Charter Centre and access to Nichols Street (a north-south local street located west of the Project Area) is interrupted by the Oakview School and Community Center. As previously mentioned, local streets in the northern portion service not only resident traffic flows, but also patrons of the Charter Centre utilizing the parking garage located at the northeast corner of Sycamore Avenue and Ash Street. Furthermore, due to the current traffic congestion at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard, many motorists traveling east-bound on Warner Avenue who wish to turn south-bound on Beach Boulevard by-pass this intersection by taking Ash Street south-bound to Cypress Avenue east-bound to the Cypress/Beach intersection. This spill-over of through-traffic and the constant flow of Charter Centre patrons results in significantly heavier traffic volumes than normally experienced on local residential streets. In addition to the heavy traffic volumes created by external pressures, many streets in the Project Area, particularly in the northern portion, are in substandard condition and require substantial improvements. Street widths range from the required 60 foot right-of-way for local streets down 63 to only 20 feet of street pavement. These narrow streets are also characterized by deteriorating surfaces, incomplete lighting, and a lack of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Project Area streets in this condition include Sycamore Avenue, Ash Street, Cypress Avenue, and Elm Street. The substandard widths and surfaces of these streets, along with the spill- over impacts of through-traffic and Charter Centre patrons, impedes the successful flow of traffic and creates higher levels of noise, air pollution, and traffic delays. Emergency vehicles for fire, police, and health services are also negatively impacted by impaired road access due to narrow and congested streets. In summary, inadequate street capacity, poor circulation, and inadequate access all create significant circulation problems in traffic flow throughout the Project Area. b. Deficient Street, Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, and Lighting Facilities Deficiencies in the street system facilities the Project Area, as shown in Figure 5. Cracked street pavements and potholes characterize many street surfaces in the Project Area, particularly in the northern streets such as Sycamore Avenue, Ash Street, Cypress Avenue, and Elm Street. Deteriorating street surfaces include many local streets, as shown in photos along Warner Avenue, as shown in photo #18 (on file). The northern portion of the Project Area is generally characterized by narrow, disintegrating streets that lack curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, as evidenced in photos #19 - #21 (on file). Photo #22 (on file) displays a portion of Cypress Avenue characterized by cracked street pavement, potholes, and a lack of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Photo #23 (on file) shows a cracked and uneven sidewalk on Mandrell Drive with inadequate asphalt resurfacing. Many Project Area alleys are also in need of resurfacing, as shown in photo #24 (on file). Specifically, Sycamore Avenue is characterized by a lack of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, with the exception of the northern portion of the street adjacent to the Charter Centre parking garage. This street is very narrow and the surfacing is in a state of almost complete disintegration, particularly west of the Ash Street intersection. Street lighting on Sycamore Avenue is incomplete and inadequate. Ash Street north of Cypress Avenue is also very narrow and in a state of structural deterioration. This portion of Ash Street is lacking in curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and also does not have adequate street lighting. Cypress Avenue is a narrow and deteriorating street with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks provided on only a few properties. Oak Lane lacks curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the east side of the street north of Cypress Avenue. Elm Street is also lacking curbs, gutters, and sidewalks north of Cypress Avenue, with the exception of the eastern portion which abuts the Holiday Spa structure, and has an incomplete provision of curbs, gutters, 64 and sidewalks south of Cypress Avenue. Street surface cracking is also evident along Elm Street. Barton Drive is characterized by incomplete street lighting facilities. Jacquelyn Lane is characterized by cracked street pavements and cracked curbs. The provision of adequate street surfaces is necessary for safe and smooth flowing vehicular access. Narrow streets in an advanced state of disrepair, coupled with the spill-over of non-resident traffic, tends to slow traffic flows and thus extends the travel time of motorists on these local streets. The lack of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks often results in standing water on the roadside shoulders, forcing pedestrians to utilize street surfaces for passage. The pedestrian use of street surfaces creates potentially hazardous situations as motorists and pedestrians attempt-to share local streets of substandard width, This condition is extremely critical due to the fact that most daytime pedestrian travel consists of small children coming or going to school. The lack of sidewalks and adequate street lighting also creates potentially dangerous night time travel conditions for pedestrians. Substantial improvements are also needed for the Project Area alleys. Cracked pavements, potholes, Standing water, and overgrown vegetation are commonplace in many alleyways. The poor condition of these alleys not only impedes vehicular circulation, but also imposes potential traffic and pedestrian conflicts through the lack of proper lighting and haphazard parking. The Project Area in general is in urgent need of substantial street surface rehabilitation, along with the construction of adequate curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street lights. Although the provision of these street infrastructure facilities is essential for the safety, health, and welfare of Project Area residents, the Redevelopment Agency does not presently have adequate funding to provide these facilities. c. Drainage System Deficiencies The lack of curbs and gutters in the many portions of the Project Area prevents storm water from being effectively channeled off the street surfaces, leading to health and safety hazards for local residents. Despite the presence of underground storm drainage lines along Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue, Ash Street, and Sycamore and Cypress Avenues between Ash and Elm Streets, the lack of above-ground drainage facilities results in long-standing puddles of water which contribute to unhealthful living conditions by providing a habitat for disease carrying insects. The locations of storm drainage deficiencies throughout the Project Area are 65 WARNER AVE FIR D z 8EL I D tf Js — — w w CYPRESS P7 — --- - -i T h { KRISTIN CR. J J ORm ' U . \ m WAGON OR -- -- -- i W SLATER AVE � I z AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Drainage Deficiencies Map N I////I Project Area Boundaries -� Locations of Streets with Inadequate Drainage Facilities SCALE 0 200 400 feet 66 FIGURE 6 shown in Figure 6. Photos #25 - #28 (on file) clearly display these deficiencies along Sycamore Avenue, Cypress Avenue, and Elm Street. As a result of the Project Area's lack of adequate above-ground storm drainage facilities, even small amounts of rainfall can cause puddling along street shoulders, becoming not only an inconvenience but also a health and safety hazard. As the streets lacking curbs and gutters typically also lack sidewalks, pedestrians are forced on to the street surface and must compete with motor vehicles for the limited street pavement space. These drainage system inadequacies are factors which contribute to both physical and economic blight within the Project Area. These conditions help promote physical blight since some properties are not being served by adequate drainage facilities which meet public health standards. These existing conditions also lead to economic blight by contributing to potential depreciated property values and overall investment decline since existing drainage facilities are not adequate to serve new development within the Project Area. d. Water Distribution Deficiencies The Project Area is characterized by a number of water lines which are only six inches in diameter. While six inch water lines are considered the minimally acceptable size for single family residential neighborhoods, modern construction standards call for a minimum diameter of eight inches for new water distribution lines since six inch lines are not always capable of providing needed fire flows during peak demand periods. As shown in Figure 7, Queens Lane, Barton Drive, Jacquelyn Lane, Elm Street, and portions of Oak Lane, Cypress Avenue, and Sycamore Avenue are characterized by six inch water lines. Furthermore, some Project Area residents must rely on private wells for their drinking water, which are often characterized by inconsistent supplies and variable water quality. Since the provision of adequate drinking water is essential to the public health and welfare, the revitalization of the Project Area cannot be fully achieved without an adequate water supply and distribution system. B. Existing Social Conditions 1. Project Area Population The 1980 US Census reported a total population of 170,486 for the City of Huntington Beach. According to the California Department of Finance, the total Citywide population is now at 187,740 as of January 1988. Therefore, the City's population has grown 10.1% from 1980 to 1988, 67 WARNER AVE — ; I _J FIR D z AVE ,p BELSIT s W UJ W AVE CYPRESS Na LV MANDRELL DR KRISTIN CR. Ci ' a O I I m W w J 0 � - Z V J WAGON OR 3 — - Z SLATER AVE z Ll AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Water System Deficiencies Map N /////./ Project Area Boundaries Locations of Streets with Substandard - Sized Water Lines SCALE 68 o zoo 400�_-t FIGURE 7 which translates into an average annual growth rate of 1.3%. The steady growth in population experienced by Huntington Beach in recent years has put increased pressure on Huntington Beach's public services and facilities. As Huntington Beach's population continues to expand throughout the City, there will be greater pressure to improve and expand upon the infrastructure within the Project Area. The current residential population of the Project Area is estimated to be 1,620 persons. This figure was calculated by multiplying the total number of residential units for all single and multi-family structures (592 dwelling units) by the average household size of 2.736 for the City of Huntington Beach, as reported by the Department of Finance (although the average Project Area household size is likely to be greater than the Citywide average, a more specific average for the Project Area is not presently available). Since the population of the entire City is 187,740, the Project Area contains approximately 0.86% of the Huntington Beach population. 2. Prevalence of Social Maladjustment Social maladjustment reflected in the forms of crime, juvenile delinquency, welfare dependency, and unemployment, is another indication of blighting conditions in the Project Area. According to the statistical division of the Huntington Beach Police Department, crime rates in the Project Area are among the highest in the City. Although the Project Area represents less than one percent of the total Citywide population, an average of about ten percent of all Citywide homicides and assaults occur within its reporting district (the 272 reporting district, which is bounded on the north by Warner Avenue, on the east by Beach Boulevard, on the south by Slater Avenue, and on the west by Gothard Street). There were a total of 2,396 police calls in this reporting district for 1986 and 2,577 police calls during 1987, representing a very high 7.6% annual increase. Even more significant is the fact that the average annual number of police calls for a reporting district in the City is about 600 calls. Therefore, the Project Area reporting district had over four times as many police calls in 1987 as the average reporting district. Reports of crime in residential areas implies security hardware deficiencies, poor physical design, obtrusive shrubbery, and deficient street lighting. Crime occurring in commercial areas implies deficiencies in the physical security of commercial buildings such as structural design, floor plan layout, landscaping, lighting, circulation systems, and parking structures. As previously mentioned, many Project Area streets have inadequate lighting facilities. The lack of adequate street lighting coupled with the mature trees and bushes surrounding many residential structures 69 provides convenient concealment for burglars. Furthermore, the narrow and poorly paved streets throughout the Project Area results in patrolling problems due to the incomplete circulation system. Crime is often related to high unemployment and underemployment levels. According to a recent status report prepared by the City, the percentage of families in the Project Area falling below the poverty level is nearly double the percentage for the rest of City. Female heads of household in the Project Area are also nearly double the Citywide average, and the unemployment rate is significantly higher for the Project Area in comparison with the overall City rate. The prevalence of social maladjustment is also determined by the existence of vandalism and property neglect. Photos #29 - #33 (on file) display vandalism in the form of graffiti on houses, fences, garage doors, and public signs. The presence of graffiti often indicates the existence of juvenile delinquency and even gang-related activities. The Project Area's high crime rate and predominance of graffiti throughout the Area appears to verify the occurrence of juvenile related offenses. Social maladjustment is also indicated by the lack of property upkeep throughout the project Area. Photos on file clearly display this condition in the form of discarded furniture, paint cans, various debris, and landscaped open space areas used for parking automobiles. The accumulation of discarded materials and debris on residential properties may indicate a lack of neighborhood pride among some local residents. This attitude often reflects a feeling of alienation from the community and a sense of powerlessness towards any effort to upgrade existing conditions. Redevelopment can provide the mechanism to help local residents rehabilitate their properties and provide City officials with the funds for infrastructure and public protection improvements, thereby increasing community cohesion and improving the quality of life for Project Area residents. At present, however, the Redevelopment Agency does not have sufficient funding to initiate these needed improvements. C. Existing Economic Conditions Currently the City of Huntington Beach lacks the financial resources to fully fund public improvements that could support the type of beneficial development necessary for a healthy economic base. Therefore, an amended Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area is proposed in an effort to alleviate and/or reverse the blighting conditions described herein. 70 1. Prevalence of Depreciated Values and Impaired Investments Two indicators of economic blight are defined as the prevalence of depreciated land values and impaired investments. Briefly, depreciated land values are simply the decline in the assessed value of property due to many of the factors previously mentioned, including physical problems such as inadequate public facilities and the prevalence of social maladjustment. Impaired investments result from the same conditions and are basically a socio-economic reaction to depreciated values. An impaired investments a rented or leased residential, commercial, or industrial property on which the values or the return on the owner's equity is -diminishing or has stopped altogether, and/or the equity itself is in danger of being partially or totally lost. One key indicator of impaired investments is a prevalence of deferred maintenance the part of local property owners, as evidenced in photos #1 - #8 (on file). Another indicator is the lack of public infrastructure improvements such as street surfacing, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street lighting. This lack of public improvements tends to depress property values and discourages local property owners from investing in structural improvements to their properties. These general conditions such as inadequate infrastructure and public amenities or the inaccessibility of the parcel due to inadequate street improvements deters the potential developer from investment. This discourages economic investments that would convert economically underproductive or unproductive parcels into productive land uses. The failure of the property owners to fully utilize these parcels is evidence of the impaired investments resulting from inadequate public improvements and public facilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without the aid of redevelopment. Although most of this underutilized land in the Project Area has the potential for improvement through structural rehabilitation or new construction, it is unlikely that this will occur without assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. The lack of improvements on these parcels is indicative of the inability the private market to bring about their utilization. The combination of the cost for needed pre-development improvements, assembly or division of parcels, marginal economic activity and/or inability of the parcel owner to invest make these parcels undevelopable without public assistance. 71 Redevelopment Agency actions that will make these parcels viable for development are essential in order to facilitate development of the vacant and underutilized land within the Project Area. One such action would be the establishment of a "land write-down pool" by the Redevelopment Agency, These programs are described in Appendix A (on file). The existence of underutilized and unproductive parcels in the Project Area is indicative of the prevalence of impaired investments, which is a factor contributing to economic blight. The end result is a serious social and economic burden on the community caused by deferred structural -maintenance, overall property neglect, unsightly vacant lots, inhibited growth in property values and tax revenues, and unrealized housing opportunities." 72 2.1(b) Overview of Past Projects to Eliminate Blight ♦ Amended the Redevelopment Plan to raise the tax increment limitation. ♦ Studied land use options for implementation of Guardian Center Phase III. ♦ Rehabilitated 60 units in the south Oakview area. ♦ Completed reconstruction of 10 alleys in the south Oakview area. ♦ Completed comprehensive Enhancement Project for Jacquelyn Lane. + The Rehabilitation Loan Program for multi-family residential structures represents one of the key activities of the Agency in this area and $467,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were expended to bring 78 additional units to completion. ♦ A new program of Housing Code Enforcement using $45,000 in CDBG funds has accomplished 172 inspections with 58 violations abated. Property owner cooperation has been good and only one case resulted in prosecution. ♦ To cure a contaminated water well problem, the Agency provided a new water line and service to 54 residential units in the north Oakview area at a cost of over $234,000 in CDBG funds. ♦ The Learning, Organizing, Growing for Oakview Students (LOGOS) Program continued to provide opportunities for twenty-three high school students to improve the neighborhood by graffiti removal and trash clean-up. ♦ The existing Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and Phil Zisakis was being implemented by conveyance of Agency owned land on Beach Boulevard north of Cypress for expansion of an existing commercial complex. ♦ An earlier Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between the Agency and Guardian Savings and Loan called for the conveyance of an Agency owned parcel on Elm Street north of Cypress Street for use as a multi-level parking structure:- The Exclusive was terminated due to the takeover of Guardian by the federal Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). • The Agency provided funds for a Police Substation in the existing Community Center to better serve the residents of the area. 73 • The multi-story Guardian Center located at the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue was sold by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) for $21 million. LIU, Inc. is the new owner of the building. In 1993 staff was negotiating with LIU for the disposition of an adjacent Agency owned parcel of .25 acres to be incorporated into the site plan of the mixed use center for additional parking. • Next door to the Guardian Center, the Leonard Lichter Office Building was expanded during the period and benefited from exterior remodeling which makes it architecturally compatible with surrounding buildings. This was done without Agency assistance. ♦ The Agency also approved an amended Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Phil Zisakis, owner of National Auto Glass. The Agreement provided for the use of Agency owned property for parking that would allow expansion of the existing automobile glass business to 12,300 square feet. This expansion also provided the opportunity for this facility to link architecturally with the adjacent office building. The amended DDA was approved on May 18, 1992 and required the developer to pay $48,000 for the parking rights to be offset by improvement costs of the fifteen spaces. ♦ Through the Community Development Block Grant Program the City sponsors a Code Enforcement Program to closely monitor building and housing codes within the area. There were 712 active cases processed in 1991-92, and 648 in 1992-93. ♦ Also under the CDBG Program, the City continues its Rehabilitation Loan Program, completing 40 residential units over the two year period at a cost of over $440,000. 74 2.1 (c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight A. Residential units continue to deteriorate and rehabilitation is needed. B. Streets are below community standards. C. No alley improvements have been provided. D. Storm drainage is inadequate. E. Streetscape and landscaping is needed. F. Overflow parking needs of adjacent commercial development create traffic and circulation problems and impact the adjacent residential area. G. Social issues of crime, juvenile delinquency, welfare dependency and unemployment are more prevalent in this area than in other residential areas of the City. H. Mixed and incompatible land uses still exist. 75 2.1(d) Identification of- cations of Blight OAKVIEW WARNER AVE. _ z J FIRI O J ' 1 2 SYCAMORE AVE N CYPRESS AVE s a \i J I 1 Y 4 O ' 1 MANORELL DR KRtSTIN CR \ Z J m tU a8AR70N OR. J Q J Z J J NAGON OR Z EEL- W W N Z D Z Li a a o I Y SLATER AVE � 1 j z 1 AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Matrix Block Number Map N ��..•��. Project Area Boundaries 1- 14 Block Numbers SCALE F::�� 76 0 200 400 g� MATRIX 1 SUMMARY OF BLIGHTING INFLUENCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA BLOCK NUMBERS 1 2 3 14 5 6 7 8 91101111213114 DEFICIENT,DETERIORATED �( X X X X X X X X X X X X AND DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES, DEFECTIVE DESIGN INADEQUATE ROADWAY CONDITIONS X X X X X X X X INADEQUATE CURBS, X X X X X X X X X SIDEWALKS AND GUTTERS TRAFFIC AND X X X X X X X CIRCULATION DEFICIENCIES INADEQUATE INGRESS/EGRESS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X INADEQUATE PARKING X X X X X X co INADEQUATE STREET LIGHTING X X X X X X X X 0 z LACK OF LANDSCAPING, MEDIAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X U IMPROVEMENTS AND STREETSCAPING P WATER SUPPLY DEFICIENCIES X X X X X X Ix Xl X X X W DRAINAGE SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SEWER SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES MIXED AND INCOMPATIBLE X X X LAND USES PUBLIC FACILITY DEFICIENCIES VACANT OR MARGINAL BUSINESISES X VACANT UNDERUTILIZED AND/OR X X X X IRREGULARLY SHAPED PARCELS 77 MATRIX 2 SUMMARY OF NEEDED PROGRAMS AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA BLOCK NUMBERS 112 13 4 5 16 7 819110 111213 14 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION X X X -LOANS AND GRANTS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL REHABILITATION LOANS AND GRANTS LAND POOL FUNDS FOR COMMERCIAL X X X AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION, X X X X X X X X X X X X X REPLACEMENT HOUSING POOL REPAIR OR ADD STREET LIGHTING X X X X X X X X REPAIR OR WIDENING OF ROADWAYS X X X X X X X CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS < GUTT CONSTRUCTRS ANION D S OF DEWALKS, X X X X X X X X X c9 0 .ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS X X a INGRESS/EGRESS IMPROVEMENTS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS X X X X X X X X X X STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROVISION OF STREETSCP.PING, STRIP IMPROVEMENTS X X X X X X X X X X X X X AND LANDSCAPING PARKING IMPROVEMENTS X X X X X X PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 78 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Programs/Projects Estimated Funding Priority Blight Costs Sources 11-3) Addressed 1. Continue Housing $ 350,000 HOME/CBDG 1 A Rehabilitation loan Program 20 units per yr 2. Oakview Branch $ 250,000 CBDG 1 G Library 3. Review Oakview $ 30,000 T.I. 3 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H Neighborhood Plan 4. Streets, Streetlights, Unknown CBDG 2 B,C,D,E Alleys, and Landscape 5. Storm Drainage $350,000 CBDG 2 D 6. Community Services $125,000 CBDG 1 G Police Assistance 7. LOGOS Youth Employment Clean-up Program $350,000 CBDG 2 G 8. Code Enforcement $310,000 CBDG 2 A Refer to Section 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight 79 3.0 Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals 3.1(a) Identification of AB 315 Annual Housing Production Goals' Table 1 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Inclusionary Housing Requirements #Units Affordable Affordable Net Deficit/ Required Provided Surplus Oakview Existing 69 10 0 - 10 Proposed 0 0 0 0 0 10 NOTE: Tables from the Redevelopment Agency Housing Policy and Housing Compliance Plan. *The AB 315 Report for all project areas is included in the Housing Set-Aside Section. 80 3.1(b) Estimation of Number of Low/Moderate Units to be Destroyed and 3.1(c) Identification of Replacement Housing Sites Oakview Project Area: Table 3 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Replacement Requirement Units Low Very Low Demolished: 7921 Cypress -2 0 0 17122 Elm -1 0 0 Planned Replacement Units: 17171 Elm 13 7 6 X. Ten Year/Life of Plan Housing Program This project area is built-out and there is no expectation of a production requirement nor units to be destroyed during the remaining life of the plan. The Agency's housing efforts in this project area will emphasize rehabilitation of existing units using tax increment, housing bonds or other local, federal or state funds. 81 OAKVIEW TECHNICAL APPENDIX A 82 OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 9/30/94 1995M 1996197 1 1997198 1 199MO I 1999M I Total ISouroes JGoals&Objectives Explanatlon EST FUND MLANCE,PRIOR YEAR 817,704 549,368 263,744 -27,150 336,594 INCOME Tax Increment(80%) 412,539 420,790 429,206 437,790 446.545 2,146,870 Interest 57,239 38,456 18,462 0 0 114,157 TOTAL INCOME 469,778 469,246 447,668 437,790 446,545 2,261.027 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 297,905 300,105 296,905 298.655 298,655 1,492,225 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. City Debt 272,500 272.500 272,5W 272,500 272,500 1,362,500 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. School Pass-Through 5,000 5.000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating 27,379 28,748 30.185 31,695 33,279 151,286 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(10%) 63,734 66.021 70,267 73,780 77,469 352,171 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal SeMoes 6,460 6,460 6,460 6,460 6,460 32,300 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services Admin Portion(10%) 17,790 17.790 17,790 17,790 17,790 88,950 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin, Business Development(10%) 47,346 47,346 39,455 39,455 39,455 213,057 Tax Ino. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. TOTAL EXPENSES 738,114 744,870 738,562 745,335 750,608 3,717,489 00 w NET INCOME .268,336 -285,624 -290,894 307,545 304,063 .1,456,462 T FUND BALANCE,EN O 509`:::? ;::':`z3:?:'• : :<:siris: ;ii: i:;:?:t•':::':`;:i»iiii::i•::>sii:iiisill:;::.;. ES ND E D F YEAR .: ...:.:.:::.:.::.:.::::•::::::::.::::::.:. •::::.::::::. OAKVIEW TECIiNICAL APPENDIX B SET-ASIDE FINANCING PLAN (See Housing Section) 84 TALBERT - BEACH REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1995 - 2000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 85 TALBERT - BEACH IMPLEMENTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of "Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. This is the implementation plan for the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project area and contains: ♦ Five year goals (prioritized), projects with costs and funding sources identified. ♦ Blight findings from the original Redevelopment Plan, past projects to eliminate blight, outstanding conditions of blight and a map of these conditions. ♦ Five year housing goals and annual production goals, estimate of units to be destroyed and identification of replacement sites. ♦ Five year strategy to alleviate blight. ♦ Appendices A & B identifying cash flow for redevelopment and housing programs. 86 TALBERT-BEACH 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan, (September 20, 1982, PP 119 - 121) General Objectives of Redevelopment Plan "In creating the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach declared its desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the City and in particular those areas within the City which have become blighted because of deterioration, disuse and economic, physical and social maladjustments. As a part of the city's ongoing redevelopment efforts, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared this Plan for the Talbert Beach Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the objectives of this Redevelopment Project are as follows: ♦ Eliminating blighting influences, including deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, inadequate public improvements, obsolete structures, and other physical, economic and social deficiencies; improve the overall appearances of streets, parking areas and other facilities, public and private; and assure that all buildings are safe for persons to occupy. ♦ Encouraging existing owners, businesses and tenants within the Project Area to participate in redevelopment activities. ♦ 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. ♦ Mitigating development limitations which have resulted in the lack of proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or 87 ♦ Providing adequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. ♦ Providing construction and employment opportunities in the development of these facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of the proposed industrial facilities. ♦ Implementing the construction or reconstruction of adequate streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, storm drains, and other improvements as necessary to assist development of the Project Area to conform to the General Plan as a master-planned development and to correct existing environmental deficiencies. ♦ Establishing development criteria and controls for the permitted uses within the Project Area in accordance with modern and competitive development practices, thus assuring the highest design standards and environmental quality. ♦ Providing for relocation assistance and benefits to Project Area residence which may be displaced, in accordance with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law and the government code of the State of California To obtain the objectives of this Plan as set forth, the Agency is authorized to undertake most or all of the following implementing actions: ♦ Acquisition of property. Participation by owners and tenants in the redevelopment project. ♦ Relocation assistance to displaced residential occupants as required by law. ♦ Development of adequate parking, landscaping, public improvements and facilities. ♦ Demolition clearance of properties acquired, and site preparation. 88 ♦ Other actions as appropriate, including but not limited to, actions to assist property owners and tenants in the improvement of their properties to carry out the objectives of the redevelopment plan. ♦ Assist in providing financing for private and public development in the Project Area." 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives 1.2(a) Prioritization of Goals and Objectives Project Areas Size: 25 Acres Adoption Date: September, 1982 Life of Plan: 35 Years Tax Increment Cap: $350,000 annually PROJECT GOALS FOR 1995-2000 1. Implement the provisions of the Disposition and Development Agreement with Sassounian Capital Ventures, Inc., for the construction of 38 condominiums. 2. Implement second trust deed program for 25 units in Pacific Park Villas. 3. Continue to support and maintain the Emerald Cove senior housing project. 4. Monitor maintenance requirements of public infrastructure. 5. Monitor construction of balance of 50 units in Pacific Park Villas (not under Disposition and Development Agreement). 1.2(b) Reasons for Inclusion These goals originated in the Agency's most recent Biennial Report published in December, 1993 and have been subjected to public review and approval by the Agency. Together they represent what can reasonably be accomplished within the period of this plan. 89 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight 2.1(a) Summary of Previous Blight Findings (from "Report to City Council", September, 1982, PP 2-3) "The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Area is located between Talbert Avenue and Taylor Drive west of Beach Boulevard. The southernmost portion is developed with the five-acre Terry Park and several single-family residences occupy the central eastern portion. The balance of the site is vacant. The Project is bounded on the north by existing industrial development and on the south by approximately 60 single-family residential units. As demonstrated in the Documentation of Blight Report, which is attached hereto as Appendix F and incorporated herein, the Project Area is blighted in numerous respects, including both buildings and property. The blighting effects which are having a substantial negative and adverse impact on the Project Area are as follows: 3.1 Condition of Buildings and Structures Most of the single-family homes within the Project Area are in poor to fair condition needing minor or major improvements. Studies indicate that the property is lacking proper access for both residential and industrial development. 3.2 Economic Disuse and Depreciated Values That small lot subdivisions are a hindrance to development of the land and especially difficult for industrial development. The small and/or irregular shaped lots with fragmented ownership patterns reduce the suitability for development. These small lots make it impossible for modern development to take place and result in a severe economic disuse of the property. On April 16, 1968, the Planning Commission designated this are as part of the "Non-Structural Blight Element of the Master Plan". The problem of the small lots and their blighting effect has been recognized for numerous years. 90 3.3 Irregular Subdivision and Multiple Ownership Many studies have documented the problem of fragmented ownership as a result of the "encyclopedia lots" and the fact that such has precluded development of the site. 3.4 Lack of Public Improvements There is a need to extend storm sewer facilities into the area and provide much needed street and other public facilities and utilities which do not exist today. 3.5- Increased Crime Rates According to the Police Department, the crime rates in the project area are substantially higher than City-wide average." 2.1(b) Overview of Past Projects to Eliminate Blight ♦ Acquisition of site, financing and construction of 164 unit senior apartment project for low income households (Emerald Cove). ♦ Acquisition and disposition of a site causing the privately funded construction of 96 senior condominiums (Windward Cove). ♦ Sale of single-family mortgage revenue bonds to provide below market interest rate first mortgages to first time home buyers to a share of buyers in 54 unit condominium project (Capewoods). ♦ Acquisition of "encyclopedia lots" through eminent domain to assemble parcels. ♦ Preparation and processing of new subdivision map for entire project area. ♦ Relocation assistance to displaced households. ♦ Creation of streets, sewers, water, electrical and other infrastructure necessary to serve new parcels. ♦ Acquisition and disposition of a five acre site and, through an agreement, construction of a 120,000 square foot, single-tenant industrial building leased to a quilted products manufacturer. 91 ♦ Through an agreement, disposition of the .75 acre Agency-owned site to a developer for incorporation in a larger site that will contain 88 condominium units. The agreement covers 38 of the units and requires the Agency to make available second trust deeds for up to 25 of the units to qualified moderate income buyers (Pacific Park Villas). 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight The Construction of the entire Pacific Park Villas project (88 units) will represent completion of the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area. 2.1(d) Identification of Locations of Blight TALBERT - BEACH W V � V V V Q J w m m TALBERT AVE. 0 3 lol � 1 HAPPY DR. 1 � N TERRY �1 PARK .I 1 1 TAYLOR DR. = AREAS OF OUTSTANDING BLIGHT 92 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Estimated Funding Priority Blight Programs/Projects Costs Sources LL-31 Addressed 1. Implement the provisions of Nominal T.I. 1 NA the Disposition and Development Agreement with Sassounian Capital Ventures, Inc. for the construction of 38 condominiums. 2. Implement second trust deed $750,000 T.I. 1 NA program for 25 units in Pacific Park Villas. 3. Continue to support and $80,000 T.I. 2 NA maintain the Emerald Cove senior housing project. 4. Monitor maintenance Unknown T.I. 3 NA requirements of public infrastructure. 5. Monitor construction of Nominal T.I. 2 NA balance of 50 units in Pacific Park Villas (not under DDA). * Refer to Section 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight 93 3. Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals 3.1(a) Identification of AB 315 Annual Housing Production Goals* Date Affordable Affordable Net Deficit/ Expected #Units Required Provided Surplus Talbert- Beach Existing Non- --- 151 23 0 -23 Agency Existing --- 164 49 164 115 Agency Proposed/ 1996 88 13 25 12 Contract TOTAL :::::............ *The AB 315 Report for all project areas is included in the Housing Set-Aside Section. 94 3.1(b) Estimation of Number of Low/Moderate Units to be destroyed and 3.1(c) Identification of Replacement Housing Sites Talbert - Beach Project Area: Destroyed: Units Low Very Low 7872 Talbert Avenue -1 -- -- 7842 Talbert Avenue -1 -- -- 7862 Talbert Avenue -1 -- -- Planned Replacement Units: Surplus Production Units in Talbert Beach 90 49 41 >> 9...... :,. .... Ten Year/Life of Plan Housing Program The last remaining project in this project area is under construction and its units have been accommodated in the five, one-year housing plans herein. No additional production requirement will ensue and no additional units will be destroyed over the remaining life of the plan. 95 TALBERT - BEACH TECHNICAL APPENDIX A 96 9/30/94 TALBERT-BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 1995/96 1NW7 1997/98 1 1998199 1 190100 1 Total Sources Goals&Objectives Explanation EST FUND BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR 1,041,775 1,335,216 1,230,438 1,115,411 989,248 INCOME Tax Increment(80%) 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 1,400.000 Interest 72,924 93,465 86,131 78,079 69.247 399,846 Pacific Park Villas Land Sale 416,000 0 0 ----»- 0 ----» 0 _ 416,000 _ Developer Econ,Dev. 3825 Moderate Units TOTAL INCOME 768,924 373,465 366,131 358,079 349,247 2,216,846 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 163,495 162,095 160,645 159,145 159,145 W4,525 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. City Debt 200,000 200,000 200.000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating 19,425 20,396 21,416 22,487 23,611 107,335 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(10%) 63,734 66,921 70,267 73,780 77,469 352,171 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services 4.300 4,300 4,300 4.300 4,300 21,5W Tax Inc. Eoon.Day. Project Area Admin. Legal Services Admin Portion(10%) 7,790 7.790 7,790 7,790 7,790 38,950 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Business Development(10%) 16,740 16,740 16,740 16,740 18,740 83,700 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. Pacific Park Villas Land Acquisition _----- 0 0 _--»-_0 ------ 0 ---_` 0 0 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev, Project Area Admin. TOTAL EXPENSES 475.484 478,242 481.158 484,242 489,055 2,408,181 NET INCOME 293,440 -104,777 -115,027 -126,163 -139,808 192,335 i :a'>:><`."' `i``fiiY;isi:[iii:::ti3a;i::[;:?;:_::::t?iiii 'ii'i [ EST FUND BALANCE,ENO OF YEAR TALBERT - BEACH TECHNICAL APPENDIX B SET-ASIDE FINANCING PLAN (See Housing Section) 98 YORKTOWN - LAKE REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1995 - 2000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 99 YORKTOWN - LAKE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of"Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. This is the implementation plan for the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project area and contains: ♦ Five year goals (prioritized), projects with costs and funding sources identified. ♦ Blight findings from the original Redevelopment Plan, past projects to eliminate blight, outstanding conditions of blight and a map of these conditions. ♦ Five year housing goals and annual production goals, estimate of units to be destroyed and identification of replacement sites. ♦ Five year strategy to alleviate blight. ♦ Appendices A & B identifying cash flow for redevelopment and housing programs. 100 YORKTOWN - LAKE 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan General Objectives of Redevelopment Plan "In creating the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach declared its desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the City and in particular those areas within the City which have become blighted because of deterioration, disuse and economic, physical and social maladjustments. As a part of the City's ongoing redevelopment efforts, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared this Plan for the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the objectives of this Redevelopment Project are as follows: ♦ Eliminating blighting influences, including deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, inadequate public improvements, obsolete structures, and other physical, economic and social deficiencies; improve the overall appearance of streets, parking areas and other facilities, public and private; and assure that all buildings are safe for persons to occupy. ♦ Encouraging existing owners, businesses and tenants within the Project Area to participate in redevelopment activities. ♦ 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. ♦ Mitigating development limitations which have resulted in the lack of proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. ♦ Providing adequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. 101 ♦ Providing construction and employment opportunities in the development of these facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of the proposed commercial and recreational facilities. ♦ Implementing the construction or reconstruction of adequate streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, storm drains, and other improvements as necessary to assist development of the Project Area to conform to the General Plan as a master-planned development and to correct existing environmental deficiencies. ♦ -Establishing development criteria and controls for the permitted uses within the Project Area in accordance with modern and competitive development practices, thus assuring the highest design standards and environmental quality. ♦ Providing for relocation assistance and benefits to Project Area residents which may be displaced, in accordance with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law and the government code of the State of California. To obtain the objectives of this Plan as set forth, the Agency is authorized to undertake most or all of the following implementing actions: ♦ Acquisition of property ♦ Participation by owners and tenants in the redevelopment project ♦ Relocation assistance to displaced residential occupants as required by law ♦ Development of adequate parking, landscaping, public improvements and facilities ♦ Demolition, clearance of properties acquired, and site preparation ♦ Other actions as appropriate, including, but not limited to, actions to assist property owners and tenants in the improvement of their properties to carry out the objectives of the redevelopment plan ♦ Assist in providing financing for private and public development in the Project Area" 102 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives 1.2(a) Prioritization of Goals and Objectives Project Area Size: 30 Acres Adoption Date: September 1982 Life of Plan: 35 Years Tax Increment Cap: $250,000 annually PROJECT GOALS FOR 1995-2000 1. Monitor completion of Huntington Classics, private single-family home development. 2. Obtain entitlements for development of 23 units senior housing project of which a minimum would be provided for seniors in the very low income category. 3. Commence and complete construction of the 23 unit senior housing project. 1.2(b) Reasons for Inclusion These goals originated in the Agency's most recent Biennial Report published in December, 1993 and have been subjected to public review and approval by the Agency. Together they represent what can reasonably be accomplished within the period of this plan. 103 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight 2.1a Summary of Previous Blight Findings (from "Report to City Council", September, 1982 ) "The blighting effects which are having a substantial negative and adverse impact on the Project Area are as follows: 3.1 Condition of Buildings and Structures The older metal structures within the project area represent a visual blight as they are deteriorated to a dilapidated stage and evidence a lack of on-going maintenance. 3.2 Economic Disuse and Depreciated Values The scattered older oil pumping operations and storage facilities are having an adverse operational aesthetic impact on the property resulting in nondevelopment of the site. 3.3 Irregular Subdivision The project site is divided in an irregular form by 17th Street and Pine Street and the existing alley and parcel configuration. 3.4 Lack of Public Improvements Certain streets within the project area should be removed, while Utica and Lake should be improved to City standards. These streets presently lack adequate curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lighting. 3.5 Flooding The installation of adequate streets, curbs and gutters will improve drainage within the project area. 104 3.6 Stagnant or Improper Utilization As documented in previous sections, the existing fragmented lot pattern has changed very little in the past, and the existing metal structures are continuing to age. The existing land uses are well below their economic potential. 3.7 Increased Crime Rates According to the Police Department, the crime rates in the project area are substantially higher than City-wide average, and are one of the highest rates within the City. Since the Police Department is located within the project area, many reports are not directly related to the area itself." 2.1(b) Overview of Past Projects to Eliminate Blight ♦ The older metal structures that were a visual blight due to their dilapidation and lack of maintenance have been demolished. ♦ The scattered oil pumping operations and storage facilities have been consolidated and/or removed. ♦ The project site has been re-subdivided resulting in a more standardized parcel configuration. ♦ Utica Avenue and Lake Street have been improved to include proper curbs, gutters and sidewalks, which has also improved drainage within the project area. ♦ The new land uses, mainly that of the Huntington Classics single family home development, has maximized the economic potential for this project area. 105 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight The construction of the Huntington Classics and the Senior Housing Project (104 total units) will represent completion of the Yorktown - Lake Redevelopment Project Area. 2.1(d) Identification of Locations of Blight YORKTOWN - LAKE YORKTOWN AVE 0 N �v Nor TO SCALE Zr WK]-{ITA AVE. N Z a� VENICE AVE. w N N Y w w a[ Z Y d a s s a UTICA AVE. ® = AREAS OF OUTSTANDING BLIGHT 106 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Programs/Projects Estimated Funding Priority Blight Costs Sources (1-3) Addressed 1. Monitor completion Nominal Tax Increment 3 N/A of Huntington Classics private single-family home development. 2. Complete design and $ 175,000 Tax Increment 1 N/A obtain entitlements for development of 23 unit senior housing project of which a minimum of 13 units would be provided for seniors in the very low income category. 3. Commence and complete $ 885,000 Tax Increment 1 N/A construction of the 23 unit senior housing project. * Refer to Section 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight 107 3.0 Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals 3.1(a) Identification of AB 315 Annual Housing Production Goals' PROPOSED/CONTRACTED PROJECTS- All Units are Assisted Date Expected Units L/M Regd. L/M Provided VL Regd. VL Provided Huntington Classics 1994 81 13 0 6 0 Yorktown-Lake 1996 23 4 23 2 23 Senior Project * The AB 315 Report for all project areas is included in the Housing Set-Aside Section. 108 3.1(b) Estimation of Number of Low/Moderate Units to be Destroyed and 3.1(c) Identification of Replacement Housing Sites Yorktown - Lake Project Area: Units Low Very Low Destroyed: 0 0 0 Planned Replacement Units: 0 0 0 .......................................................... i` ........................................................... X. I. .... . Ten Year/Life of Plan Housing Program The last remaining project in this area is under construction. The production requirement of these 81 units will be accommodated within the project area and there is no replacement requirement. Therefore, there will be no additional housing requirements over the remaining life of the plan. 109 YORKTOWN - LAKE TECBMCAL APPENDIX A 110 YORKTOWN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 9/30/94 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 1995M 1996197 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 1 Total Sources Goals&Objectives Explanation EST FUND BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR -24,684 -17,013 -13,762 -15,153 -26,989 INCOME Tax Increment(80%) 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,181,587 Interest ------0------0-------0------U - U --�--- TOTAL INCOME 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 EXPENSES City Debt 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating 24,675 25,909 27,204 28,564 29,993 136,345 Tax Inc. Eoon,Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(10%) 63,734 e6,921 70,267 73,780 77,469 352.171 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev, Project Area Admin. Legal Services 2,180 2,180 2,180 2,180 2,180 10,900 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin, Legal Services Admin Portion(10%) 7,790 7,790 7,790 7.790 7,790 381950 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Business Development(10%) 13,950 13,950 13,950 13,950 13,950 69,750 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. Funded in State Budget(ERAF) Prior Years _ 0-_^-_--0 _- 0 -__-- 0 _- 0 Tex Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. N N TOTAL EXPENSES 192,329 196,749 201,391 206,264 211,382 1,083,116 NET INCOME 7,671 3,251 -1,391 -6,264 •11,382 -8,115 EST FUND BALANCE,END OF YEAR 'C$ YORKTOWN - LAKE TECHNICAL APPENDIX B SET-ASIDE FINANCING PLAN (See Housing Section) 112 HOUSING SET-ASIDE FINANCING PLANS REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1995 - 2000 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 113 HOUSINOSET-ASIDE FUND ANALYSIS 9/30/94 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS Funding 1995M 1996/97 1997M 1998/99 1999/00 Trial Source Goals&Objectives Explanation:Units/ANordable EST FUND BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR -719,412 -1,346,605 -1,138,890 -921,324 -693.982 INCOME Tax Increment(20%) 918,855 946,421 974,813 1,004,058 1,034,179 4.878,326 Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 In Lieu Fee Affordable Housing (fNR) 0 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 TOTAL INCOME 918,855 946,421 974,813 1,004,058 1,034,179 4,878,326 EXPENSES Operating 289,424 303,895 319,090 335,044 351,797 1,599,250 Operating Administration Portion (10%) 63,734 66,921 70,267 73,780 77,469 352,171 Legal Services 30,100 30,100 30,100 30,100 30,100 150,500 Legal SeMces Admin Portion(10%) 7,790 7,790 7,790 7,790 7,790 38,950 Capkai Projects: Five Points Senior Villas Loan- encumbered 100,000 100.000 100,000 1 DO,000 0 400,000 Tax Inc. Replace Units M-P 164/48Very Low(Senior Hsg) F Funded In Habitat for Humanity Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 20%Funds Replace Units M-P 3/3 Very Low Funded In 725 Utica Loan Agreement Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 20%Funds Replace Units M-P 36/38 Very Low Third Block West 825,000 0 0 0 0 825,000 20%Funds Replace Units M-P 68/33 Moderate Funded in TalberUBeach Seavlew 1 Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Replace Units M-P 38/25 Moderate Transfer to Emerald Cove 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80.000 400,000 Tax Inc. Funded in Yorktown-Lake Site Acquisition Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Replace Units M-P 23/23 Very Low Funded in Brisas del Mar Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Replace Units M-P 44/14 Very Low Funded In 31311th Street Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Replace Units M-P 919 Very Low Funded in ERAF 92.93 Loan Adjustment Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Education Revenue Augmentation Funded In Fund Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Acquisition of two OV II Ocean View Estates 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 20%Funds Coaches Annually Funded in 611 6th Street Prior Years 0 0 0 Aw ----------------------------- 0-------- 0 0 _ CDBG 8/8 Veryl TOTAL EXPENSES 1,546,048 738,706 757,247 776,715 697.156 4,615,872 NET INCOME •627,193 207,715 217,567 227,343 337,023 362,455 EST FUND BALANCE,END OF YEAR 1,346,605 -4138,690 921;324 693,g#t ti358,959 NOTE: Huntington Center paid Main-Piers portion of the 20%set-aside funds REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSING COMPLIANCE PLAN • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 115 FORWARD Redevelopment law requires redevelopment agencies to reserve twenty percent of the tax increment collected annually for the purpose of affordable housing. For some years redevelopment agencies have been required to provide fifteen percent of the units in a completed project area as "affordable". Recently, legislation approved and incorporated into The Health and Safety Code requires redevelopment agencies to provide a plan through which accomplishment of these housing obligations can be achieved. Such a plan is to be updated every five years in conjunction with the jurisdiction's housing element. Here follows the Housing Compliance Plan for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beachi 116 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSING COMPLIANCE PLAN TCS Redevelopment Associates 51 Southwind Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 (714) 362-3842 117 HOUSING COMPLIANCE PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Section 33413 (b) (1) of the Health and Safety Codel requires that 30%- of all new or rehabilitated housing units developed by the redevelopment agency (the "Agency") must be available at affordable housing cost to low or moderate income households, 50% of which must be available at affordable housing cost to very low income - households. Section 33413 (b) (2) requires that 15% of all new or rehabilitated housing units developed within a project area by entities or persons other than the Agency be available at affordable housing cost to low or moderate income households, 40% of which must be available at affordable housing cost to very low income households. The collective requirements of both 33413 (b) (1) and (2) are referred to herein as the "Housing Requirement" . Section 33413 (c) requires that all units rehabilitated, developed, or constructed in compliance with the Housing Requirement remain affordable to each respective income level for the "longest feasible time", but in no event less than the period of the land use controls established by the applicable redevelopment plan. This provision is to be enforced pursuant to Section 33334.3 (f) which requires recorded covenants running with the land. Effective January 1, 1992, Section 33413 (b) (4) requires the Agency to adopt a plan for each project area to ensure compliance with the Housing Requirement every 10 years. The plan must be consistent with the housing element and shall be reviewed and amended, if necessary, at least every five years in conjunction with the housing element. The following housing compliance plan has been prepared and will be submitted to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33413 (b) (4) . lAll citations herein are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted. 118 MAIN PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Main Pier Redevelopment Project has a current deficit of 118 low-to-moderate income units and 47 very low income units. Upon completion of the proposed projects, the deficit will be 133 low- to-moderate income units, and 1 very low income unit. The Agency estimates that it will neither develop nor rehabilitate any residential units during the next 5 years. Estimates of new or reb.abilitated residential units to be developed by a person or entity other than the Agency within this project area during the next 5 -years, and the percentage of such units to be restricted with affordability covenants are set forth below. Description of Proposed Projects Third Block West: The Agency has approved a disposition and development agreement with Newcomb-Tillotson Development, Inc. for the Third Block West project. This project will include 68 condominium units, 33 of which will be restricted to low-to- moderate income households. In addition to housing, the developer will be providing both commercial and office uses within the project. Construction should begin in 1993 . Waterfront Residential: Negotiations continue with regard to the amendment of Phase II of the Waterfront Project. Included within Phase II will be 337 residential units; upon completion of the Waterfront Project, 639 residential units will have been constructed. The Agency is negotiating to obtain 112 off-site housing units restricted to low-to-moderate income households (see Beach & Atlanta Project) . Main Pier, Phase II: The Agency is currently considering a disposition and development agreement which will provide for approximately 82 residential units, none of which will be restricted with affordability covenants. Beach & Atlanta: Beach and Atlanta development goals include 280 residential units. The Agency is currently negotiating to obtain very low income restrictions on 112 units in fulfillment of the Waterfront Residential Project housing obligation. 119 OARVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Oakview Redevelopment Project has a deficit of 10 low-to- moderate income units and 4 very low income units. The Agency is currently negotiating for the rehabilitation of 13 units within this project area. However, these units are proposed for replacement housing purposes and are therefore not being considered in this report. The Agency estimates that there will be no other new or rehabilitated residential units developed by a person or entity other than the Agency within this project area during- the next 5 years. With available residentially-zoned land limited to one parcel of approximately .2 acres, there is a maximum potential of 3 newly constructed units within this project area. The Agency will attempt to obtain long-term covenants in compliance with Section 33413 (c) on both existing and proposed housing within the project area. TALBERT BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Talbert Beach Project is meeting its Housing Requirement, and will continue to be in compliance upon completion of the proposed housing project described below. The Agency estimates that it will neither develop nor rehabilitate any residential units during the next 5 years. Estimates of new or rehabilitated residential units to be developed by a person or entity other than the Agency within this project area during the next 5 years, and the percentage of such units to be restricted with affordability covenants are set forth below. Proposed Projects Seaview Village: The Agency has completed negotiations with Seaview Enterprises, 25 of the proposed 88 units will be restricted for moderate income families. HUNTINGTON CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT There is no residentially zoned land within the Huntington Center Project Area. However, the City's zoning ordinance permits the construction of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) structures in any commercial zone. 120 YORKTOWN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Yorktown-Lake Project has a deficit of 13 low-to-moderate income units and 5 very low income units. The Agency estimates there will be no new or rehabilitated residential units developed by the Agency or a person or entity other than the Agency within this project area during the next 5 years. As there is no residentially zoned vacant land available within the Yorktown- Lake Project, the Agency is contemplating a plan amendment or merger of project areas to incorporate residentially-zoned land into this project area. The Agency will then attempt to obtain long-term covenants in compliance with Section 33413 (c) on both existing and proposed housing within the newly incorporated area. 121 TABLE 1 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Inclusionary Housing Requirements # UNITS Affordable Affordable Net Deficit/ Required Provided Surplus Main-Pier Existing 784 118 0 -118 Proposed 1,069 160 145 -15 Total 145 133 Oakview Existing 69 10 0 -10 Proposed 0 0 0 0 Total . . Talbert-Beach Existing Non- 151 23 0 -23 Agency Existing Agency 164 49 164 115 Proposed/Contract 88 13 25 12 sa Total Yorktown-Lake Existing 86 13 0 -13 Total 8$::....... :.> 3 ... . 0 13 Huntington Center 0 0 0 0 Total 122 TABLE 2 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Inventory of Housing Projects PROJE.CT # CINITS L/(till Required l.11vl Provided VL Required 1IL Provided Coveflan . .. .. . . . . . . .. P �X lres Existing Projects Main-Pier Huntington Pier Colony/1990 130 12 0 8 0 n/a Town Square/1989 89 8 0 5 0 n/a Huntington Bay Shore/1988 159 14 0 10 0 n/a Villas Del Mar/1988 64 6 0 4 0 n/a Breakers 342 31 0 20 0 1999 W Oakview Ash Street Projects/1985-89 20 2 0 1 0 n/a Cypress Avenue 3 0 0 0 0 n/a Elm Street Projects/1985 30 3 0 2 0 n/a Koledo Lane/1984 16 1 0 1 0 n/a Talbert-Beach Windward Covel986 96 8 0 6 0 n/a Capewoods/1985 55 5 0 3 0 . n/a Emerald Cove/1986 164 25 0 25 164 Perpetuity Yorktown-Lake Huntington Classics/1990-94 86 8 0 5 0 n/a Proposed/Contracted Projects Main-Pier Third Block West 68 6 33 4 0 n/a The Waterfront Residential 639 58 0 38 0 n/a Main-Pier Phase II 82 7 0 5 0 n/a Beach & Atlanta 280 25 0 17 112 n/a Talbert Beach Seaview Village 88 8 25 5 0 n/a Re,.evelopment Project At .:as City of Huntington Beach (ITT OF EUXTINGIOY IEA(N M6Amfl� EONGFA X Hi NQ TOZWE WAWE1 OAkV1PN AUIEI TAMER '4F IQiA011U WETLMdi �A01 pa. EWS �F 8 GAlRC10 � � I KyV(fOMMANx AOVdf 'q� r+oNwaiu �4 ARM" n$,N2}S M/JNI[i i NMLLTON WINHG 124 Deficient The structure could be older than 25 years, however, has been maintained adequately to eliminate any major structural defects. It may show signs of deferred maintenance such as peeling paint, broken windows, or cracked plaster. The roof may show signs of minor water leaks. Deteriorated The structure shows signs of structural deterioration such as sagging roof or walls or crumbling foundation. It may appear to have leaky plumbing or hazardous electrical service illustrated by exposed wiring, and holes may be apparent in roof or walls. Paint may be largely peeled or faded or even nonexistent, and broken windows are often apparent. Dilapidated The building is structurally unsound and maintenance is nonexistent. Its fitness for human occupation is highly questionable and the state of deterioration and neglect is such that it is a candidate for demolition. Table 2 Structural Conditions In The Project Area Ratine Number of Structures Sound 23 Deficient 122 Deteriorated 51 Dilapidated 0 TOTAL 196 Source: Urban Futures, Inc. 1988 Out of the total 196 structures rated, 173 or 88.27% are at least deficient and in need of some rehabilitation. It can be generally stated that maintenance is irregular and such conditions as peeling paint, loose roof shingles, weathered facades, and cracked foundations are common. A total of 26.02% of all structures are deteriorated such that these structures require substantial upgrading. The existing structures present the Project Area with an image problem which negatively impacts potential development opportunities. When clustered together, such structures create definite pockets of substandard quality and blight. The breakdown of this structural rating by existing land uses in presented in Table 3. The locations of all properties containing deteriorated structures is shown in Figure 4. Table 3 Structural Conditions In The Project Area By Existing Land Use Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Total Sound 3 11 9 23 Deficient 27 94 1 122 Deteriorated 23 28 0 51 Dilapidated 0 0 0 0 ......::.:. ............ ....f.::vv::::.:::::v:::::::::::.vh4hv`:.4:::: ......... .........:::::.:vx::::,v ......... ......... ::::::::::::.. ......... .........::.v:.:v::::::.::::::::::v::::•::•:::::•::v: Source: Urban Futures, Inc. 1988 (Photographs are on file that depict blighted conditions of buildings.) The existence of structural blight within a Project Area constitutes a social liability upon the community because of the social problems associated with living or working in deficient structures. These problems include increased safety risks from fire, accidents, floods, and other unpredictable events. It also creates unhealthy conditions resulting from poor heating, ventilation, insulation, and sanitation, as well as personal alienation, maladjustment, and the loss of community cohesion and pride. The physical blight caused by structural deficiencies also constitutes an economic liability for the City. Its presence depresses property values and tax revenues as well as commercial/business sales tax revenues. Additionally, such conditions negatively impact potential development opportunities. The residential structures within the Project Area are typically characterized by a lack of adequate maintenance such that rehabilitation efforts are now required to insure the safety, health, and welfare of Project Area residents. However, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency presently does not have adequate funds to finance the needed rehabilitation programs. WARNER AVE , I � FIR D i Y A )RE AVE BELSIT D X w rn � w CYPRESS AVE CYPRESS' h J W a � 0 MANDRELL DR KRISTIN CR. JJ J m qUq O W W BARTON DR. m O Y I a z — z - J NAGON - _ z 3 >_J z w j - z - i d W W — C �QI JY SLATER AVE I � z 1 1 � AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Structural Deterioration Map N /%% Project Area Boundaries Locations of Properties Containing Deteriorated Structures SCALE 0 zoo 400 f�t FIGURE 4 b. Defective Design and Character of Physical Construction Many residential structures within the Project Area clearly display poor construction quality in terms of both physical size and structural composition. This condition is particularly evident in many of the single family homes in the northern portion of the Project Area, particularly on Sycamore Avenue, Cypress Avenue, and Ash Street. Many single family structures are of such diminutive proportions that overcrowded living conditions are likely to occur. Examples of such structures are shown in photos #9 and #10 (on file). These structures also display defective physical characteristics due to both low quality construction materials and deferred maintenance. Photo #11 (on file) illustrates a residential structure characterized by roll-on asphalt roofing and deferred maintenance. The southern portion of the Project Area also displays physical defects in many of the multi-family residential structures. Many of these structural deficiencies, such as cracked foundations and neglected exterior surfaces, relate to deferred maintenance of such a prolonged period that some degree of rehabilitation is now necessary. All streets in the southern portion of the Project Area display these conditions, with the most notable examples on Mandrell Drive, Koledo Lane, Queens Lane, and Barton Drive (Photo is on file). c. Faulty Interior Arrangement and Exterior Spacing As previously mentioned, many Project Area residential structures are of proportions that are likely to create overcrowded housing conditions. Overcrowding not only diminishes personal privacy and the quality of life for Project Area residents, but also provides an environment where communicable diseases can readily flourish. In terms of exterior spacing, many single family residential structures in the northern portion of the Project Area are characterized by inadequate front yard setbacks. Many residential structures on Warner Avenue, Sycamore Avenue, Ash Street and Cypress Avenue have front yard setbacks of only 10-15 feet. Photos #13 and #14 (on file) display the close proximity of two single family residences to Sycamore Avenue. The house in photo #13 (on file) has no continuous buffers between the structure and roadway, and is further impacted by the parking structure located directly across the street. Photo #15 (on file) displays a single family structure with an inadequate front yard setback from Warner Avenue. This situation creates congested living conditions by subjecting residents to higher levels of noise, dust, air pollution, and visual impacts from passing motor vehicles, particularly for those residents on or adjacent to Warner Avenue, which is a major arterial for the City. The southern portion of the Project Area is characterized by multi-family 4-plex structures with rear garages containing two second floor dwelling units. These garage/duplexes are located directly adjacent to the rear alleys, without any provision for setbacks or other buffers that would reduce the noise impacts of vehicular activities. Photo #16 (on file) displays a residential unit of a multi-family structure fronting an alley, with the structure and alley separated only by a series of bollards. The 4-plexes on Jacquelyn Lane, Koledo Lane, Queens Lane, Barton Drive, and Mandrell Drive are characterized by a lack of adequate setbacks or landscape buffers between buildings, thereby creating a congested environment for local residents. d. An and Obsolescence The overall condition of a City's housing stock is determined by the following factors: age, quality of construction, and regularity of maintenance. Obsolescence applies mainly to residential and commercial buildings where size, layout, and other design features are no longer suitable for current uses. The obsolescence of throughout the Project structures and identifying blight important implications for Area has justifying redevelopment. Residential structures throughout the Project Area are characterized by declining structural conditions due to the cumulative effects of age and deferred maintenance. Many Project Area structures which are over 25 years old have not been subject to an adequate program of maintenance. These findings are essential to the community since residential structures over 25 years in age are most likely to display- signs of deterioration resulting from deferred maintenance. The 4-plexes which characterize the southern portion of the Project Area are generally 25-30 years old and clearly display signs of age and neglect, such as weathered facades and cracked foundations. Many of the single family structures in the northern portion of the Project Area, particularly on Sycamore Avenue, Cypress Avenue, Ash Street, and the northern portion of Oak Lane, are well over 25 years in age and display varying signs of advanced deterioration. Although many Project Area residential structures are in urgent need of rehabilitation, the Redevelopment Agency presently does not have adequate funds to support such efforts. In terms of obsolescence, the diminutive size and inadequate setbacks characteristic of many single family structures in the northern portion of the Project Area severely impair the ability of such structures to provide safe, sanitary, and decent housing for Project Area residents. These features negatively impact the functional usefulness of such residences, thereby accelerating their structural obsolescence. Due to the age of the existing buildings located throughout the Project Area and the high cost involved in maintenance and upkeep, it is very likely that most of these structures will continue to decline in appearance and structural soundness, further contributing to the blighting conditions within the Project Area. Although there is a need to provide new affordable housing for many Project Area residents, the Redevelopment Agency does not presently have adequate funds to aid in the construction of new replacement housing. e. Mixed and Incompatible Buildings and Land Uses There are portions of the Project Area which are characterized by an incompatible mixture of residential and commercial land uses. Many patrons of the Charter Centre complex use local Project Area streets for access to the parking garage on Ash Street, and sometimes park on local streets such as Elm Street and Cypress Avenue. Residents adjacent to this commercial/office complex are therefore subjected to higher levels of noise, dust, air pollution, and visual impairments from non-resident vehicular use of local streets. Conversely, business owners and patrons of the Charter Centre are negatively impacted by the structural deterioration evident in many adjacent residences. The physical decline of these residential structures creates the potential for a negative experience due to the unattractive visual impacts of this neighborhood, and may discourage patrons from returning to the Charter Centre. Structural rehabilitation and proper landscaping are needed to mitigate the negative visual impacts and provide some level of noise insulation. Conflicting mixtures of land uses and structures create a more difficult and expensive need to establish mitigating measures to reduce and/or eliminate incompatibility. Mixed and incompatible negatively influence property values and the resultant quality of developments. In many cases, maintenance of land and structures neglected due to the negative physical, social, and economic atmosphere created by these conflicts. All of these factors interrelate and result in reduced tax revenue to the community, increased costs of public services (e.g., police, fire), and a decline in public services and facilities. In summary, the existing structural deficiencies, age, and conflicting land uses all contribute to the blighting influences evident in the Project Area. Redevelopment will provided the necessary mechanisms for alleviating and/or reversing these deficiencies in a rational, comprehensive long-range approach. I/IIIIIt 1111111 1 AVE T , FIR D - ---------- ----- - J litLitfil I i Al1 1 : N BELStT 0 s w f w CYPRESS t Y L� a 0 i - KRISTIN CR. HANDBELL OR d J m U d I I m J O YI tY - 2� 2 J - J WAGON OR --- - - `- z i W ! Wd W FT W Y SLATER AVE I � z AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Street Infrastructure Deficiencies Map Project Area Boundaries IN Locations of Inadequate Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Facilities •••••••••• Locations of Inadequate Lighting Facilities SCALE IF= i 200 400 feet .1.11111.11 Locations of Deteriorating Street Pavements FIGURE 5 4. Properties Some properties within the Project Area are suffering from economic maladjustment, deterioration or disuse because of inadequate public improvements, facilities and utilities, and parcels of irregular form, shape or size. a. Traffic Circulation Deficiencies The Project Area contains portions of the following arterials: Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue, and Slater Avenue. All other Project Area streets are considered to be local streets (60 foot right-of-way).As detailed in a technical memorandum from POD, Inc., to City staff, Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue are classified as major arterials (120 foot right-of-way) and Slater Avenue is considered a secondary arterial (80 foot right-of-way). Beach Boulevard, which is also a State Highway under the jurisdiction of CalTrans, is the heaviest traveled street in the City. The internal circulation system within the Project Area is considered to be an incomplete grid pattern which restricts access between the northern and southern portions of the Project Area. Although four Project Area streets intersect with Slater Avenue, only Queens Avenue enables passage to the northern section via Barton Drive to Koledo Lane to Mandrell Drive, which connects with both Oak Lane and Ash Street. The northern portion of the Project Area is considered to be an incomplete grid system in that access to Beach Boulevard is interrupted by the Charter Centre and access to Nichols Street (a north-south local street located west of the Project Area) is interrupted by the Oakview School and Community Center. As previously mentioned, local streets in the northern portion service not only resident traffic flows, but also patrons of the Charter Centre utilizing the parking garage located at the northeast corner of Sycamore Avenue and Ash Street. Furthermore, due to the current traffic congestion at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard, many motorists traveling east-bound on Warner Avenue who wish to turn south-bound on Beach Boulevard by-pass this intersection by taking Ash Street south-bound to Cypress Avenue east-bound to the Cypress/Beach intersection. This spill-over of through-traffic and the constant flow of Charter Centre patrons results in significantly heavier traffic volumes than normally experienced on local residential streets. In addition to the heavy traffic volumes created by external pressures, many streets in the Project Area, particularly in the northern portion, are in substandard condition and require substantial improvements. Street widths range from the required 60 foot right-of-way for local streets down to only 20 feet of street pavement. These narrow streets are also characterized by deteriorating surfaces, incomplete lighting, and a lack of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Project Area streets in this condition include Sycamore Avenue, Ash Street, Cypress Avenue, and Elm Street. The substandard widths and surfaces of these streets, along with the spill- over impacts of through-traffic and Charter Centre patrons, impedes the successful flow of traffic and creates higher levels of noise, air pollution, and traffic delays. Emergency vehicles for fire, police, and health services are also negatively impacted by impaired road access due to narrow and congested streets. In summary, inadequate street capacity, poor circulation, and inadequate access all create significant circulation problems in traffic flow throughout the Project Area. b. Deficient Street, Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk. and Lighting Facilities Deficiencies in the street system facilities the Project Area, as shown in Figure 5. Cracked street pavements and potholes characterize many street surfaces in the Project Area, particularly in the northern streets such as Sycamore Avenue, Ash Street, Cypress Avenue, and Elm Street. Deteriorating street surfaces include many local streets, as shown in photos along Warner Avenue, as shown in photo #18 (on file). The northern portion of the Project Area is generally characterized by narrow, disintegrating streets that lack curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, as evidenced in photos #19 - #21 (on file). Photo #22 (on file) displays a portion of Cypress Avenue characterized by cracked street pavement, potholes, and a lack of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Photo #23 (on file) shows a cracked and uneven sidewalk on Mandrell Drive with inadequate asphalt resurfacing. Many Project Area alleys are also in need of resurfacing, as shown in photo #24 (on file). Specifically, Sycamore Avenue is characterized by a lack of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, with the exception of the northern portion of the street adjacent to the Charter Centre parking garage. This street is very narrow and the surfacing is in a state of almost complete disintegration, particularly west of the Ash Street intersection. Street lighting on Sycamore Avenue is incomplete and inadequate. Ash Street north of Cypress Avenue is also very narrow and in a state of structural deterioration. This portion of Ash Street is lacking in curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and also does not have adequate street lighting. Cypress Avenue is a narrow and deteriorating street with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks provided on only a few properties. Oak Lane lacks curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the east side of the street north of Cypress Avenue. Elm Street is also lacking curbs, gutters, and sidewalks north of Cypress Avenue, with the exception of the eastern portion which abuts the Holiday Spa structure, and has an incomplete provision of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks south of Cypress Avenue. Street surface cracking is also evident along Elm Street. Barton Drive is characterized by incomplete street lighting facilities. Jacquelyn Lane is characterized by cracked street pavements and cracked curbs. The provision of adequate street surfaces is necessary for safe and smooth flowing vehicular access. Narrow streets in an advanced state of disrepair, coupled with the spill-over of non-resident traffic, tends to slow traffic flows and thus extends the travel time of motorists on these local streets. The lack of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks often results in standing water on the roadside shoulders, forcing pedestrians to utilize street surfaces for passage. The pedestrian use of street surfaces creates potentially hazardous situations as motorists and pedestrians attempt to share local streets of substandard width, This condition is extremely critical due to the fact that most daytime pedestrian travel consists of small children coming or going to school. The lack of sidewalks and adequate street lighting also creates potentially dangerous night time travel conditions for pedestrians. Substantial improvements are also needed for the Project Area alleys. Cracked pavements, potholes, Standing water, and overgrown vegetation are commonplace in many alleyways. The poor condition of these alleys not only impedes vehicular circulation, but also imposes potential traffic and pedestrian conflicts through the lack of proper lighting and haphazard parking. The Project Area in general is in urgent need of substantial street surface rehabilitation, along with the construction of adequate curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street lights. Although the provision of these street infrastructure facilities is essential for the safety, health, and welfare of Project Area residents, the Redevelopment Agency does not presently have adequate funding to provide these facilities. c. Drainage System Deficiencies The lack of curbs and gutters in the many portions of the Project Area prevents storm water from being effectively channeled off the street surfaces, leading to health and safety hazards for local residents. Despite the presence of underground storm drainage lines along Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue, Ash Street, and Sycamore and Cypress Avenues between Ash and Elm Streets, the lack of above-ground drainage facilities results in long-standing puddles of water which contribute to unhealthful living conditions by providing a habitat for disease carrying insects. The locations of storm drainage deficiencies throughout the Project Area are WARNER AVE. I I L FIR 0 z J BELSIT D 7- -- w f w CYPRESS' I T \i h I KRISTIN CR. OJO S U i w Ot] - z u - J rvAGON W --- -- 3 - - Z i F7 SLATER AVE _ z AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Drainage Deficiencies Map N I////I Project Area Boundaries ��*• Locations of Streets with Inadequate Drainage Facilities SCALE ]-_- l 0 200 400 t�t FIGURE 6 shown in Figure 6. Photos #25 - #28 (on file) clearly display these deficiencies along Sycamore Avenue, Cypress Avenue, and Elm Street. As a result of the Project Area's lack of adequate above-ground storm drainage facilities, even small amounts of rainfall can cause puddling along street shoulders, becoming not only an inconvenience but also a health and safety hazard. As the streets lacking curbs and gutters typically also lack sidewalks, pedestrians are forced on to the street surface and must compete with motor vehicles for the limited street pavement space. These drainage system inadequacies are factors which contribute to both physical and economic blight within the Project Area. These conditions help promote physical blight since some properties are not being served by adequate drainage facilities which meet public health standards. These existing conditions also lead to economic blight by contributing to potential depreciated property values and overall investment decline since existing drainage facilities are not adequate to serve new development within the Project Area. d. Water Distribution Deficiencies The Project Area is characterized by a number of water lines which are only six inches in diameter. While six inch water lines are considered the minimally acceptable size for single family residential neighborhoods, modern construction standards call for a minimum diameter of eight inches for new water distribution lines since six inch lines are not always capable of providing needed fire flows during peak demand periods. As shown in Figure 7, Queens Lane, Barton Drive, Jacquelyn Lane, Elm Street, and portions of Oak Lane, Cypress Avenue, and Sycamore Avenue are characterized by six inch water lines. Furthermore, some Project Area residents must rely on private wells for their drinking water, which are often characterized by inconsistent supplies and variable water quality. Since the provision of adequate drinking water is essential to the public health and welfare, the revitalization of the Project Area cannot be fully achieved without an adequate water supply and distribution system. B. Existing Social Conditions 1. Project Area Population The 1980 US Census reported a total population of 170,486 for the City of Huntington Beach. According to the California Department of Finance, the total Citywide population is now at 187,740 as of January 1988. Therefore, the City's population has grown 10.1% from 1980 to 1988, WARNER AVE FIR 0 z AVE A BELSIT 0 s w w AVE CYPRESS' h ON i MANDRELL DR KRISTIN CR. \ o J 0] 2 U \ a w � m W J � Ct: Z u J IIAGON OR - - 3 — - - Z UJ SLATER AVE 1 z AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Water System Deficiencies Map N I/%// Project Area Boundaries ....... Locations of Streets with Substandard - Sized Water Lines SCALE 0 200 400 feet FIGURE 7 which translates into an average annual growth rate of 1.3%. The steady growth in population experienced by Huntington Beach in recent years has put increased pressure on Huntington Beach's public services and facilities. As Huntington Beach's population continues to expand throughout the City, there will be greater pressure to improve and expand upon the infrastructure within the Project Area. The current residential population of the Project Area is estimated to be 1,620 persons. This figure was calculated by multiplying the total number of residential units for all single and multi-family structures (592 dwelling units) by the average household size of 2.736 for the City of Huntington Beach, as reported by the Department of Finance (although the average Project Area household size is likely to be greater than the Citywide average, a more specific average for the Project Area is not presently available). Since the population of the entire City is 187,740, the Project Area contains approximately 0.86% of the Huntington Beach population. 2. Prevalence of Social Maladjustment Social maladjustment reflected in the forms of crime, juvenile delinquency, welfare dependency, and unemployment, is another indication of blighting conditions in the Project Area. According to the statistical division of the Huntington Beach Police Department, crime rates in the Project Area are among the highest in the City. Although the Project Area represents less than one percent of the total Citywide population, an average of about ten percent of all Citywide homicides and assaults occur within its reporting district (the 272 reporting district, which is bounded on the north by Warner Avenue, on the east by Beach Boulevard, on the south by Slater Avenue, and on the west by Gothard Street). There were a total of 2,396 police calls in this reporting district for 1986 and 2,577 police calls during 1987, representing a very high 7.6% annual increase. Even more significant is the fact that the average annual number of police calls for a reporting district in the City is about 600 calls. Therefore, the Project Area reporting district had over four times as many police calls in 1987 as the average reporting district. Reports of crime in residential areas implies security hardware deficiencies, poor physical design, obtrusive shrubbery, and deficient street lighting. Crime occurring in commercial areas implies deficiencies in the physical security of commercial buildings such as structural design, floor plan layout, landscaping, lighting, circulation systems, and parking structures. As previously mentioned, many Project Area streets have inadequate lighting facilities. The lack of adequate street lighting coupled with the mature trees and bushes surrounding many residential structures provides convenient concealment for burglars. Furthermore, the narrow and poorly paved streets throughout the Project Area results in patrolling problems due to the incomplete circulation system. Crime is often related to high unemployment and underemployment levels. According to a recent status report prepared by the City, the percentage of families in the Project Area falling below the poverty level is nearly double the percentage for the rest of City. Female heads of household in the Project Area are also nearly double the Citywide average, and the unemployment rate is significantly higher for the Project Area in comparison with the overall City rate. The prevalence of social maladjustment is also determined by the existence of vandalism and property neglect. Photos #29 - #33 (on file) display vandalism in the form of graffiti on houses, fences, garage doors, and public signs. The presence of graffiti often indicates the existence of juvenile delinquency and even gang-related activities. The Project Area's high crime rate and predominance of graffiti throughout the Area appears to verify the occurrence of juvenile related offenses. Social maladjustment is also indicated by the lack of property upkeep throughout the project Area. Photos on file clearly display this condition in the form of discarded furniture, paint cans, various debris, and landscaped open space areas used for parking automobiles. The accumulation of discarded materials and debris on residential properties may indicate a lack of neighborhood pride among some local residents. This attitude often reflects a feeling of alienation from the community and a sense of powerlessness towards any effort to upgrade existing conditions. Redevelopment can provide the mechanism to help local residents rehabilitate their properties and provide City officials with the funds for infrastructure and public protection improvements, thereby increasing community cohesion and improving the quality of life for Project Area residents. At present, however, the Redevelopment Agency does not have sufficient funding to initiate these needed improvements. C. Existing Economic Conditions Currently the City of Huntington Beach lacks the financial resources to fully fund public improvements that could support the type of beneficial development necessary for a healthy economic base. Therefore, an amended Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area is proposed in an effort to alleviate and/or reverse the blighting conditions described herein. 1. Prevalence of Depreciated Values and Impaired Investments Two indicators of economic blight are defined as the prevalence of depreciated land values and impaired investments. Briefly, depreciated land values are simply the decline in the assessed value of property due to many of the factors previously mentioned, including physical problems such as inadequate public facilities and the prevalence of social maladjustment. Impaired investments result from the same conditions and are basically a socio-economic reaction to depreciated values. An impaired investments a rented or leased residential, commercial, or industrial property on which the values or the return on the owner's equity is diminishing or has stopped altogether, and/or the equity itself is in danger of being partially or totally lost. One key indicator of impaired investments is a prevalence of deferred maintenance the part of local property owners, as evidenced in photos #1 - #8 (on file). Another indicator is the lack of public infrastructure improvements such as street surfacing, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street lighting. This lack of public improvements tends to depress property values and discourages local property owners from investing in structural improvements to their properties. These general conditions such as inadequate infrastructure and public amenities or the inaccessibility of the parcel due to inadequate street improvements deters the potential developer from investment. This discourages economic investments that would convert economically underproductive or unproductive parcels into productive land uses. The failure of the property owners to fully utilize these parcels is evidence of the impaired investments resulting from inadequate public improvements and public facilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without the aid of redevelopment. Although most of this underutilized land in the Project Area has the potential for improvement through structural rehabilitation or new construction, it is unlikely that this will occur without assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. The lack of improvements on these parcels is indicative of the inability the private market to bring about their utilization. The combination of the cost for needed pre-development improvements, assembly or division of parcels, marginal economic activity and/or inability of the parcel owner to invest make these parcels undevelopable without public assistance. Redevelopment Agency actions that will make these parcels viable for development are essential in order to facilitate development of the vacant and underutilized land within the Project Area. One such action would be the establishment of a "land write-down pool" by the Redevelopment Agency, These programs are described in Appendix A (on file). The existence of underutilized and unproductive parcels in the Project Area is indicative of the prevalence of impaired investments, which is a factor contributing to economic blight. The end result is a serious social and economic burden on the community caused by deferred structural maintenance, overall property neglect, unsightly vacant lots, inhibited growth in property values and tax revenues, and unrealized housing opportunities." 2.1(b) Overview of Past Projects to Eliminate Blight • Amended the Redevelopment Plan to raise the tax increment limitation. ♦ Studied land use options for implementation of Guardian Center Phase III. ♦ Rehabilitated 60 units in the south Oakview area. • Completed reconstruction of 10 alleys in the south Oakview area. • Completed comprensive Enhancement Project for Jacquelyn Lane. ♦ The Rehabilitation Loan Program for multi-family residential structures represents one of the key activities of the Agency in this area and $467,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were expended to bring 78 additional units to completion. ♦ A new program of Housing Code Enforcement using $45,000 in CDBG funds has accomplished 172 inspections with 58 violations abated. Property owner cooperation has been good and only one case resulted in prosecution. ♦ To cure a contaminated water well problem, the Agency provided new water line and service to 54 residential units in the north Oakview area at a cost of over $234,000 in CDBG funds. ♦ The Learning, Organizing, Growing for Oakview Students (LOGOS) Program continued to provide opportunities for twenty-three high school students to improve the neighborhood by graffiti removal and trash clean-up. The existing Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and Phil Zisakis was being implemented by conveyance of Agency owned land on Beach Boulevard north of Cypress for expansion of an existing commercial complex. ♦ An earlier Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between the Agency and Guardian Savings and Loan called for the conveyance of an Agency owned parcel on Elm Street north of Cypress Street for use as a multi-level parking structure. The Exclusive was terminated due to the takeover of Guardian by the federal Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). • The Agency provided funds for a Police Substation in the existing Community Center to better serve the residents of the area. ♦ The multi-story Guardian Center located at the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue was sold by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) for $21 milion. LIU, Inc. is the new owner of the building. In 1993 staff was negotiating with LIU for the disposition of an adjacent Agency owned parcel of .25 acres to be incorporated into the site plan of the mixed use center for additional parking. ♦ Next door to the Guardian Center, the Leonard Lichter Office Building was expanded during the period and benefited from exterior remodeling which makes it architecturally compatible with surrounding buildings. This was done without Agency intervention. ♦ The Agency also approved an amended Disposition-and Development Agreement (DDA) with Phil Zisakis, owner of National Auto Glass. The Agreement provided for the use of Agency owned property for parking that would allow expansion of the existing automobile glass business to 12,300 square feet. This expansion also provided the opportunity for this facility to link architecturally with the adjacent office building. The amended DDA was approved on May 18, 1992 and required the developer to pay $48,000 for the parking rights to be offset by improvement costs of the fifteen spaces. ♦ Through the Community Development Block Grant Program the City sponsors a Code Enforcement Program to closely monitor building and housing codes within the area. There were 712 active cases processed in 1991-92, and 648 in 1992-93. ♦ Also under the CDBG Program, the City continues its Rehabilitation Loan Program, completing 40 residential units over the two year period at a cost of over $440,000. 2.1 (c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight A. Residential units continue to deteriorate and rehabilitation is needed. B. Streets are below community standards. C. No alley improvements have been provided. D. Storm drainage is inadequate. E. Streetscape and landscaping is needed. F. Overflow parking needs of adjacent commercial development create traffic and circulation problems and impact the adjacent residential area. G. Social issues of crime, juvenile delinquency, welfare dependecy and unemployment are more prevalent in this area than in other residential areas of the City. H. Mixed and incompatible land uses still exists. 2.1(d) Identification of Locations of Bliiht See Appendix C from "Report to City Council" for Amendment No. One to the Oakview Redevelopment Project 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Programs/Projects Estimated Funding Priority Blight Costs Sources Il_3) Addressed 1. Continue Housing $ 350,000 HOME/CBDG 1 A Rehabilitation loan Program 20 units per yr 2. Oakview Branch $ 250,000 CBDG 1 G Library 3. Review Oakview $ 30,000 T.I. 2 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H Neighborhood Plan 4. Streets, Streetlights, Unknown CBDG 2 B,C,D,E Alleys, and Landscape 5. Storm Drainage $350,000 CBDG 2 D 6. Community Services $125,000 CBDG 1 G Police Assistance 7. LOGOS Youth Employment Clean-up Program $350,000 CBDG 2 G 8. Code Enforcement $310,000 CBDG 3 A * Refer to Section 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight 3.0 Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals 3.1(a) Identification of AB 315 Annual Housing Production Goals Table 1 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Inclusionary Housing Requirements February 20, 1993 #Units Affordable Affordable Net Deficit/ Required Provided SuIplus Oakview Existing 69 10 0 10 Proposed 0 0 0 0 NOTE: Tables from the Redevelopment Agency Housing Policy and Housing Compliance Plan, adopted May 3, 1993 by the Redevelopment Agency. 3.1(b) Estimation of Number of Low/Moderate Units to be Destroyed and 3.1(c) Identification of Replacement Housing Sites Oakview Project Area: Table 3 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Replacement Requirement Units Low Very Low Demolished: 7921 Cypress -2 0 0 17122 Elm -1 0 0 Planned Replacement Units: 17171 Elm 13 7 6 ............................... OAKVIEW TECIINICAL APPENDIX A - CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 1995W 1996197 1997/98 1998/98 19%= I Total JSouroes JGoala&Objectives IExplanatlon EST FUND BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR 817,704 549.368 263,744 -27,150 336,594 INCOME Taut Increment(80%) 412,539 420,790 429,206 437,790 446,545 2,146.870 Interest 57,239 38,456 18,482 0 0 114,157 TOTAL INCOME 469,778 459,248 447,868 437,790 446,545 2,261,027 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 297,905 300,105 296,905 298,655 298.655 1,492,225 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. City Debt 272,500 272,500 272,500 272,5W 272,500 1,362,500 Tax Ino. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. School Pass-Through 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating 27,379 28,748 30,185 31.695 33,279 151,286 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(10%) 63,734 66,921 70,267 73,780 77,469 352,171 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services 8,400 6,460 6,460 6,460 6,460 32,300 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services Admin Portion(10%) 17,790 17,790 17.790 17,790 17,790 88,950 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin, Business Development(10%) 47,346 47,346 39.455 39,455 39.455 213,057 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. TOTAL EXPENSES 738,114 744,870 738,562 745,335 750,608 3,717,489 NET INCOME -268,336 -285,624 -290,894 -307,545 304,063 -1,456,462 EST FUND BALANCE END OF YEAR 549"388:':>".:: :'15$'744.. ........ t#t ? :<:::?>�33469ftE>[;:`<':; <' 'pE'd%; i;i;?'[; ' ...... ..... . �. ............... ..�.. .......:..... '. ..... ..........r.. ........... :...... OAKVIEW TECHNICAL APPENDIX B SET-ASIDE FINANCING PLAN (See Housing Section) APPENDIX C MATRICES OF BLIGHTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (The following Matrix Block Number Map indicates the areas within each block number designation used for Matrices 1 and 2) WARNER AVE J FIR 0 I� 1 Z- SYCA64ORE AVE SELSM OR a f W r I CYPRESS AVE CYPRESS = 2 r I � t � W Y � Q O i MANORELL OR KRISTIN CR. \ z > J m U \ w pBARTON OR. °D W 0 !Ff 1 ❑ Y c¢t J Z J — J WAGON OR Z r W W N Z Z ' o a �0l�:__1J Y SLATER AVE AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Matrix Block Number Map N vzz�•zz� Project Area Boundaries 1-14 Block Numbers SCALE 0 200 4001ee, MATRIX 1 SUMMARY OF BLIGHTING INFLUENCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA BLOCK NUMBERS 1 213 4 516 7 8 9110111211314 DEFICIENT,DETERIORATED X X X X X X X X X X X X X AND DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES, DEFECTIVE DESIGN INADEQUATE ROADWAY CONDITIONS X X X X X X X X INADEQUATE CURBS, X X X X X X X X X SIDEWALKS AND GUTTERS TRAFFIC AND X X X X X X X CIRCULATION DEFICIENCIES INADEQUATE INGRESS/EGRESS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X INADEQUATE PARKING X X X X X X z E- INADEQUATE STREET LIGHTING X X X X X X X X 0 z0 LACK OF LANDSCAPING, MEDIAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X U IMPROVEMENTS AND STREETSCAPING C7 WATER SUPPLY DEFICIENCIES X X X X X X X X X X X W DRAINAGE SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SEWER SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES MIXED AND INCOMPATIBLE X X X LAND USES PUBLIC FACILITY DEFICIENCIES VACANT OR MARGINAL BUSINESSOES X VACANT UNDERUTILIZED AND/OR X X X X IRREGULARLY SHAPED PARCELS MATRIX 2 SUMMARY OF NEEDED PROGRAMS AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA BLOCK NUMBERS 112 13 4 5 16 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION X X X LOANS AND GRANTS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL REHABILITATION LOANS AND GRANTS LAND POOL FUNDS FOR COMMERCIAL X X X AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION, X X X X X X X X X X X X X REPLACEMENT HOUSING POOL REPAIR OR ADD STREET LIGHTING X X X X lxlX X X REPAIR OR WIDENING OF ROADWAYS X X X X X X X CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS cn X- CONSTRUCTION OF CURBS, X X X X X X X X X GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS O .ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS X X a INGRESS/EGRESS IMPROVEMENTS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS X X X X X X X X X X STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROVISION OF STREETSCP.PING, STRIP IMPROVEMENTS X XXXXXXXXXXXX AND LANDSCAPING PARKING IMPROVEMENTS X X X X X X PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS TALBERT - BEACH REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1995 - 2000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TALBERT - BEACH IMPLEMENTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of "Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. This is the implementation plan for the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project area and contains: ♦ Five year goals (prioritized), projects with costs and funding sources identified. ♦ Blight findings from the original Redevelopment Plan, past projects to eliminate blight, outstanding conditions of blight and a map of these conditions. ♦ Five year housing goals and annual production goals, estimate of units to be destroyed and identification of replacement sites. ♦ Five year strategy to alleviate blight. ♦ Appendices A & B identifying cash flow for redevelopment and housing programs. TALBERT-BEACH 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan, September 20, 1982, PP 119 - 121) General Objectives of Redevelopment Plan "In creating the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach declared its desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the City and in particular those areas within the City which have become blighted because of deterioration, disuse and economic, physical and social maladjustments. As a part of the city's ongoing redevelopment efforts, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared this Plan for the Talbert Beach Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the objectives of this Redevelopment Project are as follows: ♦ Eliminating blighting influences, including deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, inadequate public improvements, obsolete structures, and other physical, economic and social deficiencies; improve the overall appearances of streets, parking areas and other facilities, public and private; and assure that all buildings are safe for persons to occupy. ♦ Encouraging existing owners, businesses and tenants within the Project Area to participate in redevelopment activities. ♦ 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. ♦ Mitigating development limitations which have resulted in the lack of proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise action alone. ♦ Providing adequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. ♦ Providing construction and employment opportunities in the development of these facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of the proposed industrial facilities. ♦ Implementing the construction or reconstruction of adequate streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, storm drains, and other improvements as necessary to assist development of the Project Area to conform to the General Plan as a master-planned development and to correct existing environmental deficiencies. ♦ Establishing development criteria and controls for the permitted uses within the Project Area in accordance with modern and competitive development practices, thus assuring the highest design standards and environmental quality. ♦ Providing for relocation assistance and benefits to Project Area residence which may be displaced, in accordance with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law and the government code of the State of California To obtain the objectives of this Plan as set forth, the Agency is authorized to undertake most or all of the following implementing actions: ♦ Acquisition of property. Participation by owners and tenants in the redevelopment project. ♦ Relocation assistance to displaced residential occupants as required by law. ♦ Development of adequate parking, landscaping, public improvements and facilities. ♦ Demolition clearance of properties acquired, and site preparation. ♦ Other actions as appropriate, including but not limited to, actions to assist property owners and tenants in the improvement of their properties to carry out the objectives of the redevelopment plan. ♦ Assist in providing financing for private and public development in the Project Area." 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives 1.2(a) Prioritization of Goals and Objectives Project Areas Size: 25 Acres Adoption Date: September, 1982 Life of Plan: 35 Years Tax Increment Cap: $350,000 annually PROJECT GOALS FOR 1995-2000 1. Implement the provisions of the Disposition and Development Agreement with Sassounian Capital Ventures, Inc., for the construction of 38 condominiums. 2. Implement second trust deed program for 25 units in Pacific Park Villas. 3. Continue to support and maintain the Emerald Cove senior housing project. 4. Monitor maintenance requirements of public infrastructure. 5. Monitor construction of balance of 50 units in Pacific Park Villas (not under Disposition and Development Agreement). 1.2(b) Reasons for Inclusion These goals originated in the Agency's most recent Biennial Report published in December, 1993 and have been subjected to public review and approval by the Agency. Together they represent what can reasonably be accomplished within the period of this plan. 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight 2.1(a) Summary of Previous Blight Findings (from "Report to City Council", September, 1982, PP 2-3) "The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Area is located between Talbert Avenue and Taylor Drive west of Beach Boulevard. The southernmost portion is developed with the five-acre Terry Park and several single-family residences occupy the central eastern portion. The balance of the site is vacant. The Project is bounded on the north by existing industrial development and on the south by approximately 60 single-family residential units. As demonstrated in the Documentation of Blight Report, which is attached hereto as Appendix F and incorporated herein, the Project Area is blighted in numerous respects, including both buildings and property. The blighting effects which are having a substantial negative and adverse impact on the Project Area are as follows: 3.1 Condition of Buildings and Structures Most of the single-family homes within the Project Area are in poor to fair condition needing minor or major improvements. Studies indicate that the property is lacking proper access for both residential and industrial development. 3.2 Economic Disuse and Depreciated Values That small lot subdivisions are a hindrance to development of the land and especially difficult for industrial development. The small and/or irregular shaped lots with fragmented ownership patterns reduce the suitability for development. These small lots make it impossible for modern development to take place and result in a severe economic disuse of the property. On April 16, 1968, the Planning Commission designated this are as part of the "Non-Structural Blight Element of the Master Plan". The problem of the small lots and their blighting effect has been recognized for numerous years. 3.3 Irregular Subdivision and Multiple Ownership Many studies have documented the problem of fragmented ownership as a result of the "encyclopedia lots" and the fact that such has precluded development of the site. 3.4 Lack of Public Improvements There is a need to extend storm sewer facilities into the area and provide much needed street and other public facilities and utilities which do not exist today. 3.5- Increased Crime Rates According to the Police Department, the crime rates in the project area are substantially higher than City-wide average." 2.1(b) Overview of Past Projects to Eliminate Blight ♦ Acquisition of site, financing and construction of 164 unit senior apartment project for low income households (Emerald Cove). ♦ Acquisition and disposition of a site causing the privately funded construction of 96 senior condominiums (Windward Cove). ♦ Sale of single-family mortgage revenue bonds to provide below market interest rate first mortgages to first time home buyers to a share of buyers in 54 unit condominium project (Capewoods). ♦ Acquisition of "encyclopedia lots" through eminent domain to assemble parcels. ♦ Preparation and processing of new subdivision map for entire project area. ♦ Relocation assistance to displaced households. ♦ Creation of streets, sewers, water electrical and other infrastructure necessary to serve new parcels. ♦ Acquisition and disposition of a five acre site and, through an agreement, construction of a 120,000 square foot, single-tenant industrial building leased to a quilted products manufacturer. ♦ Through an agreement, disposition of the .75 acre Agency-owned site to a developer for incorporation in a larger site that will contain 88 condominium units. The agreement covers 38 of the units and requires the Agency to make available second trust deeds for up to 25 of the units to qualified moderate income buyers (Pacific Park Villas). 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight The Construction of the entire Pacific Park Villas project (88 units) will represent completion of the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area. 2.1(d) Identification of Locations of Blight Map - Locations of Blight y N r� a REDONDO CIRCLE II � D m x O D I a JKOVACS DR. � D ZO > W BARON CIRCLE IRS i KMWA F JOYFUL LN. BELL CIRCLE BEACH BLVD. 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Estimated Funding Priority Blight Programs/Projects Costs Sources L1:31 Addressed 1. Implement the provisions of the Nominal T.I. 1 NA Disposition and Development Agreement with Sassounian Capital Ventures, Inc. for the construction of 38 condominiums. 2. Implement second trust deed $750,000 T.I. 1 NA program for 25 units in Pacific Park Villas. 3. Continue to support and $80,000 T.I. 2 NA maintain the Emerald Cove senior housing project. 4. Monitor maintenance unknown T.I. 3 NA requirements of public infrastructure. 5. Monitor construction of balance nominal T.I. 2 NA of 50 units in Pacific Park Villas (not under DDA). * Refer to Section 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight 3. Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals 3.1(a) Identification of AB 315 Annual Housing Production Goals Date Affordable Affordable Net Deficit/ Expected #Units Required Provided Surplus Talbert- Beach Existing Non- -- 151 23 0 -23 Agency Existing --- 164 49 164 115 Agency Proposed/ 1996 88 13 25 12 Contract TOTAL ::::(3:.::::.:::::::::::::8 ..:::::::.:::::::::::::::: 8�:.:.:.:::::::..::::::1:.:.::::::.::::::..::::... 3.1(b) Estimation of Number of Low/Moderate Units to be destroyed and 3.1(c) Identification of Replacement Housing Sites Un .::..:..::::::::::::.. ...::::. ......:::::::. Talbert/Beach Demolished: 7872 Talbert Avenue -1 -- -- 7842 Talbert Avenue -1 -- -- 7862 Talbert Avenue -1 -- -- Replacement Units: Surplus Production Units in Talbert Beach 901 491 41 Net: 871 491 41 TALBERT - BEACH TECHNICAL APPENDIX A 9/30/94 TALBERT4111EACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA CASH FLOW ANALYSIS I M/96 1 1996197 1 1997198 1 1998M I I W9/00 I Total Sources Goals$Objectives Explanation EST FUND BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR 1,041,775 1,335,215 1,230,438 1,115,411 989,248 INCOME Tax Increment(80%) 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 1,400,000 Interest 72,924 93,465 86,131 78,079 69,247 399,846 Pacific Park Villas Land Sale 416,000 0 0 0 0 416,000 Developer Eoon.Dev. 38/25 Moderate Units TOTAL INCOME 768,924 373,465 366,131 358,079 349,247 2,215,846 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 163,495 162,095 160,645 159,145 159,145 804,525 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. City Debt 200.000 200,000 200.000 200,000 200.000 1,000,000 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating 19,425 20,396 21,416 22,487 23,611 107,335 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(10%) 63,734 66.921 70,267 73,780 77,469 352,171 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services 4.300 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300 21,500 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services Admin Portion(10%) 7,790 7,790 7,790 7,790 7,790 38,950 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Business Development(10%) 16,740 16,740 16,740 16,740 16.740 83,700 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. Pacific Park Villas Land Acquisition 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. TOTAL EXPENSES 475,484 478,242 481,158 484,242 489,055 2,408,181 NET INCOME 293,440 -104,777 -115,027 -126,163 -139,808 192,335 498 EST FUND BALANCE,END OF YEAR 1,335,2 t5.` 1,230 #,115 a{4 989,24$. r TALBERT - BEACH TECHNICAL APPENDIX B SET-ASIDE FINANCING PLAN (See Housing Section) YORKTOWN - LAKE REDEVELOPMENT MPLEMENTATION PLAN 1995 - 2000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH YORKTOWN - LAKE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of "Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. This is the implementation plan for the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project area and contains: ♦ Five year goals (prioritized), projects with costs and funding sources identified. ♦ Blight findings from the original Redevelopment Plan, past projects to eliminate blight, outstanding conditions of blight and a map of these conditions. ♦ Five year housing goals and annual production goals, estimate of units to be destroyed and identification of replacement sites. ♦ Five year strategy to alleviate blight. ♦ Appendices A & B identifying cash flow for redevelopment and housing programs. YORKTOWN - LAKE 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan General Objectives of Redevelopment Plan "In creating the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach declared its desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the City and in particular those areas within the City which have become blighted because of deterioration, disuse and economic, physical and social maladjustments. As a part of the City's ongoing redevelopment efforts, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared this Plan for the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the objectives of this Redevelopment Project are as follows: ♦ Eliminating blighting influences, including deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, inadequate public improvements, obsolete structures, and other physical, economic and social deficiencies; improve the overall appearance of streets, parking areas and other facilities, public and private; and assure that all buildings are safe for persons to occupy. ♦ Encouraging existing owners, businesses and tenants within the Project Area to participate in redevelopment activities. ♦ 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. ♦ Mitigating development limitations which have resulted in the lack of proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. ♦ Providing adequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. ♦ Providing construction and employment opportunities in the development of these facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of the proposed commercial and recreational facilities. ♦ Implementing the construction or reconstruction of adequate streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, storm drains, and other improvements as necessary to assist development of the Project Area to conform to the General Plan as a master-planned development and to correct existing environmental deficiencies. ♦. Establishing development criteria and controls for the permitted uses within the Project Area in accordance with modern and competitive development practices, thus assuring the highest design standards and environmental quality. ♦ Providing for relocation assistance and benefits to Project Area residents which may be displaced, in accordance with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law and the government code of the State of California. To obtain the objectives of this Plan as set forth, the Agency is authorized to undertake most or all of the following implementing actions: ♦ Acquisition of property ♦ Participation by owners and tenants in the redevelopment project ♦ Relocation assistance to displaced residential occupants as required by law ♦ Development of adequate parking, landscaping, public improvements and facilities ♦ Demolition, clearance of properties acquired, and site preparation ♦ Other actions as appropriate, including, but not limited to, actions to assist property owners and tenants in the improvement of their properties to carry out the objectives of the redevelopment plan ♦ Assist in providing financing for private and public development in the Project Area" 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives 1.2(a) Prioritization of Goals and Objectives Project Area Size: 30 Acres Adoption Date: September 1982 Life of Plan: 35 Years Tax Increment Cap: $250,000 annually PROJECT GOALS FOR 1995-2000 1. Monitor completion of Huntington Classics, private single-family home development. 2. Obtain entitlements for development of 23 units senior housing project of which a minimum would be provided for seniors in the very low income category. 3. Commence and complete construction of the 23 unit senior housing project. 1.2(b) Reasons for Inclusion These goals originated in the Agency's most recent Biennial Report published in December, 1993 and have been subjected to public review and approval by the Agency. Together they represent what can reasonably be accomplished within the period of this plan. 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight 2.1a Summary of Previous Blight Findings (from "Report to City Council", September, 1982 ) "The blighting effects which are having a substantial negative and adverse impact on the Project Area are as follows: 3.1 Condition of Buildings and Structures The older metal structures within the project area represent a visual blight as they are deteriorated to a dilapidated stage and evidence a lack of on-going maintenance. 3.2 Economic Disuse and Depreciated Values The scattered older oil pumping operations and storage facilities are having an adverse operational aesthetic impact on the property resulting in nondevelopment of the site. 3.3 Irregular Subdivision The project site is divided in an irregular form by 17th Street and Pine Street and the existing alley and parcel configuration. 3.4 Lack of Public Improvements Certain streets within the project area should be removed, while Utica and Lake should be improved to City standards. These streets presently lack adequate curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lighting. 3.5 Flooding The installation of adequate streets, curbs and gutters will improve drainage within the project area. 3.6 Stagnant or Improper Utilization As documented in previous sections, the existing fragmented lot pattern has changed very little in the past, and the existing metal structures are continuing to age. The existing land uses are well below their economic potential. 3.7 Increased Crime Rates According to the Police Department, the crime rates in the project area are substantially higher than City-wide average, and are one of the highest rates within the City. Since the Police Department is located within the project area, many reports are not directly related to the area itself." 2.1(b) Overview of Past Projects to Eliminate Blight ♦ The older metal structures that were a visual blight due to their dilapidation and lack of maintenance have been demolished. ♦ The scattered oil pumping operations and storage facilities have been consolidated and/or removed. ♦ The project site has been re-subdivided resulting in a more standardized parcel configuration. ♦ Utica Avenue and Lake Street have been improved to include proper curbs, gutters and sidewalks, which has also improved drainage within the project area. ♦ The new land uses, mainly that of the Huntington Classics single family home development, has maximized the economic potential for this project area. 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight The construction of the Huntington Classics and the Senior Housing Project (104 total units) will represent completion of the Yorktown - Lake Redevelopment Project Area. 2.1(d) Identification of Locations of Blight Map - Locations of Blight 2.1(d) YORKTOWN - LAKE YORKfOWN AVE. N x fl"TO x uF s WICHITA AVE. Z � h� Q VENICE AVE. w N ][ w w <a Z Y � g g a UTICA AVE. - = AREAS OF OUTSTANDING BLIGHT 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Programs/Projects Estimated Funding Priority Blight Costs Sources 1-3) Addressed 1. Monitor completion Nominal Tax Increment 3 N/A of Huntington Classics private single-family home development. 2. Complete design and $ 175,000 Tax Increment 1 N/A obtain entitlements for development of 23 unit senior housing project of which a minimum of 13 units would be provided for seniors in the very low income category. 3. Commence and complete $ 885,000 Tax Increment 1 N/A construction of the 23 unit senior housing project. * Refer to Section 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight 3.0 Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals 3.1(a) Identification of AB 315 Annual Housing Production Goals PROPOSED/CONTRACTED PROJECTS- All Units are Assisted Date Expected Units L/M Regd. L/M Provided VL Regd. VL Provided Huntington Classics 81 13 0 6 0 Yorktown-Lake 23 4 23 2 23 Senior Project 3.1(b) Estimation of Number of Low/Moderate Units to be Destroyed and 3.1(c) Identification of Replacement Housing Sites Yorktown - Lake Project Area: Units Low Very Low Destroyed: 0 0 0 Planned Replacement Units: 0 0 0 >::::: :::::;;..... 0:.: 9/30/94 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1 1998/99 I 1999I00 I Total Sources Goals 8 Objectives E)lanstlon EST FUND BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR .24,684 .17,013 -13,762 -15,153 -26,989 INCOME Tax Increment(80%) 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,181,587 Interest --- 0- --0-------0------0--�-- 0 0 TOTAL INCOME 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 EXPENSES City Debt 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating 24,675 25,909 27,204 28,564 29,993 136,345 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(10%) 63,734 66,921 70,267 73,780 77,469 352,171 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Are&Admin, Legal Servloes 2,180 2,180 2,180 2,180 2,180 10,900 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services Admin Portion(10%) 7,790 7,790 7,790 7,790 7,790 38,950 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Are&Admin. Business Development(10%) 13,950 13,950 13,9W 13,950 13,950 69,750 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Funded in State Budget(ERAF) Prior Years -- 0-- 0 --_-- 0------ 0 0 Tax Inc. Eton.Dev. Project Area Admin. TOTAL EXPENSES 192,329 196,749 201,391 206,264 211,382 1,083,116 NET INCOME 7,671 3,251 -1,391 -6,264 -11.382 -8.115 wpm EST FUND BALANCE,END OF YEAR YORKTO WN - LAKE TECHNICAL APPENDIX A YORKTOWN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 9/30/94 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 1995/96 1996197 1997/98 1998/99 19N/00 I Total Sources Goals&Objectives Explanation EST FUND BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR -24,684 -17,013 -13,762 -15,153 -26,989 INCOME Tax Increment(80%) 200,000 200.000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,181,587 Interest ------0-------0-------0------0----- 0 0 TOTAL INCOME 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 EXPENSES City Debt 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating 24,675 25,909 27,204 28,564 29,993 136,345 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(10%) 63,734 66,921 70,267 73,780 77,469 352,171 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services 2,180 2,180 2,180 2,180 2,180 10,900 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services Admin Portion(10%) 7,790 7,790 7,790 7,790 7,790 38,950 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Business Development(10%) 13,950 13,960 13,950 13,950 13,950 89,750 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Funded in State Budget(ERAF) Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. TOTAL EXPENSES 192,329 196,749 201,391 206,264 211,382 1,083,116 NET INCOME 7,671 3,251 -1,391 A264 -11,382 -8,115 EST FUND BALANCE,END OF YEAR 17,013 .18,782 43; 33 24,4C$ 811 YORKTO WN -LAKE TECHNICAL APPENDIX B SET-ASIDE FINANCING PLAN (See Housing Section) HOUSINGSET-ASIDE FUND ANALYSIS 9/30/94 CASH FLOW ANALYSIS Funding 1985/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999100 Total Source Goals&Objectives Explanation:Unils/Affordable EST FUND BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR -719,412 •1,346,605 -1,138,890 -921,324 -693,982 INCOME •Tax Increment(20%) 918,855 946.421 974,813 1,004,058 1,034,179 4,878,326 Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 In Lieu Fee Affordable Housing (TNR)-- '---0----50-=000-------0------0-----0--5 0,000 TOTAL INCOME 918,855 946,421 974,813 1,004,058 1,034,179 4,878,326 EXPENSES Operating 289,424 303,895 319,090 335,044 351,797 1,599,250 Operating Administration Portion (10%) 63,734 66,921 70,267 73,780 77,469 352,171 Legal Services 30,100 30,100 30,100 30,100 30,100 150,500 Legal Services Admin Portion(10%) 7,790 7,790 7,790 7,790 7,790 38,950 Capital Projects: Five Points Senior Villas Loan- encumbered 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 400,000 Tax Inc. Replace Units M-P 164/48Very Law(Senior Hsg) Funded in Habitat for Humanity Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 20%Funds Replace Units M-P 3/3 Very Low Funded in 725 Utica Loan Agreement Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 20%Funds Replace Units M-P 36/36 Very Low Third Block West 825,000 0 0 0 0 825,000 20%Funds Replace Units M-P 68133 Moderate Funded in Talbert/Beach Seaview 1 Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Replace Units M-P 38/25 Moderate Transfer to Emerald Cove 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000 Tax Inc. Funded In Yofidown-Lake Site Acquisition Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Replace Units M-P 23123 Very Low Funded In Brisas del Mar Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Replace Units M-P 44114 Very Low Funded in 31311 th Street Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Replace Units M-P 919 Very Low Funded in ERAF 92-93 Loan Adjustment Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Education Revenue Augmentation Funded in • Fund Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Acquisition of two OV II Ocean View Estates 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 20%Funds Coaches Annually Funded in 611 6th Street Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 COBG 8/8 VeryLow TOTAL EXPENSES 1,546,048 738,706 757,247 776,715 697,156 4,515.872 NET INCOME -827,193 207,715 217,567 227,343 337,023 362,455 EST FUND BALANCE,END OF YEAR (346.,E05 +!138,89fJ, 24,32A > 693;ia81 .356 959. NOTE: Huntington Center paid Main-Per's portion of the 20%setasIde funds NOTICE / OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDMENT OF FJV REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS PURSUANT TO SECTION 7 C)0*0 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1994, at 6:30 PM or as soon thereafter as possible the City Council and Redevelopment Agency will conduct a public hearing on amendment of the Main-Pier, Huntington Center, Talbert-Beach, Oakview and Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Areas. The amendmen s are {equired by the State of California Health and Safety Code Section `200 et seq. which, in summary, requires the Agency to restate the goals and conditions of blight adopted when the project areas were created, to state new five year goals and identify how these activities will address remaining blight. These "Implementation Plans" will also report planned activities to address the Agency's low and moderate income housing obligations. Plan amendments may shorten or lengthen the life of the plans, the period to create debt, the period to repay debt, and the allowable period to collect tax increment or sell bonds. The amendments will not alter the size of the project areas nor the authority of the Agency to undertake redevelopment activities in each. Anyone wishing to address the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on the Redevelopment Plan Amendments may do so at this public hearing. Publish twice: 1) at least 14 days prior to hearing; and 2) at least 7 days prior to hearing. ,L NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDMENT OF FJ7V REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS PURSUANT TO SECTION C)OZ OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1994, at 6:30 PM or as soon thereafter as possible the City Council and Redevelopment Agency will conduct a public hearing on amendment of the Main-Pier, Huntington Center, Talbert-Beach, Oakview and Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Areas. The amendmen s are{equired by the State of California Health and Safety Code Section �— et seq. which, in summary, requires the Agency to restate the goals and conditions of blight adopted when the project areas were created, to state new five year goals and identify how these activities will address remaining blight. These "Implementation Plans" will also report planned activities to address the Agency's low and moderate income housing obligations. Plan amendments may shorten or lengthen the life of the plans, the period to create debt, the period to repay debt, and the allowable period to collect tax increment or sell bonds. The amendments will not alter the size of the project areas nor the authority of the Agency to undertake redevelopment activities in each. Anyone wishing to address the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on the Redevelopment Plan Amendments may do so at this public hearing. Publish twice: 1) at least 14 days prior to hearing; and 2) at least 7 days prior to hearing. REQU EST T TO SCH EDULE A PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT REQUESTING: Economic Development SUBJECT: Amendment of Five Redevelopment Project Areas pursuant to Section 33000 of the California Health & Safety Code MEETING DATE: October 17, 1994 NUMBER OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 Others - Carts & Kiosks, Land Use Element, SCHEDULED FOR THIS DATE: & Body Piercing VERIFIED BY: APPROVED BY: Ray Sil er, Assistant City Administrator t; REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1995 - 2000 MAIN - PIER REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1995 - 2000 CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1995-2000 Table of Contents I.- Outline of Each Implementation Plan II. Main-Pier III. Huntington Center IV. Oakview V. Talbert-Beach VI. Yorktown-Lake VII. Housing Set-Aside Financing Plans IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OUTLINE 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives a) Prioritization of goals and objectives b) Reasons for inclusion 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight a) Summary of previous blight findings (Report to Council) b) Overview of past projects/programs to eliminate blight c) Summary of outstanding conditions of blight d) Identification of locations of blight 2.2 Five Year Target Projects and Programs a) Description of specific projects and programs b) Estimate of project and program costs c) Identification of potential funding sources d) Prioritization of projects and programs e) Linkage between blighting conditions and projects/programs 3. Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals a) Identification of AB 315 annual housing production goals (units to be developed, rehabilitated, price restricted, assisted) b) Estimate of number of low/moderate units to be destroyed c) Identification of replacement housing sites Technical Appendix A Cash flow and financing plan for the Agency including identified resources and expenditures, Housing Set Aside Fund deposits, proposed bonding program, etc. Technical Appendix B Cash flow and financing plan for the Low and Moderate Income Housing Set Aside Fund indicting deposits and expenditures and commitment of "excess surplus" funds. (This is included for all project areas under "Housing Set-Aside Financing Plan"). MAIN-PIER IMPLEMENTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of "Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. This is the implementation plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project area and contains: ♦ Five year goals (prioritized), projects with costs and funding sources identified. ♦ Blight findings from the original Redevelopment Plan, past projects to eliminate blight, outstanding conditions of blight and a map of these conditions. ♦ Five year housing goals and annual production goals, estimate of units to be destroyed and identification of replacement sites. ♦ Five year strategy to alleviate blight. ♦ Appendices A & B identifying cash flow for redevelopment and housing programs. MAIN-PIER 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan General Objectives of Redevelopment Plan "In creating the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, the City -Council of the City of Huntington Beach declared its desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the City and in particular those areas within the City which have become blighted because of deterioration, disuse and economic, physical and social maladjustments. As a part of the City's ongoing redevelopment efforts, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared this Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the objectives of this Redevelopment Project are as follows: ♦ Eliminating blighting influences, including deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, inadequate public improvements, obsolete structures, and other physical, economic and social deficiencies; improve the overall appearance of streets, parking areas and other facilities, public and private; and assure that all buildings are safe for persons to occupy. ♦ Encouraging existing owners, businesses and tenants within the Project Area to participate in redevelopment activities. ♦ 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. ♦ Mitigating development limitations which have resulted in the lack of proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. ♦ Providing adequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. ♦ Providing construction and employment opportunities in the development of these facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of the proposed commercial and recreational facilities. ♦ Implementing the construction or reconstruction of adequate streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, storm drains, and other improvements as necessary to assist development of the Project Area to conform to the General Plan as a master-planned development and to correct existing environmental deficiencies. ♦ Establishing development criteria and controls for the permitted uses within the Project Area in accordance with modern and competitive development practices, thus assuring the highest design standards and environmental quality. ♦ Providing for relocation assistance and benefits to Project Area residents which may be displaced, in accordance with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law and the government code of the State of California. To obtain the objectives of this Plan as set forth, the Agency is authorized to undertake most or all of the following implementing actions: ♦ Acquisition of property. ♦ Participation by owners and tenants in the redevelopment project. ♦ Relocation assistance to displaced residential occupants as required by law. ♦ Development of adequate parking, landscaping, public improvements and facilities. ♦ Demolition, clearance of properties acquired, and site preparation. ♦ Other actions as appropriate, including, but not limited to, actions to assist property owners and tenants in the improvement of their properties to carry out the objectives of the redevelopment plan. ♦ Assist in providing financing for private and public development in the Project Area." 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives 1.2(a) Prioritization of Goals and Objectives Project Area Size: 336 Acres Adoption Date: September 1982 Amended: September 1983 Life of Plan: 35 Years Tax Increment Cap: $15,250,000 annually PROJECT-GOALS FOR 1995-2000 1. Achieve City and Coastal Commission approval of Downtown Specific Plan, Parking Master Plan and In-Lieu Parking Fee. 2. In conjunction with developer, create development scheme for next phase of The Waterfront and seek approvals. 3. Encourage private development. 4. Plan 4th Block East. 5. Acquire 6th Block East site. 6. Plan Huntington Beach site at Pacific Coast Highway and First Street. 7. Commence construction of- - Main-Pier Phase II (Coultrup) - Third Block West - South Beach Improvements - Pier Plaza - New Maxwell's Restaurant 8. Complete sale of Town Square Commercial. 9. Continue to pursue redevelopment of Southeast corner of Main Street and Walnut Avenue (Standard Market). 10. Investigate owner interest in renovation of Atlanta-Beach shopping center. 11. Cooperate and assist in the leasing of new commercial and office space. 12. Complete renovation and leasing of 438 Main Street. 13. Prepare plan to meet housing requirements (see "Housing Set-Aside Implementation" section). 1.2(b) Reasons for Inclusion These goals originated in the Agency's most recent Biennial Report published in December, 1993 and have been subjected to public review and approval by the Agency. Together they represent what can reasonably be accomplished within the period of this plan. 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight 2.1a Summary of Previous Blight Findings (from "Report to City Council", September, 1982 PP 3-4) "A. Approximately ten percent of the lots in this area (particularly along Second and Third Streets) are developed as residential. This is inconsistent with the existing zoning in the area which is C3, General Business District. The number of parking spaces for these residential units is inadequate to satisfy parking requirements of current residential zoning standards (i.e., Oldtown Specific Plan). Some of these units do not meet the current Building Security Provisions of the City's Ordinance Code which requires enclosed garages for multiple dwellings. With respect to the existing commercial units in the area, off-street parking areas are not landscaped and screened in accordance with the standards of Article 979. Structural fire protection is lacking because of openings in some of the structures at the zero lot line. There is considerable dilapidation of the commercial and residential structures. B. The condition of structures, including the conditions of the municipal pier, economic disuse, irregular subdivision, fragmented ownerships and lack of capital improvements make the property unsuitable for development by private enterprise acting alone. These negative conditions can only be dealt with by the positive powers of a redevelopment agency. A more detailed description of each of the conditions contributing to growing blight in the area follows. 3.1 Condition of Buildings and Structures According to the Inventory of Existing Conditions, Downtown Plannin Ag rea. December, 1975, approximately 15 percent of the structures are beyond reasonable repair, 33 percent are in need of major repair, and 31 percent need minor repairs. According to the Seismic Resistant Capabilities of Existing Buildings for the City of Huntington Beach, February 8, 1980, approximately 50 percent of the structures of the two blocks facing Main Street are considered to be excessive hazards. According to the Structural Survey of the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, completed in August 1979: The current conditions of the main structural members in the older portion of the pier is unacceptable. The reinforcing steel has completely oxidized in some areas and the presence of large cracks in most of the structural members indicates that this condition is widespread throughout the first 57 bents in the pier. The middle portion of the pier was virtually reconstructed in 1970 when the wooden deck structure was replaced by reinforced concrete joist and deck. The existing pilings that were not replaced in the 1970 rework are now beginning to show signs of deterioration, as evidenced by longitudinal cracks and rust stains. The end portion of the pier, consisting of wood pilings, cp beams and deck, was found to be relatively undamaged. Minor repairs, consisting of replacing hardware that shows excessive corrosion, would be recommended. 3.2 Economic Disuse and Depreciated Values The intensity of development within the Main-Pier Area is much less than other beachfront areas such as Peter's Landing, Newport Beach, Dana Point, Marina Del Rey and the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor Areas. Because of the quality of available space, rents are lower than they could be and lower than other more modern facilities with similar locational characteristics. Many studies have concluded that this area is not living up to its full economic potential. The most recent summary, Downtown and Pier Revitalization, indicated that "the first significant effort to upgrade Downtown began in 1965 when the City contracted with the Urban Land Institute to assess land use and economic issues on a City-wide basis and make recommendations on the future direction to be followed. The Urban Land Institute Study concluded that the City's economic future lay in improving its "Front Window" (the ocean front) and revitalizing the Downtown area. 3.3 Irregular Subdivision and Multiple Ownership Within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Area, approximately one- third of the lots are 25 feet in width. These narrow lots can be found in each of the five blocks north of Pacific Coast Highway. There are over forty different individual ownerships within the five blocks of the downtown area within the Main-Pier Project. This fragmented pattern of existing ownership prevents the development of any modern retail, office or residential mixed-use development. The Downtown Specific Plan, which is currently in draft form, indicates that the subject blocks north of Pacific Coast Highway should be consolidated for new development. 3.4 Lack of Public Improvements The Draft Downtown Specific Plan indicates that the Main-Pier Area is deficient in adequate water improvements; that sewer facilities, while adequate today, are 70 years old and may be a problem in the near term future; that circulation improvements are necessary to relieve congestion on Pacific Coast Highway; that parking facilities are inadequate; and that the Huntington Pier is in need of major repair. 3.5 Flooding In 1979, L.D. King and Associates prepared a Master Plan of Drainage for the City. This plan identified serious deficiencies in the downtown and town lot areas which include portions of four of the city's 34 drainage districts. These deficiencies are not primarily in the project area itself, but reflect a more widespread problem in the townlot area adjacent to the project area. 3.6 Stagnant of Improper Utilization As documented in previous sections, the existing mixed land uses have changed very little in the last twenty or more years, and the structures are continuing to age. The existing land uses are well below their economic potential. 3.7 Increased Crime Rates According to the Police Department, the crime rates in the project are substantially higher than average reflecting one of the highest rates within the City." 2.1(b) Overview of Past Projects to Eliminate Blight • The new pier was completed July, 1992. • Plan for beach improvements completed (parking; landscape, lighting, concessions, restrooms, bike/pedestrian paths). ♦ New plan for Maxwell's Restaurant and Pier Plaza prepared. ♦ Improvements in most sections of Main Street have been completed including paving, sidewalk textures, pedestrian crossings, bollards, landscape lighting and water features. ♦ Consolidation of parcels, relocation, demolition and construction for Pierside Pavilion theaters, restaurants, retail and office totaling 90,000 square feet and Pier Colony: 130 condominiums. ♦ Clearance, relocation and construction for Main Promenade, a 32,000 square foot retail center and a 830 space public parking garage. ♦ Acquisition of approximately 80% of full block site for Third Block West, project clearance and relocation on Agency owned parcels ♦ Financial assistance for rehabilitation or new construction of buildings within the Demonstration Block (Second Block West) to eliminate seismic hazards and modernize • Construction of alley improvements within Demonstration Block (Second Block West) including undergrounding of utilities, landscape, street furniture, and water feature. ♦ Clearance, relocation and financial assistance to Oceanview Promenade--a mixed retail/office building of 47,000 square feet (in First Block West). ♦ Approval of Owner Participation Agreement for rehabilitation new construction on two block site: Main-Pier Phase I1 (Coultrup) 40,000 square feet commercial with 80 residential units. • Site consolidation, clearance, street abandonment, relocation and construction of Town Square project was completed including 10,000 square feet of commercial space and 89 residential units. ♦ Acquisition, relocation of mobile homes and financial assistance to developer was provided to allow construction of 296 room Waterfront Hilton Beach Resort. ♦ Acquisition of 10 mobile homes each year to clear the Driftwood Mobile Home Park for future phases of The Waterfront continues. ♦ Acquisition and remodeling of vacant office building to become Municipal Art Center 2.1 (c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight A. Substandard housing conditions present B. Deteriorated, unsafe, vacant/abandoned buildings present C. Substandard lots and multi-ownerships predominate D. Marginal retail uses remain E. Commercial and office lease rates are below standards of balance of the community and region F. Public improvements (streets, alleys, Pacific Coast Highway capacity, water and sewer and overhead utilities) are aged and inadequate. G. Hazardous materials and oil operations inhibit redevelopment H. Flood protection is inadequate I. Beach improvements (parking, landscape, lighting, restrooms, and bike/pedestrian paths) are outdated and inadequate J. Beach concessions are outdated and too small K. Maxwell's restaurant is outmoded, in physical disrepair, blocks views, and lacks meeting and banquet space L. New pier lacks new public safety facilities (lifeguard tower), restrooms, and concessions. M. Pier entry creates auto/pedestrian conflict, blocks views, lacks design statement N. Level of police resources at a level higher than the standard prevalent in the balance of the community. O. Economic Blight: Area does not contribute to the city's tax base. 2.1(d) Identification of Locations of Blight Map - Locations of Blight �o •� ooD o � oa O 00 a 0 00 Do0 uuuuh�� + £ YY 000000000000000000000000000000a • ; •• ��£�� ..�iY •: �$ tNt �00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 � � : ,:�N :{::fY uu u0 00 00 00 uu 00 00 00 00 00 00 0u 00 00 $;fi ,$t;'$##',1;,'-fS£�#•,r.'r'1#'{+• N�#»'-'J�$':: £%'F•'%�'$ sN r' fir» y r s 5 £r#r,,#s:�.,s'g:"'#» 0�00 0 00 00.00 0u MU 100 UU UU JU 00g { � $..:N�.� sf ' r w�#s.�•xs's:' , si:s's=�'f�#'�t�r.'#s;' ' ' �°" .: t' sssss... � � m . » ' r#ss:;�t�##•',.$»r� :sc#;��',¢ r»c�;, i'^%ss £ss.:�•,'.:'yrf :{s»s'>•'s' r>s'•,r», �£ S!� v#ii't? #:#.>;. 'ps�:'.s##��#��" 'f�#u:�',s.�:•r'»s?%?%x##:NY#i##>�#s:,: Cg ,x # i, #":# s�-�'' s �;#i>•'Y Wr tts $r,'•� s�u r+ ss Ss��s s''Ns�ss:�%:':%"t•#:t.��: F 4 : �Y". J, ::Yi,YYi»irif»,# $:' � ' �:» �i�.' �{£{':f?r�• a € � _ a $ ss •�% ;s�M �s$;isf�:s .r:•sr•`%�;,::-»s':#'• '"rr�•''r�•:.#+s;:i##s:Y:#:#;•ss::Y»{g{;;r»:;::%�>. �0�u00 0000u�000 �0�00 #� .��f.�:##��-•Y �� $"'� ,�¢ft:$sttt:�N.::,.,,{�::�� s. j'`� • �`r.€�##s#��; �%' ##:N#�#�#? .,�s`s##.sxt s":'.:::»:,,;»» . ,,:::ss#ssss#!'>.. � ! 'yk' may,•; •,�'t95y%£:�'�'l,r"r#:£+�i£'•• .. t!1�'�5.».5,.<,f#t:rSt£'^ b'f/#:iti'r':.srr{: i• {�. ,'t'#:^;:•• g 00 � tt r �z r !s s�;�#�'ri?s#s'W£N#r:� w„��' '�s'ssis:;r.•ss;#Y%ts.v#$:: .;:.. =10 00 G0 00 00 00 00 0o 00 00 00 0 3 r: zsr : �$s'#t✓»»:' :isss#t' {/,sssH�u['{tt ;##s%s#:�sf:''•`;;,;r, ..Gt Y.ct#;t,'s,#%<'s#>Y ryt , ,; . {v:!' - v$£:: -:YYr$}.ts�"i65:+��W,"'�:ii}:i'+C£$$?yy!��.�.'••-'�'•'•i`£#'#{Hi �� '�� #. ,• r,£r'";£Ytt :'.t r::Yff•i f <,r,•y:SSY:Ssrf:'•;#t#!•-" .y;{ y:#{':;:•Y::Y:•:::,::, :r:::,»,„,.• ::» •,:»: f',:^.SY�:Y£,£..'#,s'r'!�''Y ..'•F:tf#�#{. #xrf.'��,-�#S.i##Y{{�•:,. j„5:{u :•{{:, ,. »•J.•,:.,nfw srrrr:Ya::Y.Y:»:;,;,,.�.;Y:'• rrr»r»{»:,,:, £r,:r.'�# 5}'£#:SY#S3 {{{ - 7{l#;SG#':. :•££t£�;.::„rr,:{{tr':ii;:$-{,,t{:.;'£• r:f:»::.-:,..:J:..:>..::.•,»,::: ::mod,/.,f.•s r.r/.-rsiisfr'r s£'•::Y»:r.»»i::: ,rr s�#'ri$:hs: rr$ �:'+,:•::• :{.Y:{.:{{. ...»::..r...:.r.#:Y». . .::»:::»•tS:r»:k{{{»::::;: { { 'Nsr:•xss's'`#sws##�£'� �% �'��;�r>� ::ss.sss.�d#sY'###:-#'•;c:»: .#'�ss'Y .$Y�, ,s�. #' .� r'';#is#»• �.��'�» �r:,:» ''i%i ,.:s,�s��'{.s#:<: Y:y:# {t££{£$:ty{"r?''•'r.�rv(.frv#£$£#£'r.°•£••v£$; i::.: ££'•:'•'•,'rr:Y�'J+Y1•' •t :.:f. rr' ,;£'.i$:{.$.','"'V'',' .: iS£„t#:d'tt #;,:� £:S£.';fYY.£ttS$''$tS£tttSt#t%t£t!S/f..:»»{,,.::£i',#,t#St$#�'�r�f:'r,'f''yt:,'.,{t;:'Yy;£:,'r'.SSr '•r#<s<s.?$sssssss•:#�i%r%;<!sssssr;�.'�sss::ssYt;::r;?#fs�#N#N3�f$^Y ::%<:t rr.�#;Ygt#�#;s�,�# ss'<'r'•#' r�z� ' t� :..'<'�'�,' r f{ixs:: ,... ......{,.».,:Y.:#»:.{rr.:,5.,:{:,t:{S£t;'•:Y£t_:tYtr.{«.''S»,t5:7,,£:,:#.r.s.,.€. ::•,:K, 1./rp r : r r ' a, " i ..r•.t ',.�:35:7::c{ t3:##k:,.,,,rt#r:ii..rS:t•':»: � f ,5S$ ,' ,�S#' £� �f,, ;?S t s• Areas of outstanding blight. 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Programs/Projects Estimated Funding Priority Blight Costs Sources (1-3) Addressed 1. Achieve City and Nominal City 1 B,C,D Coastal Commission General Fund approval of Downtown Specific Plan, Parking Master Plan and In-Lieu Parking Fee. 2. In conjunction with 100,000 T.I. 1 A,B,F,G,J,O, developer, create development scheme for next phase of The Waterfront and seek approvals. 3. Encourage Private Unknown T.I. 2 B,C,D,F,G,N,O Development/Redevelopment. 4. Plan 4th Block East. 40,000 T.I. 3 A,B,C,D,F,G,N,O 5. Acquire 6th Block East. 3.75M SAS/Developer 1 A,C,F,G,O 6. Plan Huntington Beach 50,000 T.I./Developer 2 F,G,O site at PCH and 1st Street. 7. Commence construction of. - Main-Pier Phase II (Coultrup) 1.8M T.I./Developer 1 B,C,D,E,F,G,O - Third Block West 18M T.I./Developer 1 B,C,D,E,F,G,O - South Beach Improvements 7M Unknown 2 I,J - Pier Plaza 3.5M Unknown 2 L,M - New Maxwell's Restaurant 4.5M Developer 2 K,M 8. Complete sale of Town Square None N/A 1 E,O Commercial. 9. Continue to pursue redevelop- Unknown T.I. 2 B,C,D,E,F,O ment of southeast corner of Main Street (standard market et al). 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs Page Two (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Programs/Projects Estimated Funding Priority Blight Costs Sources _(1_3) Addressed 10. Investigate owner Nominal T.I 3 C,D,E,O interest in renovation of Atlanta-Beach shopping center. 11. Cooperate and assist Nominal T.I. 2 E,O in the leasing of new commercial and office space. 12. Complete renovation Nominal T.I. 2 E,D and leasing of 438 Main Street. 13. Prepare plan to meet Nominal T.I. 1 A,C,F,O housing requirements (see "Housing Set-Aside Implementation" section). 3.0 Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals 3.1(a) Identification of AB 315 Annual Housing Production Goals PROPOSED/CONTRACTED PROJECTS- All Units are Assisted Date Expected Units L/M Regd. L/M Provided VL Regd. VL Provided Third Block West 1997 68 6 33 4 0 The Waterfront Residential 1996-2000 639 58 0 38 0 Main-Pier Phase U 1996 82 7 0 5 0 3.1(b) Estimation of Number of Low/Moderate Units to be Destroyed and 3.1(c) Identification of Replacement Housing Sites Main-Pier Project Area: Destroyed: Units Low Very Low Huntington Shores MH Park (PCH) -21 -10 -7 Huntington Bay Shore (430 Lake Street) -1 -1 0 Pierside & Pier Colony (200 PCH) -19 -2 -7 Main Promenade (200 Main Street East) -25 -24 0 Town Square (400 Block Main West) -4 -4 0 Driftwood (21462 PCH) -76 -8 -25 Main-Pier Phase II (500 PCH) -8 -1 -6 Planned Replacement Units: Five Points Senior Villas 48 8 32 Main-Pier Phase II (Ronald Road) 4 4 0 313 1 lth Street - '> ' < > MAIN-PIER TECHNICAL APPENDIX A MAIN44ER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 9/30/94 Base Analysis 1995/96 1 1996/97 1 1997M 1998M 1 1999/00 1 Total Souroes Goals&Objectives Explenatlon EST CASH BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR 668,467 908,358 1,021,508 1,525,954 2,056,550 INCOME Tax Increment(100%) 2.350.000 2,400,000 2,450,000 2,500,000 2,550,000 12,250,000 interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 T.O.T.(Waterfront) 525,000 551,250 578,813 607.753 638,141 2,900,956 Abdelmutl Loan 333,655 333,555 333,555 333,555 333,555 1,667,775 RLM Ground Lease 253,834 253,834 253,834 253,834 253,834 1,269,170 Lease Payments(438 Main) 19,200 0 0 0 0 19,200 Land Sale(Town Sq.) 54,000 54.000 54,000 54,000 54,000 270,000 TOTAL INCOME 3,535,589 3,592,639 3,670,202 3,749,142 3,829,530 18,377,101 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 1.175,905 1.175,665 1,180,985 1,179,585 1,179,585 5,891.725 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Huntington National Bank Note 100,000 95,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 465,000 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. City Debt 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,250,000 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. T.O.T.Reimb(Waterfront) 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating 171,960 180,558 189,586 199,065 209,018 950,188 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(30%) 191,203 200.763 210,801 221.341 232,408 1,056,517 Tax Inc. Edon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 Tax Inc. Ecom Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services Admin(30%) 23.370 23,370 23,370 23,370 23,370 116,850 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Business Development(30%) 87,260 88,133 89,014 89,904 90,803 445,114 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Capital Projects: Funded in Third Block West Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Eliminate Blight Funded in TBW Site Remediation Prior Years 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Eliminate Blight Town Square Panting 0 270,000 0 0 270,000 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Eliminate Blight Driftwood Buyouts 800,000 800,000 832,000 865,280 899,891 4,197,171 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Buy Coaches Abdelmuti Rent Sub"/Misc. 96.000 96,000 0 0 0 192,000 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Eliminate Blight TOTAL EXPENSES 3,295,698 3.479,489 3,165.756 3,218,546 3,275,076 16,434,665 NET INCOME 239,891 113,150 504,445 530,596 554,454 1,942,537 EST CASH BALANCE, END OF YEAR 906;358 1;()21, b8 ,325;934 2,ti5�,'S3Qt#11: +4 MAIN-PIER TECHNICAL APPENDIX B SET-ASIDE FINANCING PLAN (See Housing Section) HUNTINGTON CENTER REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1995 - 2000 (ITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTMGTON CENTER IMPLEMENTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of "Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. This is the implementation plan for the Huntington Center Redevelopment Project area and contains: ♦ Five year goals (prioritized), projects with costs and funding sources identified. ♦ Blight findings from the original Redevelopment Plan, past projects to eliminate blight, outstanding conditions of blight and a map of these conditions. ♦ Five year housing goals and annual production goals, estimate of units to be destroyed and identification of replacement sites. ♦ Five year strategy to alleviate blight. ♦ Appendices A & B identifying cash flow for redevelopment and housing programs. HUNTINGTON CENTER COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan General Objectives of Redevelopment Plan "In creating the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach declared its desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the City and in particular those areas within the City which have become blighted because of deterioration, disuse and economic, physical and social maladjustments. As a part of the City's ongoing redevelopment efforts, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared this Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the objectives of this Redevelopment Project are as follows: ♦ The elimination of environmental deficiencies including among others aging, deteriorating and poorly maintained structures, relocation of utilities, modification and improvements to the onsite and offsite circulation, and increased and improved parking. ♦ The replanning, redesign, and development of underutilized areas. ♦ The elimination and mitigation of existing and anticipated visual, economic, physical, social, and environmental blight within the Project Area. ♦ The rehabilitation, recycling, and development of property within a creative, coordinated land use pattern in the Project Area consistent with the goals, policies, objectives, standards, guidelines, and requirements as set forth in the adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. ♦ The implementation of techniques to mitigate blight characteristics resulting from exposure to highway and public right-of-way corridor activity affecting adjacent properties within the Project Area. ♦ Beautification activities to eliminate those forms of blight including, but not limited to, visual blight, in order to encourage community identity. ♦ The encouragement, promotion, and assistance in the development and expansion of local commerce. ♦ Providing construction and employment opportunities in the development of these facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of the proposed new commercial facilities. ♦ Mitigating development limitations which result in the lack of proper utilization of the Project Area of such an extent that it constitutes a physical, social, and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. ♦ To provide for affordable housing as required by county, region, or state law and requirements, as necessary and desirable, consistent with the goals and objectives of the community, its General Plan, and Housing Element. ♦ To encourage the coordination, cooperation, and assistance of county, state, and federal agencies as may be deemed necessary to ensure that projects undertaken by this Agency are implemented to their fullest and most practical extent. ♦ The achievement of a physical environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural and urban design principles deemed important by the community. ♦ To encourage community involvement and citizen participation in the adoption of policies, programs and projects so as to ensure that the Redevelopment Plan is implemented in accordance with the objectives and goals of the General Plan. ♦ To provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Agency can assist, complement, and coordinate public and public and private development, redevelopment, revitalization, and enhancement of the community. ♦ To provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Agency can assist, complement, and coordinate public and public and public and private development, redevelopment, revitalization, and enhancement of the community. ♦ Provide for relocation assistance and benefits to Project Area businesses in the event displacement is necessary, in accordance with the provisions of the community redevelopment law and the government code of the State of California. To obtain the objectives of this Plan as set forth, the Agency is authorized -to undertake most or all of the following implementing actions: ♦ Acquisition of property. ♦ Participation by owners and tenants in the redevelopment project. ♦ Relocation assistance to displaced occupants as required by law. ♦ Development of adequate parking, landscaping, public improvements and facilities. ♦ Demolition clearance of properties acquired, and site preparation. ♦ Other actions as appropriate, including, but not limited to, actions to assist property owners and tenants in the improvement of their properties to carry out the objectives of the redevelopment plan. ♦ Assist in providing financing for private and public development in the Project Area." 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives 1.2(a) Prioritization of Goals and Objectives Project Area Size: 160 Acres Adoption Date: November 1984 Life of Plan: 35 Years Tax Increment Cap: $84.5 million PROJECT GOALS FOR 1995-2000 1. In conjunction with owner, prepare a market and development strategy for the Huntington Beach Mall. 2. Complete construction of: ♦ Center Avenue improvements and traffic signal ♦ Readerboard sign landscaping 3. Complete Public Utilities Commission review of Gothard-Hoover connection, complete plans, formulate a funding plan and begin construction. 4. Seek adoption of Edinger Avenue Specific Plan of Street Alignment. 5. Complete I-405 Cloverleaf landscaping. 6. Complete Mall pole sign. 7. Complete plans for Modification of I-405 off-ramp for access to mall. 8. Complete plans and construct McFadden I-405 overpass widening. 1.2(b) Reasons for Inclusion These goals originated in the Agency's most recent Biennial Report published in December, 1993 and have been subjected to public review and approval by the Agency. Together they represent what can reasonably be accomplished within the period of this plan. 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight 2.1(a) Summary of Previous Blight Findings (from "Report to City Council", October, 1984 Part II, PP II-1 through II-5) Part II - A-3-b., P.P. II-6 through U-7 "b. Obsolescent Design and Lack of Physical Integration The Project Area to the north and south of Edinger Avenue, Sub- Areas D through G, are all retail and personal service oriented businesses but there is a lack of physical integration that would give shoppers the perception that the area is a cohesive and attractive shopping district. There are no paths articulated to encourage internal circulation or natural flow from one sub-area to another. Each sub-area is a disparate separate unit, especially Sub-Area G with its seven egress/-ingress points. The disjointed development in terms of building size and shape, and the lack of sign controls and uniformity in the facade treatments, landscaping and street furniture among the different blocks deters shoppers from viewing the area as a pleasant, large commercial district offering many and varied services. The contrasting character of the buildings (color, materials, form) in the area south of Edinger Avenue, especially Sub-Area F next to Sub-Area E, is particularly noticeable. The development of this area occurred over time and does not meet current standards; the physical layout can be considered obsolete. The site plan of the Huntington Center, constructed in 1966 with the separate building of fourteen businesses some hundred feet to the east is an obsolescent design by contemporary standards. Shoppers prefer to remain in a climate controlled environment. To cross an open parking lot subject to the elements to gain access to additional businesses can contribute to an unpleasant shopping experience. With only 44 mall shops and 6 kiosk businesses to complement its three anchor department stores, the Huntington Center is obsolete and at a competitive disadvantage to other more modern centers often containing over 100 shops. There is also no physical integration of the Huntington Center and One Pacific Plaza. The Southern California Edison right-of- way prohibits the integration of these two areas. Although there could be a symbiotic relationship of the office employees and customers of the restaurants and service oriented businesses, and the retail customers of the commercial area to the south, there are no design features that physically link the two areas or convey a relationship. Circulation paths between the two areas are indirect: ingress/egress points on Center Drive are off-centered from each other. -Part U - A-3-c., P.P. H-12 through II-13 The inadequate public improvements in the Project Area are related to traffic circulation exclusively and can be summarized as follows: -- Intersections with present level of service ratings C through E: -- Beach/Edinger -- Edinger/Gothard -- Center/I-405 Ramps -- Beach/Center -- Edinger Avenue Deficiencies -- Excessive (twenty-three) curb cuts -- awkward circulation, especially between Huntington Center and the businesses on the south side -- One unnecessary traffic signal -- Railroad tracks acting as a barrier between properties on east and west; tracks can only be crossed on Center Drive and Edinger Avenue -- Center Drive: Huntington Village Way and driveways from Huntington Center and One Pacific Plaza are not aligned. -- I-405 interchanges with Beach Boulevard and Golden West Street suffer heavy traffic volumes which could be relieved through construction of an additional interchange at Gothard. -- I-405 southbound ramp at Center Drive has heavy traffic volumes and awkward configuration for flow into Huntington Center and One Pacific Plaza. -- Gothard Street dead ends at McFadden Avenue, rather than continuing north to act as another north-south arterial serving the area. The above traffic circulation problems have a heavy impact upon the Project Area in terms of its attractiveness to potential shoppers. For the commercial businesses within the Project Area to remain competitive, the traffic circulation problems must be addressed. An essential element in solving such problems is the need to anticipate and encourage growth within the Huntington Center, One Pacific Plaza, and the area south of Edinger. Huntington Center, in particular, must revitalize and grow to keep pace with its trade area competition. The City of Huntington Beach has a direct stake in such growth. As described in more detail below, a decline in gross retail sales is reflected in a corresponding decline in sales tax revenues. Part H. A-3-c., PP II-14 through II-15 C. Existing Economic Conditions Land uses in the Project Area are devoted entirely to commercial uses (including office), with the exception of the utility rights-of-way discussed earlier and a small amount of light industrial use in Sub-Area A. The Huntington Center shopping center, containing 838,715 of gross leaseable square footage, was built in 1966. Businesses to the south of Edinger Avenue have developed over time. The mixed use development to the north of Center Avenue, One Pacific Plaza, has been planned since 1976. Construction of the first phase, an office building and two restaurants, has been completed. 1. Economic Disuse Resulting from Faulty Planning Faulty planning of the circulation system in the Project Area has impeded full utilization of its economic potential. Awkward access generally contributes to discouraging retail shoppers from utilizing retail outlets in the area. The intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue has a service level of "E" as discussed previously. Both Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard experience heavier traffic than would prevail if Gothard Street was linked to Hoover and Street north of the San Diego Freeway, and a partial interchange was available. The flow of traffic on Edinger Avenue is interrupted by the eight eastbound left turn lanes, and 23 curb cuts, with traffic entering into and exiting from the various curb cuts in an uncontrolled manner. Pedestrians are discouraged from moving from one portion of the Project Area to another by the distances separating the various areas, the lack of clearly articulated paths, and the absence of a unifying architectural theme. The right-of-way for the high voltage overhead transmission lines on the north side of Huntington Center is a land use that may be inappropriate to current needs for a commercial area. It could be argued -that the highest and best use for the land occupied by the lines would be for expansion of the area's commercial uses. The 200 foot-wide right-of- way creates a significant barrier between the commercial development of One Pacific Plaza to the north of Center Drive and the Huntington Center shopping mall, and contributes to the lack of physical integration of the two areas. The barriers of distance, awkward street circulation and uncoordinated physical design are responsible for the lack of physical integration of the Huntington Center and the strip commercial development south of Edinger Avenue. The movement of shoppers from one area to another is impeded, resulting in the loss of economic potential. 2. Existence of Inadequate Public Improvements Details of the deficiencies in the street system, and freeway interchange design, intersection capacity and pedestrian access were described in the preceding section. The economic impact of these inadequate public improvements is that businesses may be discouraged from locating in the area due to the confusing circulation system, and the difficulties caused for potential customers and employees. Similarly, the sales volumes of existing businesses may be reduced. If not corrected, the economic impact of the inadequate public improvements would become greater over time As conditions in the area get worse, the City would become forced to impose conditions on new development in an attempt to alleviate the circulation problems. Such conditions could result in increased development costs that would serve to further discourage new development and growth in the area. 3. Economic Maladjustment and Impaired Investments Impaired investments in the Project Area have resulted from economic maladjustment. A key indicator of economic maladjustment is sales performance figures for the Huntington Center over time. The following discussion presents an analysis of retail sales and the loss of potential sales. The deficiencies in the public improvements serving the area are a key factor in inhibiting shoppers from utilizing the services offered in the area. The annual retail sales figures for the Huntington Center from 1978 to 1983 are exhibited in Table II-3, on file. While sales figures have risen fairly steadily since 1978, the percentage increase from year to year has declined from 7.7% between 1979 to 5.1% between 1982 and 1983. Given the rates of inflation during that period, and the resulting price increases, although the sales figures have increased, such figures may -reflect little growth in volume." 2.1(b) Overview of Past Projects to Eliminate Blight ♦ Improved traffic circulation - Center Avenue was widened, repaved and improved freeway signage was completed. ♦ Improved traffic circulation - a plan for widening and relandscaping the Edinger Corridor was approved. ♦ Improved traffic circulation - plans are being prepared for the McFadden Overcrossing. ♦ Improved traffic circulation - the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger was widened via the Orange County Transportation Authority and the Huntington Center Project contributed funds for undergrounding of utilities on Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. ♦ Improved traffic circulation - An electronic readerboard was constructed which provides easier identification of this area by motorists. ♦ Improved traffic circulation - Construction plans are near completion for the Gothard Hoover connection, hearings were held before the Public Utilities Commission and funding plans are being formulated. The Berge DDA assisted in ensuring right-of-way acquisition for a portion of the project. • Improved Public Transportation - The Orange County Transportation Authority completed its transportation center which included 118 parking spaces in off- load bus loading and unloading for the 57 buses that will use the facility on a daily basis. + Obsolescent design and lack of physical integration - The Agency has purchased an estimated 1.1 acres at the corner of Aldrich and Parkside and is working with potential businesses to produce an integrated development in this area. 2.1 (c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight A. Inadequate public improvements still exist relative to traffic circulation around the project on Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue and Gothard Avenue. B. Economic disuse is reflected in the Huntington Beach Mall and is reflected by the loss of Penneys, Barker Bros. and many smaller businesses. C. Obsolescent design and lack of physical integration of all businesses in the project area still exists. The physical layout of the area is not designed to give the perception to customers that the area is an attractive shopping district. 2.1(d) Identification of Locations of Blight Map - Locations of Blight 2,1(d) Huntington Beach Center M&AQOEN AVE. � .•tsstisr isiy'fu,�Y$Y t 'tt o� N NOT TO SCALE NOT A PART ,:st-r3`:,•�s �:: z - HJNTINGTON }•••.}}:s�:�:u�, VILLAGE WAY ao-#•k#is s tfdl +f.#•r ':i'i •r{$3 i.!i'•99_"'?{ m Fit- Areas of outstanding blight. 2.2 (a-d) Five Year Target Projects and Programs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Programs/Projects Estimated Funding Priority Blight Costs Sources (1-3) Addressed 1. Center Avenue $200,000 Redevelopment 1 A complete signal and Property owner access improvements Street funds 2. Gothard - Hoover $7 million Redevelopment 1 A Street funds 3. Edinger Avenue $3 million Redevelopment 1 A Property owner Street funds 4. Huntington Beach Mall Unknown Redevelopment 1 B,C Marketing & Development Property owner Strategy 5. Southwest Corner of Edinger Unknown Redevelopment 1 B,C and Beach Boulevard Property owners 6. Berge DDA (vacant land) Unknown Redevelopment 3 B Property owners *Refer to Section 2.1(c) Summary of Outstanding Conditions of Blight 3.0 Low and Moderate Income Housing Plan 3.1 Five Year Annual Housing Goals 3.1(a) Identification of AB 315 Annual Housing Production Goals None required as per Table 1 Redevelopment Agency Housing Policy and Housing Compliance Plan, May 3, 1993 3.1(b) Estimation of Number of Low/Moderate Units to be Destroyed and 3.1(c) Identification of Replacement Housing Sites Huntington Center Project Area: Units Low Very Low Destroyed: 1 0 1 Planned Replacement Units: 1 0 1 HUNTINGTON CENTER TECHNICAL APPENDIX A CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 1995M 1996/97 1 1997/98 1998M I 1999/00 I Trial Soumes Goals&Objectism Explanation EST FUND BALANCE,PRIOR YEAR 4,694,270 3,539,769 2,269.368 1,370,341 383,531 INCOME Tax Increment(80%) 900,000 900,000 90Q000 900,000 900,000 4,5W,000 Interest 328,599 247,784 158,858 95,924 26,847 858,010 TOTAL INCOME 1,228,599 1,147.784 1,058,856 995,924 926,847 5,358,010 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 1,040.073 1,043,313 1,040,230 1,041,183 1.041,163 5,205,942 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. City Debt-(M.P.S OWI-I.C.3475k) 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 1,750,000 Tax Inc, Econ.Dev. Project Ares Admin. School Pass-Through 4,895 5,045 5,045 5,045 5,045 25,075 Tax Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating 242,699 254,834 267,576 280,954 295,002 1,341.065 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Operating Admin Portion(30%) 191,203 200,763 210,801 221,341 232,408 1,056,516 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 25,300 Taos Inc. Econ.Dev. Project Area Admin. Legal Services Admin Portion(30%) 23,370 23,370 23,370 23,370 23,370 110,850 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Business Development(40%) 55,800 55,800 55,800 55,800 55,800 279,000 Tax Inc. Eoon.Dev. Project Area Admin. Capital Projects Housing Additional Set-Aside-MP 470,000 480,000 0 0 0 950,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 2,383,100 2,418,185 1,957.882 1,982,734 2,007,849 10,749.750 NET INCOME -1,154,501 -1,270,401 -899,020 -986,810 -1,081,002 -5,391,740 `!?:.... EST NC O FUND LA END F YEAR >:;#>`:{ 3?<i •.~;•.`s z E<' HUNTINGTON CENTER TECHNICAL APPENDIX B SET-ASIDE FINANCIAL PLAN (See Housing Section) OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1995 - 2000 CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH OAKVIEW IMPLEMENTATION PLANS INTRODUCTION In October, 1993, the California State Legislature approved the Redevelopment Reform bill known as Assembly Bill 1290. This new law required Redevelopment Agency's to amend all existing plans to create uniform standards for the length of redevelopment plans and the time allowed to incur debt and to collect tax increment. It also required the preparation and adoption of "Implementation Plans" stating the goals, planned expenditures, housing activities and blight alleviation planned for the next five years. This is the implementation plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area and contains: ♦ Five year goals (prioritized), projects with costs and funding sources identified. ♦ Blight findings from the original Redevelopment Plan, past projects to eliminate blight, outstanding conditions of blight and a map of these conditions. ♦ Five year housing goals and annual production goals, estimate of units to be destroyed and identification of replacement sites. ♦ Five year strategy to alleviate blight. ♦ Appendices A & B identifying cash flow for redevelopment and housing programs. OAKVIEW 1. Goals and Objectives 1.1 Goals and Objectives per Redevelopment Plan (From Oakview Redevelopment Plan, July 1989, PP 81, 83-84) General Objectives of Redevelopment Plan "In creating the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach declared its desire to improve, upgrade, and revitalize all areas of the City and in particular those areas within the City which have become blighted because of deterioration, disuse and economic, physical and social maladjustments. As a part of the City's ongoing redevelopment efforts, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared this Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the objectives of this Redevelopment Project are as follows: ♦ Eliminating blighting influences, that persist in the Project Area, including deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, inadequate public improvements, obsolete structures, and other physical, economic and social deficiencies; improve the overall appearance of streets, parking areas and other facilities, public and private; and assure that all buildings are safe for persons to occupy. ♦ Encouraging existing owners, businesses and tenants within the Project Area to participate in redevelopment activities. ♦ 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. ♦ Mitigating development limitations which have resulted in the lack of proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social, and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. ♦ Providing adequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. ♦ Providing construction and employment opportunities in the development of these facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of the proposed commercial and recreational facilities. ♦ Implementing the construction or reconstruction of adequate streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, storm drains, and other improvements as necessary to assist development of the Project Area to conform to the General Plan as a master-planned development and to correct existing environmental deficiencies. ♦ Establishing development criteria and controls for the permitted uses within the Project Area in accordance with modern and competitive development practices, thus assuring the highest design standards and environmental quality. ♦ Expanding the commercial base of the community through the promotion of new and continuing private sector investment in the Project Area. ♦ Providing opportunities and mechanisms to increase sales taxes, business licenses, and other sources of revenue to the City. ♦ Providing opportunities to increase and improve the City's supply of housing on a Citywide basis, including housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. To attain the objectives of this Plan as set forth above, the Agency is authorized to use all of the powers provided in this Plan and all the powers now or hereafter permitted by law including the following implementation actions: ♦ Installation, construction, reconstruction, redesign, or reuse of streets, utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other public improvements. ♦ Acquisition of property by gift, purchase, lease, or condemnation as permitted by this Plan. ♦ Disposition of property by sale or lease at a value to be determined by the Agency for reuse in accordance with this Plan. ♦ Redevelopment of land by private enterprise or public agencies for uses in accordance with this Plan. ♦ Provide for relocation assistance and benefits to project area businesses and residents who may be displaced, in accordance with the provisions of the Redevelopment Law and the Government Code of the State of California. ♦ Rehabilitation, remodeling, reconstruction_, demolition, or removal of buildings, structures, and improvements. ♦ Financing of the construction of residential and commercial buildings and the permanent mortgage financing of residential and commercial buildings, as permitted by applicable State and local laws. ♦ Provide opportunities for owner participation and extend reasonable preferences to owners, operators of businesses, and tenants. ♦ Negotiate with taxing agencies to address any financial burdens or detriments caused to such entities as a result of adoption of this Plan. ♦ Such other action as may be permitted by law." 1.2 Five Year Target Goals and Objectives 1.2(a) Prioritization of Goals and Objectives Project Area Size: 68 Acres Adoption Date: November 1982 Amended: July 1989 Life of Plan: 35 Years Tax Increment Cap: $90 million PROJECT GOALS FOR 1995-2000 1. Continue the Housing Rehabilitation Program with a production goal of 20 units annually. 2. Continue the Housing Code Enforcement Program. 3. Review Oakview Neighborhood Plan and update recommendations as appropriate. 4. Continue Community Services Police Assistance for gang prevention. 5. Continue youth employment neighborhood cleanup program-Operation LOGOS 6. Complete construction of a branch library. 7. Complete storm drain improvements. 8. Complete improvements to streets, street lights, alleys and landscape. 1.2(b) Reasons for Inclusion These goals originated in the Agency's most recent Biennial Report published in December, 1993 and have been subjected to public review and approval by the Agency. Together they represent what can reasonably be accomplished within the period of this plan. 2. Projects and Expenditures 2.1 Conditions of Blight 2.1a Summary of Previous Blight Findings (from "Report to City Council", June 1989 PP. 91 13-159 173, 22, 259 28-319 37-389 429 44459 50-52) "Description of the physical,social and economic conditions in the project area: _A. Existing Physical Conditions The purpose of this section is to provide a description of the existing conditions within the proposed Project Area for Amendment No. One to the Oakview Redevelopment Project, which for the purpose of analysis in this document is referred to as the "Project Area." 1. Project Location The Project Area in its regional context is shown in Figure 1. Which entails the overall location and boundaries of the approximately 68 acre Project Area, is presented in Section 2.1(d). The legal description of the Project Area is provided in Appendix A (on file). 2. Land Uses and Acreages The breakdown of land uses within the Project Area by approximate acreage is shown in Table 1. Figure 3 illustrates the existing land uses throughout the project Area. Table 1 Land Uses in the Project Area Land Use Acres % of Project Area Single Family Residential 8.04 11.82% Multi-Family Residential 26.12 38.41% Commercial 10.47 15.40% Vacant 1.15 1.69% Streets, Alleys, and R-O-W 22.22 32.68% Total 68.00 100.00% Source: Urban Futures, Inc. 1988 The makeup of existing land uses within the Project Area clearly differentiates the northern and southern portions of the Project Area. The northern portion is characterized by a mixture of older single family houses, sometimes more than one on the same lot, and newly constructed multi-family structures. Many of these older single family houses are in need of substantial rehabilitation and do not have adequate front yard setbacks. The northeast corner of the Project Area contains the Charter Center, a 400,000 square foot commercial retail and office complex. The southern portion of the project area primarily consists of multi-family 4 plex structures, most of which are in need of some rehabilitation. 3. Buildings and Structures a. Deficiencies, Deterioration and Dilapidation One of the causal factors evidencing the presence of structural blight within the Project Area is the existence of deficient buildings. A windshield survey was conducted in December 1988 by Urban Futures staff to determine the condition of structures in the Project Area. Structures within the Project Area were rated separately according to a predetermined scale based upon criteria of structural integrity and level of maintenance. Only primary structures capable of containing a major land use activity were evaluated. Due to the nature of the survey, the ratings were derived from a visual evaluation and do not represent a detailed building by building structural analysis. Each structure received one of four possible ratings. A structure was rated sound if it appeared well maintained and no physically blighting characteristics were evident. Structures displaying some degree of physical decline were rated either deficient, deteriorated, or dilapidated, depending upon the severity of the degeneration. The following is the general guideline for these ratings, which are derived from nationally accepted rating standards. Sound The structure is no more than 25 years old and has no noticeable deficiencies in the structural condition of roof, walls, or foundation. It appears to have adequate plumbing and electrical service and is subject to a regular program of maintenance. Exterior walls and other surfaces are well painted and clean, and windows and doors are intact. WARNER AVE w. FIR D J 1 1?? ........... ................................. T A R AVE i13i1•£^:!i£11�l3:i 31iii3 N BELSIT D t�Js i33i N W =M. ...... ............ � f' iir3i iiia 3 ii31••••:�•: W I _ 3,i31 3 I•i'i3i?E?3i j•I; :tsla: CYPRESS AVE CYPRESS ..s:. �iij?I!•.iC:143i1i!I! W Y � . Q O MANDIR DR KRISTIN CR. d J J S U wBARTON D R. J 0 O — Z U J Z J J NAGON OR Z — 3 J Z w W N Z O ? W i p 7 o Y SLATER AVE J AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Existing Land Uses Map Project Area Boundaries N 1 Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential SCALE Commercial 0 200 4003eet 0 Vacant FIGURE 3