HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEMONSTRATION BLOCK (Main/Olive/5th/Walnut) Facade Gra •
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
• COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA 89-88
HUNTINCTON BEACH '
To . From �` n
Honorable Mayor and Paul E. Cooke
City Council Members City Administrator
Subject. Date
2nd Block Facade August 23, 1989
Rehabilitation/New
Construction Grant Program
At your meeting of August 7, 1989, you requested that staff provide a status report on the
2nd Block Facade Rehabilitation/New Construction Grant Program that was previously
approved at your meeting of December 19, 1988,-(Attachment 1).
For your information and review, I have attached a list of (1) all'properties located within
the 2nd block, (2) a brief narrative of the present status of each, and (3) a site plan
(Attachment 2) of the entire 2nd block.
In summary, the Facade Grant Program offers property owners in this "demonstration
block" a facade grant calculated on a per linear foot basis (see Attachment 3) which they
may apply to either the rehabilitation of their existing building or to the cost of
constructing a new building.
As an incentive for participating in the program; all parking requirements will be
considered met for all existing and new uses, provided the square footage which currently
exists is not exceeded. Any additional building area created through rehabilitation or
through new construction will be require to meet current parking requirements onsite or
pay in-lieu parking fees. The in-lieu parking fee is $12,000 per space. However, for the
duration of this program (December 31, 1989), this fee will be reduced to $6,000 -
amortized over a five-year period of 8% interest.
Also included within the 2nd block "demonstration project" is a combination of alley
improvements and the construction of two pedestrian pass thrus, one on both Main and 5th
Streets (Site Plan Attachment 4).
The purpose of this pedestrian pass thru layout is to provide a meeting and sitting area for
residents and retail patrons, as well as to to create a flow of pedestrian movement from
Main Street over to the retailers on 5th Street and vice versa.
The alley improvements consist of the'undergrounding of all utilities and the resurfacing
of the alley with a light broom finish concrete with smooth finish band. The pass thrus
consist of a water feature, sitting benches, canopy trees, palm groupings in raised
planters, accent trees, bollards, lighting, and concrete pavers.
Purkiss Rose landscape architects designed the above described improvements. The
various utility.companies have completed their undergrounding plans. Purkiss Rose is
currently incorporating both into working drawings. Construction is anticipated to begin
in January of 1990, and completion is anticipated in May of 1990.
ii �fi- C O U N C� T I ON ATTACHMENT 1
t
4• � ) RH 88-84
G C���CIT Date December 19, 1988
Submitted to: 7� Y CLERK
Honorable ayo and City Council Members
Submitted by:
Paul Cook, City Administrator
Prepared by.: 10
Douglas La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Developme t
Subject:
4t
FACADE GRANT PROGRAM FOR MAIN—PIER PROJECT AREA
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: !
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At its joint study session with the Planning Commission on January 25, 1988, the City
Council directed staff to prepare a recommended program of financial incentives for
owners of buildings subject to the seismic safety ordinance. On February 16, 1988, a
seismic and facade improvement loan program for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project
Area was submitted for Council review. This report recommends modifications to the
February 16, -1988, proposal with respect to this program.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Authorize staff to implement a facade improvement program within the Main-Pier
Project Area on a "demonstration block" bounded by Main & Sth Streets, Olive and
Walnut Avenues.
2) Approve facade rehabilitation grants for eligible property owners in amounts not to
exceed:
a) $15,625 ($625/linear front foot) for 25' single-story structures
b) $31,250 ($625/linear, front foot) for 50' single-story structures
c) $21,875 ($875/linear front foot) for 25' two-story structures
d) $43,750 ($875/linear front foot) for 50' two-story structures
e) Grants for exposed side and rear facades will not exceed $200/linear foot; must be
applied to side and rear improvements
f) $50,000 for corner property at Walnut and Main ($625/linear foot for side and front
facade; $200/linear foot for rear facade)
3) Approve a budget not to exceed $800,000 for the facade improvement grant pr&0rarg1.
m z
n -{
4) Approve change in the funding source for this project from the current CDBG —
residential rehabilitation program (previously approved funding source). Instearfu=dn-
this project from funds been paid to the Agency by Mola Corporation for land r ) ,, C,T
acquisition for the Town Square project.
o
—v
T
Cry T
Don FlRG
5) Authorize financial assistance in amounts equal to the facade grant program for those
property owners who prefer to construct new improvements rather than rehabilitate
their property.
6) Apply current parking requirements only to the extent that rehabilitation or new
construction results in increased square footage above that which currently exists
within each building on the demonstration block.
7) Authorize a 50% reduction of in—lieu parking fees to be assessed for required parking.
Fees to be amortized over a five—year period at an interest rate of 8%.
ANALYSIS:
Initially, staff recommended that the Federal Government Section 312 loan program be
utilized to assist property owners in financing their seismic improvements on this block.
This program was to be coupled with a facade grant program using Community
Development Block Grant funds.
In developing implementation procedures for this program, it became apparent that the .
complex Section 312 loan program requirements would be difficult to administer for this
project. Further, the use of Community Development Block Grant funds (which require
that Davis—Bacon prevailing wages be verified for each construction project) also would
present administrative problems and additional costs that could limit the success of the
program.
The current proposal will provide a facade improvement grant to participating property
owners subject to their compliance with seismic and building code requirements,
downtown design guidelines, and maintenance requirements. Grant funds will be disbursed
as improvements are completed in accordance with an Owner Participation Agreement to
be entered into between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and
the participating property owners.
Public improvements are recommended to support the demonstration block facade
improvement plan including undergrounding of utilities, repaving and lighting in the alley,
and new sidewalk treatments.
During the preparation of this program, a number of property owners on the Main Street
edge of the demonstration block requested consideration of plans to construct new
improvements on the site. It is recommended that financial assistance, at the same level
proposed for facade improvements, be provided to property owners who wish to construct
new buildings on the Main Street edge of the demonstration block. New construction will,
of course, be required to follow downtown design guidelines and meet all building code
requirements.
As an additional inducement to the property owners to participate in this program, it is
recommended that parking requirements be deemed met for all existing uses and for all
new uses, providing that the square footage which currently exists is not exceeded. Any
additional building area created through rehabilitation or through new construction will be
required to meet current parking requirements onsite or pay in—lieu of parking fees. The
in—lieu of parking fee has been established at $12,000 per space to be adjusted annually at
the rate of construction cost increases determined by the Engineering News Records.
However, to provide an additional incentive for property owners within this demonstration
block to rehabilitate or reconstruct their buildings, we are recommending that the in—lieu
of parking fee be reduced by fifty percent amortized over a five—year period at an
interest cost of eight percent.
It is recommended that the grant program and parking incentives be made available to
property owners within the demonstration block for a one-year period.
Facade Improvement Grant Programs have been an effective stimulus for downtown
redevelopment in many other cities including Costa Mesa, Fullerton, and Santa Ana.
However, the success of this program will depend totally on the degree of participation by
the property owners. In the opinion of staff, the incentives proposed herein will generate
a high-level of participation.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Payment to Agency from Mola Corporation for land acquired for Town Square project
(estimated 1988/89 revenue: $1,000,000).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1) Provide no assistance for facade rehabilitation or new construction. This approach
would allow for continued deterioration of the properties within the demonstration
block.
2) Make funds available on a loan basis instead of in-lieu of a grant or make loans and/or
grants available in amounts less than recommended. This approach would limit the
level of property owner participation and make the project more difficult to
administer.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Proposed Project Budget.
PEC/DLB/lp
4272h
COST ESTIMATES FOR SECOND BLOCK REHAB
One Story $ 625 LF $15,625 = 25' lot
$31,250 = 50' lot
Two Story $ 875 LF $21,875 = 25' lot
$43,750 = 50' lot
Rear be Side Exposed Facades $ 200 LF Must be applied to
rear & side rehab work
Single Story Front 300' @ $ 625 $187,500
Two Story Front 215- @ $ 875 $188,125
Exposed Rear & Side 1,128' @ $ 200 $225,600
Corner Lot 80' @ $ 625 $ 50,000
1,723' $651,225
Shank House Two Story 192' x $875 $168,000
$8199225
Program Design/Administration Cost $30,775
850 000
KBB:jr
3824r
t 'Page 9 - Council /AS Vnutes - 12/19/88 ~�•
(City Council ) PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPOINTMENT -
APPROVED - MICHAEL K. TIERNEY
The City Clerk presented a communication from the Finance Director trans-
mitting the recommendation of the Public Facilities Corporation that the City
Council ratify the appointment by the Public Facilities Corporation of Michael
K. Tierney to the Public Facilities Corporation Board of Directors filling a
vacant directorship for a term expiring July 24, 1991 .
A resume dated September 7, 1988 from Michael Tierney had been submitted to
Council in the City Administrator' s December 16, 1988 (City Administrator
Communication) .
Following discussion , a motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Silva, to
approve the appointment of Michael K. Tierney to the Public Facilities Corpor-
ation Board of Directors . The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays , Silva, Erskine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
FACADE GRANT PROGRAM FOR MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA - APPROVED - APPLY CURRENT
PARKING REQUIREMENTS - APPROVED - 50% REDUCTION OF IN-LIEU PARKING FEES TO BE
ASSESSED FOR REQUIRED PARKING - APPROVED - (#8)
The City Clerk presented a communication from the Deputy City Administrator/
Economic Development regarding a Facade Grant Program for the Main-Pier
Redevelopment Project Area.
The Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development requested that the Health
and Safety Code 33433 Report, and all related documents , be made a part of the
record.
Marilyn Whisenand, Redevelopment Specialist Consultant, presented a report.
A Request for City Council Action dated December 19, 1988 submitted by Paul
Cook, City Administrator, had been submitted to Council in' the City Admin-
istrator' s December 16, 1988 RCA.
A motion was made by Erskine, seconded by Bannister, to take the following
actions :
(1 ) Authorize staff to implement a facade improvement program within the
Main-Pier Project Area on a "demonstration block" bounded by Main & 5th
Streets , Olive and Walnut Avenues .
(2) Approve facade rehabilitation grants for eligible property owners in
amounts not to exceed:
a) $15,625 ($625/linear front foot) for 25' single-story structures
b) $31 ,250 ($625/linear front foot) for 50' single-story structures
c) $21 ,875 ($875/linear front foot) +for 25' two-story structures
d) $43,750 ($875/linear front foot) for 50' two-story structures
FIFTH STREET
THE BNED ..._ TERRYI AUTO BODY BURR17 BURRIB
B TALOR
f- i 708 1lTN 71 [ YfTN
SHANK HOUSE [
i•�e•li lr�:•�
"a FrTN ' w 7•sTOLl
I I\ '
TRUCT 1
I� 1 � vR•wG
1 _
1
l
Y]JOTTTB
. WALNUT
Aj
O•r0 r•Iq -L
Z O XNp r•lq ' W
ui I _ >
fUNr YUSf YY 'j Q
•17 OLIY[
r'DI D�C•Iw.
'uwu7.oL• Ir Wlticaa+ '— _.. _.._.._j;:: 'I T .I -. ... _. .. ..
I •' .•. ':AEINAw µUI•.... cM twat _. ........ ��. _� _... •wool nII ...c l.•.1�. !:
• :: •: it O[pc.IQ 1
, o
Ir Dtoauq. I -�
Z I r•RAIXO _
Ll - [.1[
NEw t tl OX. I •
SIRUC IUXt
.b
I'- l �/
i.7i ILMY—� CAYERLY KER a NARI.OW C000ER WUR7�—�- IANGEYW TRAINER IJ� ��1,'1(•� ��I,
iBl YAW J07 YAW 70t YAW 707 YAW 70t YAW 711 YAW 717 YYAW 71t YAIN 717 YAW __1 ,�� -� X
- rr11 771 YAIN 777 Y•I .I•..•I,.•L•T I 3
LIGM
• � cv.cn n..n•.
�I�'� ..•......
M A 1 N STREET ;,,,,_�,,,�„�„
' uN0[lu•XOLINO t ttS 11NG v 1 nll NS ���
- ', � • ATTACHMENT 3
SECOND BLOCK FACADE GRANT PROGRAM
Allocations
$625 per linear foot for single story frontage f - frontage
$875 per linear foot for two story frontage s - side (exposed)
$200 per linear foot for side and rear exposure b - back
(Design cost to be subtracted from allocation)
213 Main Street (Cooper)
201 & 203 Main Street (Caverly)
f 25' x$625 15,625
f 50' x $625 $31,250 b 25' x 200 5,000
s* 80' x 625 50,000
s 38' x 200 7,600 ($2,250) 20,625
s 50' x 200 10,000
b 50' x 200 10,000
Design Cost: ($9,800) 108,850
* $625 per linear foot because of location
and architectural features
215 Main Street (Wurzl)
205 Main Street (Decker)
f 25' x $ 875 $21,875
f 25' x $625 15,625 s 25' x 200 5,000
b 25' x 200 5,000 s 27' x 200 5,400
b 25' x 200 5,000
($2,250) 20,625
($1,800) 37,275
207 Main Street (Hatch)
217 Main Street (Lan evin)
f 25' x $875 21,875
s 50' x 200 10,000 f 25' x $625 15,625
s 14' x 200 2,800 s 44' x 200 8,800
b 25' x 200 5,000 b 25' x 200 5,000
($4,500) 39,675 ($2,250) 29,425
209 Main Street (Hatch) 221 Main Street (Mulligan/Trainer)
f 2S' x $625 15,625 f 25' x $875 21,875
s 35' x 200 7,000 s 100' x 200 20,000
b 25' x 200 5,000 b 25' x 200 5,000
($4,500) 27,625 46,875
211 Main Street (Harlow)
f 25 x $625 15,625
s 37' x 200 7,400
s 60' x 200 12,000
b 25' x 200 5,000
40,025
223 Main Street (Mulligan/Trainer) 412 Walnut Avenue (Lindbora)
f 25' x $ 875 21,875 f 40' x $875 35,000
s 22' x 200 4,400 s 50' x 200 10,000
b 25' x 200 5,000 s 50' x 200 10,000
b 38' x 200 7.600
($4,900) 31,275
($4,500) 62,600
208 5th Street (Gallegos)
202 5th Street (Shank/HB's)
f 25' x $625 15,625
f 25' x 875 21,875 f 44' x $875 38,500
s 100' x 200 20,000 s 151' x 200 30.200
s 80' x 200 16,000
s 20' x 200 4,000 68,700
b 50' x 200 10.000
($4,302.60) 87,500
218 & 220 5th Street (Burris)
f 50' x $625 31,250
s 30' x 200 6,000
b 50' x 200 10.000
($4,500) 47,250
222 5th Street (Taylor)
f 50' x $875 43,750
s 50' x 200 10,000
s 61' x 200 12,200
b 50' x 200 10.000
75,950
* Not previously budgeted for
4400r
WIT SIMEl
W ..u,T w uu i Wi i T I l fJ�
u3
HT,nu In11PT(
L.
AIM
:
O[NC••[9•
[ES
.• '•.i� rye .. .:
SROOLI"'S'CONCREIC ,I r . •�; ~\:: "
W1 7YOOTn iwiSn DAND w�'�1'�'�,'!��'1''::..,;�✓' :. :.. :'. ..'..-
i
-I
� 3
��f •S•,L ,T�r.•r L*:'r:�4. :r:•::fir! •.-+, ;.yy,:.•ryt+a T, ... _.tr p—.g. Lt.''
�t{o:,• �:�f' ::r' x.. .lnl`•11.?fJC..':yi'N E•J"!'T.T:3;,:'`...['woCto'riutr[�irwiE30
••.�f ,•p:.._y�„•�; "rv`:••I•••,.I .I "'•.. ' 'R1 ORouwNON•----f
• SIT RAL7ED PLANTER
q
RAW-ALL D[TARS A E AMENITIESY,. I.• �r.•i AS PER CITY STANDARD.
3 CANOPY TREE w TREEWELL•-- )�
}l:: •' }A WATER IEATWE
f r
i
STREET :`
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1,6' 1 0'
REQUAT FOR CITY COON& ACTIO
RH 88-07
Date February 16, 1988
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by:
Paul E. Cook, City Administrato (
Prepared by: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Community Developme
Subject: SEISMIC AND FACADE IMPROVEMENT LOAN PROGR PROVE�P 1W CITY CC)UNCIL
MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA
/� 19
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes f)Q New Policy or Exception '
_ CIT L
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At its joint study session with the Planning Commission on January 25, 1988, the City
Council directed staff to prepare a recommended program of financial incentives for
owners of buildings subject to the Seismic Safety Ordinance. Presented herewith is
such a program for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Authorize staff to commence participation in the federal 312 Loan Program and to
assist property owners in the preparation of construction cost estimates,
appraisals, and loan application documents for improvements required by the
Seismic Ordinance.
2. Authorize staff to secure facade easements from property owners in exchange for
a facade improvement grant not-to-exceed $15,625 for 25 foot lots and $31,250 for
50 foot lots (except corner lots) with a priority for participation for owners of
properties in the block bounded by Main, Ol' e, Fifth, and Walnut.
3. Reprogram $450,000 from the current CD G residential rehabilitation program and
$400,000 from the "Relocation" account of the CDBG Program to use in the facade
grant program. 1.
4. Require as a condition of participation in the facade grant program that property
owners cooperate in the formation of a uniform facade treatment consistent with
the Downtown Design Guidelines and/or the Historic Rehabilitation Guidelines
published by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as
appropriate for each property.
PI O 5/85
t.
RH 88-07
February 16, 1988
Page Two
ANALYSIS:
The federal government offers the 312 Loan Program for commercial properties. The
interest rate is tied to the treasury rate (9 percent) and the maximum term is 20 years
or three-quarters of the remaining useful life of the property. The maximum loan for
commercial properties is $100,000. It is recommended that seismic improvements be
funded through this program since the interest rate is competitive and it will not
require the use of any City or Redevelopment Agency funds. It will require incurring
administrative expenses in the use of Agency staff to coordinate the loan application
process and the use of an escrow company to pre-screen the applications prior to
submission to HUD. (The participants necessary to package a 312 Loan, the time
required for loan approval, and an outline of the 312 Loan criteria are attached).
It is recommended that the City procure a "Facade Easement" from each property
owner as a condition of participation in the Facade Grant Program. This mechanism
will provide the City architectural control of any future exterior alterations thus
assuring that facades remain consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines or
Historic Rehabilitation Standards. This will not be an expense to owners.
To achieve the full impact of a facade improvement program, it is essential to secure
full participation of property owners. Research on the successful commercial
rehabilitation programs of-other cities indicates that a grant is the only manner to
assure full participation.
Similarly, the not-to-exceed amount of the grants is based on research with architects
experienced in commercial rehabilitation and is based on a cost of $625 per linear foot
of facade.
The priority for the second block was based on the condition of buildings in the area and
is intended as a demonstration area. This is only a priority for processing and does not
prohibit owners in other blocks from participation at a later time.
The Facade Grant Program is an eligible activity in the Community Development Block
Grant Program. Since the timing of this program prohibits its inclusion in the 1988-89
fiscal year budget, it is necessary to reprogram currently budgeted funds. The accounts
identified are the only ones from which funds are available for reprogramming without
disrupting projects already in progress.
While variety in facades is to be encouraged, it is important that the characteristics
encouraged by the Downtown Design Guidelines be incorporated in new facades or,
where buildings have verifiable historic features, that facades be renovated consistent
with HUD's standards for Historic Rehabilitation. This approach will permit flexibility
by individual owners while maintaining a coordinated architectural theme.
RH 88-07
February 16, 1988
Page Three
It is important to note that, while staff believes that the seismic loans and facade
grants will make a marked improvement to the safety and appearance of the downtown
area, these sources alone may not be sufficient to rectify all code violations. For
example, new plumbing and mechanical systems may be required and could not be
funded through this proposed program. Likewise, any housing code or building code
violations that may exist, would not be cured by performing the seismic improvements
alone. Owners would have to use their own financial resources or private financing for
these improvements.
Also, the ability of owners to borrow money from HUD is clearly dependent upon the
current encumbrances on the property and their ability to repay. Because of the
confidential nature of each owner's financial situation, staff is unable to assess the
extent to which owners will quality for the 312 Loans.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Facade Grants:
1. CDBG Account 894856, Rehabilitation Loans: $450,000
2. CDBG Account 894842, Relocation Benefits: $400,000
$850,000
Seismic Loans:
The federal 312 Loan Program as the source of the principal amount of the loans and
the Redevelopment Agency administrative budget for the staff costs to assist property
owners in applying for the loans.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Make CDBG funds available on a loan, instead of grant, basis. This may limit the
amount of property owner participation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of Participants and Roles in processing 312 Loans.
2. Outline of the requirements of the 312 Loan Program.
PEC/DLB/SVK:sar
2469r
• •
SECTION 312 LOAN PROGRAM
The following is an approximate time-frame for the processing of a Section 312 HUD
Loan. The schedule is based on information provided by United States Escrow who has
experience in the administration of the Section 312 Loan Program. The actual time
required for processing the loan will vary due to reliance on mortgage holders returning
verification forms promptly, availability of appraisers and contractors, and the applicants
time required for completing the application forms.
Time requirements for Section 312 Loan processing:
1. Contact and interview with property owner, distribute
application form. 1 day
2. Receive application and complete checklist for application. 1 day
3. Transmit completed application to United States Escrow
(U.S.E.) for loan analysis. U.S.E. completes loan analysis
and application is packaged for City to transmit to HUD. 4 weeks
4. Obtain property appraisal and contractor proposal to
include in HUD submittal package. 2 weeks
5. Submit complete application package to HUD for loan
determination. HUD approves loan and authorizes the
City to execute loan documents. 2 weeks
6. Upon HUD loan approval, request U.S.E. to prepare loan
documents. 1 week
7. Execution of loan documents and required 3 day recision
period. I week
8. Loan funds available for payment as requested by the City. 4 days
* Total time required from intake to fund disbursement 10 weeks, 6 days
2470r
SECTION 312 REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM
GENERAL TERMS
A. Maximum Loan Term
Cannot exceed ( 20 ) years or 3/4 of the remaining useful
life of property, whichever is less.
B. Interest Rate
1 . Owner-occupant of one-to-four unit property whose
income does not exceed 80% of area median income,
adjusted for family size, the interest rate is 3%
(extraordinary medical expenses may be backed-out of
income to qualify for 3% loan.
2 . Cooperatives where all units are occupied by members
and where 80% of residents have a family income
below 80% of the median are eligible for a 3% loan.
3 . All other borrowers- -- interest rate is based on the
yield of government securities for the term most
comparable to the 312 loan term.
C. Fees and Charges
1 . Application fee of $200 for single-family properties
(both for owner-occupant and investor-owner) .
2 . Application fee of $300 for other kinds of loans .
D. Risk Premium
All 312 loan borrowers must pay a one percent per annum
risk premium.
E. Maximum Loan Amount
1 . On single or multi-family property loan amount
cannot exceed;
a. $33 , 500 per dwelling unit, or
`- $25, 000 _`'per dwe11ing .unit: in ..:congregater.Z,
housing, or
C . $15, 000 per dwelling unit in single-room
occupancy, or
( 1 ) for 3% loans , the discounted value of
the 312 loan, plus full value of all
other senior debt cannot exceed 80% of
the after rehab value.
( 2) for treasury rate loans, the full
value of the 312 loan plus full value
of all senior debt cannot exceed 90%
of the after rehab value.
2 . Non-residential loan limit cannot exceed the limit
of;
a . $100, 000 , or
b. total cost of rehab eligible under Section
312 regulations, or
C. the full value of the 312 loan plus full
value of all senior debt cannot exceed 90%
of the after rehab value.
3 . Minimum monthly payment
At least $20 per month.
4 . Maximum Dwelling units per loan
99 residential dwelling units.
5 . Lien priority
312 loan should be as senior as possible;
always superior to CDBG loan.
6 . Prohibition of combining Section 312 loan funds
with Rental Rehab Program funds.
SECTION 312 REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM
ELIGIBLE COSTS
A. Items which must be included
1 . Accrued interest on Section 312 loan during
construction period
2 . Real Estate Taxes and Hazard Flood Insurance
3 . Liability and Worker' s Compensation Insurance for
borrowers acting as their own general contractor
4. Section 312 Application Fee ,
a. $200 for 1 to. 4 unit residential proper-
ties
b. $300 for all other borrowers
B. Items which must be included in 312-assisted projects
and may be included in 312 loans
1 . Local rehab standards
2 . Cost effective energy standards
3. Historic preservation .standards
4 . Others
,�dNA0K/Y1
a. co-n- to environmental requirements
b. flood proofing
C. remedying identified lead-based paint haz-
ard
d. accessibility to the physically handi-
capped (for non-residential only)
e. termite inspection and repairs from ter-
mite infestation
C. Items which may be included
1 . Removing incipient deficiencies (correct or remove
problems which would reasonably be expected to
deteriorate into deficiencies within two [ 21 years)
2 . General property improvements which are reasonable
and customary for the area and are not considered
luxurious
3 . Encourage quality repair
NOTE: General property improvements cannot
exceed 40% of the 312 loan
4 . Land acquisition -- only if required to bring the
property into conformance with local code require-
ments for minimum lot size and dimension
5 . Professional services -- architectural , engineering,
and related services
6 . Processing and settlement costs
a. building permits and fees
b. origination fees
C. credit report
d. fees for acceptable title evidence,
corrective title work, legal fees
e. fees for recording legal documents
f. appraisal fees
g . fees for .independent rehab cost estimate
7 . Contingency reserve of 10% ( self-help is 15%)
D. Items not to be included in 312 loans
1 . Cost of staffing or administering the loan
2 . work equivalent to new construction or. reco.nstruc-
tion
3 . Developers fees and marketing costs
4 . Luxury items
5 . Personal property or furnishings
6. Payment of delinquent taxes or assessments
7 . Borrower' s labor
E. Refinancing allowed on one to four owner-occupant
properties . May not exceed 50% of the total loan.
BEQUEST FOR DEVE __ MENT AC#NCY ACTION )
0 20
RH 89-106
Date December 4, 1989
Submitted to: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS
Submitted by: PAUL E. COOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECT I� APPgpVED BY CITY COUNCIL
Prepared. by: PAUL E. COOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR \ MCA
19-0
Subject: FACADE GRANT PROGRAM FOR MAIN-PIER PROJECT EA
CITY CLERK
Consistent with Council Policy? [X) Yes [ ). New Policy or Exce ti n
Statement of Issue; Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
-r
On February 16, 1989 a Facade Improvement .Grant Program was approved
for the buildings located within the block bounded by Main and Fifth
Streets, Walnut and Olive Avenues (Demonstration Block) . This program
was modified by your action of December 19, 1988 to include financial
assistance in amounts equal to the Facade Grant Program for those
property owners who prefer to construct new improvements rather than
rehabilitate their properties. These program modifications and other
incentives were to be made available for a one-year period, in that
the owners would need to have Owner Participation Agreements executed
and construction begun within that time period.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to extend the original program deadline of
December 31, 1989 to March 31, 1990.
ANALYSIS:
During this last year, Redevelopment staff has communicated with
property owners who are eligible for the Facade Grant Program bounded
by Main and Fifth Streets, Olive and Walnut Avenues.
The property owners have been notified and all financial incentives of
the program offered to them. Further, our consultants have met with
them individually to discuss their concerns and the possibility of
participation. On November 20, 1989, the Agency by minute action
voted to extend the deadline for interest form submittals to
December 15, 1989.
At this time, staff would request a 90-day extension to the program's
deadline of December 31, 1989 to. March 31, 1990. This additional time
will allow us to continue negotiations with remaining property owners,
and process Owner Participation Agreements.
P10/1i85 - -
RH 89-106
December 4, 1989
Page 2
FUNDING SOURCE:
Previously encumbered funds from Redevelopment Account No.
E-TM-ED-902-6-31-00.
I
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not approve a 90-day extension to Facade Grant Program deadline,
and allow only the property owners who previously responded an
opportunity to participate.
ATTACMENTS:
1 ) RCA dated February 16, 1988
2) RCA dated December 19, 1988.
3) Sample letters to Property Owners dated November 13, 1989 and
November 21, 1989.
PEC/LP:kjl
REQUEA FOR CITY COUNCp ACTION
RH 88-07
Date February 16, 1.988
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administratorc� '�—
Prepared by: DoOglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Community Developme
SEISMIC AND FACADE IMPROVEMENT LOAN PR
Subject: YED gy CITY
MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA NS GoUNCIL '
- - -19YL
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes bQ New Policy or E. eeption C
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attac men . I`'*-7^
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At its joint study session with the Planning Commission on January 25, 1.988, the City
Council directed- staff to prepare .a recommended program of financial incentives for
s . owners of buildings subject to the Seismic Safety Ordinance. • Presented herewith is
such a program for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
(. 1. Authorize staf f to commence participation in the federal 312- Loan Program and to
assist property owners in the preparation of 'construction cost .estimates,
appraisals, and loan application documents for improvements required . by the
Seismic Ordinance.
2. Authorize staff to secure facade easements from property owners in-exchange for
a facade improvement grant not-to-exceed $15,625 for 25 foot lots and $31,250 for
50 foot lots (except corner lots) with a priority for .participation for owners of
properties in the block bounded by Main, Olive, Fifth, and Walnut.
3. Reprogram $450,000 from the current CDBG residential. rehabilitation program and
$400,000 from the "Relocation" account of the CDBG Program to use in the facade
grant program.
4. Require as a condition of participation in the facade grant program that property
owners cooperate in the formation of a uniform facade treatment consistent with
the Downtown Design Guidelines and/or the Historic Rehabilitation Guidelines
published by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as
appropriate for each property.
� 1
.000
RH 88-07
February 16, 1988.
Page Two
ANALYSIS:'
The federal government offers the 312 Loan Program for commercial properties. The
interest rate is tied to the treasury rate (9 percent) and the maximum- term is 20 years
or three-quarters of the remaining useful life of the property. The maximum loan for
commercial properties is $100,000. It is recommended that seismic improvements be
funded through this program since the interest rate is competitive and it will not
require the use of any City,. or Redevelopment Agency funds. It will require incurring
administrative expenses in the use of Agency staff to coordinate the loan application
process and the use of an escrow company to pre-screen the applications prior to
submission to HUD. (The participants necessary to package a 312 Loan, the time .
required for loan approval, and an outline of the 312 Loan criteria are attached).
It is recommended that the City procure a ."Facade Easement" from each property
owner as a condition of participation in the Facade Grant Program. This mechanism
will provide the City architectural control of any future exterior alterations thus
assuring that facades remain consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines or
Historic Rehabilitation Standards. This will not be an expense to owners.
To achieve the full impact of a facade improvement program, it is essential to secure
full participation of. property . owners. Research on the successful commercial
rehabilitation programs of other cities indicates that a grant is. the. only manner to `• .
assure full participation.
Similarly, the not-to-exceed amount of the grants is based on research with architects
experienced in commercial rehabilitation and is based on a cost of $625 per linear.foot
of facade: E`
The priority for the second block was based on the condition of buildings in.the area and .
is.intended as a demonstration area. This is only a priority for processing and does not
prohibit owners in other blocks from participation at a later time.
The Facade Grant Program is an eligible activity in the Community.Development Block
Grant Program. Since the timing of this program prohibits its inclusion in the 1988-89
fiscal year budget, it is necessary to reprogram currently budgeted funds. The.accounts
identified are .the only ones from which funds are available for reprogramming without
disrupting projects already in progress.
While variety in facades is to be encouraged, it is important that the characteristics
encouraged by the Downtown Design Guidelines be incorporated in new facades or,
where buildings have verifiable historic features, that. facades be renovated consistent
with HUD's standards for Historic Rehabilitation. This approach will permit flexibility
by individual owners while maintaining a coordinated architectural theme.
R H 88-07
February 16, 1988
Page Three
It is important to. note that, while staff believes that the seismic loans and facade
grants will make a marked improvement`to the safety and appearance of the downtown
area, these sources alone may not be sufficient' to rectify all code violations. -For
example, new plumbing and mechanical systems may be required and could, not `be
funded through this proposed program. Likewise, any housing code or building code
violations that may exist, would not be cured by performing the seismic improvements
alone. Owners would have to use their own financial resources or private financing for
these improvements.
Also, the ability of owners to borrow money from HUD is clearly dependent upon the
current encumbrances on the property and their ability to repay. Because of the
confidential nature of each owner's financial situation, staff is unable to assess the
extent to which owners will quality for the 312 Loans.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Facade Grants:
1. CDBG Account 894856, Rehabilitation Loans: $450,000
2. CDBG Account 894842, Relocation Benefits: $400,000
$850,000
Seismic Loans:
The federal 312 Loan Program as the source of the principal amount of the .loans and
the Redevelopment Agency administrative budget for the staff costs to assist property
owners in .applying for the loans.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
:Make CDBG funds available on a loan, instead of grant, basis. This may limit the
arnount of property owner participation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of Participants and Roles in processing 312 Loans.
2. Outline of the requirements of the 312 Loan Program.
PEC/DLB/SVK:sar
2469r
_ 3 .
.I
SECTION 312 LOAN PROGRAM.
The following is an approximate time-frame for the processing of a Section 312 HUD
Loan. The schedule is based on information provided by United States Escrow who has
experience. in .the administration of the Section 312 Loan Program.:. The actual time
required for processing the loan will vary due to reliance on mortgage holders returning x
verification forms promptly, availability of appraisers and contractors, and the applicants
time required for completing the application forms.
Time requirements for Section 312 Loan processing:
r.
1. Contact and interview with property owner, distribute
application form. 1 day
2. Receive application and complete checklist for application. l day
3. Transmit completed application to United States Escrow
(U.S.E.) for loan analysis. U.S.E. completes loan analysis
and application is packaged for City to transmit to HUD. 4 weeks '
r�
.t,
4. Obtain property appraisal and contractor proposal to
include in HUD submittal package. 2 weeks
5.- Submit complete application package to HUD for loan.
determination. HUD approves loan and authorizes the tt
City to execute loan documents. 2 weeks -
6. Upon HUD loan approval, request U.S.E. to prepare loan
documents. l week
7. Ezecution.of loan documents and required 3 day recision
period, .1 week k
Z3
8. Loan funds available for payment as requested by the City. 4 days
* Total time required from intake to fund disbursement 10 weeks, 6 days t
7.•
2470r
J
;.i
si
x
:i
N
SECTION 312 REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM
GENERAL TERMS
A. Maximum Loan Term
Can"not exceed ( 20 ) years or 3/4 of the remaining useful
-life of property , whichever is less .
B. Interest Rate
1 . Owner-occupant of one-to-four unit property whose
income does not exceed 80% of area median income ,
adjusted_ for family size, the interest rate is 3%
(extraordinary medical expenses may be backed-out of
income to. qualify for .3% loan .
2 . . Cooperatives where all units are' -occupied by members
and where _80% of residents have a family income
below 80% of the. median are eligible for a 3% "loan .
3 . All other borrowers. -- interest rate is based on the
yield of government securities for the term- most
comparable to the 312 loan term.'
C . Fees and Charges
1 . Application ..fee of $200 for single-family properties
(both for owner-occupant and investor-owner.) .
2 . Application fee of $300 for other kinds' of loans .
D. Risk Premium
All 312 loan borrowers must pay a one percent per annum
risk premium..
E. Maximum Loan Amount
1 . On single or multi-family property loan amount
cannot exceed;
a . $33 , 500 per dwelling unit, or
b. .$25 , 000 per"'�dwel.Iing unit in congregate.
housing, or
C . $15 , 000 per dwelling unit in single-room
occupancy, or I
( 1 ). for 3% loans, the discounted value of
the 312 loan, plus full value of all
other senior debt cannot exceed 80% of
the after rehab value:
( 2) for treasury rate 'J oans , the full
value of the 312 loan=,plus full value
of all senior debt cannot exceed 90%
of the after rehab value.
2 . Non-residential loan limit cannot exceed the limit
of
a . $100 ,000 , or
b. total cost of rehab 'eligible. under Section
312 regulations, or
C . the . full value - of the 312 loan plus full
value of all senior -'debt cannot exceed 90%
of the after rehab value .
3 . Minimum monthly payment
At least $20 per month. -
4 . Maximum Dwelling units per loan:.
99 residential dwell"ing'--un-its . _
5 . Lien priority
312 loan should be as senior as possible;
always superior to CDBG loan.
6 . P.rohibition . of combining Section 312 loan funds
with Rental Rehab Program funds.
SECTION 312 REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM
ELIGIBLE COSTS
A. Items which must be included
1 . Accrued interest on. Section 312 loan during
construction period
2 . Real Estate Taxes and Hazard Flood Insurance
3 . Liability and Worker' s Compensation ' Insurance for
borrowers acting as their own general contractor
4 . Section 312 Application Fee ,
a . $200 for 1 to 4 unit residential proper-
ties
b. $300 for all other borrowers
B . Items which must be included in 312-assisted projects
and may be included in 312 loans
1 . Local rehab standards
2 . Cost effective energy standards
3 . Historic preservation standards
4 . Others
(�dui r811A')
a'. ca4L-i-� to environmental requirements
b. flood proofing
c . remedying identified lead-based paint haz-
ard
d . accessibility to the physically handi-
capped ( for non-residential only)
e. termite inspection and repairs from ter-
mite infestation
C. Items which may be included
1 . Removing incipient deficiencies (correct or -remove
problems which would reasonably be expected to
deteriorate into deficiencies within; two% [ 21, years )
2 . General property improvements which are reasonable
and customary for the area and are not, considered'
luxurious
3 . Encourage quality . repair
NOTE: General. property improvements cannot
exceed 40% of the 312 loan
4 . Land acquisition -- only if required to bring the
property into conformance with local code require-
ments for minimum lot size and dimension
5 . Professional services -- architec:tu.ral , engineering, x
and related services -
.a
6 . Processing and settlement .costs
a. building permits and fees
b. , origination fees ,
C . credit report
d. fees for acceptable title evidence, '
corrective , title work', legal fees.;.
e . fees for recording legal. documents
f. appraisal fees ,
'g . fees for i-ndependent rehab cost estimate
7 . Contingency reserve of 10% (self-help is 150 )
of
D. Items not to be included in 312 loans
1 . Cost of staffing or administering the loan
2 . work equivalent to new construction or reconstruc-
tion
3 . Developers fees and marketing costs
4 . Luxury items
5 .-1 Personal property or furnishings
6 . Payment of delinquent taxes or assessments
7 . Borrower ' s labor
E. Refinancing allowed on one to four owner-occupant
properties . May not exceed 50% of the total loan.
_45
M COUNQLCTION` - -- -
/ / c' 19 RH o8-84
77 Date December 19, 1989
Submitted to: CITY CLERK
Honorable ayo and City Council Members
Submitted by:
Paul Cook, City Administrator
Prepared by:
Douglas La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Developme t
Subject:
FACADE GRANT PROGRAM FOR MAIN—PIER PROJECT AREA
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes ( ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At its joint study session with the Planning Commission on January 25, 1988, the City
Council directed staff to prepare a recommended program of financial incentives for
owners of buildings subject to the seismic safety ordinance. On February 16, 1988, a
seismic and facade improvement loan program for the Main—Pier.Redevelopment Project.
Area was submitted for Council review. This report recommends.-modifications to the
February 16, 1988, proposal with respect to.this program.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Authorize staff to implement a facade improvement program within the Main—Pier
Project.Area on a "demonstration block" bounded by Main & Sth Streets,.Olive and
Walnut Avenues.
2) Approve facade rehabilitation grarits for eligible property owners in amounts not to
exceed:
a) $15,625.($625/linear front foot) for 2S' single—story structures
b) $31,250 ($625/linear front foot) for 50' single—story structures
c) $21,875 ($875/linear front foot) for 2S' two—story structures
d) $43,750 ($875/linear front foot) for 50' two—story structures
e) Grants for exposed side and rear facades will not exceed $200/linear foot; must be
applied to side and rear improvements
f) $50,000 for corner property at Walnut and Main ($625/11near foot for side and front
facade; $200/linear foot for rear facade)
3) Approve a budget:not to exceed $800,000 for the facade improvement grant pr araip.
rn Z
4) Approve change in the funding source for this project from the current CDBG —
residential rehabilitation program (previously approved funding source). Instead,,fun>inrn
this project from funds been paid to the Agency by Mola Corporation for land N m
acquisition for the Town Square project. o
o
-•o
v
nin clot
S) Authorize financial assistance in amounts equal to the facade grant program for those
property owners who prefer to construct new improvements rather than rehabilitate
their property.
6) Apply current parking requirements only to the extent .that rehabilitation or new
construction results in increased square footage above that which currently exists
within each building on the demonstration block.
7) Authorize a SO% reduction of in-lieu parking fees to be assessed for required parking.
Fees to be amortized over a five-year period at an interest rate of 8%.
ANALYSIS:
Initially, staff recommended that the Federal Government Section 312 loan program be
utilized to assist property owners in financing their seismic improvements on this block.
This program was to be coupled with a facade grant program using Community
Development Block Grant funds.
In developing implementation procedures for this program, it became apparent that the
complex Section 312 loan program requirements would be difficult to administer for this
project. Further, the use of Community Development Block Grant funds (which require
that Davis-Bacon prevailing wages be verified for each construction project) also would
.present administrative problems and additional costs that could-.limit the success of the
program.
The current proposal will.provide-a facade improvement grant.to.participating property
owners subject to their compliance with seismic and building code requirements,
downtown design guidelines, and maintenance requirements. Grant funds will be•disbursed
as improvements are.completed in accordance with an Owner Participation Agreement to
be entered into between the Redevelopment Agency of•the City of.Huntington Beach.and
the participating property owners.
f
Public improvements are recommended to support the demonstration block facade
improvement plan including undergrounding of utilities, repaving and lighting in the alley,
and new sidewalk treatments.
During the preparation of this program, a number of property owners on the Main Street
edge of the demonstration block requested consideration of plans to construct new
improvements on the site. It is recommended that financial assistance, at the same level
proposed for facade improvements, be provided to property owners who wish to construct
new buildings on the Main Street edge of the demonstration block. New construction will,
of course, be required to follow downtown design guidelines and meet all building code
requirements.
As an additional inducement to the property owners to participate in this program, it is
recommended that parking requirements be deemed met for all existing uses and for all
new uses, providing that the square footage which currently exists is not exceeded. Any
additional building area created through rehabilitation or through new construction will be
required to meet current parking requirements onsite or pay in-lieu of parking fees. The
in-lieu of parking fee has been established at $12,000 per space to be adjusted annually at
the rate of construction cost increases determined by the Engineering News Records.
However, to provide an additional incentive for property owners within this demonstration
block to rehabilitate or reconstruct their buildings, we are recommending that the in-lieu
of parking fee be reduced by fifty percent amortized over a five-year period at an
interest cost of eight percent. V
It is recommended that the grant program and parking incentives be made available to
property owners within the demonstration block for a one-year period.
Facade Improvement Grant Programs have been an effective stimulus for downtown
redevelopment in many other cities including Costa Mesa, Fullerton, and Santa Ana.
However, the success of this program will depend totally on the degree of participation by
the property owners. In the opinion of staff, the incentives proposed herein will generate
a high-level of participation.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Payment to Agency from Mola Corporation for land acquired for Town Square project
(estimated 1988/89 revenue: $1,000,000).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1) Provide no assistance for facade rehabilitation or new construction. This approach
would allow for continued deterioration of the properties within the demonstration
block.
2) Make funds available on a loan basis instead of in-lieu of a grant or make loans and/or
grants available in amounts less than recommended. This approach would limit the
level of property owner participation and make the project more difficult to
administer.
:ATTACHMENTS:
1) Proposed Project Budget.
PEC/DLB/lp
4272h
COST ESTIMATES FOR SECOND BLOCK REHAB
One Story $ 625 LF $15,625 = 25' lot
$31,250 = 50' lot
Two Story $ 875 LF $21,875 = 25' lot
$43,750 = 50' lot
Rear do Side Exposed Facades $ 200 LF Must be applied to
rear do side rehab work
Single Story Front 300' @ $ 625 $187,500.
Two Story Front 215' @ $ 875 $188,125
Exposed Rear be Side 1,128' @ $ 200 $225,600
Corner Lot ..80' @. $ 625 $ 501000
1,723' $651,225
Shank House Two Story 192' x $875 $168,000
$8191225 .
Program Design/Administration Cost $30,775
850 000
KBB:jr
3824r
-Page 9 - Council /Ag ..` ainutes - 12/19/88 ^
(City Council ) PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPOINTMENT
APPROVED = MICHAEL K: TIERNEY
The City Clerk presented a communication from the Finance Director trans-
mitting the . recommendation of the Public Facilities Corporation that the City
Council ratify the appointment by the Public Facilities Corporation of Michael
K. Tierney to the Public Facilities Corporation Board of Directors filling a
vacant directorship for a term expiring July 24, 1991 .
A resume dated September 7 , 1988 from Michael Tierney had been submitted to
Council in the City Administrator' s December 16, 1988 (City Administrator
Communication) .
Following discussion , a motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Silva, to
approve the appointment of Michael K. Tierney to the Public Facilities Corpor-
ation Board of Directors . The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: MacAllister, Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays , Silva, Erskine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
FACADE GRANT PROGRAM FOR MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA - APPROVED - APPLY CURRENT
PARKING REQUIREMENTS - APPROVED - 50% REDUCTION OF IN-LIEU PARKING FEES TO BE
ASSESSED FOR REQUIRED PARKING - APPROVED - (#8)
The City. Clerk presented a communication from the Deputy City Administrator/
Economic Development . regarding- .a. Facade Grant Program for the Main-Pier
-Redevelopment Project Area.
The .Deputy City .Administrator/Economic Development requested that the Health.
and. Safety Code .334:33 Report,. and all related documents , be made a part of the
record. -
Marilyn Whisenand, Redevelopment Specialist Consultant, presented a report.
.A Request for City Council Action dated December 19, 1988 submitted by Paul
Cook, City Administrator, had been submitted to Council in the City Admin-
istrator' s December 16 , 1988 RCA.
A motion was made by Erskine, seconded by Bannister, to take the following
actions :
(1 ) Authorize staff to implement a facade improvement program within the
Main-Pier Project Area on a "demonstration block" bounded by Main & 5th
Streets , Olive and Walnut Avenues .
(2) Approve facade rehabilitation grants for eligible property owners in
amounts not to exceed:
a) $15 , 625 ($625/linear front foot) for 25' single-story structures
b) $31 ,250 ($62511inear front foot) .,for 50' single-story structures
c) $21 ,875 ($875/linear front foot) for 25' two-story structures
d) $43,750 ($875/linear front foot) for 50' two-story structures
oil.a 111'_p 1
: .
Vie
H IFDI�nnuxc
BENCxE!•'
ji
BIIO)l IBRlM CONCRE I[WI 3WOIN y-c:.,.
1.': { y=11,.,�._..�s•�;": / rwsx BAND .<.'• •'w:.,-':':'Y '__'Y} '•'1-'� `._.--._ ..
{1a
; '••y � ii ;: I it I���. f�;. _ �
i G .rf-..\: �ili,..+•" -vl' �:Y:il. .:b:n✓' ':aj ..k;":a:;t.n .�.... ,•,-ir.•..�; :rf:.,
c 11�S::i .4frY. a;a• .�A i�:U::-.f;;,:\,'sy.l:.v:�'� 'rvoi c&.eniri"eviiE—�R;4 .. '�� . . ��'� ;
.-.F <�d: , `� I. ... 1 •'• ML4 WOUPCID M•-�r+A. �•_ . RAVED RLANIER .`\.... •..:...:..:
�� � •.�::.� -ALL DETABlIE lliE AMEMITiE! . -
f,• •:1 �r�'�� A7 PER CITY]iANDARD• >'!
BARPE:R RA4NG•_�-�
1 M.
awl
CANOPY TREE DI IPEEWEII
{.'+,••• '' ,' .:}A :'' W ERrEAIURE_ ••�I '
.4
Irk
•t E
-I• r
, IN STREET "
CITY OF HUNTINGTyyO--NN�BEACH _ va- 1-o•
_ 411 / ° �L`�L� U� �UL/U�V - ' C:) ` fir _ .t . . .. I,
City of Huritin to-n B-each ?'WA
215'/z MAIN STREET "CALIFORNIA'92648
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
November 13 , 1989 'K
r
Mr . Douglas M. Langevin
8196 Pawtucket Drive :.r;
Huntington Beach, CA` 92646 >,
SUBJECT: GRANT PROGRAM & PROPERTY AT 217 MAIN STREET
Dear Doug,
xy
The December 31 , 1989 deadline for property owners to participate
in the 2nd Block Facade Rehabilitation/New 'Construction Grant
.Program is quickly approaching ..
In order to take_:advantage. of. the financial: incentives- ..o.f_:fered asp a_
part- of this -program (i..e. facade grant_ and-, 5.0% reduction of the {
in--lieu.. parking � fees ) it- is - necessary that. the.:. enclosed' interest - 5d
form be .filed out and returned to, . mv,- office by- 5`: 00pm Monday
November -20 ,_ 1989 .
. .0
If,' no" r.eply-_ is .received by the time - _stated above it . will .. be.-
considered that you have- chosen' to not participate.
For ' those that may choose not .to participate and would. like to
explain why, please feel free to state your reasons .on the enclosed
interest form:
N.
If you have any questions please call myself or Pat Spencer at 969-
21.85 . I look forward to your reply.
=c
' i
Sincerely,
.r
Keith B. Bohr
Project Manager
KBB: kjl
Attachments
xc : Pat Spencer
Marilyn Whisenand
Mike Adams
Telephone (714) 969-2185
t
City of Huntington Beach
tT 1 , ,may p n
'aA y1.Lh .'S.'}l�ilirYAti4L'`Nl. d' -
I.CN C
215'/2 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
N BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
----- - -' HUNTINGTO _
OFFICE OF-THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
November 21., 1989
Mr. -Douglas M. Langevin
8196 Pawtucket Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Doug:
RE: Grant Paogram Letter Dated November 13, 1989
At the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of November 20 ,
1989, the Agency took action to extend the deadline for the grant
program from November 20 ,_ 1989, to .December 15 , 1989. I believe
this additional three weeks will help you decide whether to take
advantage of the financial incentives offered.
Again, it is necessary that--you complete the enclosed. interest
form and return it to my office. by no later that Friday, y
December 15, -1.989:
Staff would be happy. to -answer any . questions or concerns that you
might have. Keith Bohr, Project Manager, will return from
vacation on November 29 and Pat Spencer is available to assist
you during Keith' s absence.
Thank you for your continued cooperation. I look forward to
hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Cook
Executive Director
PEC:kjl
xc : Pat Spencer
Keith B. Bohr
Marilyn Whisenand
s
t Telephone"(714) 969-2185
' REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT = ENCY ACTION
"PROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
RH 90-20
19.20
ate April 16, 1990
C Y ERK
c
� 2
Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members ='
m ;
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Director�,"t- 11 �
_ .M<
Prepared by: Charles P. Spencer, Director of Housing & Redevelopme x o
Subject: FACADE GRANT PROGRAM . c.a
C= T
Consistent with Council Policy' [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On December 4, 1989, the Redevelopment Agency authorized staff to extend the
original 2nd Block Facade Grant Program from December 31, 1989 to March 31, .1990
(RAA attached). At least one property owner has expressed an interest in having
the deadline extended further.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Authorize staff to extend the 2nd Block Facade Grant/New Construction Grant
Program from March 31, 1990 to May 15, 1990.
2) Authorize staff to allow property owners to defer actual commencement of
construction until October 1, 1990.
ANALYSIS:
On December 19, 1988, the Agency adopted the existing Grant Program for the block
bounded by Main and Fifth Streets, Walnut and Olive Avenues (Demonstration Block -
RAA attached) .
Excluding the Redevelopment Agency, there are twelve (12) property owners in the
subject block. To date, staff and consultants have been working with nine (9)
property owners to facilitate their participation in the program. Of those, five
(5) have fully executed OPAs, and three (3) have executed OPAs which are scheduled
to be reviewed by the Agency on April 16 or May 7, 1990.
The remaining property owner currently has an 180-day Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement with the Agency to negotiate a business deal, which will culminate into
a Disposition and Development Agreement for the Agency's two parcels located at
214 Fifth Street. These two parcels are adjacent to the two parcels currently
owned by property owner, and with execution of a DDA, all four parcels will be
consolidated, resulting in one unified development fronting Fifth Street.
P10/1/85
r ,
For the Agency's reference, a site plan depicting property owner participation or
non participation, is attached.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Previously encumbered funds from Redevelopment Agency Account No.
E-TM-ED-902-6-31-00.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not approve a 45-day extension to the Facade Grant Program deadline, and allow only
the property owners who previously responded the opportunity to participate.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) RCA dated December 4, 1989.
2) RCA dated December 19, 1988.
3) Site Plan
MTU/KBB:lp
0270h
REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACC I ION
RH 89-106
Date December 4, 1989
Submitted to: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS
Submitted by: PAUL E. COOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTQ7n�
Prepared by: PAUL E. COOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Subject: FACADE GRANT PROGRAM FOR MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA
Consistent with Council Policy? [X) Yes [ I New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: , ^�
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On February 16 , 1989 a Facade Improvement Grant Program was approved
for the buildings located within the block bounded by Main and .Fifth
Streets , Walnut and Olive Avenues (Demonstration Block) . This program
was modified by your action of December 19; 1988 to include financial
assistance in amounts equal to the Facade Grant Program for those
property owners who prefer to construct new improvements rather than
-ehabilitate their properties . These program modifications and other
ncentives were to be made available for a one-year period, in that
the. owners would need to have Owner Participation Agreements executed
and construction begun within that time period-
RECOMMENDATION.:
Authorize staff to extend the original program deadline of
December 31 , 1989 to March 31 , 1990 .
ANALYSIS:
During this last year , Redevelopment staff has communicated with
property owners who are eligible for the Facade Grant Program bounded
by Main and Fifth Streets , Olive and Walnut Avenues .
The property owners have been notified and all financial incentives of
the program offered to them. Further, our consultants have met with
them individually to discuss their concerns and the possibility of
participation . On November 20 , 1989, the Agency by minute action
voted to extend the deadline for interest form submittals to
December 15, 1989 .
At this time, staff would request a 90-day extension to the program' s
deadline of December 31 , 1989 to March 31 , 1990 . This additional time
gill allow us to continue negotiations with remaining property owners ,
nd process Owner Participation Agreements .
A
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION '
RH 88-07
Date February 16, 1988
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator
Prepared by: Dodglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Community Developme
SEISMIC AND FACADE IMPROVEMENT LOAN PRi Subject: MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA f►`� D E1: CITY �'OuN-
19s I
Consistent with Council Policy? [ J Yes New Policy or E.6eption-C.* j .\
Y--
-- 7 c 17-
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attac men . —
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At its joint study session with the Planning Commission on January 25, 1988, the City
Council. directed staff to prepare a recommended program of financial incentives for
owners of buildings subject to the Seismic Safety Ordinance. Presented herewith is
such,_a program for the :Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
r
1. Authorize staff to commence participation in the federal 312 Loan Program and to
assist property owners in the preparation of construction cost estimates,
appraisals, and loan- application documents for improvements required by the
Seismic Ordinance.
2. Authorize staf f to sec:rrre facade easements from property owners in exchange for
a facade improvement grant not-to-exceed $1 5,625 for 25 foot lots and $31,250 for
50 foot lots (except corner lots) with a priority for participation for owners of
properties in the block bounded by Main, Olive, Fifth, and Walnut.
3. Reprogram $450,000 from the current CDBG residential rehabilitation program and
$400,000 from the ."Relocation" account of the CDBG Program to use in the facade
grant program.
4. Require as a condition of participation in the facade grant program that property
owners cooperate in the formation of a uniform facade treatment consistent with
the Downtown Design Guidelines and/or the Historic Rehabilitation Guidelines
published by the. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as
appropriate for each property.
R H 88-07
February 16, 1988 -
Page Three
It is irnportant to note that, while staff believes that the seismic loans and facade
grants will make a marked improvement`to the safety and appearance of the downtown
area, these sources alone may not be sufficient to rectify all code. violations. For
example, new plumbing and mechanical systems may be required and could not be
funded through this proposed program. Likewise, any housing code or building code
violations that may exist, would not be cured by performing the seismic improvements
alone. Owners would have to use their own financial resources or private financing for
these improvements.
Also, the ability of owners to borrow money from HUD is clearly dependent upon the
current encumbrances on the property and their ability to repay. Because of the
confidential nature of each owner's financial situation, staff is unable to assess the
extent to which owners will quality for the 312 Loans.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Facade Grants:
1. CDBG Account 894856, Rehabilitation Loans: $450,000
2. CDBG Account 894842, Relocation Benefits: $400,000
$850,000
Seismic Loans:
The federal 312 Loan Program as the source of the principal amount of the loans and
the Redevelopment Agency administrative budget for the staff costs to assist property
owners in applying for the loans.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Make CDBG funds available on a loan, instead of grant, basis. This may limit the
amount of property owner participation.
AI TACHNIEN 1'S:
I. Sunimary of Participants and Roles in processing 312 Loans.
Outline. of the requirements of the 3.12 Loan Program.
P1.4 ./I)l_Il/SVK:s.ir
21i6`�r
f
SFCTION 312 REEABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM
GENERAL TERMS
A . Maximum Loan Term
Cannot exceed ( 20 ) years or 3/4 of the remaining useful
life of property , whichever is less .
B . Interest Rate
1 . Owner-occupant.. of one-to-four unit property whose
income does not exceed 80% of area median income ,
adjusted for family size , the interest rate is 3%
( extraordinary medical expenses may be backed-out of
income to qualify for 3% loan .
2 . Cooperatives where all units are occupied by members \
and where 80% of residents have a family income
be.low 80% of the median are eligible for a 3% loan .
3 . All other borrowers -- interest rate is based on the
{ yield of government securities for the term most
comparable to the 312 loan term .
C . Pees and Charges
1 . Application fee of $200 for single-family properties
( both for owner-occupant and investor-owner ) .
2 . Application fee of $300 for other kinds of loans .
D . Risk Premium
All 312 loan borrowers must pay a one percent per- annum
risk premium .
1: . M.I x i miiin Loan AmollnL
1 . can ,; ins+ le or multi-family property loan amount
c:,innot:. exceed ;
� . $33 , 500 per dwelling unit , or
•* b . ' $25 , 000 'per.* tdw.elling unit in . :congregate_ : ? ' -• , ..:..,,.,;..,..,r
housing , or
C . $15 , 000 per dwelling unit in single-room
occupancy , or �� +
SECTION 312 REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM
ELIGIBLE COSTS
A . Items which must be included
I . Accrued interest on Section 312 loan during
construction period
2 . Real Estate Taxes and Hazard Flood Insurance
3 . Liability and Worker ' s Compensation Insurance for
borrowers acting as their own general contractor
4 . Section 312 Application Fee .
a . $200 for 1 to 4 unit residential proper-
ties
b . $300 for all other borrowers
D . Items which must be included in 312-assisted projects
and may be included in 312 loans
1 . Local rehab standards
2 . Cost effective energy standards
3 . Historic preservation standards
4 . Others
0
a . co4il---.rm to environmental requirements
b . flood proofing
C . remedying identified lead-based paint haz-
a t-d
d accessibility to the physically handi-
capped ( for non-residential only )
e . termite inspection and repairs from ter-
mite infestation
1
r !I
4 . Luxury items
5 . " Personal property or furnishings
6 . Payment of delinquent taxes or assessments
7 . Borrower ' s labor
E . Refinancing allowed on one to four owner-occupant
properties . May not. exceed 500 of the total loan .
F
�1
5) Authorize financial assistance in amounts equal .to the facade grant program for those
property owners who prefer to construct new improvements rather than rehabilitate
their property.
G) Apply current parking requirements only to the extent that rehabilitation or new
construction results in increased square footage above that which currently exists
within each building on the demonstration block.
7) Authorize a 50% reduction of in—lieu parking fees to be assessed for required parking.
Fees to be amortized over a five—year period at an interest rate of 8%.
ANALYSIS:
Initially, staff recommended that the Federal Government Section 312 loan program be
utilized to assist property owners in financing their seismic improvements on this block.
"phis program was to be coupled with a facade grant program using Community
Development Block Grant funds.
In developing implementation procedures for- this prograrn, it became apparent that the
complex Section 312 loan program requirements would be difficult to administer for this
project. Further, the use of Community Development Block Grant funds (which require
that Davis—Bacon prevailing wages be verified for each construction project) also would
present administrative problems and additional costs that could limit the success of the
program.
{ The current proposal will provide a facade improvement grant to participating property
owners subject to their compliance with seismic and building code requirements,
downtown design guidelines, and maintenance requirements. Grant funds will be disbursed
as improvements are completed in accordance with an Owner Participation Agreement to
be entered into between the Redevelopment Agency of the. City of Huntington Beach and
the participating property owners.
Public improvements are recommended to support the demonstration block facade
improvement plan including undergrounding of utilities, repaving and lighting in the alley,
and new sidewalk treatments.
During the preparation of this program, a number of property owners on the Main Street
edge of the demonstration block requested consideration of plans to construct new
improvements on the site. It is recommended that financial assistance, at the same level
proposed for facade improvements, be provided to property owners who wish to construct
new buildings on.the Main Street edge of the demonstration block. New construction will,
of course, be required to follow downtown design guidelines and. meet all building code
requirements.
As an additional inducement to the property owners to participate in this program, it is
recommended that parking requirements be deemed met for all existing uses and for all
new uses, providing that the square footage which currently exists is not exceeded. Any
additional building area created through rehabilitation or through new construction will be
required to meet current parking requirements onsite or pay in—lieu of parking fees. The
in—lieu of parking fee has been established at $12,000 per space to be adjusted annually at
the rate of construction cost increases determined by the Engineering News Records.
However, to provide an additional incentive for property owners within this demonstration 3
block to rehabilitate or reconstruct their buildings, we are recommending that the in—lieu
oi- parking fee be reduced by fifty percent amortized over a five—year period at an
interest cost of eight percent. �� �'
COST ESTIMATES FOR SECOND BLOCK REHAB
One Story $ 625 LF $15,625 = 25' lot
$31 ,250 = 50, lot
Two Story $ 875 Lf $21,875 = 25' lot
$43,750 = 50' lot
Rear Side Exposed Facades $ 200 LI' Mist be applied to
rear do side rehab .,ork
Single Story Front 300' @ $ 625 $187,500
Two Story Front 215' @ $ 875 $188,125
Exposed Rear do Side 1 ,1 28' @ $ 200 $225,G00
Corner Lot 80' @ $ 625 $ 50,000
1,723' $651,225
Shank House Two Story 192' x $875 $168,000
$819,225
Program Design/Administration Cost $30,775
850 000
KBO:jr
3824r
1�
x �•
U
Fe
E4
a(
43
_
j.
:Y.• :31.�'.�::^.:4: ail!(:``. ..t•Y �.
• fr'� L. 'jf�_' _
i
_ 1• _�.� .Twy. 1�.. +grT.L„i!}r-)•'•'+�,:':'.�• ,IYO[LMfJ1(wi,WIL—K�:R•'L. `..� �...
�.•' � •'• .a IQUfY(YwO.I10• � 1•• '
. C.rOIT 1R((F 111F[TY(Ll—..rs )l .
i
IN STREET
CITY OF HUN_TINGTON BEACH
City of Huntington Beach .
`r r. 215'/s MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
- -- HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
November 21 , 1989
Mr . Douglas M. Langevin
8196 Pawtucket Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Doug :
RE: Grant Program Letter Dated November 13, 1989
At the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of November- 20 ,
1989 , the Agency took action to extend .the deadline for the grant
program from November 20 , ' 1989, to December 15 , 1989 . I believe
this additional three weeks will help you decide whether to take
� . ` advantage of the financial incentives offered.
Again , it is necessary that you complete the enclosed interest
form and return it to my office by no later that Friday,
December 15 , 1-989.
Staff would be happy to answer any questions or concerns that you
might have . Keith Bohr , Project Manager, will return from
vacation on November 29 and Pat Spencer is available to assist
you during Keith ' s absence .
Thank you for your continued cooperation . I look forward to
hearing from you soon .
Sincerely ,
maul L . Cook
Executive Director
PEC : kjl
xc : Pat Spencer
Keith B . Bohr
Marilyn Whisenand
Telephone (714) 969-2185
r l ATTACHMENT 1
MT COUNCIL ACTION
/ _ 19 S RH 88-84
Date December 19, 1988
CITY cLERK
Submitted to:
Honorable ayo and City Council Members
Submitted by: /'j
Paul Cook, City Administrator � �,
Prepared by:
Douglas La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Developme t
Subject:
FACADE GRANT PROGRAM FOR MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At its joint study session with the Planning Commission on January 25, 1988, the City
Council directed staff to prepare a recommended program of financial incentives for
owners of buildings subject to the seismic safety ordinance. On February 16, 1988, a
seismic and facade improvement.loan program for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project
Area was submitted.for Council review. This report recommends modifications to the
February 16, 1988, proposal with respect to this program.-
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Authorize staff to implement-a facade improvement program within the Main-Pier
Project Area on a "demonstration block" bounded by Main.& 5th Streets, Olive and
Walnut Avenues.
2) Approve facade rehabilitation grants for eligible property owners in amounts not to
exceed:
a) $15,625.($625/linear front foot) for 25' single-story structures
b) $31,250 ($625/linear front foot) for 50' single-story structures
c) $21,875 ($875/linear front foot) for 25' two-story structures
d) $43,750 ($875/linear front foot) for 50' two-story structures
e) Grants for exposed side and rear facades will not exceed $200/linear foot; must be
applied to side and rear improvements
f) $50,000 for corner property at Walnut and Main ($625/1inear foot for side and front
facade; $200/linear foot for rear facade)
3) Approve a budget not to exceed $800,000 for the facade improvement grant pr@BraT.
rn i
4) Approve change in the funding source for this project from the current CDBG � e-
residential rehabilitation program (previously approved funding source). Instear, funds,
this project from funds been paid to the Agency by Mola Corporation for land
acquisition for the Town Square project. - u, >-)
O , 7v
CA/
Din G/RG
5) Authorize financial assistance in amounts equal to the facade grant program for those
property owners who prefer to construct new improvements rather than rehabilitate
their property.
6) Apply current parking requirements only to the extent that rehabilitation or new
construction results in increased square footage above that which currently exists
within each building on the demonstration block.
7) Authorize a 50% reduction of in-lieu parking fees to be assessed for required parking.
Fees to be amortized over a five-year period at an interest rate of 8%.
ANALYSIS:
Initially, staff recommended that the Federal Government Section 312 loan program be
utilized to assist property owners in financing their seismic improvements on this block.
This program was to be coupled with a facade grant program using Community
Development Block Grant funds.
In developing implementation procedures for this program, it became apparent that the
complex Section 312 loan program requirements would be difficult to administer for this
project. Further, the use of Community Development Block Grant funds (which require
that Davis-Bacon prevailing wages be verified for each construction project) also would
present administrative problems and additional costs that could limit the success of the
program.
The current proposal will provide a facade improvement grant to participating property
owners subject to their compliance with seismic and building code requirements,
downtown design guidelines, and maintenance requirements: Grant- funds-will be disbursed
as improvements are completed in-accordance-with an Owner:Participation Agreement to
be entered into between the Redevelopment--Agency of.the.City of.Huntington Beach.and
the participating property owners.
Public improvements are recommended to support the demonstration block facade
improvement plan including undergrounding of utilities, repaving and lighting in the alley,
and new sidewalk treatments.
During the preparation of this program, a number of property owners on the Main Street
edge of the demonstration block requested consideration of plans to construct new
improvements on the site. It is recommended that financial assistance, at the same level
proposed for facade improvements, be provided to property owners who wish to construct
new buildings on the Main Street edge of the demonstration block. New construction will,
of course, be required to follow downtown design guidelines and meet all building code
requirements.
As an additional inducement to the property owners to participate in this program, it is
recommended that parking requirements be deemed met for all existing uses and for all
new uses, providing that the square footage which currently exists is not exceeded. Any
additional building area created through rehabilitation or through new construction will be
required to meet current parking requirements onsite or pay in-lieu of parking fees. The
in-lieu of parking fee has been established at $12,000 per space to be adjusted annually at
the rate of construction cost increases determined by the Engineering News Records.
However, to provide an additional incentive for property owners within this demonstration
block to rehabilitate or reconstruct their buildings, we are recommending that the in-lieu
of parking fee be reduced by fifty percent amortized over a five-year period at an
interest cost of eight percent.
It is recommended that the grant program and parking incentives be made available to
property owners within the demonstration block for a one-year period.
Facade Improvement Grant Programs have been an effective stimulus for downtown
redevelopment in many other cities including Costa Mesa, Fullerton, and Santa Ana.
However, the success of this program will depend totally on the degree of participation by
the property owners. In the opinion of staff, the incentives proposed herein will generate
a high-level of participation.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Payment to Agency from Mola Corporation for land acquired for Town Square project
(estimated 1988/89 revenue:-$1,000,000).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1) Provide no assistance for facade rehabilitation or new construction. This approach
would allow for continued deterioration of the properties within the demonstration
block.
2) Make funds available on a loan basis instead of in-lieu of a grant or make loans and/or
grants available in amounts less than recommended. This approach would limit the
level of property owner participation and make the project more difficult to
administer.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Proposed Project Budget.
PEC/DLB/lp
4272h
-Page 9 -- Council AS . ::, Minutes - 12/19/88
(City Council ) PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPOINTMENT -
APPROVED - MICHAEL K. TIERNEY
The City Clerk presented a communication from the Finance. Director trans-
mitting the recommendation of the Public Facilities Corporation that the City
Council ratify the appointment by the Public Facilities Corporation of Michael
K. Tierney to the Public Facilities Corporation Board of Directors filling a
vacant directorship for a term expiring July 24, 1991 .
A resume dated September 7 , 19BB from Michael Tierney had been submitted to
Council in the City Administrator' s December 16, 1988 (City Administrator
Communication) .
Following discussion, a motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Silva, to
approve the appointment of Michael K. Tierney to the Public Facilities Corpor-
ation Board of Directors . The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: MacAllister , Green, Winchell , Bannister, Mays , .Silva, Erskine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
FACADE GRANT PROGRAM FOR MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA - APPROVED - APPLY CURRENT
PARKING REQUIREMENTS - APPROVED - 50% REDUCTION OF IN-LIEU PARKING FEES TO BE
ASSESSED FOR REQUIRED PARKING - APPROVED - (#8)
The City Clerk presented a communication from the- Deputy City Administrator/
Economic Development regarding a Facade Grant Program for the Main-Pier
Redevelopment Project Area.
The Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development requested that the Health
and Safety Code 33433 Report, and all related-documents , be made a part of the
record.
Marilyn Whisenand, Redevelopment Specialist Consultant, presented a report.
A Request for City Council Action dated December 19, 1988 submitted by Paul
Cook, City Administrator, had been submitted to Council in the City Admin-
istrator' s December 16, 1988 RCA.
A motion was made by Erskine, seconded by Bannister, to take the following
actions :
(1 ) Authorize staff to implement a facade improvement program within the
Main-Pier Project Area on a "demonstration block" bounded by Main & 5th
Streets , Olive and Walnut Avenues .
(2) Approve facade rehabilitation grants for eligible property owners in
amounts not to exceed:
a) $15 , 625 ($625/linear front foot) for 25' single-story structures
b) $31 ,250 ($625/linear front foot) -for 50' single-story structures
c) $21 ,875 ($875/linear front foot) for 25' two-story structures
d) $43 ,750 ($875/linear front foot) for 50'. two-story structures
F I F T H STREET
- ------- --'- �-fl�a ..'Ee14 —:m Err �.
IW i.Sr
rnafcr
PIRIWG
I
I �
I li i I I
I ,
w
z
w
I
0 FR.SNfII __rN1WFR_
}OS Y•nl }0>Y.W 303 Y.W i}I YRW 3}]Y.W •�
OPA APPROVED ....... — �T�}
MAIN STREET I�I"I"i •••^=w•-•
OPA APPROVAL PENDING . ""
FRwEnwouNO EWsiwc unuras "art_«
. NON-PARTICIPANT
F I F T H STREET
-xrisrTx —iu irrx —xxo rrTx T :.i
.T T T I I \\
I �IIr - -
I I
Ll
i
w
z z
w
a
I '
OCR � i
G[GtE11 I
}N Wlx H1 WN EEr WN Tt.Nf11 --TI11MP �� J
.EGEM
OPA APPROVED
7 E'K P
OPA APPROVAL PENDING M A I N STREET
YCEP4POIN0 E.rsrwc ururrs
NON-PARTICIPANT
FIFTH STREET
7-T
M,.ST
I
T..T e Y \1 I
i
.11
I
w
Z Z
U KW. ____ __ TI1/.YFl1 M_LWEN
,p5 MAW 1C,Y W - MAW
,,,Y ,,,Y.W .7 .
IJ S
LFGENO ..,^uK
OPA APPROVED ��•-•�
MAIN STREET
;J-1 ^••^_^^�^-^
OPA APPROVAL PENDING
YNDEN4HOVNO Fi15Tw4 VT611Y5 .
NON-PARTICIPANT
FIFTH STREET
t ��. -----}u—ntxi —e.E sr}x —}}err• Tr-T�
i
j t
I
w
w
Z Z
a a
o
ow
tl I
OEfXEl1 \=I T iOEYYr ]0}Y1N }OE Y\N I}IYW }}}Y.M
IEGEW .0....c OPA "PROVED ram"
MAIN STREET
OPA APPROVAL PENDING VCE GpxO EliE,N4 V, r,Y3
NON-PARTICIPANT
F IF T H STREET
Ila i1fT1a� llt fYTY ]]I i t •o'(�p•��,
N].S
I li i I '
w
�..4 Z
z w
w >
> ¢
,4
u.. .I4
T T _ va J—
H Inc rr
3
8 I ILJI ,
1
LJ I
II
40 OPA APPROVED _
r--•I II��/1�
M A 1 N STREET �� ;;,;'„•°;,;,�;w„
OPA APPROVAL PENDING
W RIRO ll6TMG eiulYS '
inNON-PARTICIPANT
F I F T H STREET
y,
iu nrtl —xxa nr
^,.si
IF
� I _
I �
w
z
� _ _ •. _ . v wwne. cs mv. L r
I 1:.
o
GKRE11 V' TIE1«fl1 11,I.wER
OPA APPROVED
M A I N STREET
OPA APPROVAL PENDING uo[.c.a.o Ensiwc runes
NON-PARTICIPANT
F 117TH S "FREET
..TG
f..
.wL
i 1
I �
w
'_ w......4 z
W
w w. ...„ I >
> a
a
--— —
W L.. -- .I
z
i L L
I
W
Z I ...... >
l
L � SfIrUL,W,E
J I
J.. I
-_�' 1
r�
Lf GExO . r.inn
OPA APPROVED `�z "."—r •
—
IZ
OPA APPROVAL PENDING M A I N STREET
UMOEFWOIwD EIrEiwLURrIrFE ��'rs
NON-PARTICIPANT