The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDowntown Redevelopment Plan - Main-Pier Redevelopment Area - �n Redev. plan �___.,. ' I . L, p�h lie Xhibit5.----- -- «. AAAtioAsP ,,` :•.• t. tt • t 1 i. UNNU �. CorAmL, IcA'-r Io ,... Pomona, California Cj I-L�57 ' October 18, 1976 Mr. ' Edward D. Selich. Acting Director of Planning EnvironmemLal ResourEes P. 0. Box 190 . Huntington Beach, California Dear Sir% Z9e are sorry we haven't been able to attend the Redevelopment Planning Meetings, but mkt husband is 81,and has been real sick for the past sic weeks. We are in accord with Yr. George F'arquahor, writer of the "shifting Sande"column in the Huntington Beach newspaper, We purchased our lot at 322 Third Street and built the cottage on It expecting to retire there, heeeuse it was such a nice quiet beach and close to the downtown area. Main Street certainly needs improving. It has been so run down. the post few years, we have been very disappointed; but we are aga;.nst "High Rise" buildings going in along the pier area of the beach and spoiling the view of the ocean. The block we are in has lovely Stucco homes back of us. It would be a shame to tear them down. . The only reason we- haven't moved so far, is that we haven't been able to sell our property. here. We plain to either build on another bedroom r purchase another e � o p h noth r boos nearby when we can. Sincerely yours Mildred M. dt*ey-to—ne Farl F. Stevens 651 W. Phillips Blvd. Pomona, California r � :t '►� - .• rj 4 L WOOLSEY, ANOELO 8 THATCHER LAWYERS Aau conc 714 � nor 0.WOPLGCY *Orp SAH JCACUIM HILLS ROAD 6tp•0000 Jt)SCPH AHGCLO ROntRT L.TIIATCMCR NCWPbn► re"ren or[GUNf tI ROMCRT A.r05TLR It NEWPORT 6EACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 IfIr.IIAI/f/A ►Ir.WLII WILLIAM 0.SULLIVAN November 4, 1976 ,1 Dz- City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and P. 0. Box 190 Pastnviron ental Box B Resources H�ntsnet,)r8sath,CA92d4 Huntington Beach, California 92648 i Attn: Mr. Edward D. Selich ! Acting Director Re: The matter on your calendar 11/18/76 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN I; Dear Mr. Selich: AREA I am utterly amazed that the staff keeps recommending that the medium density, 7 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre, apply .to the property on 21st Street between Magnolia and Orange where I. own Iota 13. and 15 and my wife owns lots 10 and 11. On 21st Street acroes ' the.street from this property from Orange and Magnolia the property is solidly improved at 2 dwelling units per single lot of 25 feet. In the block in which our properties are located, the part of it .that faces the street to the west, that is ' to 22nd Street, it is solidly built up at a higher density than 2 units per. lot. Why discriminate against the property on the west side of. 21st Street when it's solidly higher density to the east, solidly higher denssty to the west for the full length of the block? At one of the hearings, Mr. Al Coen asked the staff these very questions and we appreciated very much his concern for this matter. I would appreciate it if the other members of the Council would show an equal concern for this arbitrary discrimination. Very truly yours, ROY B. WOOLSEY RBW:pb _ X] i Tot Mayor Vledsr and city Ccuncil From: Leonard Wright 11-8-76 1 City of Huntington Beach 606 - 15th St.v HB eubjsgts Orientation towards public input on redevelopment . I like the motions taken to emphasize that the public has valid ooneerne that rill be oonsidered at the Nov. 18 hearings 1. S&II A&xk"Z, Asst City Attorney. (at the Oct, 21 PAC meeting) stress gtrgssed that the city is willing to hear public input and that the city is not committed to the VTN plan. Bill said that xy. oomments expressed his positions "The adoption of the VTN plan In concept was a starting point for discussion only ---, thRt .this happened partly to. keep the redevelopment plan moving on schedule, that M had submitted only one plan and that it was intended not to { vnnecessarily antagonize the lawsuit people." 2. D o Aa Aset City Administrator (at the Oct. 212AC meeting) sa , t comments overstated the extent of disorder mud the direction and dominance of high rohool students at the. Oct, 11 hearing, 3. Bill Rold ss (,?ublio Wozzation Officer) ooments at the Nov. 4 PAC meeting Vat the publio and CC were looking ahead to ghat happens after 'is plan is approved •__ that colors on a map moon little to the- F. 'lo. WJAt the public wants to know is the specifics, of 1 ahatsc 1kely to happen. Also Bli Nov; 4 article in the HB News that says that most of 'the publao testimony is' e2pectsd to center or how intense future developaqut. will be. 4. 11 ant Oat*, 14. 1etter that asked 20. probing oextiotis towards Ili aarszur•ng a good plan. It ss -enocuaragIng that he mode such a detailed analysis of the plan. The Planning Staff .xnd. UPI provided the-'bulk of the responses, with changes by PAC. 5. The 'full=page ad written by Monism P2 r (Flaming.Staft) explaining redevelopment issues in the Nov. 4 Ba News. oo PAS'. PC, PD, BC Blil ussbary Monica, Florian Dick Harlow Bill Ssed } r T4�i Mayor Mieder ane-'Cit? Council. P:�"%g Leonard Wright. 11-43-76- City of Huntington Beach. 60b - lyth St. HB Copies tog PAC. ?C. PD. HC, Lance Jacot 8 b otg Comments concerning Downtown Redevelopment This letter covers in one .place my views since my previous letter. This letter is in three partsg the hearing, citizen concerns etc. - pages 1 - 6. an organized summary of the Urban Land Institute . comebts on the RUntington Beach redezelopment plan - pages 7 - 10. . suggestions - page 11. &ll5ntttha,crew_ to 122X23.0. Almost ev*ryone wants to see the downtaim business area Improve --- to return to the prominence it once had. People differ on what's required to bring about thin improvement, and the intensity. With- almost everyone I can find points of agreement and disagreement. . I prefer that my opinions aren't considered an coinciding with a particular group or individual . Noisier ess at- thM Pots 11 hsar Most peo;1e didn't like it. Several mentioned that it's damaging to whit they're for. We might expect a certain amount of irritation because of the.oirounstances. The noise didn't seem to be limited to ee► specific age. group. 'Risk 9 2e1.!U46019 Area 'residents strongly oppose teachers making their students to come to the hearings to protest. Despite strong rumors to the contrary, it i ■eeu. that no teachers so instructid their students. 1 Ut 6rtunateli. we're sometimes willing. to. attribute the worst to those with differing views. Thus, zone initial reactions were to attribute almost all the noise antra protest at the hearing to the high school students. Then to surmise that Lance Jacot requested his students to come to- the. hearing: Lance Jacot tells ■e that he was scrupulously careful not to bring redevelopment up in any of his clauses or have any informatic• available to his students. At several CC meetings the mayor has welcomed high school students who were there to see their city government in action (possibly as a speoific-assignment or as an optional activity). Students should be encouraged to taste: an interest in local affairs and to see how their local government functions. General comments about the PAC 1. Wt=121 61, :1. MIMI. Those who oven property in the proposed business redevelopment area naturatly have a strong interest in the area. They should 'be well- rspresen!:ed on the PAC. They have to live with what results. We all Oct in our self"interest. We should expect no less of PAC members. To some extent we should regard the positions of PAC members in . the light of self-interest. J L, onard Wright, Rede''lopmient. -2- 11-8-76 I like all of the membere of PAC. I hold similar views on a number of items with various PAC members. 2. AAw moss can-be nIeleaading. For some time a number of PAC members seemed swept along on ease items by the more outspoken members. Others seemed to want to move things along smoothly and to not make waves. i Therefor for some time most messed to support the VTH plan or felt that there was little choice but to go along. Two from the first block were strongly against it. Comments by others includeds . This would cause area property taxes to go up so muoh that people in nearby residential areas would be foroed out. Why do you keep pushing this plan although almost all of the public input is Against it? I why weren't other proposals submitted? . This pl%n would wipe out businesses In the first blook, It doesn't pencil out. It can never go. Why say one thin*, than coo the opposite? eomre oitt:tens interpr.' t criticifm of ■ citizen by a PAC member as representing PAC sentimrent# Remaining silent doesn't indicate am- i currewoe, A amber of PAC members have stressed that PAC should allow + complete citizen input. PAC. members are concerned about their property. They ..,jyt. the area to improve, Sasso have spent considerable time in PAC activities. Many citizens are conoernstd that redevelopment activities will be detrimental.. Some PAC members and some citimsens see each other as acting against their best interests. gr,,,,_.th Oi t ze _ hem *sXehMgm jgs age ha tengfl b„X . the VTH plan. extending the boundaries to include residential areas (areas that are developing on their own and aren't blighted by their concept) . . e7,tendlug eminent domain to encompass these added areas. 1 w . oonoern ,that blooks fronting PCH from 6th to Goldenwest bight not have a low height limit (Notes Sigh density does not mean high rise.) i , concerns that: inareasing property Uxes will force people out. - tXZes will increase to fund redevelopment, assurances given now may be negated with new controlling bodies and philosophies somewhere in the long life of the plan. A certain amount of ire results when people don't feel that. their eonoerne are being taken care of. So naturally there's opposition to the plan as it stands. Some of 03 gesbers of PAC ses the citizen remotion as being against improving t e area, as not oaring if the deterioration continues, Some statements may have been made out of fear of losing the redevelopment plan (esgeoiilly in the general time-frNe of the Oct. 11 hearingl. Leonard Wright. RoANvelopment, -3- 11-8-76, Ar.eas r imbrovemM& When someont feolt that they have a dominant position, the temptation or inclination sometimes is to pay lose heed to differing opinions. 1. Some C e er r h ve been nsens t ve =,a the public on B _1seues such , the VTN plan . parks, 2, T ere aid b e s better hLidlin of aitizel input Citizens have been allowed to speak extensively during oral commmnloations at PAC meetings. The minutes have been reasonably candid. But Idon't believe that public input has been adequately reflected In rritten comunloatinn between the PAC and the CC. Some,PAC:members f,ind' it difficult to avoid emotional reactions to some oltiten' coments and vice versa, At the Oat. 28 PAC meeting. several PAC iiesbere wade a speolal effort to emplain their viers, all PAC members were courteous with the public. This kind of attit,44o Is beneficial. f ` the Oct 1 hear n ubl there was agnaes • the nlo, aQ,t� • e , As n result, the CC may have received such comments ass 1. A1ro�,a�„g.�positi+�n isbasioally unfounded. There, are a number of weld-taken points and Concerns. We need to accoomodate reasonable concerns and point out what safeguards we have or will.have. 20 ae " . ver redevelogment resulted u -from-on rson or Rrouo of jSOB Includes groups of people and individuals who$" started their activities. independently, became aware of each other and decided to combine their efforts, live talked with others who've independently held many�of the ease opinions. People east of Magnolia have asked for Information on the plan. I understand that people in other parts of H8 are also Independently concerned. 30 r ca a as ets of redevel2gMt will, gggM in__a 611att gE emo iirna 18s o But considers . at the Oct. 11 hearing 'tom Whaling lade the 'most emotional presen- tation (the others were essentially non-emotional). . A lot. of us may react 90% or' more by emotion, 10,E or 3ess by reason. Hopefully our emotional reactions will be in support of reasonable concerns, logic or facts or fairly sound principles. I believe that emotional reactions have been reasonably well- contained --- espeo-Ullq since people sensed that some of their dominant concerns were being ignored. Regarding the VTN plan, my June 20 letter stated that: they've no one to blame but themselves if reactions to their actions kill or seriously hamper redevelopment. . Leonard Wright. Rede'lopment. -4.- lL.8-?6 4, mheffs�rt_�SOS ee, based an lieu. After first hearing th.!s statement, I admonished SAS people to be truthful. Their ooments were that there were lots of vr3ld points, that they didn't intentionally make incorrect otatements&-.1 to tell thew of any misconceptions they had, When the point• of gOg lies was mentioned at a PAC meeting, I asked what the lids were. It turned out that 2 girls sa<d that the VTN plan would coot the HB taxpayer $40. million. VTN made this an issue by . initially, requesting the city (i.e. the taxpayer) to fund:$39 million of the VTN plan (for such as 4 stories of underground parkings, pilings and subfloorings for developments from tho pier and tram service onto the pier) . At one PAC meeting I felt that one SOS member (no-longer with the group) had a misconception about a wall' of high-rises between 6th and Goldenwest *long PCH. I told him that the PAC was initially sonsitivd to this and removed this as a policy statessbent from the original plan. This seemed to imply that PAC does not support high rises in that area. But we should still make sure that concerns here are unjustified. This includes a low height limitation, Allowing over 3 stories also can areate.• A wall effect. e 41s d i1 o P . at the -- 9 ll.h_earir�r. A sizeable group. of people have some of the sage concerns that Lance Jacot voices. I also share icme of these concerns: limited use of eminent domain, intensity of development, quality-of-life for the area, being *ble to afford to rewin. proper and limited use of tax.inorment-financing (or can we set by without it?) and high rises. Thus I feel obligated to speak up when misleading statement* are made to discredit appkesmen for these concerns. I refer to some of Toy Whalingls. comments at the Oct. 11 hearing: 1* 2 1g PAC .Is.D.gt.fgLaila4t pa,_„rka, PAC was initially againat any parks in the redevelopment area (althr.ugh I believe a number were just swept along. In the Sep. 29 letter from PAC to CC on PAC positions: S members of PAC (including Tom Whaling) "are especially opposed to including any part site desig=tions within the Project Area boundaries." During a PAC *meeting the Statement was to transmit PAC positions to the CC, but to not stake them public during the hemAng. My comment was that this letter should be read so that the public can know our positions. 2. The jQA ef= wan ew 11th,_hou r thin&. Lance Jaeot read his paper at the herring for the preliminary plan in Feb.. 1n May a number of people were asking about starting more ccordinated effort. By early June a nuaasber of people were working.on their independent efforts --- sole were already oollectLAS signatures an petitions. 3, Wolye held 28 (?) PAC meetings and Ewers has been to fox of these. We all life to feel that the meetings of organizations we're Prominent in are important, But most people find them boring, feel that their input has negligible impact an what PAC does, and that the seestinge are of little value to them (ant enough to very often sacrifice an evening for --- and Lance does Spend a significant number of volunteer evenings at the Main street Library). -.5- � 11-8�-76 �onard Wright. Rar"velopment. . An sos member has attended most PAC meetings that I've been to. The impression that most people have 1s that the public hearing is the time to gyve their inputs. 4. Th a lan is not throwina old lad lee Qut on the street. It's not tear dowry t le-houses. Making such statements, then trying to infer them onto Lance Is playing on the emotionalism that we say we're against. 5. Aganest tg bLj2eZjj tted to elk to- the stu._deen,to.gf M.X. J.�agot:a, a This implies the untrue assumption that Mr. . Jacot asked his students to attend. the hearing. It also incorrectly infers that the Main (or only?) concern about redevelopment is ooming from the student community. It reflects the intimidation that Tom intended to oarry his opposition of. Lanoels redevelopment views to the plaoe of Lance's employment. This in an undesireable practice. 04@2arate Isfugg The redevelopment plan is one iaaue. A separate issue ooncerns development oonoepta A, a and C as u..soribed in the EIR. It's reasonable to discuss these concepts (and other redevelopment items) now for several reasons 1. T M,IM an cat gn oof p 6 eats s MME ant. To a' lot of people, -the type of development (and where) is one of the most signifloant parts of redevelopment. 2. ktt Mokie�know the_directio„n. . People 'vant• to ]snow what the powers of inplementatiou will be used for' befoz8granting these powers. People donit runt to have to go thru what seems like an interminable number or,hearings before being allowad to stage their positions. People have told me that theyave gone to PAC meetings, gone to the . Voioe of the People forum orhigh rise, attended public hearings but that that theytve never been able to have their ooncerns on high rise addressed. . Townlot residents have told se M even talk to ayself on this) that It's 'been one thing after another (Therelve been over 5 years of planning tatters that aignificantly affect the area). They wdat to see the direotion of planning that affects their area (inoluding downtown)• spelled-out so that they don't continually have the feeling that the one meeting they also will be when something they disagree with gets approved. People don't want to have to be constantly vigilant and to periodically , go thru converted efforts. 3. A oe t altiLen innnt . e_rs off, edevelo„ nt._ tit It's important that public sentiment be known before the zoning ordinances are prepared. Otherwise we might later be asking the same- Question, "Why didn't the public let us know how they felt?" If we're concerned now about the laoK of previous citizen input, It's all the more reason to maximize this input before the fact. We should get as such olticen input on as many different items as early In the planning process as possible. n ± Leonarx Wright. Rede-r opwent. -6- r^ 11-8-76 It's better to initially design ordinances eta, to be acceptable to the public rather than to later unnecessarily create a lot of i distruet and opposition, and waste time and effort. i 4. A000ae►odatlxipl, go ncurne aains support for the 21an. People may have a better reeling about redevelopment if they know and agree with what direction it's likely to take. Then they're more likely to support a plan that adequately accommodates their concerns. 5• The lawsuit. Ai W�11■ r The VTN oonsoept and the potential lawsuit are a cloud over the redevelopment process, The spectre of a lawsilit should not control the direction of redevelopment. It's desireable to dispose of this Item as soon as possible. I i 4 Leonard Wright. W"Nvelopment. Urban n�netltute (ULI)), mew etinA Four city officials (mayor Wieder. Vice.-Mayor Pattineon, Aset City Administrator Harlow and Acting Plaruiing Director Selich) attended a ULx meeting in Palm Beach, Florida. After Dick Harlow and Fd Selioh presented the HB redevelopment conaepts, the ULI Pane]. commented. A number of these comments show new idjas or state what HB citizens have previously said. 1. Minimize apauiring and demolishing property in the Rehab area i..w�rr�� roar .*' Who'd bu the oleared crops_rti? If the owner didn't want to rehabilitate, the City would then condemn the property, tear it down and make the site available for someone else to buy. What makes you think somebody else is going to buy it? (p. 10 of the Planning Dept draft of the ULI Panel discussion) . Creating vMnt to to-maser the one „agurce of eneru. Early demolition of properties and the imposition of vacant lots . I in areas of this type in unbelievablyidawging and to the one easy I, thing for government to do, Therefore it often gets done where there is no sense to it at all. . . this rather hardboiled notion of applying the rigid standard and dislocating right at the immediate beginning may kill the one source of energy ... . . 0 many of the worst buildings turned out to be the very best when somebody got going.(pp 10-11) . Attraot NOW a who'31 devoto their eRergiee to L-he}�-tiro rC s. .�_.,,....p ...., ..�., ...............r.,�- _� ,ti-es You have to somehow or other attract individuals into it that devote their own energies and their exi oaring and loving of individual properties . . . and collec:sively and cumulati.ve?y these build up to a brand now thing.(p, 1.1) . . Sze p gg-erty aMulsition 113 the rehat arm,. Th thinking of priorities of where to spend your money, that property aoquis,tion in the rehab area should be an absolute minimum. perhaps even not at all-(p. 1:1) . M a results pa rasto-ring a de er+orat a s S&I ass Salem. Mass, is a perfect example where a very deteriorated downt-own area - there were grants to owners and they dial Unbeliev- able restoration and transformed the vtole charaoter.(p. 11) . • 12W11M-61ttr xone�r _nil. The .one thing the city can do and be absolutely sure that their money is spent well is vo improve the street amenities and pet in new planting. (p. 11) . . Houeitu; as a ggsititie force (Reston.-Va.) Housing, which is the one thing you are strong in, could be a much sore positive force for the whole thing. Beaton. Va. is a waterfront development where the housing we prat directly-on top of the shops and there was a plaza created in which the shops went wonderfully and there were outdoor cafes etc, that created a magnet for people to go there and it created an almost Leonard Wright. Aedi"�'lopmant, . 8� � 11-8-76 European concept, . on W.Q;c Ave. in Florida, those little oourts with the littler ;uoh cheaper shops behind the more expansive ones . . . your stairways going up to residences over thy► whole thing. (p. 12) • kg w rghab^,pos ja to Fort,Lauderdale. A rehab project does not necessarily have to involve great expenditures on the part of the city or on the part of property owners. The Fort Lauderdale rehab program was done at a very nominal cost, A lot of it was handled strictly by signing (?) . Much of it was done by the property Gwners themselves. (p. 20) . &-Bez1 ma y not bey food. The greatest illusion that lust by cutting off the street and making a mall will produoe a good result is very sad, It's not automatically obvious that it would produce the results that you want. There are successful cases where traffic has been narrowed but; stir goes thru. (p. 26) . . Itts an advantage tg keel► m2n ,of, the.2rese nt gLre4,te • Concerning allowing some rehab efforts to move out onto Main Street, I question if that's feasible or desireable if your basic objective is rehabilitation. I suepeot that you'll be downgrading the quality of what's there, and keeping more of the present oharaoter would be to your advantage In the long ran, . It's extremely difficult to iWine building a brand new pro sat in a central 'rehabilitated area and mating it ft suocemn , 27) . 3, CTUIque rr f the V,�'�Q�e ro sal- • 4t iS?le View qtjita ocean has adetiress of te". The extre®ely hardbolled aspect of the VTN proposal (including the 'oomplete plugging-off of the whole view of lain Street to the ocean and the pier, which Is critical for its value) could really have a very depressing effect on the possibility of this fiery sensitive operation for rehabilitation. (p, 12), The ag2oialts sh22 and oarj, heme„r j uire eonti3uin�r the opt bagh If 1 were a merchant in the shopping area in one of the specialty shops; Ind be most upset if somebody was going to put this oonorete barrier between as and the ocean. This panic theme and specialty shopping is nothing more than a continuance of the open beach and pier, It ought to be retained visually and not interrupted by some massive etruoture, (p, 1S), Jhe VTN concept doesn't f it with the eziating coyunity. The VTN Plan is extremely ly ambitious pulses you're Lh"Ying of I making the entire bead area like depacabana Beach in 81o, It seems a little far out. (p. 21) . I Leonard Wright. ?"*adevelopment. �9- 11-8-76 • Ld.�VTN 2ro.R9fi9l..9-t- on the 10 acre _poroel all the..p�Zpjgct d f oo era sl market &mand for the entire ,project art+a; thru 1, 1990. Your demand figures call for 795 rooms by 1990, The VTN hotel would have 800 rooms near-term. That creates phesjn,g 2rob a s. You'd have Fort Lauderdale type problems in attranting hotel industries. 7t's not a lucrative industry --- be diffioult to attract them. (pp 210 22) . . Pie, n th_e_sky. Is the VTN proposal for them to be a developer or is it just some kind of hunting ?ioerae? (p. 22) If VTN hes no experience in development, why do you call them developer? (p,. 23). What VTN says does not represent any valid indication from any developer that the project is foasible . . . If the clearance of the whole front blook is frozen into the city by the adoption of the redevelopment plan, then you are already in a very bad situation. So if ."TN doeen't perforn at the end of that time, you may have already made the wrong deoision from the point of view of the basic viability of the development. (p. 74) . gM nt kX a HH oitizen: If VTN wants to learn to be a developer, why should they praetioe on us? You,can, overe2me.the lawsuit. If you have a good, developable plan and are working In good faith to get the area vitalized* you can overcome the lawsuit problem: (p. 25) . Set out a plan acid a time-framo for VTN to perforce within. (p. 25) . My 5-20-76 letter had similar oomrents. 4. General ideas on nrooeeding.: Start small, got public .;mpvart. Dora!t bankrupt the oity. For it to be successful, you might start with a smaller amount of square footage and actually make it happen. It's something good that can happen in the beginning of the project and get you a lot of public support. If you start it small enough, maybe it car, realistically happen and not bankrupt the city. (p. 3.3) . .. Need an ex1mrienced developer. The city Wouldn't try to wear a developer'a hat. You need a:1 experienced, qualified developer. (p. 14). j It's important to get a developer in lamediately who oan carry thin stuff out, knows how It works, to deal with land use questions and timing (timing is also important) . . . whether 1t wo'ald be wiener to build up residential around this enc' of it. (p. 20) . Leonard Wright. Redflti lopment. -10- 11-8-76 Rehab firs It might be better to rehabilitate first and then do something else, but maybe some other land use that in probably better to start with than existing ting retail. (p. 16) . . Maybe start with a brand new shopping center. C, Se ieh: Hetwien the shopping center at Atlanta and Beach and the new (seaeliff ?) shopping center, there is a gap that can be filled by another shopping center (outside the project area?) . Panelist: That brand new develonnent may be where you want to start. (P. 19) . ` Concentrate on what's most likely to happen. If you concentrated in th:; area where you have the market, merchants and property owners that are willing to move forward, t that will give you the biggest bank for your buck immediately. (p. 19) Upl„ore mov=the MXD project south. (p. 19) . x e d rehab to PCM. [dove the rehab area closer to the ocean or actually maybe right on PCS. (p. 19) . Maybe the rehab ought to be the whole length of Main street and you Mould kill the potential by cutting off the+ one critical block between Cie ocean front. (p. 20) Nple t Page A-2 of my 10-4-76 lettor suggests extending the Odd Town concept to PCH to aot as a funnel to draw customers Into the Old Town specialty shop area. . QUdgSInium,issddi�ffug t. Use a loan-ma'am? I think a condominium now would be rather difficult. It Ill take close 000peration between the city and owners If you allow them to remain and bring their properties up to certain standards. Maybe a loan y program, rather than grants, would be a way to start. (P• 20) . I Leonard Wright. Aelo'velopment. -11- 11-8-76 Sugaesti ns_ I believe that members of the public and PAC share concerns on what direction government action ray take over the near and long term. I believe that a lot can be done towards making the plan acceptable to the citizens and to minimize concern for follow.-on activities. Also that PAC members went the public to arcept the plan. The following suggestions may be useful: 1. Limit em nent d9ein as a function of redevelopment as tot area (Tell where it can be used. Specify that it won't be used � sewhere) . u_se. within the area (for example, to consolidate blocks) , le�h of time available (e.g. 10 yesru after the plan is adopted) . 2. Set up a systea to account for and monitor redevelopment funds. 3. Use tax-increment-financing funds only as such as is necessary. 4. Provide a mechanism to retire tax-increment-.financing bonds as fast as is possible. 5. Do not include Bore area within the redevelopment boundariea than is necessary. 6. Provide a mechanism to ensure that redevelopment-area-.boundaries are changed to eliminate covered areas onoe there's lens need for tax-inorement-financing funds. 7. Provide a mechanism that ensures that redevelopment funds are limited to financing standard redevelopment activity. 8. Consider limiting the time-span for initiating redevelopment projects, i 9. Allow no commercial development on the beach side of PCH. i ? 10. Designate the old civic-center-site for public us*. 1 21. Speocify park sites near Chicago and Delaware and possibly at the rld i oivio-center-site. 12. The six blocks fronting Main between PCH and Orange to be low t 1ntenaity. Low intensity along PCH from 2nd to 6th, possibly from Lake to 2nd also. 13. The blooks fronting PCH from $thz to Goldenwest to have a 35-.foot height limitation. i i 14. Consider attracting the Townlot and other residential mPrkets. 3 15. Keep the library. z P.R. : Some of the above suggestions: i may already be included in the plan or puggested amendments or in existing poreedures. . may involve policy decisions that the CC makes concerning the plan. . may involve policy as separate from the plan. i i HUNTINCTON DEACH �--- 7 FLl!�-IM10!, DF�'T• •;; 4 Cr19254" c 7r. ��• C ;4/oo-7� G� .......... -I0011-.4 -�I)v AC— n � r ee. r- -A 2�� 1 C r O-A 1 .0 a OLL ' ` ar►��r�l� � �7C - i t � K�r,nctl� A. pldrtyn 17041 Gourtney Lan, �iwifinb+lon llclrlr, Galifornin 926,19 f� EG E � WE } CITY OE HUNtINGToM aCACH CITY MUM OFFICE i I� rvv/ J� �.tfs�v'• R � October 12, 1976 Dear Mayor Weidlert •I attended the meeting last night at the Civic Center. We also took a couple of other interested parties. Naturally. ► - - • :'• we are terribly concerned about this matter. I was appalled by the whole proceeding. First, there wasn't enough room. The crowd outside were very disrupting and it wasn't fair to exclude them. Why wwre all those noisys obnoxious teenagers there? THEY " weren't property owners. What was their interest? Were they being paid by the Planning Commission to disrupt the i meeting? I can't believe that our City Council would get us involved '"` ^"'^" =�.` in such a mess. I guess that was made clear last nite when , - � most of them admitted theg had a financial interest in the matter. If it is a fair hearing certainly the property owners are • '��,;;: -'a ,,,;?,�, not going to go along with this ridiculous scheme. Kook what happened to Redondo Beach. That lovely pier - all those beautiful restaurants, that underground parking. Now those ��► . ,. � , restaurants get very little business. People are afraid to �` '` � �` ` park in the underground facility for fear of being mugged . .. r •. ..••' • .. _ rr.ww.•a.+•.��.r�..r..-•��+tw��--rw+w..•w� �.w....+.• .«w..� •.� �.I.rwti�••I./'..�.. r. .rl•••a... Y '�r -rr."ram= .. •�•�••• �• • �.�• •/•�.'.•• . �.r.. .d �. _ .. Ate~ � } i��.�1• r� ✓t•Mr w~^;'1 A a'MC'�ih�`vi� .Ti y��'r�I�.�.r.�•�.~ �.��Y/•a ice.,.~ ►•�\�,� �•w + •r7r A/ :�wr+V•. w�-Q&F_7 a it • - •1• a1 �'k�4+.►-. -J►.. I �'w7.r. ±r•' _.s I - Z - Huntington- Beach certainly has adeque ►:e shopping areas with the Westminster Mall and Huntington Center, What will happen to -those lovely shopping cen•tero if more competi- tion is started up. "=p z Look at the Sheraton Hotel near the beach which is now ba:ikruptl How could anyone in their right mind propose i such a project. I hope for the future of the councilmen that they abandon this scheme for nobodyin their right mind would vote for rr• a councilman or other city official who would promote such �I a deal. HOW is all this to be financed? ;purely not at taxpayers expensel My husband and I moved to Huntington Beach just _ `•" o. .- •- a year ago. We love this area but on Sept, 30th my husband . ._.,..— '. � retired at age 60 so how could we stand any more taxes. PM Ninny people are in our same circumstance. We are substan- tial citizens, interested in our community would you drive us out? I just HOPE that the members of the City Council will reeon- • r ,,� sider this matter and then abandon it. Do you think it would help if I wrote to each member of the City Council? JA �`, r _ ; '•;: . Could you furnish one with their names? f. Y :'1f'4�p -:«.w.w yr,r 4 w A��-�1�;.�r6Y'S.•�+e...•.1.yw�•'��'1+•t •.ice► ,r�'�i.r�...�.��.r.� .�...�— y ^ v r a."1. T• `•►M+'► f�lI�MY•�-�;'R: �r r t.' 'w•r / II��_ !(� t • •1/�,�}}S/Y�, '�'Y • • • �• •r �•'�~.41w ' k1•_ • + w �•+ M.w`a"�! ..t .wa��lp•.li w.,�� '! J i 3 _ .-•, Everyone on our street signed a peti.tiion against this matter. ( I hope that is being taken into account. If this project isn't abandoned it could become more serious since some of those "locked out" last nite were pretty unruly.,,,,, i If you have some further literature 1 'd like to receive It. Yours truly, Mrs. Robert S. Culliton 5692 Nevada Drive II Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 AW 1 _ r,a tom' '•• •'.p�.i��.:I"�i..�Y�"�"'��al�v.�.•' J..•/.rw~,j ��y'"•~.r1 45.+�'.w'4w: w4. "i/'.' ` Y.,+G7 `i+�. .s• v. r.. �.�. �►..� .�, /� ter. ♦•' r � •�'• �....wr �L1 ~KL`ati: ��....�a•.tti.'�.��"r.J ./ r r►. t r_. .•r,..ram F �. •.- •.� ' » •."rtiY.1rY.. �: •.�. � � I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY C UNCIL OFFIC /- /�1 G: : /►� ��✓G• /"C'l' TH/Ny/.ylr , ar 5 . sC fivIl L rn?y 10 ,milT /»/ rowAs "�"•� '� Ti' i 1f4' ,r7A .A c'/l. y"e, (:G C N �f /' ra0ct=,�.5 fii I3tr /c v //VTD . . _.�., ��Aft'G�- Tv Gr 5 � �'�� /C�'o � •� N d T:. .f �1 !' •�tr�"` h' .01WAIG'12 L-43 4'.-/t'G A AlY AIWOe &P 7-WO -Well-r) PIALIll All .*' .�..4 r.. ..� Y • . ..�... ��..q.w'.} �+,i��+ a+��:C`'L'i/+.n�...-�irr..r�a1..�i:�l•�+"K.I`'�•'T;ut 1�.�.y'�'•"�.��V�.�+.✓:aj w� �:~}��..+'� .`�i .._.....�`"'�. • 1� �� S T/'L=�7 /� /1 /a t; t:7%'l-C=j" � ( �!;'!� 1�n•[`.l ,1./:JG=L • .1.V J N; /I U DILE. tic =� -. � , •y V,A 4 it IP F /V 71—/'A,c'T/LZ, Ae 1--otz?(+)PIST/�'►Vo HA N C 6' cs 4 Al / fc•t 7• �� L'rvuct�3 y t=o,� I /Lc 1.71 AM .ram, � `L'�` (�0 L�ll�L'/��L= ld'4° �//►�L� .. f"'/!'�E' ' •.',�.i;;r-�F�,,,'�, i • I ...�.�*w►�r'�•"'�•'• a.:v„�L+ '.;�!,�`a .ti•��a .Y•..�r+il•.+f...� +�.�`+::iV 4.yJ'�..-.r.�.i:✓•L •w�t��1`i.--.`a•�w••�•�1•'�•`Y�L'•.• ��';�'•' I I 17- It'd ct h n 1'-10 P,A r.1-y r�r- 4 Po rel /:��/�'!'/�/= /.�c� /�. ! /fit/`,S 7r � r. • ,. ire AVIIT i4 Nr 1��'I's�t•� �� r1-/� s� c� ric�G r.�r Iry I f= Y"HL� /-3 fP L= s r•f3 TT c"�4-/� . `�'//�/v �n.� .r,G, r i �9 /5rJ 1JUrc , ��crr � �All J i Ii ela A b13..' L-A• I -10 it H, 721 /Iced/J1P�/Jl� , xydd •w • 7'f//1V/c' T/>e C /r f C /}l.)!<11.) ovep., Rom L/�/� (. C�S/'//ld' d i7.'d.+!' C ��AC'TlGG�`r. ;' v �•.'��~ �IVGX�yri/�E �" LS r" /4 /T•rC•'?�c! �/M Tl�tl�'�S 1 1 I .,`�.'" � i+r``rt�`.�;i`.:r"+:.. '_...:.~ .`� '�:.:r�ii.�.�V.iw'�'i'ipJ"'•.d�4w°�rr4w:.�r`�'l��.ff:}r• "'�YN'.�^+�i,t"!�� q+k.wtij'{�.�..+w"'�.i. f � 7'RCr 7- tc't G/E'L rft c=P e A V 13c-. ' 0 MP 74'/2/6r-S Ne r /'see/,vo P) 7-41.1 TA, /-.),l7 S Al.l�b Man �• t .4 i=rS• 7%' 71) f•t r 7-h!�; ea-Ae4zo, 7'4 /3t(I G D /,v r t] 7-,4r T-�+ Al A/A 1,3117' AA A Ix IV 71Y 13LccK fVAG1- -C se)4 1pl Mso :t .— �..._.-r....,.r—....-.—.....,..._.....« ..�,«...._.�.``��.....^;:Y1�—•` r-'yw.r�.f..r+~i'r ,•,rMC,nrJv�•�iry��w'� .�^;�..? '.�r•""'�y,�'wsi�ir� • R:��r/'S r.., • •�'(f *,.y,-,a1�y"#aR ay.. Ja.• - �;�„`. y��-� r: i+.,:... yr. frti• a1+.�... .4+...►..w • ~•t• a r4`.�;, �•��• . may. r � -�J �M-.•.•' 1 r'� ♦�•K' „ ♦. Y •��•• 1• •• • t'^1. Aw �M'•1 t f- r i'� .r .. r • ti •. .,.. .. • Mom. w •• r E D I S 0 N HIGH SC ,.jOOL 21AOO MACNOIIA STREET TEEEPHON[s 962•1336 HUNTINGTON &EACH,CALIFOUNIA 92646ASO I�) octobor 19'?,,. The City Coun(-I1 OJ t:u:tirl;;tor ''each 2000 !.,ain tree4 .Kuntin,,;ton 0each, California 92(�`i Gentlemen: 1 am writin :his letter on behalf c,2 the student:i of ddison High school as well as rny:,elf. I am surprised at the lack of rapport demonstrated by the City Council In deal1n;; vilth the downtown redevelopment plan. The City of stunt ington .,each City Council is supposed to be an 'i effective, responsive governing body. The City Council is supposed to let the minority voice he heard and allow the ma- jority Voice to rule. I believe, however, that a privileged minority L; ruling and that the majority voice is not being ' heard. <76Is right for a seven-merber council to appoint itoelf au a redevelopment agency and then decide; the fate of a downtown area in a city of ?70, 000 inhabitants:, I do not think this is just. Democracy is founded on the basic principles of popular sover- eignty. I air aware of the logistics concerning the expediency of this redevelopment plan. If the City Council does decide to ;o ahead with the, redevelopment plan, I urge the City Council -to put the plan to a vote. !.any concerned citizens mould vote and that is whet government is all about. I Thank you for your t1trie. I I + Sincerely, e '4 Stuart B. Shin A.S.B. president 0 R° � � 14 Edison High : Uschool !� Huntington Feach, Ca. i�l�v i•o 1976 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE Or 5 tzell MIW1 45"Ij x/frii eo. 1615 Alabama Street • Kun.ington dtach,Ca►►l. o, r.. a-'i -� s., .�•�-�--� ,rs.4,�.c�,�.��.fw�, ate. ou , •, , P. . Wad,, 9 I J f i 1 III � •`�+�""�"' `•_ ,� ,. I i l r 4 f N � r Yr^..•F{ i � s r /r,:y,...yr �-' .r ifs �-r� vyy w',e s"Ly e� ,xc;yk. OL JV oo D nCT 2 f 1g76 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE re- az,vu�opwwu t un��eunti vw.�,-h WdA . ktm 4 �k M �k \A I K, WXMffW . Awj� . ku� ujve, 1� ' �t� tow omb- ,U� wwra, llnaAA,. `11nti1-, a. AD WA %-Ikli 1� �u , bend, haw rr vJati+�- "ur w6�- a�, �Y�Pc, deve,L i CItY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH coy COUNCIL. OFFICE tL4,,- r'OV�.�. A 14 CLo%A &��r� i I L 1 � � 1 W�a 'iL w �A '` `j. a 444 - �.� - 16L "t/ �- V ... I dL fYIAAol Gam. �II�^r1 1 R . a i i A � ~ /(Y crl ?c D OCT 151976 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH " CITY COUNCIL OFFICE y-s �d �l. h, l t h �a 1�►A /d g ��► . t'a►rrs► 61/'►i'1lUE�►�plA� PtOPell�t OAe b�Ot� �OAr , �e�cve�or�t�f 46e4 ' I 1• C/ ly VMP4 re v ` 4 3, NhWfT AVY 9-697' of CdiVPe ?1rt4r/oA1 / S• J �V :...� rR� cG�c " ii f ��J��4X< 0GT " l�iu (ATy Qf fiUNYINGTON BEAM 0" 00UNM OM October 20, 1976 City Council Members, As elected officials of Huntington Beach it is your responsibility to gentunely represent the citizens of this community. Rowever, it seemL that with regard to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, j you ore failing in that Important obligation. In the it first place, you should give thorough publicity of the plan with its -Pros and cons. Secondly, you should hake an honest effort to learn the convictions of the citizens. And thirdly, you should abide by the decision of the maiority of the electorate. It is reprehonsible to try to hurry a decision through the council to i avoid giving the people a voice. I feel that an issue of such consequences tihould be brought to the vote of the people. I await your reply. Sincerely yours, Kiss Elizabeth Wallace 9122 Brabham Dr. Huntington beach California 92646 i j O C T 22 1916 i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE Qem Caunci.l 6,1-e4ew v ti' a� �pnivv� ;p fi�t/JUR �h' �;fL .�c�oo eel .ihai -�vu dhould ! not have it �.inal .xL.f on u�ecti rra�;� nrt rra�� nv�,happen uiUAin. the nexi ih.udy'Pivp ;�c�rL� v� ncadc�ve,Lvvanenf in .11untiru;ion ,Rmrh. have J-wmed o� jowt vZond and opZniond an Z"te eub few of Aedevelvpaned in Amu inglon Beach. The ILedevelvpanemi drat jou 'have planed o t have aq,vuodecl .4eenj io w .L w a fuiune A&W4 Beach. 7AZ4 plan, uvidd &zZnr; in an abwulance of �ouuA;ta ;(o oua abtetadb7 c✓Louded 6eachel and rx),[.( divn to vcuc Cit//, 1P)Lw the FxrirUna p-wUan io bad o wvrh dw:.inry. the .4wmejL and Aoli 7z ai the 6eacltw, fua.# 4kW hvru i.i u�vuld be 4 jAi4 plan 14 adopted. ji4 hand envur,h Zzgir-� .io lind a ;xlace v rx»Ll. al the beach . Donut ;-ou Ainh Mof aha pwp, e olf llun: ingion DeacA Aave a ,zigA# ;to the baach wWwut Ae cw UuL.on. rile think ihai you have nvz. been j.peC!Ac erwunh on ,,otm pwMjal and #hat uou AAou,d -jet a .apecz.Lc comuleiion Yzde.• • dtL ate. . I 1 mail plm�Mm ' ,Cc, a 9,�6t1 CA'Y. OF HUNTINGIgN BE" LLD Cff MUNOL. O ad 1 t a v -�Lai-W Lil Sze urcLe t . cnv n y xi. orww►.io Qxnd JrUn tom, ._,a,,.a.ru er�me.� , u.�- �-Ln �y ► .�.-, �.a�q.�c�. U-iv�ry , Cv%zt o f r elu Ito- 3wuzAql ou Qoxiaw 0 1 t, !R 7(p ter W V_'UR. A.A.l.:a,f Aristant Principa EDISON HIGH SCHOOL odCom inityS Nce Quslnea erxJ Community Sxrvico ALICE R.EVAN1 ouldana DAVID J.MAGNA pia SuMvisiun aryl Athlallt 4 ' f ALAN V.JOHN110h PHILIP L. GROSS Instructior principal nr'T 76 ActivttlesCoordinator CITY (W "UNTI ton Imo{ BEN OARaErT N To; The Nuntinntnn n-Ach C" rit, rntlnr:il From; l.ni; ''Acl'• ^Stnr.ihtnrt Srifr+t►nt nn,1v Cgr.retary of rr1i*SM►t Ir{nh t rs(nnl T An enrrnPO At thi nrn►+ncals the Cnuncil is ►nal'inn concernino the Redpvelnnment of rinuintnain 11untinntnn Reach . Tam anory and disannointed At the Cnunc4l for trvinn to nrnceed with these drastic plans viithout � vote of cnnfidonre from the citizen!; . At the present time ,nnly a small nercentane of the Student nodv of Edison Minh 11,chnnl can exercise the right to vote. This should not r,ain ,hnwQvpr ,that the Cniinci 1 t•-+ 11 not tape our faelinrts into consideration . r definitellr feel that the Cnilncil should cnn0er!r the onininns of the thnul ands of students in this nistrict `tpfnrA anv mainr nedevelnnnent mans are Acted on . Even thnuah it seems that tinvor 1404er fer_ls that the nnlu reason 1•lhil so. Many students have neon involved in t!iis issun is herausp of nressurp rron their. teAchprc ,thnrp are many interested any cnnrernpd students on my campus Mho will not sit hack And let thAlr Tito he turned into a tourist attractinn at the nxhense of the tax-nAvers . Isle love this City , AS ' it 'is-and so do many of nur narents .the thnuoht of crowdinn our a r"1"R over-crowded beaches ,hinh-rise hotels and underclr*nund narking facilities horrifies Many of us . T am not asvinn that Huntinnton 9each It in no need of rphabilltation jinl-severs am savinn that the neonlo in ,this citv, (trhose Interests you are sunnn,,ed to be looking ou or) , should decide what is to be done to their city. The students of Edison Hin+ School cannot vnte,hut nail, l remind vnu that I-rithin fotir Y,!ars the present student hodv grill cnnstitute over four thousand more voters , many of whom have loan memories , We are concerned our ►�arent's ,whn ara better informed hecause. nf our concern are not ri6inn to allow this to an on . "lease-•-dn ant. innnre us and nur fpplinn"p, i t,ltth �i1T ';inrr. it:v, ' l,nis p!�ck � i1E00 MAGNOLIA STRIET 1AUNt1NGtoN aEACH•CAM ONN1A 92&% tEIEPHONE:(714)111.13% NU'NYINI? TON BEACH UNION H ItiH 3 C H 0 0 L OISTn I c r e W E 0 G 1 u .: 1916 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL OFFICE Oct. 209 1976 Honorable Mayor W&eder and Council Members, RE# The redevelopment of the downtown area of Huntington Beach. f We are very concerned with the reconstruction ideas for our citya We dry not want to see the downtown area torn down. We feel that the new developoment plan will ruin our community, raise our taxes, and attract more tourists. We would like Huntington Beach to remain a small seaside cormunity, not turned into a tourist trapt It is our belief that you should consider the feelings of the people in the fate of their citye We feel that the ma3ority of the. residents of our city would agree with use. We also think it would be bet er to hold a redevelop#ent meeting every year rather than accept � a thirty-five year plan, � I gincerily, (J WpY i c: ; ;' L 1 f� ► Dear Biro S7e ars a group of 17 and 18 year ol,lp at Edison High School. We were wondering what you wero proposing to do about the rede7elopement pra gram in ftntington Beaob. 'No have hoard that a milt.-projeot will be going up in the sai.n street area. Bose thin moan that most of the surf shops and the Golden Bear wi.a.l be distroyed? Will this mean that taxes in H.B. will increase? Who is reoponsiblo for this prt,posal and why Is it noedsd? What will happen to P.G.E? Are there going to be ary surf shops left or anytbing besides shopping centers. We have 4 :shopping centers that are within 15 aktutes of ua, Weetai.nester Mall, Hmitington Center, South Coact Plea, and Faabion iolamd. All of these centers sxo more than � adwgwasts. . Debbie Parker. Ony Predmore R10k Pinell i Fitch Crucka I I OCT " 1976 c:c b __r 2 C , 1"75 CITY Or HUNTINGTON BEACH i M COUNCIL OFFICE i city, liall civic ceLtEr 2000 lta'in Str^_iit ! Vuntin,.to:. r.a:ec'.:, C.-Ji.f. 92646 Attention : cnunc.lran "r-vrr varrict VLirler i r,::, r•ericvelcrr.:ent ir:suL AK a SCnier cicss zt rdisen Llph School vc cry concerned about ti►L recIevelopren` iFsue c° downtct!n I.ur.tinptcn I1Erch. . VS 11ave had il_nnis T'anp-rr and 1'cl-crt 1:. l,uri-f speak to us on thin ismue, but ncithpr of there rrnlly ..net:? tc much about It. Ve would l;c mcrc inforrlt e Ir scrosone of your aunlifiErtions me intclliltarce could cpeal; to us about this plan. Is thare e.n,: vzy possible that •cu could first' tftne in j your schedule to none end infort:, cur Senior rovErnr:ent clrmscs or. %ihr._ t:ic i.csuc in reclly --17 about. It would be very much appreciatee if you could lat us know as acon eg poasiblE, as the rleeticn is approac'►inr ►►e acaner than We expect. s c r21t, lode zo /?awn-lid C :sr:x I rinfe� a s Toni iu.; ` . ►rip crLrs� �;.�•�� .�' i Studsnts of Ldiscr+ 1'ipb Scl:ocl I October 20, 197E 5 Mayor Harriet Weider Membera of the City Council COT RI tor# Gentlemen: �9�16�ill�iy : Steve and I would appreciate some answers to zur questions on the redevelopment of downtown; Huntington Reach. First , who i.e; going to pay for the vast changes? We understand outside Investors will take the bill .:or the new bu6!i,12se complexes, but who will pay for the new sewage systems, new 11..ghting, and widening of streets! What kind of guarantee do we have on w:iat you or the following city councils with this land in thy: next 35 years? Right now what you are asking; for is far too general. It has no limitAtions on what you plan to do with the area. Furthermore; . right now ou My-be plamnog only►°minor clean vtp pro jectirp'ttt"*ha011ft'. -tip.' the city council., 30 years from now, from teaming .ever+ything down? If the plan was already legally adopted, then what could the people of Huntington Beach do to stop them? Steve and I as citizens feel.the redevelopment agency's atteinptsa to publicize were inefficient. Did you make sure that through the mail everyone in the project area received a notice? Don't you think ,that the people in other parts of Huntington Beach also deserve to know? This city belongs to all of its citizens, not just the memb6ro or the city council. Lastly, the issue thats disturbs us most, is the statement Nu► Weldor mAde a,,t t e epwicil meeting qnt #gndAr, Ootabor,�►�1=r• ,She.. ,.'i--,, imed "that 'tits was drbappoihted in the stuaente activity outside the council chambers. Does this mean Rayor Welder prefers to see no public participation? Haw would Weider • Peel if they hold a 'Council meeting and WoUldn't let her in because she didn't feel the.:eame y y as the other members of the council? ; We, as citizens of this city aak for anvbt6vob-. bhke issue, ;,s citizenp, of a democracy we are sure you are against any deciatcpan' contrary to the wishes of ;he majority ofthe people. If thimiplan la for the good of the people, then why are you so. fafreid to take it to the streets? Thank you, aeorge.-Sbur es and Steve iJagr7er l 10-20-76 R1 C E •' 'r RC1 22, 1976 Dpar Mayor W�teder, CITY 01 HUNTINGTON BEACH CRY COUNCIL Mw'! We are very concerned about the redevelopment !' of the downtown Huntington Beach area. We don't understand as to whl* the redeveloping agency wants ,! to commercialize, and invite tourists to pollute and j inhabit our beaches . Our parents pay heavy city -taxen and should have a say ds to what happens to our city. We feel that the Vatting hvldr,'en October 11, �•. , •. .. .� is reflective of the plan itself-disorganized and short-sided. We believe that downtown Huntington Beech can be cleaned up without having to commer. i' ialize the place. We would request, within the next city council meeting on October 28, a response as to why the redevelopment agency feels it necessary � y to build another Miami Beach on the West coast. This r !: information mould be appreciated, for we would like to try to understand .your roint, of view$ as we would apprediate it if you would try to understand ours. Caneerned r' 10 1 w s minst6R high school } 1/121 OOWNW11T TTH. • WISTIAINST[R, CA:IFOINIA 97i1! • /MON[ 714/I93-1781 10/24/74 ' Dear Ms. Mieder,. !r My name is Dale Freer and I attended I' your meting on lridayl October 221 concerning the redoralopment of the downtown area of Huntington Beacon. Because of the lack of time on my behalf I was untble to express my opinion on the matter of discus, on* I wry rarely travel through the area of disaussii, '. 8•" ' except an the way to the beach and othirk-actiyit"iSo like that. Icy underntandir d =w v_3ae things is 77 that it has been sucggestod t apr.09 ' �f a definite or should I. I. attraaticns xy fuel!. people that lire in ••ax�io� d'? ; have the opportunit 'tl► �� i' ' 1 the people of down ;_ u� o •-�-� ere that area re .'ta •i f�� area more attr ' :i �•�`'' the time to re very busyMayPf 1719 Main 5trart, h .in9tun Beach, CafifWnfa 91-2646 D rQ41 � ' MY Or HUNTINGTON BEACH CffY OUNDIL 0VFICI 40 >!F4e Mon. 010 A4 T- C71 1719 Alain Stree� tT�intingtnn Naarh, [:alfarnia 9264^�� Ile . tols � 7 /-7- a r. ell ,• G r I I . I` 4 att: City Council RECEIVED ��° � • Huntington Beach Civic Center P.O. Box 190 �V �•d t��d Hfttington Beach, California CM OF KWNM IM MY omm an Dear Council Members, We are extremely cc,ncerned with the possibility that the Future of Huntington Beach, as related to the Redevelcpement Plan, will be decided not by it's 170,000 inhabitants, but by that select few who propose to make c - this decision without the consent or the popular vote of these residents. THerefore,we respectfully request in the form of a written response, assurance that thin decision con- corning the Redevelopement Plan be. postponed until after January 1, 1977. The citizens of this community should be given the opportunity as provided by the Montoya Hill, of eettve-darruary 11, to "tide the deetitay of their city. >' Respee 1y yours, 20872 Crestview Huntington Beacht Calif. 02047 i CITY OF HUNTINGTOh BEACH TY COON Il OFFICE r•/v Gd/1.G 4f "r, tdYr 2i�-tPG� Y'/ter. "T7 f /P'.� Q•it� to .��-z-%� ,•• Cry ! 4 � / _ ! • �� - - ��., - fir'e.�� ;W�4 1 ��l 1�i�G/�.c.[ � L'!?/�`JZ�-� �iCaC.c-f• C/ GV��L�t' j_ . ..... . -• `�%�'� `�-c `Q' �r l,f Gas�f •G�'. Q �e, 4" r / Q' d ' 71, Tvc te 1 oct ..zi(Q/cQ •.,• ;._. •t 9iu� �,�h��-v��,,� --t�, 7r�t'�-c�� mac-/rl� .,,.�,.;..,_„� ' ,.,. ,► ' ..� ..fie- �.:� a� tJ�tiv��. '��,, . .� �1� r One !r�to `y� ,/�'?—,ri-G1'� jT•LCtt�Q . j.�Y q4,� , �V /j�� /�-c'.G�.J`�t�7 � ,�^(J,. r/'M,r.� :«�ysid�r�'",�� '?:_.{.• � � � ter"' �: • r. w +1I•��l.� :•. •n1 y..�,-Y � yr• � y � Y•M • ,• t'�., �••V�• y. +y •+r. `Ar 4` � y�'�.��/1y'�J� •�`��L'�4�^r�•Ot'✓"fytuiYY��,;"+.�M. �`'�,y�Y �7�t ,�•�r1•'�'��'..�yJltf�irl�I 1w1\Ai+`N.�7/~YV�. ♦ �..��y1 S/�d�{l.'1•�.I•� ► .t'•_ •.. I ter.. If \ .: J^� A 15TRICT 7275 M -)Y CIRCLE EDUCATORS HUNTINGTON[?EACH.CALIFORNIA 92647 TELEPHONE (714)842-773G ASSOCIATION �1-'�---- A RESOLUTION MIEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach has proposed a redevelop- ment plan which is scheduled for adoption October 11, and WHEREAS, this proposed redevelopment plan will further overcrowd the schools of the Huntington beach Union High School District without adding new revenues to alleviate this overcrowding, and WHEREAS, this proposed redevelopment plan will, automatically, j through its relationship with currently effective school finance legislation, raise the taxes of the eiti.:ens of the Huntington Beach Union high School District, and WHEREAS, the inevitable result of such increase in taxes will be drastic cuts in our programs and continued failure of revenue bond issues, both of which will be to the detri- ment of our students, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the District Educators Asso- ciation of the Huntington Beach Union High School District i is opposed to the adoption of the proposed redevelopment plan in its present form. 1 I i 1 � a y 1 1 a roof failure. I 'rl not raying Hutt this is n weakness in 2 that particular huildinl;. 1 i Is only pointing out the points . 3 phis is one of the slides , u.-hich is slide i 4 number 7 , that was shot;n carl i.er, where thvry was signs of 5 craching , et cetera . By coming by and plastering the ex .:riot i 6 of the wall , this improves the cosmetic effect . i7 This is another issue of the cosmetic effect . This is the Inst of tun 1973- 74 slides . This is on Main 9 Street , just off the Pacific Coast Ili�lna-Iy. Really three 10 points here. One i •c the surface materials over can the 11 rid}it , which has not really received anykind of co.5metic 12 treatment. You can see a certain amount of detericlrating 13 in the brick condition over on the face, I;hicll is sort or a 14 the-face !-prick . It looks reasonably leell from the top . 15 Where there were previocts t)rohlons , it has been plastered f j ve the cosmetic effect- and possibly to aid in tll 16 to imj, the } !7 binclinp, of the bricks . , 7 IB MR. COOMI?S : 1"'ould you please try to refer to each 19 slide by number? It would hell) . i 20 C1111:F MCARD: Number 10 is just the same huilcling 21 with the plaste.rins, features above and around the hindi;t}i 22 beams23 . Number 11 is just typical of .one of the 3 24 parkin); conditions in the Downtown area where there is 1 � 25 in inadequate number of parking , vacant lots and areas a between hliildinits are being, utilized for off-:;trcet parkin);. �r. f (217) 437.1321 MACAUL.EY &MANNING, SANTA ANA.CALIF. SSe•9400 :b r i t _ 1 12. 'This is ,111 :alley between MTill ,ill;, W1 off' 2 of the Pacific Coast 1(i1,}11ray and inccre you have the spacing 3 of alleys. 'llie trucks are abusing the build;ngs and there is 4 also solne openings within the, i;uileling. S Number 13. This is the rear of one of the 6 alley sections between 3rc1 ancf Sth - - a'rd and Bain Street i 4 7 off of Pacific Coast ((il�}lway and south of Walnut . These are g add-ores r.hat ire have ,lcl(lcd on in bygone days , which have f 9 structural. addi.tional brood to the original masonry 10 structures . -P 1,7 57 11 Number 14 . This is some: of the rears which 12 is somewhat t)'!)iCal l!1 m:illy of the !1I'Ca°i . AS )-oil can :iL't'. 13 the exitin(t is not satisfactory. Also that ;oil sce some 14 deterioration , some calling hway from tile• masonry wall f ? 1S itself over in the right-hand corner. !fS Number 15. This shows some of' the line 37 rortar conditions :tlont; the parapet halls and this is also wj ?# in the Main Street area off of one of the alleys . This shows where you have the drains that • �' were draining from the roof completely gone . There ' s in istuc here also of sorlc cracking and I 'm not st.ztinl; it i.:. r r * lor it is not structurally unsafe , ottly that there are ,Nulnher 17 . This is also off of an alley c?ff '. l of M, Street and this also :chows soinc sif;ltti of cral:kirit; deterioration and of course you can sce sum, broken glass and so oil which makes for :i criliSltiYe or contributive hazard t 42131 437.1327 MACAULEY IN MANNING. SANTA ANA.CALIF. (714) 558•9400 52 1 lac.c in terms of fire or hurgl;ary or wh;;t have you. '1'11c 4 > > L • • ' , h • stru •tural en�� ineer needs to address I 2 key c.1 ciao.n� here t c t_ the c. s 3 these buildings as :a c:ompenent part of this redevelopment 1 4 project. 5 This is an c:arliar huilllins, in Ilttntington 6 ltcac:h 's history. The k-cy building is the one that ' s in 7 brick. That bricl: huildinp is huilr di vctly on the property f 8 line. Ilot: anybody would huild it directly oil the property - 9 line and use the uinslo s and direct exim!;ure to that. property 1 10 line and , we ' ll say, ;allot~ the windows -- Certainly is not �t`7 t � 11 in concert with any Goole today. W J t 12 Two issues . When you want hor;-ontal � to 1 1,,1 13 ventilation cr visibility there. you sit h a c I: t he hu i I d i np 14 from the property line and the it.•r:ard in this particular ca::e 15 is you hnvc a wooticii ca.mbust ihl o st:ructtire below. When you 16 have a fire in that , they cnmmttni.cate directly into the I 17 window above . Pots have an add-on wooden structure to the rear also. It 's a grneral condition in terms of visu11 19 aspect at the rear of rartny of the huildinl;s ni'f of Nsain . 2D Street . ;s 1 This is where you have broi;en windows- and ;�;....�' t—vusit:ive contributive ha:arils . 20. This is the ef!c,-t of the cracking effect ItilInG place in sotae of tlae corners and in some of the 1 1 eXttlldInr, off of Alain Street again. Y•y•,1 µ,me•� 21 . Again we have some :•i 1►at5 of failure• i `v:a t.•t 121)1 U7 1327 MACAUL.EY tk MANNING. GANTA ANA. CALIF. (7141 SSG 9400 f S 3 1 taking_ place %,itllitl tilt st ru1.tures the111:elves. ,11:a ill tilt`• 2 Mail' Strect :11'03, ' This is a symbol of our fire protection 4 in the Downtumi area. i asj.cally ►ic iiaytr al)otlt 2300 gall.ous 5 of uater ;iv.Iilal,le I)er 1;1111utc . i;ll;lt 's reZIll%' tiec:deti in talc 6 IlownLown area is sumo )lace in tilt' area of •I t1U(1 �ISUU. 1 , 7 N'OW it der-crid-S ill the redeveloln.;clit p) _,ria(l of t:iI;1L typ f B structure.,; you' re to put. isi there that v.-ill really r 9 ricccs�;it.ltc v.-hat i:c :;hotlld platl for, :liar out full fire floc: f 10 Irequiretuctit t,;i it 1)u is ;:he .future and tilt City I:nl;incer l 11 relatod to fire lanes , certainly required on Pacific Coast 3 • 12 tiibiiw.,y. '1'i)is is betwoon 2nd and ;%Inin or 3rd and Main, 14 off of Pacific: Coa:;t 1ligi: ay , uric of OIL, alloys ill sol,ty 15 deteriorat.inl; colldi.t.1U11 just in terms oC asthctics of :.lie 1 16 area. This is slide uumbcr 23 . I 17 '1'hi_; also .;howl soirc of the line wortsr J � 18 contlif. ons oil all alley betitieOltlain and 3r.i Strect un 19 Pacific i.oa!;t ilighway that also rclal:es to some of the 20 uC,-strevC file ioi%,cr rjgLL-h;,ncl . 21 N'uml)er .'.I . 22 25 . Soma of the t+cautificatioa that 23 were used arounti some of toc parhin1 ; areas . This was 124 requirc ci anu of courso platl;,iap is i1t i s;;uc• i11:rC; ima -11so 12$ ` destruction or ai:teriUi'a;:.iou of the walls is auzlthcr 126 issue. T11i:; is al•cl ;itrect. This is a ;;as station at Orange �i __ (2171 A77.1327 MACAULCY tk MANNING. 1714) $$8.9J00 1 • -- S � 1 " 1 and main Street . : t 'I ide Number -0 . Of cour;e this is wherewo 3 (h have occlipancies that lim-c cio:;cd down and currcnt:� not its i 4 use and now arc heinl; used Cor off-.trect narkinn. S 5 I'unher 17 . This i .i round Lake and W.11 nut aria ` 6 this is a mixture of housin}. oceun;lrlcies in coc:lwe'rci;il ,areas I 7 vi th sone site n roh 1 cm:; . $ 4I1 is the use of r(':: 1clCiltl;ll occ1I11;tricies- in the I'ac-ific Co;r:;t Ili.ghway!Lal:e area for cu mlt-rcial nurpos(• . �• "r Let nc refer to mv notes for a rtintlLc . T1►;lt Z! was redevelopment areal or desiltnated. 11v ;Ire flow mol'1:1{'. into re'.1 11, Atlanta and Laizc. Tliv isetic relates }� to fire flow characteristics , mixture of ahuse In talc area of hoth rc.-sidentill ;:rid oil . 1 'Aide 30. This is .Intl . This is r:hcre tilnl:s Late been removed and , of Course , r.he concrete diking has not i heen removed . And you ha•,-o off-strect harkint. also . 31 coming un . This is just in the guncral .I-l+Iltrimi area to show up some of the 1):11-king pro}slum, that c:cur durinp the S11nmcr season .and a ni.xturcJ of residential Alm with 3'- This is on Labe Srrcct aril , believe it or r..)t , this is a mobile trails:•, of cotlr:;c , (leing u::cLl fer •�. � �.CIICiI:I; Is a li0UF: iO:atCk1, oil !Iniii l'cvt . r ( jc 111ve what appears to !le all 011VlUU5 roof detcricraiimi wllc`i-t ,'•1117 MACAULCY & MANNIIIIG. SANTA MICA. CALIF. (IIJ) 558 9400 i theti are pro[13111}• tlarin{! r,l 1 n, p1100101ns in the 34 . "1'tli i, .1lollnd .,rd and Olive with ;igns 3 of detcrioi-ating roof conditions . 4 3 S . Th is i s o f ;its ;thandoned ca r i n an ;I i 1 cy i in the 11 area . 1 { 36 . This is a gap i.,,h ire we lmvv diUng. 7 The Sall stir remains; after the tanks have hcon removed and s 8 the w,111 is in a deteriorating comlition . Also you see somr 9 exposed piping conditions . } 10 17. This is a lion:;c that was under , 1 II construction , but is no longer sO. i -------'` 39. Again diking; tail , res:idential/commercial I3 mixture. You will have, to make they judgment as; to whether or 14 not this constitutes blight or not. `�- ,�� _. 3n 'Phis is now in the�_ -- — Area G 111 Area C 16 there 's a tremendous dcf'icicnc%, in street nrobIcros , rile! ; 17 curbs , gutters , sidewalks , street:; , and you ' re going to nee([ 18 complete refacing; of the strects and complete replacement of 19 tile r e stects • . 1 20 Stasidissl; water cot'ditions , mixture of ( i 21 commorciallresidential occupancy, standing; hells , ct cetera . ' 22 That lti a s 40. `.`. 23 _- ~" 41. Mlle lrel ls , new construction, deterioratin i 2! streets , no sidewilk.s ,. cm-b problems -all a;- j 42 . Th i r, i s nround 18 th anti Orange .and Pecan - • and again oil gooks , deteriorating; dikes , and abandonment of c At Y (213) 437 1327 MAGAUL.EY 8r MANNING, SANYA ANA.CALIF. (714) 559.9400 .rM• 1 56 f � 1 1 tiJC11 , solic expusurt. !:fill Ill'!: cons trttct ion f i , i 2 43, Afp;lill , deterioratini; streets curbs i ! i 3 :ideldall•:s , l;tixturr Ut• "171I11; , oil , et c0tcr;1 . I 41 . I'll is is a Mixture of ulc' structures , t i 5 usiltg of 1 field base along, wi Of new construct ion. The street g annrars to he satisfactory in tlti !. case a;it_!1 the e::rei)tic)11 of s 7 sidewalks , driveways , and so ort . g 45. This is things that are c•onunnil occurrence 9 out in the oft fields . This is ;l little: hit of vandalism. 10 Somebody has removed the head off of this particular well and 11 it hasn ' t been replaced . 12 46 , This is !~here you have c:tir1) 1)rohleins , 13 s i idgiv r You have the residual effect.; from the j 14 oil field days in terns of concrete next to brand ns:: l5 astheticall}• nleasint; residential or apartment areas . 16 47, Where you have some kind of retaininf; �r 17 walls , oil operations , et cetera , next to net; housin ; and g 1 ! 16 curbs and sidewalk- prohl.clns . 19 •18 . This is again a mixture of the old and the 20 new. 31 �i This is wherc you have tile effect of . tt residential neighborhoods , the environment for children along ` with oil de ter iornt in * curb and sideiva11: conditions, . 31 5U. This is still a mixture of commerci;) 1 use and open n reas along with riew housing . The prop l el:l ca:;0 ill thI particular case is no d ikilln around the of 1 , iliXttlre oT 1 � t1131 477•1377 h1AGAULEY tk h1AN1vINt;. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (71J) SSB 9400 , 57 1 piping , rietti w)artnents to the ri ;,ht , ct cetera . 2 52 . 1 is is the' St -standard fire fIow at;:tiit � c 3 for coil -Intl ;11MI-trlents JWH.1 liacific (:n;1st. Ilirht::;v. Two 4 standard fi re st-reamt, is more than wu can +,cncr:tte ill this 5 particular :Ire- This i:: the 10- iuc►) mait: rt_'I}ttirermit that = 6 Mr. Zatmhory t.,as talkin,r, alhnut . 7 53 is the :-umv think , sumo or thy' sub-standard f B hydrants in terms of some of the ;treat:; . Fvcn hecouse Ole i i< 9 hydrants may loola now and he;lut i fu l , ►e still Itax.t. loss thal) 10 tm) standard fire streams , att,aill tall.ins, about 11till and 11 Patciric coast: Highway . 12 55. I'll is 1s the stlmvicr isstiv You have the 13 off-street. 1)atrkinr; whic.lt is util i -iTq, the lot . Ycm r!ot ccrtatin cffec:ts in turns c l' side all-s . Yotl have ai;;n or the 1 1S advertisint, hi l lhoards and you horn to ;)wkc Ow iudlt,munt there . 1 15 5b , (lf f-str'ect I)arl:inp do sonic of the it residential atrc.'as . t� ' 57 . Still in Area C. And , of cutirse, %•ou caul see the ;tdcd-oil to struc:tures , ccrtain deterioration r);hr ithe period of rime alon(, with (;otters and AtIcti-all;s . )3 . (:amnc.rs and this is an aIIev cond1ti oil . ^" You need to drivo down the a i l eys and make ai ;il'd f N.-, sect loll . Sig . Still Area C and detcriora:Aon in curbs , *' A *. ttrcets in :his ;),art icl)':;tr areal and sw:.v detc:rioralt. ion iit . t'ructurzs themse I t-,-s . 00 Off one of the alIevs . 1*1 rtri;: . You car 11111 4)1 1)2) MACAULEY tk MANNING, SANTA ANA.CALIF. (YU) S'.e 9400 ' ~,- �dStf�;v+�+i'.�: t�L e:�1;.�t'�J:i, _-'i_•r'J�:i r';u. r e .+ ii.11r.Jt:t'.l"r '-:sue•._.* '.:.,-tea_. 's`'r... ...-«��.. r� JO ?t'' cc „llcre pipilli 11.15 bled piped up the side allu uaciti to La" roof and the general blight c:oatlitioll off of this particular " trca- Another shot of Ile tial.te thillt;. I U 1,'C" do have Some accul;iulatiull ill soi;,v o1 7;1rdS . Still in Area C . 1 tl.i. Tiles-C are twine Ultt housiily Ui11L:i and thurl S i ':;c old garas;c tin 5 111 the tloltiltolill aI-C:a 111 Area C that hrrtaiiily have to 1)u ad d i-o e d n r'. .•� ":;r i t, l . tithere sonlel)uuy hept .1 trailer allk, of t. `,,�,:• t�Q�ISC tile r: 's 110 sidel':alhS and liC havc SC1'CC't iellil Curt) 1proLl ms here e tou . j}CS• .0 Tills i:; a mixture of Ilse.' over ill 17th SLI'eeL 114J61 ut •!•ill's gives you all issue of parhilig 1)rub lei.is , f Al ;`�iJ3 ;;Jf-5trCCL 1)arl:illg, miXturL of coi-Awrciill u:ic lilt! •`x ,.t.iiltllil.11 areas . 00. Agaill this is a ridewali: issue. The: .4:93:1ullt of ICcc 5s Ge tl,•cell s t 1•eo t lines ;M Itrh :Iglu tale 1;;11•:ll;e kf iPACC ctllil e L cetera . ;'., .• 67 . 1.e are now muving illxo Area 1). 111 sv, far }��.Zi' I1:1Qrll, tlll� last part l�il:i also ill Area 0. fit other words, « 1: i.lkAd t1U VaS ill AI*,--a 1). 07 is now Area 1). This !'elates w `.:u•. of Loc ruaul`:ay cullt;itiills ;lllli Soule of tale ui1'-5tr::ct ii , ir• This partic:ulal• case i; f.pr holl.iine, occupallcy , :: t -•�. fit; .#itor "leficieucies, in ,\ica .1. '1•ile:It; are .l fe1,, brit it_,, 11ut Y I ! � tyficaI of the whole area . `4. ; 4 'There. .arc! some liv.lrt housing , vomc deteriorntio lof structures in Are. tr. 7'l.i s is ;err alley and year have some h1 i i!ht ' 4 xlth Painting anal probler.t:, in the alleyways. ' I This is now Area ti. This is at Atlanta lit 7 } !ooking toward Lake and of course there is erosion , all 'the � side►,al}.s are in good shape in this particular case . It 's ' �A mixture of use . This is back down on :Atlanta , talking about ' the :recess to the trailer marl: and the trafric prohlum issues . :,j :: •,�! , were though tie_ have the Sheraton Beach Inn , !; t ill there is +1tart issue of fire flow ill that partit:ular ar►a . And of course , '17%e of tho ke" hosi t ions here 1 s how e oo'; tile: vacant aj ,..a -late to the. Downtown area or the rest of the redt-velopment r t { ' 01• courser , this i ; in effect an open ;area . ' : r Il:is is sl itle number 74 . 3 t r 7 ) is the same thins, off of Atlanta and bolting at tr.tilei- marker and that in the end . lAppIause . �`N `, �" , •a.> : MAYOR !►'Iilhllilt : I 'm sur•_� that t•h.)se of ;.ou ►dw arc, ,v � rc for serious hosiness a,i l I ;reline:. irate that . ."' ,+: .' ' ► CME.Ir PICARD: Ilie .e slid_ . othul tlr.ln the fir: t � :ltr,'ti sI i.eies , t:.cr•c t.l}:►gin by ►riil•:rr fir . Sc1 icb or ,t r;rnlleur of V stiff under Inv diI-cctioll 'Ind c.rrr 1?c suhrrit lend for the 61 1;+t ilm .fr 1327 MACAULEY &MANNING,SANTA ANA. CALIF. SSB VJOJ ..n L• 6 rl i 1 record . There are nano I,Ic ,,.inr; areas and those t:•e.•re the q• j i ,. � or,es that un .1 t�alkint; surtk�v or a ari�•in�; ;urrc•�• 1,c•rC they ores that can 1w found and there an, Alan} rrlol-C.. '1'}i;lnk you �► i t l very much. f ,? 4 MAYOR l,I:fDER: Mr. Selich, hen: r►u•.h loager will 3 ( Your staff presentation l;o: MR.. Slil.l CH: Aboti t arlc. t:hcr half holly. I i !}.1Yc)It 1;'I:II)I:R: A] 1 right , ladies aml ,cnt1c�mcn, ,tt 3 at this tirl4 iv 1;•iII talc a fi: c ininotc recc:ss . (RecC,ti was takell . I • . i y, • I .I 1• 1•' lu � � I r 1113) 437 13,1 MACAULEY & MANNING. sAn1A AnA CALIF. 353 94,10 A ti UiUn' 6eke %fl-7, 91 1701 ,ell 41 All u':�w :i1' ('�:?.� � •-� ? �- _ r r. «�lil.J �.I. ,.. •�.•r,. J � .l. �-tlij; r �- '.:i': .�1"i� .�f�t:�1� . '/ J ."_�. �Sl.t•. .... ;t:1, tt .) =.' •' ?l:fit i••�., O V ✓f1.L 11 )Qj�� . tvia-AA 9 j I i c��„_ -/f 1w, ly AM V?".,1_" - ..:1; TI A 7t':: : l� .�_,; THIS '31Y.i??7:T.TOIS ?:: fl, .::1'. D RE Ii E ARE ..':;^.JTIW1;::,=f c-ITT O-Otr�:°:jl TO ACT UPON T7'IS P t()?ll, . o?_ 'r�11 g 7 z. --- _qj 6 Z ol et �I / � �� -•�'�=i��-� //�/J�/ `�1�tr�._ _ �I �� .�L�_, ��`�-fir '. .,�.___ 5�7 ct O-Ap 1 t :1 J I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE P ESENT PROPOSAL AY THE CITY COMMIL TO REDEVELOP THE DOWNT MI ARM. I AGREE T.IAT THE DO'rltl'i'0M AREA IS IIS ?TEED OF R.r RAISHIIiG, PUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALTEc IATIVES TO THE PRrSEUT DRASTIC 1d)VF,?e,,T. / DATE NACC ADDRESS � 6/ `ate r 1-Aa" �Pi. ]f t7b e-e, f I/I ILI Llb AILI �Ql 1 �1 • DATA ollo f 7�,)/) L _ 1 ` I DATA ADDRESS 1M 176 xv, 1/ ./�.!•, ,..,,r- _ f V J J, 1 ..ry 17 R�.." •r.t r�;."� Oocv ZZ(,Z .126 < �. t• / // // "1 � ) / lam•• * /�� 'J Lit �J,'C . J� � 1 �, � y. r" ` i IaAT�, ' A"� ArDF.tSS Jr(r/ �� /i%� L � / rt?- ' r` •.+..r.r.�r . . . � .t. � �� i. . • r• .17 00, 1%Z/, ,, ; -(-- �� < C•i'e -!i!�— ' , ( ./, f :_�, ., Ali '" jr)• �'%' /tom �, �r'' � r• _, - '�� I ' /',..� ��'`��• ti-{.� / l�r � ��1 Jam% � ��G.�c'•-�.{tS-�i.L .�......`_ � _.......r.. r� / C6 Zvz.2 V '•L' • /+ ., r �„y �.+_ate+:.=1'4.. .... .. -� ;!`/ ! ' 1- I• / r5r:;.:� .�` ' s III I ` � 4 r- DgT� *rg ADD:-:?SS �I�,,,�' 136—ls-7 t,cj.Ja, 0 7-/;� 7 C rc-14.•7�, 7 Xv,/ t /7 to i c) 119 . I v �� •��✓/ ft SAC..._ , yy J * . tom' G•.1' �.iC? ;�Il c � �'. ~! 1� DATA _ZA2•:E ADDYC-!!S A�/0 4 / / n 76 i _fLn � .r—e.,rc�.a� !� ,. ...:.��• J — �'i ' lG I6 � 1 ��f/zK J CJ I G.�G�✓! C�•t r-../ r/�f G a Ll�'/. tea U12 .03 �Od i I r rr�.rr...rr�r J ' l I I M NOT AGREE WITH THX- PRESENT PROPOSAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REDEVEMP THE DOWNWAI AREA. I AGREE THAT TFE DMMTOWN ARr^A IS IN NEED OF REFURBISHING, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALTEMATIVES TO THE PRESENT DRASTIC 10VEt•LGNT. DATE N + ADDRESS (( W . 1 to /b_ r� 1 . i J /oh";-24 41 /a/ _ 117 I k ILI C11 - A�Zg lb-1? DATE NAIL ADDREVSS 0-1 "AAA, Io Loin lOJ ( ..�� /� e•�.,1�.:� :�� !1/ �; .� ^ rev t�--•y-. :i a..., , I I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PRESEIIT PRUFOSAL BY THE CITY COUTICIL TO REDEVELOP TfM DO-OTOWN AREA. I AGREE THAT THE WVTOWfi AREA IS IN NOD OF REFURBISHING, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALTEMIAMES TO THE PRESEfiT DRASTIC M7VEMVIT. � �r DATE NAME ADDRESS 2:7- ri y,y 1 d v © 1 4107 I � t Ate t �� . • a I a WE NAME ADDR 1853 izz JZC 5V. -i5&tt�9P M :I-�- N !4 .� C � 3.. v-s� -��FY I�IYW�Y r•Y�i IYYYY��Y *ce_. a •��}. 3/ ,/ I � t `�`��-�'rj�'�� •..L�"+-cam �/` / � � ./ � ��'' 4-7 X.4 r s /0 ' I �. J�D_u • �f�'7.t ti DATE 23A;r� r n ' e eveit�A oml�� la 11 7cY, o �A r , . � f° ��7G •V t crt'a...,cif � Cam! n a �23 �.S LIP ,�1 DATE NAIME 1DDRx.'SS l I s' L� (p Sl �/ w � �!/�L��.lii� DKna0()Iz yel ��J$-oo' i I' L'o :1�2 71 Lb �- P. tMfi-e� L-00, 2a ,h -4-7 zz,;L-tc..7�� X-e�4 -7 G �y6 , LVADATE' NA tom' �:llDFL S S o� , e�'If's rod- -A7 i h i. 7 .� -� , i nj I DO JOT AGREE WITH THE PRESENT PROPOSAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REDS' EW? Thy DOWNTOWN AREA. I AGREE THAT THE DOWN"WdN AREA IS 114 NM OF REFURBISHING, BUT MOULD Iam '.ro SEE ALTERNA.LIVES TO THE PRESENT DRASTIC bDMOIT. DATE NANM ADDRESS AN l0 -77-76 RfE�j 1�. RAYSOC.K .51..5 1.�4-A-Sf � �l, b ilk' X&) oo Alla 9jeivr— d-,L- 43,-�e n, r I Ar I/ 5; � iLip U4 �I I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PRESENT FROPOSAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO RE.^.EVELOP TIM DOWNTOWN AREA. I AGREE TEAT THE DOWTIT014N AREA IS V NEED OF REFUMISHING, B WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALTERIIATIVES TO THE PRESENT DRASTIC I,I)VE-MENT. DATE NAME ADDRESS ell i i t 1 r / f I DO VOT AGREE WITH THE PRESS M PROPOSAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REDEVEWP THE DOWNTOWN AREA. I AGREE THAT THE DOWNTOWN ARFA IS IN NEED OF REFURBISHING, BUT k ULD LIKE TO SEE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PRESENT DRASTIC MNEMENT. NAME ADDRESS • 4 �wr 004 egIV 97 t v� ,/rt 9y7L � ,t • � �� ii I� i � I i r [4 NOT AGREE WITH THE PRESMIT PROPOSAL BY THE CITLY COUNC.LL TO REDEVEIOP Vs i I iY;n`IMPOWN AREA. I AJR^E THAT THE DOiT:r"i' IN AREA :,to IN NEED OF RF".cURBISH1710, BUT \ WOULD MKE TO SEE ALTERNATMES TO THE PRESENT DRASTICDAT .'•x7rIE�L�iJT. E lk Me*(" ilk C � 1 t -V-�� ✓ ", Ve 9 7 /9 / LoLo �� - +i YD 2 X- �c. !; �-• odAl 25- 4 . h D� 1-7 7 r CL 47-w-"lJO ZMALA 5�— A { DATA :7A.'•:E ADLP--'Ga Q&ja Aleu-) (Ilm 1A o Iz-a JO 12 /t . I - 1� 07 7 61' pj k4�11ym 7 r �-6 6391 Vlf�(AFli- bec. A L�y If LI ( WASc. •�r rc Pu5hV r 1 DU Vf)T AGREE WITH THE PRESEYT PROFOSAL BY THE CITY CC(PtCIL TO RrDEVEMP THE DOWNTOtiiTi AREA. a AGREE THA DUMITO'+7i ARFA IS III NEED OF REFUpm SHING, B1T1 WOULD LIf,T: TO ^ AL iATIVES TO TILE PRESE`iT DRASTIC MM DATE - ADDRESS °lts 7 V. O 9 S'r14 f0 15 Jo �a mot. xe / o fr- A 7 0/1 d7t hr4lj i _...-�--- -�-- ._ - sr w �- DLTE NAME A LBIUss D l ' Alin �. .�...�..�. �6 So ian .� j////jl 2 L -to ! ,3 C 90 I6 r / �S(rF"' SGcJA h L,r(1i'1 ti ,zAvr, S' ....� JQ-J7-�4 �l 1 f C915 �� FAQ .��'• !a�- f�C� �,. y r UTEE NAtr.'r_' day- /,D eq rT - __ . _71Q f� &Ala 7 rAlV CHIN (/ •% :577 I } I I DO VOT AGREE WITH THE PRESUT PROPOSAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REDEVEIAP THE DOWNTOWN AREA. I AGREE THAT THE DO'rINT0'W7( AR:-A IS IN NEED OF REFURBISHIIIG, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE AMEMIATIVES TO THE PRESENT DRASTIC MVEMNT. DATE TIAME ADDRESS /d/)h 41 M( rtr'l Lbdjor l� 1 •..._...�.._._ - C: I + I NOV.I 7. DO NCT AGREE WITH THE PRESENT PROPOSAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REDEVEMP TEIE DOWN'.:041It AREA. I AGREE THAT THE DO'ATVlVvIN AM IS IN NEED OF REFURBISHING, BUT WOULD Urt TO 3 E ALTE RNAMES TO THE PRESEINT DPASTIC ,•nVEI-SN''T. LATE ADDRESS LAI- to --IILa p CIZ14A q 4 11 1d-7!a 0-rase 4fF pwFv, 172G 1 ALD-4C O LAME: . 9,Arld Q49 n Lp- 1'72ry 1 VN1 M e.W V%Ay%c- 1 Ivr i . 1� —! J" �y./ I .(j.✓�� YI ��,1 �. . � (��-�• `— �tJ1 � rfI\. �� a �l � ��C/ � 062, Via CA Y a-,r� f '' �tl 1��G ?'✓v f�t.f`�� -z �t Z Cato rr r v+�, pr. / /if" 1:. %L!,.r ..�.c`. l�r .v•/ �- j . .Z. (� r l '� y ' f ,.� :/ L �, ._..___.._ J If -�.� �^1 nw•.f{..r.l.'_r 1 j .:Cn.�'•. `/(`ll ' 1 } L' Q ` f I1 rier/omd H 6 1 r I DATE IlA:• 41)"DR::i3 l � ]JAI. f i 01 A1,6 eA ' S 'V o2 j qroQ 1,41 ei Jr IA n t � � + 1� Cl EA b9T�' INAPT ADDRESS ' TA17 �qo i Mayne i/ hr 7� 1• °' 6ZO.QL ` .:. yr Pic c L SA a z__,e 1,�-, .,...mot j !ZI /11-7 6 -�L FIR E=1 NX 6�&Jk Ain -A-1 IA ytk J) 67 6,. DATr NAME ADDRK'SS �/ w.aw•..tr.M IeA9�7;;f-. Z-/,0 0 ir r �._ . .ram..,�.Y...... ._.�.._... i 17 tiff 1 1 76 pQ Lov , 0 d F LL-710 v f J fp Air r 11/� i/76 r71 qa ��//��6 ,0 , .� t ,o, -• - 70 Alf- -7 � 1 L Q13 eb&9&4 4-14 ToAlcul a _._... 4117A -Z92ALLt � G43 �. �4 or 11 • f DATA I;AtC- ADDILtIss /0/ & sJP3/ /P a� / , to &LAI� t��L d__. I/-/a - 7 6 bt. H, 6 �I Q' 710 676 0 ?1'a Ca/`l una15 I2--76 /l 1�3a2 Ob r� h �`� :- - J v Al B . it- 42- - i A • • y DLT'S ISA ME ADDRE S S ,�Ilfa)o I A 172-6 r dig, Ji PaArl A. l C.h�• .' %J G � __.::,.,,, .J f7 l-, I Tc�•,� .<<e. UVA �7 /l/17b 7 7 � aj .�..� L n . H - ' Lis 701 j7' ' IZ DO NOT ACREF W,:TH THE PRESENT PROPOSAL BY THE CITY COMC IL !'0 kiEAE'JEfAP T}r, ' DOWNW41 AREA. I AGREE THAT THE LY!mt` m, 1`.REA IS I?f ?tEED OF REF'URHIJHTtIG, BUT WOUT,D LIKE TO SEE AM7ER'fATIVES TO THE PRESENT DRASTIC MNEUENT. DATE NAME AnrREas r f 9 3 Ale icy 1.L Vle. ._._._ C] 21 7 G �! 0=5 -7 irkIle C c /.= t�y Ld •i �''1 lljjl IX •• r 13 i i i !!I t I DO NS'I' AGREE WITH THE PRESCM PROPOSAL BY THE CITY COUIICIL TO REDEVEMP THE t DOWNTLI'n•N /AREA. I AGREE THAT THE DO•rI MI-RI AREA IS IN NEED OF REFURBISHI?IG, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE AMMIATIVES TO THE PRESENT DRASTIC monisra. DATE NA!dE ADDRESS �o ail b c, ,,, !0 Zlo 7G �filtit{ � ?�Z/1�Y!/ -r`�--, �.� 72 �-��`Lttt�t�l��y) • �"�r OR -71 z7e , Zell / r i . . r DATE r/ I 1 — 4 - 7 `�'11 . rc,ti ,t 1 q '7V 13, -`f- 76 S:, 76 `w%� lf-r ' //� ' f�l:l rt I 'd�C C•l .�..�'!r �! !d-L �dc c 1•. / . , r, . � C�" �► ."-..,-.....r, AA CdW 4 lh 4� 7 YffmL*,P4� aoc . rZAo4t4%o6 awe a DATE NAME r loe Mr�rw ——�r� Ytir•w+F�w� 1jr , .wnwwl�V-w�.�1r Y�yrOu�/1 • �.y�irlY- �r.�� M•��wrtiw/.. �a.y_��.•��•�•vr.rw�Ir..W rr.�rr w.rYl►`.MWMrA.�.1� rj� Yf T, �?7 �VFI;l T)r) 110T AGPE-E, WITH TIM P'Ljr-Sr-jT PriOTMSAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REDDJEMP THE DOWNfOWN A6ZA, I AG77S.E THAT Ti'—t-. Dolx,,10141 AF-P,% 13 111 NEED OF R-MvJTUISHIIIG� PUT wGULT-1 Jl M TO SEE AlrLERNATIVIES TO THE PRESENT DRASTIC '3JVE!'LElNT- DATENAIL ADDRESS p's- tau Lo - 'i r %, '.'� is -�r � .i f,' .1� � r '�r1 i r 7"" r i4 V1. �i-.�._.1� J ' `•� l i• � ` t�. .A, r, ..•-!'•�,•""�^ �.... i l .��'�•. f�..(+=.tt. ...R•v,Ir.�.: r�.•ti...l ��' A DATA :1A ADDRESS zo Ilk i A CIA i `^ � �// '}'•/t`- / �1 . '_ / if /'�� } /_ f� / !�(` .t•.f r i:._..."' L? -C(''�('`� ' ? l ` 'y .r�irwif+r.wr.rrwr.rww. �I DATE 2.1.4M' ADDl S Of AM1,1411 el PIP.I WIL 00, ':Av A - _ I� -' (1f rvf ' ti �• 1 DATS :d :; ADDRESS � !�j 1, � .,..�• i ��•�---�� s� , t � r---� _l� '1� . /C� -/_r ' lr,; I�i'r• , � -- ,a. ,.+ � '. i t. �� it r Vt ..,l I0 // tt { t ` eo :ZZL 117L /Pt-1 dp r , i ! f •r .e � J Cull, W -. .. ... a �• .. .� ; L DATJ I J Fo 1 Q it - - fl r/ tv zoz i . �� 5 i � , � _ did_ -- • ✓fi ! �, �itL1 .► ,c_ _L r r s ..J� t r' . '' �' -1'.: / !% J -2_ "r.w►.lt • r / i r r - 1 ` y fY � 1 b , Vl i i I i l NAM ADDR ESS DATE 07 7b / U4, UV 17 4 ELI ..wry+ .'.•.�..+� �r�.rr.�rrw wrwrr rn.+rw � r C - 1 DO NOT AGRE 11_TTH 'r s7 _ HT,"S:N:- T•ROPOSA., CO►KICIL• "0 REDEVELOP THE Da1l.'TO;I:: �R:e1. I GR—1 . . ?: UC;i":'G'rT:r dRu� IS I:T NEED OF REF UREISHILIG, —PUT JOULD T,T "' TO S-Fr' :1? ER:TA i I i-S 0 TO THE* PRESENT DRASTIC DATE ADDRESS - H.O. . loa fie. Gc 1��- 0 (,4/70 co4k kukOtA-,bv� - .Z/Z• A 2 c4f&lo 54, Yy�or o-�5 - 7 � .mac., �•►. y-� _ l 76 LID _- 6q R S-W& �Q�/�I7L �� .••''-� !G S?z l'lt+l is Ln. p `� f I i II DATE :I11 I A i):1:.SS T-2A it .o t�;tt El ) • L�' / / f rf�/ l '~r � '•` /�C, ....r' ter/ •/..• ��• t, i/' '". _ j �•i • I • � cL VAWN CF- �,^� 1. .�� f r'.'.•�. h- `,r r . _ !iil DATE ; 7A%4: 4DDRES5 Ic 7a � /j4—yf > ,76 D l f S 7G yy, / 707,?, P C H-A-/°3 . ADDRESS DAT E '.A 7'E' 10 ol Av .,4 DATE tl 25 ��t7 �d /57.- 0 ell ZIP (6 - Is 01-)� aw-4,trt� CC, Qd 70� DATE nD,i.t':Ss A0/O X - R . i IS ti A A Xs Z.? Z & L'6 Mir.. i �CJ - " L71f �e-Ze4li y , phi': - -- .-..__..._ .45 Al, 76z4?�70 -------------- o L,C /tPaJ Torv,� `76 S2 UoI6 d- 2 41 71 _ . ----------------- _ ,I;p 76 A9 16 -�c Ax r /0 -- !6 - 7.6 7 el 1146 /o-- A �,J 7� W•et. Z �I .t I DO NOT AGRF,^ 14ITH i.ul---' Px?S=''JT PROPOSAL EY THE CITY' joU-1'CIL TO REDEVELOP THE DO,f'.I T 0i('II ARIA. I AGREE .'HkT THE DO-M-11Oi I AREA rS IN NEED OF R FUREISHIllG , BlJl' .OTj'Z ) LIKE, TO SEE AL=-,RIIA`"IVES TO THr. PRESENT DRASTIC DATE ::A: ` DDRESS' GGlzl 17 azyltx� OX �P4- f .i iV ...� ADDRESS DhTi ._ _ . ! , IJ Al t Jo .__ NY- li�• ---•--- r 71 r f DATA ADDRESS _ fig A-1/_V.. ------ __z fQ& 1 (�) 1�- Ct t,� ',c�u Lx7:l�C� ; �X� I ►rn�1�rY�� Cyr. 1-� +f3 /o/H l p ,Ile,—X—It ..7 v ti 71 f 7 1 174 -I MA IN lei- c ' r -J ` I � i I b +� 7�m -10 3— slt 316 1 6- s �S �?—�C.i'�ly r!/l - �L•� ([,,. �l. �/T�R./ y"2,.1.•i�r..s,. �.Zj,. . ADDRESS Ely ln - kt ? ILI � P 1 _ r -7 6p ILI -� r11V �_�../�I .%-� I � ,/ +'•' i'fir � I I /j/�'�rlv'ii(i.•-r'✓�.��.vV"'I!_/ •' C - ' �• ' �� f`�i. l��"1�=ENV'' 1 r , D1A TB I i1�2r: ADDISS 7b,--j�( �) /�-/� -=��_-._1__. .:11.:��•r��_�/�/,�-.✓•!-�'�`�� - ( 1(�1,/c/ 1.J!-t ..rL. �,il �,I� /� f� .-•, r UL -7, 1*0 i I • `j-' � � 1 ' ; ,I- 1 �Juri 'luiv,,lite iia. Uc:,ober 15,1970 C. Edward Dilkes Lear Sit: letter to attend tee council meetin ,Jc: respunded t;o the regiat(.red g Octaoberll but'41ure unable to get int., the h•,ffl.diag. 'ie t�.lked to you a inument in the patio explaining ;•re could be out of " LiLe on the 28th and yo i suggested a letter setting forth our thought's on the iryatzer. Our views on the _Urban renewal in this ca,e are opposite from these r;entleme who have _ _. • rated ttiese plans r not; from ,- kindly attitude toward th Huntirgtr n beach wntown are but for some people to make money while in- others will lose Iot.`i'he history of Urbzin Aenewal has not,by a whole lot, r success and benefi-cs to many corn- munitics but a record of tragic losses in money -.nd abodes of the citizens. The best and ncarr:st example 1 can think of is tiie Bunker Aill project -i-n Los An;-eles.This project started abort two decades ago i:.nd hasn't material- ized yet in the manner pictured by the advocates.`i'housai:ris of people were uprooted fr um this area wn ere they v:ere •.:it hin w:xlking distance of very ci:eap markets, clothing st;or es, -rid entertainment and Scattered to the four- winds bec•_.,ming a hcavi.er burden to the taxpayers through having, to live in a higher-income area. All kinds of promises ,titre made to ti.e nublic by the 1 developers including; one to an acquaantanr.e of ours wno ovmed the iingels Flight. .iailway they disassembled it promising to restore it but dug away I a lot of the hill whit:: it ascended.The whole thin) became such a white elephant that the Federal Oovornment which rreuzs the nation:: -,axpayers offered to sell tile whole thin; b_,ck to tiie Qity for 4110,000,000.00 which the city refused, This was possibly a 2J0 acre project anu the vast major- ity of it is still vacant with a few public buildings erected and three or fc•ir high-rite- exbcnsivo apt. buildings. There are a few parking lots mostly for public employees and the rest is bz4r•e vacant land. If you look along FaciCic Coast-, highway you will find that in almost all cases the only Cities that are prospering* along their ti�aterfron-,, areas are the ones with i-arinas.San Cl.ementes ' pier is de..d ILong Veachs pier is dead their oil royalties is bailing; them out•.There the whole aowntown area is siuggish.Venice and Ocean Park r.-tve lore; ago. eliminated ::heir piers and viE believe Santa i•.onica has ai so. Concerriin the millions of dollars in a:, underground parking lot why not, t}ae the cxast .ng parking facilities with a tram or min'-bus service j at a cheap fare to tiie dovmtovai shops. I. done see how it is possible for a few people to say "this is a -lighted area" and proceed to confiscai;e this property at about one third its salable price.1de had an offer of about three times t;;e amount the city propose- t:.) confiscate it for.If the city's tax coffers are empty then r Lise the property value and the taxes.But don't take our property and then sell it for three times what was paid for it to some private conti•actors:say banks , insurance companies, savinFa and loans.--, Lack of swift accessability enj,)yed by say Fashion lsl.and is a neCati- ve factor in this case.It seems to un, ti.at the 6ity of tiuntington Beacis 1 encompasses a.. lot of vacant land that could be bought comparatively cheaply by a combination of bullocks,iiay Co., aobinso�:s etc and a mall put in if they trtouaht the potential, v;as t here.3o maybe their progn- osticators are less willing to gamble wish Lheir money than our repre•- sentatives are to gamble with our money, I don't think the Night of Eminent Domain should be applied except in the cases of space for schools, parks, streets,or public buildings. To confiscate property just to put higher priced property on which at the same time involves a lot of supposition seem,. unreasonable. The idea of taxing this shall area and seperating this tax from the general tax fund to pay this Project out we don't believe can be legally done.That; seems to be a subtle ,r:essaf e that the present ovinvr, of the property won't be the owners when the pr.,ject is finished. With the yppc:s of peovle who come into this urea it seec's thatsortle- thing in'. line olvang or Olvera. St. with quaint fronts for the buildings would entice more of bot:e;ttisl cu.,r:o.;,:,rs than a multimillion dollar gam- ble. 4 gincQrely, -lizabeth w Albort Boswell Owners 217Itain St. 4 1 1 i 7 t i Southern California Edison Company F. P.O. Box 111 HUNlltlof011 BEACH. CALIFOANIA 92648 H, r•COUPTON November 18, 1976 MAMAOt A,MYMtIMMf OM MIACw The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 I Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Honorable Body: As a member of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Executive Committee, e, and the repre- sentative re- sentative of a major industry, I strongly urge you to adopt a Redevelopment Flan for the Downtown Area. A positive plan and direction must be established now that will permit an orderly improvement of the downtown area. Please take action now to improve the City of Huntington Beach by adopting the Redevelopment Plan. Very truly yours, H. W. Compton, Manager Huntington Beach HWC:imr i 1 i i • —�'i•�'-'Y� ��iyL..p��./ � a��/:.':�-cri-c--a2,,-•s-�1-t��e:.�'`""'f i } l�- November 22, (976 i i TO: Mayor/City Council CC. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency li. CC, Huntington Beach Redevelopment commission The CANT Committee, well established in our community as a tax reform group for the residents of Huntington Beach have after exhaustive study recommend adoption of a redevelopment plan prior to the end of 1976. We agree that the existing plan has flaws, however, it could never be all things to all people. The simple administrative act of adopting a version of the proposed plan now, would enhance the future of the project and add more fiscal responsibility to the process. Respectfully, Montana Schultz Chairman CANT Committee j f t j 1 IA- 1 RESOLUTIO14 The UNDERSIGNED hereby ' supports the Huntington Beach Destination Resort Redevelopment i concept currently being proposed to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment E Agency. I The UNDERSIGNED further { will actively work to promote the concepts contained therein which will bring a greater taA dollar base to this City. The UNDERSIGNED b3lieves that an environmentally sound highrise, hotel/business development fronting on Coast Highway and the immediately adjacent specialty commercial complex will provide the catalyst to make Huntington Beach a community in which the citizenry can take great pride. DATED: /j Jf` E NAy1f:�161��,,.� ADDRESS/�i.�y4"��ijN�C:(�vNAME Hp1P.i _a1W jDDRr-SS ift 1 tAk�N t� Sla I 1 � I { A ( 1 I J� I RESOLUTION The UNDERSIGNED nereby supports the Huntington Beach Destination Resort: Redevelopment concept: currently being proposed to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment: Agency. The UNDERSIGNED further %i All actively work to promote the concepts contained therein which will bring a greater tax dollar base to this City. The UNDERSIGNED believes that an environmentally sound highrise, hotel/business development fronting on Coast Highway and the immediately adjacent specialty commercial complex will provide the catalyst to make Huntington Beach a community in which the citizenry can take great pride. T)ATM): he f NAMF. ADDRESS NAME i4DDRCSS F �� . .........,... RESOLUTTON f i The UNDERSIGNED hereby supports the Huntington Beach Destination Resort Redevelopment concept currently heing proposed to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. 'rhe UNDERSIGNED further will actively work to promote the concepts contained therein which will bring a greater tax dollar base to this City. The UNDERSIGNED believes that an environmentally sound highrise, hotel/business development fronting on Coast highway and the immediately adjacent specialty commercial complex will provide the catalyst to make Huntington reach a community in which the citizenry can take great pride. DATrn: 1 - NAME ADDRESS �'-" I tTAM !L�' LC�.G� ADDRESS 106. ,v> t�� l x?ie' , �Gl�s t stxs-.r. fU `r Attu+ _3CG t[L[atl�lsd'�C-+f i RESOLUT I014 I hc UNDERSIGNED hereby j supports the Huntington Beach Destination Resort Redevelopment concept currently being proposed to the Huntington Beach Redeve.loj►mont Agency. +i 'rho UNDERSIGNED further l will actively work to promote the concepts contained therein which it brill bring a greater Lax dollar bare to this City. Thu, UNDERSIGNED hcl.i�wa that an environmentally sound highrise, hotel/business development { fronting on Coast liiyhway and the immedia.:ely adjacent speci.alL y commercial complex will provide .the catalyst to make 11untinclton Suach a com.iunity in which the citizenry can tal:e great Pride. ADDRESS // NAtIE4 l`G1 1� emoN lot TOs P1 aJFCT AREA C)MITME, HLJNTINGMN BF.Af:11, CA. REnEV1-LOMM AGFNGY , ILMINGMN Mal, CA. CITY (()11NCIL, KWIP.'MN NAM, CA RMOL11TION 711B IMPILSIGM:1) IIFRIMY SUPP0,7I'S ME 10MINGM14 13EAC11 1lMIUMON RC.TRT REDEVEUP+iCM r WC,r-.1'T CURRI?NTL.Y BIiIN(, PR()POSrm Tf f , , nrm Vcy, 110* IMDI:R.SICNE[) F111MIER WILL A(7IVFLY WORK TO PFNlP1UT7i 111r M,"ICPPT,ri CONTAINED 719MIN W11101 WILL BRING A CREAM TAX 1X1LLAR B&ST: TO '11115 CITY. 7111: 11MER.SIMM BELIEVE-S 711AT AN FE NNVIROId.IEA*fALLY SOUND 11I01RISF., IM;L/BIISINESS DfiVFU)MTM FRONTING ON PACIFIC C0A.ST HIGHWAY ANT) 711F AQIAUM SPECIALTY MMERCIAL CDIPLFC WILL. PROVIDE THE CATALYST TO MAKE 11 HN MN BEACH A CM UNITY IN *11cif THE CITIZENRY CAN TAKE 'A PRIDE. MR. r 1V)URES.S: Ziot4.� z. � Yn 3. 2- 11�Ii a 6 . 7. ( L. 8-10,4 Pc 10.A�9 1 Ma 61i k 36 :Z OR�j 12 LAI (� I 13. .c.c ;�L� ALL&/L? 15• rcoo J-6.' 16. - / 17. .gal -/CF in. ( - P��ate/ of Ccy �K Gz 20. 22 '23. i l 1 . �c guy AlvLL- 17 Ae ! lI 9, X �f/Lt�c Ir M l 'r�J It• G �- `�11 1 -3 ate- -tu.r Q, 9g, 37s-L� �&d .-�- •tea' ( .fir.-•�...1' ,��,�� ' '�',,� 9,A fL ��.�.� rx u c� �)c_�v+n.�tn 4-; C� n C) 4L 2 71,14 0,7 J O ilc L. L !• T6 , IL 1 7/6 a l/ 71-4,,e,o�v A4"C171 C.4 .07. 6 4fe Ove3 7� tdt e e /`r ..G'�-LG-1 L.,�G'Z.J ��L��t!� . ✓�'�/r� �C �L•�y'L l"r �/c,./ J..+�V'3r cy t' LM)n1�1 �tLR1�. l ?� 'J� YL�riw'�� 156 j /.J 1 1 42 aG � azct IST e. c.i 97 i L L A �• n r�/n�+ i �J ,44 ��Gt�.C� '•--��yL-�c"': �/0 `� 7 - fir C� / i .• ova. ��s- �� 3 �� i II ��, i � •" 1 �"\ 'may � . /:1tih G A/4 It �,, /✓tit c,( %.�G•f! • (� - aue- - " .0 9 y � �,,cU.Q_ Cam- . N.�. 1 �-� `•1 C� �} c ,,V -,1 cvi i tT-'PJ S 9 Do 6 �, �f�/fr / / �i',,.Y�f-t-4�.. ., ! ( J v � 4t•:�t'Q.�Jp••� s 1-� e l .(� C1L c; 1 ,11,4 V do • ` r� J�,�-may",, ,7 P�u �70 .1 J To: PAC From: Leonard,-fright 1-25-77 Copies to CC, PG, 'rD, KC 606 - l.'. h St, iiB Subject: Items touching on redevelopment Time and effort exAendLd by PriC PAC members attended many meetings and contributed much time over the past year. Some PAC members spent extra effort in composing the PAC Y newsletters. These facts are known and probably will be recognized at the appropriate time. My relations with PAC Any critical comments I 've made (or that some others make) in no way Infer that all people of any group are exactly alike in their attitudes and actions. I assume that those inside and outside of PAC know this. With one female exception, all members of PAC have remained cordial and friendly with me. The day my letter of resignation was distributed (Dec. 15) , my wife received v phone call from an elderly lady who identified herself as a PAC member, then chdnged her story to being the wife of a PAC member (I 'm certain that she's not the wife of a PAC member) . The caller told my wife that Leonard Wright, Is an idiot and that my wife was an idiot to stay married to him. Subsequently my wife received daily calls from the same woman --- sometimes with more short comments, sometimes with the dial clicking, sometimes with silence. � When items appeared in the paper that she didn't like: a whistle was blown in my wife 's ear when she picked up the phone (a newspaper article that day mentioned the possibility of revitalization Instead of redevelopment) . a whistle was blown in my son's ear when he picked up the phone (in response to an article on redevelopment in the Independent) . If the caller is a member of PAC, I 'm certain that no other PAC member In any way condones this tactic. My wife accompanied me to the first part of the Jan. 20 PAC meeting to see if any voices matched that of the caller. The results were as we expected. If my family is further harrassed, the perpetrator may not like what results. Candor by the Nair I was pleasantly surprised by soma of Mayor Wieder's candid statements on redevelopment items. Also that one of the members of PAC stated that Mayor Wieder was basically correct (Jan. 20 PAC meeting) . ! I believe that Mayor Wieder wants to see the downtown commercial area rejuvenated, that she's expended a tremendous effort in trying to bring it about, -and that she's keenly disappointed with this issue not being resolved thus far during her term as Mayor. One of the responsibilities of city officials is to consider varying concerns, then to make decisions based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts. If PAC desires to make summary comments, I believe that the suggestion ' of one of its members is appropriate: a letter that describes positive activities by PAC . } = a ANDt , `'•. •c 1 1101 ., OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTI;•101 'L .� Name Address Representing_ W ""':r',¢ Speaking: FOR i AGAINST S� t10 POSITION PLEASE RE'I'UrRN TO CITY CLERK 1P' NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY` dw w i Names Address P-\ 7 O i V 0 Representing � � S � f 1 r� �Yl � � i� -•' 1^�•.�� 4• !^ Speaking: FOR � �'""•�` ,�lf: r,; 1 AGAINST NO POSITION i_T rI '•-�f' ! t ., �_ N fir. �riyr•YLw�.. �•,,: PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK C/O /� ,`,• .. `'•• '' ' NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRE:.ZltT TESTIMONY . �.►+• ,. Name 2�r �� r A --- Address Representing ~t" ..,!..•..�.rr.' Speaking: FOR t� t��!►`�.�,^rt-'•�-�'-.: AGAINST_••,_•_, I,� r / NO POSITION � �� / P SE RETURN TO CITY CLERK LEA r' ��..r!;1�..�.:.!'�,Jr 177�..y''tip • �"i�.4r+:�..a. ,,,.^ !i•= w�,.�F.•�/t+1•.�+:,:•.�.�yv,yFt,1..L'Ni _•.'�.;iN}-''/'—f"i.. .- �. . • , ;00I OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTIF Name AddresS RepresentingFEE c Speaking: Xl 1 0 AGAINST__ 11C POSITION fh— PLEASE RETURN To CITY CLERK NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY Names--' CJIII—�- Address Representing Speaking: FOR AGAINST 110 POSITION LZ TO CITY CLERIC K PLEASE RETURN 140TICE OF DESIRE To PRESENT TESTIMONY NamE oe e� Address (Lr Representing ',peaking: FOR----------- AGAINST--Z"d ;to- f PLEASE P- 1 1110 CITY CLERK "0' '491 � II• :ICEOF DESIRE I'0 F'F�ESEl:T ':EST; iY j Address C"7 .� resenting `! / L FOR— �J } :AII;ST—lam/ r.0 i•. ITION t. PLEASE MUM TO CITY C `:Flr, r � f f NOTICE OF DESIRE TO � tlamc: Address i� X&I L:-4f'iL'L7 R i Representing f� f� C�='✓%Vi'i!. F�jy /• �,•- Specking: FOR 1� I i• AGAINST { NO POSITION i PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK NOTICE OF DESIRE W PRESENT TESTIN.ONY Name r r ' Address Representing 1 Speaking: FOR ✓ , t f I AGAItrST NO POSITION . i s i PIMASE ?.E'TUM TO CITY CLERK �r { i i �. •'r 100)OTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TE^Iolly ti{ Ar 1� .t � ��'� � tom.�-C `• � i Name r. ' Address resenting �u- N-1-t N G•--Util r ti i-.«�-n.t-tr a.:.. ,.r+A� .•, Rep A-sz-sOC l :-j -rr o!J .•.:� r. • Speaking: FOR r• , �•1 AGAINST F NO POSITION___ r,, % ' ��:a ,y�;. •,, � ,;ma's ,,�,_.:;. PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK � 4 - rrr��r��r1r rYlO�r. rrri�r n� NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY !' Name 'r r7�� = L'- •�- �' Addresc �' �� Representing ) -r Speaking: FOR AGAINST t NO POSITION ,,• � ' 1•=`4'� - .. • PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK a � �• •`.j'.••. ' NOTICE OF DESIRE TO�PRESENT �'-TESTIMONY = Name j6h i •. Address lj c.�?U i Representing L-e G / J1 Speaking: FOR Po AGAINST NO POSITION PLEASE RE' UR:? TO CITY CLERK io4 Jr I-4ft� +'' -'i .;�,;,/.�d.'�'/rr�1.s'1L"'_�,- ,�.♦\rat'�,'�►�;�'�=��""-'Ryy'+•�s�!O/•��/r�•�J,L'.,.?ti. ..�.'G'`"44�i•"_7a";'��`'1;"►:k��.ts*`;r9rsn;»'��'�•��= ,fr'•.,T+{ x^ •�'�'~h •%l" `iY�� 1�: '«:y'',, :wrT�..l:?Sr:►•era'?. +' `'`..*rr:�}r`. :r.�+.►�;,«�,►..tr'rN=".��•i�1M•.•'',y•'S.�Q; �t,.y•�.. j: r to`rOTIG£ OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TES7'17NY r !dame Address / f,/ ,�=:/ � /1/ P Representing_ Speaking: FORLe { AGAINST 46 A rn011A C f/i e- hccla M �( !^e��; sl�-4�-1 U►� Fug' r�. � •, _ . NO OSITION, ,4 .41 PIXASE RET;Pil 10 CITY CLEl K I • NC/TICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY .. 1 Name Address,_ -��---�•� •--._ ..; ..,.._.1 enting e^Arr Repres .' • Speaking: FOR 'V V•' t AGAINST NO POSITION,,,,,_,_ ;i•- ;,_,. 'u CITY CLERK PLEASE RETURN TO •� ' Qf NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTI�301JY frame 7', �f I t tic.1 1 ! Address Representing Speaking: FOR AGAINST NO POSITION ' PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK r,�Y,�.,JF�v'f.�'r.y�c-��'.�Fy-`y�,f�i�r.;•,r'�;;.t��}��N:*i..��}io,y ,�«�12�'�.�•w.M,�i..�'�c"++i' �'l'�.'►a. i �r�+.,,�,+ �, . .f.'_�.'�i��.�f� �"'f ,""�'#n'�;rr."=�L .Y""'�'_,y: ;.�•.:+,�;;!}'^,q„I�►�j4�'+f'•aI"jrY'�i�'�»�!. .�•r�!y'••�=}{•,;�wti,+�•�.��y��.�, '"'may 'T•`T" CE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTI:�i ' Address � f Representing FOIL f�_ ,:. �• �"�� 1,-�.�;fiL(.� ��`f--��'I"..! Speaking: J, s AGAINST „__, i NO POSITION , 'T w"."Vr . PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK ' 1 ; t NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY r Name r Address /&73, is B el r« Representing 1 7,a- c tit s 1 Speaking: FOR — • ', '. AGAINST,_. .,_• ,' �- • :�. NO POSITION . ,..• .ti, ,:•.;';►�.•�ir�^.� • ':, PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERIC ~' :;, •�:'.•.• . NOTICE CF CISIRE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY Nana `f �• ©. '' 7• j Address ' ._._ _ .. .. . .; Representing—�--- O .•1 _ ,- Spea-king: FOR mp . AGAItiSY_Z NO POSITION ' a•!'!i A,SE RETURN TO CITY CLERK "'��" �• .•'7 a�� 1�1�•iliti•/su �Gt�.•J':1•-�:�,�„"1��'*Ir!"q�,(/�,'1-".i:�!:"�+•..�hM�"\."re�� s,:.,l• ►C:•"��1'C' K, �?�r' ••wi +-.�j"�..►. r�"�P-. ''�►,�'t",�"�.rra`+`,w.�Y,"'� '.•:► :rl••�.?F�.�J•w./rF� j�•t�? •-�r r �:,,rti• �.•`,�I;;ti'++ �,t••��",'i'�t. ,'�• �, �• • � - •'i � .t,`. W!• yr•. !71'�+drf�t- NICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TEST?W�NY Name Address s Representin4 Speaking: FOR rr i AGAINST J' 'K ^ NO POSITION PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK 'r •~ r �R"•' NOTICE OF DESIRE.. TO PRESENT TESTIMONY Name Address .. • . --•-• Representing_, ,,,,��, .-� Speaking: FOR AGAINST -. .. NO POSITIONw _ :•`rf ~.�+r tir.�, PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK !" • ~'•;� tea ,w1.s � y/(.i � �r• ..�,r�i ... ''!7. NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESWIT TESTIMONY TIMON Y I Name 1 Address Representing , . . 1 .. ..� Speaking: FOR ' `. AGAI14ST NO POSITION PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK '�, r,",�3i1�'.y.I'�—y,,,� 7..1,[`._�'�W ,��""V,�. w'"Y�/++�+u'�,+��';�;�'�.'�re�:''�wM�V j!•{Yw...>h�`'vv�.\;.�,Ak'"Y'�,� ' • y.�..,�t s F`"�;"� ``i••.f vXR,.,`�"`'s . l•��a'•`�'~`•'�-�Ty,?j^!^'-.� .:+1.'r�::i��'•'-rr/'�•��'�:�.,.-'�`'+r�•"G'�, Y�.�5'q',',._.'.�YY-'J;,."�'"�".'y��1+��y�� iOTICE OF pESIFE TO PRESENT 17E! UNY G ' ' .c ,+• ,«� is , � f�� G-- y• � - I 1. Name Address 7 ✓ (� t ' � Representing 1 Speaking: FOR AGAINST�� NO POSITION^,_,_,_ �' .• 1 PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK • i '{ r NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TES'I'ImONY ,. , ....• . • r• • ,�, w•• . Name Address-81 2, Z T 6141,le -.L . .. ._..1 of Representing ! 000. Speaking: FOR AGAINST NO POSITION •� .��:',-�`-� ��. PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK • .,r. i..•, . NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTI+BONY r. r • Name CAddress ! 1.,WP Representing . .,� yy-TAM,., .• r � i Speaking: FOR r' AGAINST i NO roSITION i 1 ` PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK i �T• �++L yy��,.�'iF "�'y.'�.��'!s►��"rt''.��''•'.,1q•'''+,(y.3�•^+�'�',:.�:T�.'►':-~1ie�`�f•,� r:'�+`t%: �.'h.ar,,,•°7i.�!`'��n"" jN�� k�T•�� .►may .•�.: ..• i t .,7..s. ��•7- • w. ♦� Yy �.r-.`.. w.:��r'=.� R 2 y•'�!,Q � ' ti V•�•.-u, 1. '� A � �•rY� -�ti' +.�J 1�1��' IR. ♦�(.�.�.��!7 .lr ..1. �•k,(`�,--•.-. ?1''r�..•Y ' '.; •' NOT`E OF DESIRE TO PRESE14T TESTIMObl"-,, i "-• .. Name \��/1 f� C.r�l��ll.�.� w � 1 - ► Address ;?� , !�'�/�►•; Representing r'' A c • Speaking: FOR ► •'4• �•`'• 1 AGAINST 1 f NO POSITION .�,� 1 j PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK ' 1 -J- 0 • Y• :ICTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY i Name ti II/�f7 _. ..__ _ - -• Address Representing—(,* f •):` Speaking: FOR . AGAINST J`` - . "'�',r;,f•• NO POSITION__ ..._ \ '.,:.• , .�...;:• •• �: PLEA SE RETURN TO CITY CLERK • /•1''' -' h.1-.ter..•. .: - 1 A/• •t..ti:•-Y.• ' SIR IP;Elr-. '•.is +•' r►•VR►1.rriPY.1t�r�w�-�': ._ �.r�ar.�.. -r.�.uw t».+ •4 •�, ' I r . •, ' NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESEtiT 'TESTIMONY i Name U'�r {�Vo• t Address ..+�!51'�`*"4;,rrrr�`�1 �J7r T� �••�"wrN '�Y"r•' Pepresenting '"''�'" ?!►'• s +� _. Speaking: FOR A 4 AGAINST t NO POSITION! PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK • �L,}. .�y,/�4�,.• .w•�,.r "+vfl tom,, �• :a ' ��f .`•�Ac�+� ..+��•V'..hi�far•-'�aY~w'!-''4y��•��.�ia`� nni- i^`�w•'.'C16e+.�'.:�'�'y��T' ..i'` �':T+�. --�''� - • � lry Y .v+ w f��:-i.I•w�/�.�•/V"'�:a,i�.�1� iV.''C r«- M J.-:r.i��.�y�.,M��y`3, �•kJ. w._ q. .)TIC£ Cc E=SIRE TO PRESENT TES'1 ' Name �•rat � r,' > •. . �• ll::....V. Address �: •�• .. ` ( / J! , I �h'y*'� Representing �,. .•' f• ,• 4 i Speaking: FOR r NO POSITION �tr�' "a+ NIX Im t } PiSASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK } J � r r ` NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTIbfONY r JName �, L& Address . Representing w.rr. Speaking: MR 1 , •�:�' � � � •. � AGAINST t•'r• ••'►•:..+r�.rt;•.• t ..�_ • n NO POSITION PLEASE TcETURN TO CITY CLERK t•; ;;'-•�'�1'•''.' ;NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY f�f�I ��• Name J Address - Representing Speaking: FOR AGAINST • NO POSITION ! PLEASE RETURN TIC) CITY CLERK 'r 4' •si y N . lr •.`. `� .'sy►%.y'�" ti```+I:'!*�M:v �¢•nX'`'�b'"�••,r"Y,��^.�.�.� ��a..�yr•ti.:.`,�.?'P't'.:i?.J..•,,,h.'"'�l.�:r,,L%+.:s•��. r..�..-.`!.'• «•,.r;` .iy��`.'ti,.�".,.. •�y��u'�F'k t�. • Nt"�%CE OF DESIRE TO PRESEI.T TESTIO� < ��'. � Name_. ( 1.•--r��//p �,!L� ' Address j•• ' Representing ..��,t -x UPC Speaking; FOR i + I AGAINST_ W NO POSITION„_ „ PLEASE RETURN TO CITY CLERK NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY Jut Na meAr �- Address .... - . .. -.._..•: Representing • ,� Speaking; FOR • ••,. •� AGAINST r •.. .,1..••e,i,r�.. • 210 POSITION____ ..• i:.:.-;',..:,+, PLEASE RETURN TO CITY�,,: •_. ,. .. , Y CLFitlC ::�: •:1;+'';.•.. ..•. yr.' • .,•. _... . � Y-•" :••4.Y;';'•+ , srft• - Tf,. is• 4.4 �.. r I NOTICE OF EP f D `�.,IRE TO RESENT TESTIMONY Name Q� ' M Address Representing t — ,2,�~-- Speaking: FOR AGAINST_ - h'0 POSITION i PLFJISE RETURN TO CITY CLERK ' t �• i�� ' ~ 'ti./1.'q.�r.•F�ti�.4a"'~•:!1•'�ir�' .ir` .'y� ~'�: 1I. ii}• .-�. r.•�•ir�wF ! `y .Y ,:.L,y.w. :.r'~t.?'•%'w:+'� �f•wrjc++ti"�y.*.wiJ�, tR:,� r� w'!.M.~ `�L'}t'•:tra'- •��Lyi:. ThIs is a petition the tan yo44 help? I. development fronting' Ocean Blvd between Lake and 6th Streets (and around Fain Streot) be low intensity, s s �., r Address Signature Date Phone •L a '�' ° o u 1 Q.4. /3 12 3 ✓.Cl�..._'�.._. r VIA5 3 C 3 �� •.�.r4+.- ice! •i�•lN •AZ- � I�\Y .wr••'LaT\M r.�.•...w ..� 101, ` � � � ��- Mom•.•♦ �/V �w ,} La I eu�-t Irl 4- 6 t = �a ,a &.7 P ua-1 too J /�o/ Gxrtn��ccL. rC' -.L► L-z2-9C 1 . ,.... ., � �, r .� r i1 f L�'�y�... '� � �/LCL-'1L.a'�;1� �C�.,.i...ti''✓�`{-'(-�'7�'r �. i��y .. . ,,�,. ,. E S We, the undersigned, strongly advocate that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area, Huntington. Beach maximiL_ citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal,, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic- restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life nor the residents of the downtown community. ...�._. .______.�.. I Can Hel CIHMY I►"t"% ignature Address Phone A A '...... '-' 44 794 8a -� �I V ! 1 � "` ram• ud�,� BEST PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION i POSSIBLE, DUE TO AGE AND CONDITION OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT'S ' 1 4hi:; t;r:L, `:•r. t:t•�.r !'iv,+: � 1�, ;i� . . :i . i,�; t;,s:t•... .,t ;•t :. , . , c: . , tD cv i ,1t:,t r C L I C ... f xi}:?�:} Atrucf.arr:j, to 1'.::tt :I:r. i. 1l;ht: w, :..i;+ CuLtsrc i, aurl.•u .0 N it :l( tlrr«, ;, 17,;.• ±r t::� �,,:. i�ro:.:3 b; t}t1.� c�, ..c:I. ra1�-c :i.! Lo la��.r -' i •. ty. ' ' •^Ctst'r-. 14i'dt rn I'h. ein 00, Is � ! __ _�_ 1_1�1,� � _.. _ _ �_s -/off10 - �117'lt':7{�.:"'T T,�.'Y•,r.�_...-w... ....-...... .,.. _ '._.- _ .. -._.. .. .. _. .. ._. r. ........... ... hw�'-'�-"r rr,?:i 7r i1.pa�'.� . i � � �,"', � � cs -- l_. -..�� .. ,_ . ` � �� - �_'� � ` .. .��. �' - - �. .. �1 . _.,� �\_ J r �' �� w+ t r y� - '` ,;�" �' 'r .Gv ifw a v` /v tJ✓i T�Lry LL I. Y� a'^ --7 i ? - • t7 b1-T I Vi am rL Zia- S6 14 �,V rs .t e a Zn . ',. 8 6.- •3s , IL •7 - Qiit r?1C•�l•L 7.� lJ Er..�CCf•/ftc�c� �/7 �clirs�lJ� •f��i - ..... bANLF•, ' aizo l Lt 781 �lnlZ_.,S'lcr.1 •/'- ..� Gam, �'a -�?�k� ,a V .t i?J v e ct'l et- ' Z'Y" S 51 ylall- 0--. HL� fry�x ty �.!?� i,G�`� uC-' [tPC � �C.�� L�IICI.G�.L. Ct f/h G, -G/ 0 l We, the undersigned, 4k�ongly advocate that any development plan for the downtown area e Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the do�intown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions he Included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal bnvironment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. r Can ffel ig nature CA�RAV *"ebb Address Phone A A swab fit7/ 9�A � i i l I 1 } i I c ' .. .. c......ram. ..a'...L'•• We, the undersigned, ,Atrongly advocate that any"development plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing strructures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions Imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life .for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help CARRY Arr S"a iguaturew Address Phone A 1, 76 i 9&3 r Stu" 9L., 9&9 • 3 q s.5 Nj I wf4�br i We, the urdersigned, e�rongly advocate that anyp'Oedevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici— pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures , to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. �---- __�__� I Can Held Wow *"solo ignature Address phone A A 77 VA / r(1_.-�r- G• /_l-mot..-?�.-r V.3;1�.' //J c _•(....,_ /�r J�► a I 24 U' 171 ucd , � r r 9, L3 _ 011 I' i We, the undersigned, �rongly advocate that anyedevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici— pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal -tvironment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. ,.� I Can Hel CARRY Ome"D ,Signature Addross Phone �A ! 9 P . t • r 1 t tl 36 .�- .• 1� 977, G vP — 3 S sd? , p �/ c e j • _( ! i T - 91 3�j l 9 N � _ 29 w �►v es q�}zLC�st�e ,fe l ►. q62. .� � Zi 4ra AvUv .-fix. fee zz-7VTR t We, the undersigned, . -rongly advocate that any _adevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area.. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions Imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the qualit;; of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help CA"V *"•"* ignature Address phone A ,Vi A I r 214.a - r^. i We. the undersigned, ;rongly advocate that any _edevelopment plan ! for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- potion and be designed to preserve the unique character of the i downtown area. To further this goal, wo urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help CARRY *now* iSignature Address Phone A A L5 OIL IL Sf V-36 6So 2 iG ST -536 iREW q a- Z 1Qt:K -71 r ✓ ��lfr iw��w�..` ��{�LY-r ��'Y.� i.�i!'.rr!'(/'.` r i .��(^ f^J./ � I t _. � /"� Zi '� _. 4-� t � �` � ., �� t (.�' � � � ; .� ,, �,: � � , - � � .�. �..' l� r��' � ? ` � r � I'� 1 E I • i � l I � I 1� 1 � � i t I JI ______J Vat the undersigned, strongly advocate that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather ';han removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. 2 Can Help CARRY /4rnpo .Signature Address Phone �,A�," WRING ---.__ 17/ Os Or Ili yy,�_ jl/�•.,.,.��, Y / 77 �- ,•/ � f +%�.� .. 1.�� '�L ., �f�Y.•< <��- �/yam�. ma 34r- Paw .�. Lt 7h 610 ao — _..__ t ` , .�:IV;�",�✓;^;;;y'��i��:t`..SR` `1.. tS... >a,{r�^�,• .. 1':lflfitlNl,1.:A'p;�t.Iu� ,>4t yr t :.' �i 4 'a�. ,... ..... .. .1.... .. :i. .. .. .... . ._ .. 7.'4�+--tti""•t'l:..f'ti'.r'.,.•'t..}.:•t:1��:: " •,:V',' i�,�;. r1''•� 't�:. t�1�.',!'y We, the undersized, strongly advocate that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximi^e citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtowni area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment elan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structsres, to limit tho height of any future building to that which is currently I prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality ( of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help CARRY A"apo Signature W2 esa Phone A A tg 5 Z. /j z i .+'; A2 rs:12 I J(17A j-A t 9 ' c tG (,�t $' �• 'i �_________..�.. a T. •— ' 0107(, �— 6 , !e 'f NOX t;Ij� &kMV'6 m3I CIA V2-31q1 —b .�. • .L .. ....s.......•Y.iJ-L..\Jitiw..•.._•.w•o.l..+•�:1 .4rJ.•._11.1' ' r. .,. • . , '•1.1♦ ' t, . r� _. •- •u�.,l:Y:1.+Pi. +NtLlta'.r.:i.iti'�ti111rI:1•11f��1:.�1u=i!:!•�.::t t':•.ti.l,f .i' t We., the undersigned, strongly advocate that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal , we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize rc=vation and � rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. �----'� 1 T Can tieln • � _ ` • CARRY Arse►«d Slf;nature Addross Phone A A �•r• ^C/ it FL / v j P'--97 OY i _... 2zi / 6 ' fL (`- / I .2 14,c4 1 It a•naa/4+n a,,ad,..� ,, Tyr 9 G► 3— Y � ,t- 5 Sax (LA:�na . t � t 1 t 8 '-S '�, a .•:• :f, .%tS' A3t' >> t!'{ _•.+'; . •.'J(t1;yr:� ral.^v r.J.1. �•r> ..�' f'� We, the undersigned, strongly advocate that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington .Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and I rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions Imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I call Help CARRY ArTe%o Sir-nature Address Phone A A j72.2 5w laCO-;�a p CK t • yid 1 �' Q Npx e-.r&eAo-vR lie I &A . w 4,/ - �- Axv ipp low 4 Ada- " Q�� N�� G—q3'7i. _ r , ' f V � &i� a, PAG /&1 fp ID /to A fr'iT,`•i-M.�;�:}ti:l•rMF�t)�u^ ".�,�• 7:! •i^e.,0+'j?�`w;:,1j. .h•'.r.L.!;4•h.(^ Ifrp) '�,:r .,. r u; 7` •` We, the undersigned, .. stronrly advocate that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rattler than removal of exiAilzf; structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which in currently '. prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Efeln caR(W AVTS"e Sig.nature Address Phone ��A,•�� NcrA ........... • 3d� Ids�. ,--� ..�g5'•.3 2 - ' 4 ZZ `y r,C - �3 •- y I•�'" .�'� tSa�� rt a f �l�• 4�.S'�C vyCtc 1 41 t "" 1 ' M JUN ekep aa3 /1711 :1 'M' .'. _'Y. \ S fy/°;14'`-'F!;)^f�.�t1J'..i 4i.h� •,f;q� 1,�.,w. �i . i..?.` ' ' h�7; J `\... ._.._...._.. ...... _�'..'._..._... .w«w.• t.. Y�..�M 41.:�.11�i.�.JYi/f 4.1.. .. . We, the undersigned, strongly advocate twat any redevelopment plan .for the downtown area of Hunt?.ngt;on Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. i . ._..._ I Cnn E{eln CARRY A"efto Signature Address Phone A,.� pc A I .o. GIrle-k kr►li e4G,-&Zo K i - 2 9 f ` ` ►t 1r44 9 ' f .v la 1796 J6 ou , 'X a .o.....•.�a. s o Q .r•,..a C .(r1 ------------ C All all __-_ 'y/O r h a -L 7 ' 7- elfQ/ _6-7oo iif FI;:_ �J�r.L4:w1�,:Lji4.:�ii._....•I-L_WNw'J,>�a�� the undersir;nc.,Ci , r tronC;' ,-,• ; hat: all-7 7development pla tl tor the do;tnt;oini �,reL f FUTItin,,.-ton Beach maxim- .c ci tiz en partii:i- pation and be desir;ned to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal , we ur[-e that provisions be included in any redevelopoetlt plan -.'o emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, r...ther than removal of existinC structures , to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment , and to promoto the quality of life Iror the residents of the downs own community. I Can Help CARRY Arteo.o SiGnature "+ddress Phone A A Pay; :••-C i - - ---_ c , C; < 4-2 cfn A;rfQfW' 1R�7 �i(�Ctl' ~4Jc� •�D~l a ll`t S :f 9 3 30 b'ys i tJ L 3s3. _' C rU:A2 •cfe /113 S r,—2375 1 We, the undersigned ')trongly advocate that an, redevelopment plan for the downtown area of untington Peach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, wr- urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures , to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions Imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Heqoftwoo CARRY ATva r • ignature Address Phone A ut�►AiN�G 1b1Yv O-t1.ad Syb-IAi Ylf- AZI t? A 1 4{ a irk 16f 24 swoce 5j. F3 444 011 10 Cie I � C (Dal d c, MZdJ � �r- SCO 5 now r Oo x#s'tf7 n� We, the undersigned, strongly advocate that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To .further this goal, we urge that provisions bo included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help CARRY *"614 Signature Address Phono �y ,h Nuatew SaoIzc 7 o - r 2!k aai.4 l " _ � r' r - 534, -� ��• II MAIN S2 WO 1619- 2EL WAX -� ' We, the undersigned, strongly advocata that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unioue character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to i limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality I of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help CARRY All%%�Q igaature Address Phone A �uRti>� • v ��' 4daLl dOV St- c, t UFN LAC 4 At KA J Al Sr talA- ?f, ✓ ✓� 0 To/ „ Sr97• IS -7 4" ma's to ' We, ttc undersigned, strongly advocate that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici - pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to .• Zimit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality r of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Hel i CARRY wTze,ee Signature Address Phone I A A ?CTMCM {ItAItt%G •"fir. .,. NZ\ A 1 V 1 y) 42-7 A .. •C •�"Z C1 1 ZtZ= L o l lJ'g < < a �. _ r t fAj VYL prop fA f 7�.ZM We, the undersigned, strongly advocate that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the s downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be ` included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Hel CARRY ATTO"o Signature Address Phone A k A c c-4 ram'•- �,� � '/ 'w'?ZG far � � �. • "�' � ��-,j .,. 0a � PA ` L , r �'� r We, the undersigned, ..tronaly advocate that any redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renov;,lion and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any fu;;ure building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect ;,he intr.-Inn c restrictions Imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life .for the reside:_ts of the downtown community. 7 -�--- I Can Help CARRY A"I"D S1g.nature- Address Phone NuR��; ✓« ;x 'z 3 4, c -,n ` ° 3 .Q-o�Qrv-•�,cam.. S`3 6 b 7 8-6 J • i w ST- .�� 9 7� �' + '�•+, f f/%,• , r-'� nG.'>^ .ri:ril r i,tJ,l, � i� a*r _, � � S7 J i We, the undersigne,. t stronr__•ly advocate that .,y redevelopment plan i for the downtown area of Hunting . ton Bench maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To .further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and j rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the auali.ty of life for the residents of the downtown community. T Can Helr CART' Asteho Sir'na.turo Address Phone NuR'too st-Aek twG Din. All alt E A& . • A \ I 09 1 ' 60 - 110 C...._ �. 47 z aft w, Lk $`i z-34-7(v Q ?-� i• 9 �o go- T9 Lit Y3 1 5 "P� m t (o I x � ' Q IX0 05-/cL ,,t.,.,J3 Ff3 f We, the undersigned^strongly advocate that a. -,\ redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emp, 3size renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently °�'prevaili.ng in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions mposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown commiinity. I Can Help CAIt(%Y Ain ePao I � ignature_ Address Phone A A v 1 36 - t a All S'ILNLaa0 c - 22 AA Ir V V M v %gj - 6r C� e.--- 2r % Wet the undersigned, •-`rongly advocate that any"'idevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preser7e the unique character of the downtown area.. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included- i redPvelopment plan to emphasize renovation and re habilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of an future building to that which is currently g y g y prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the-residents of the downtown community. I Can Help iARct� �rcrero 3gnature Addres,', Phone �A 'tC• �:Z 4 •7t(I r�m�icr ff 4/ 2 1 SAI-A LI JA -3 _1105 1AAP, __�dftvw mri - Opp-, .170 lip/ NMI i We, the undersigned, -wrongly advocate that any development plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserva the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future bu lding to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Hel CAM,# *MS1*0 igmatiure- Address Phone p�A p�+►R►rG •/—fc.r.r., �,;'-,; t. c //r t �� , /�. ( ; ! (� it r , r, , 1 {l. `-{.'� '-c 1 ! ti �_' !�,2 c iN NG A C� • O -►3a7 2. el 'k Fk1 -d.a,a A.A I �y52 C( are 4Z-b 11Er I7 ► wr•► 151I'L IY1 •'11A, Cit. ba s- 1511 ✓� �v/IZ -.gat z •, I 1. WN 1; w 'l r o� ;. /a/7 3 vec4� s31-6 6 S 5 , We, the undersigned, r"—ongly advocate that any /"`*development plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be Included in any redevelopment; plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can MIR CARRY *xv*%o Signature Address Phone A WuA -. �+ r � .�. � !�,'l '-r � �� ,O/�,yr ��.i� � ••i�,, �� ;O �t�t> 1 . . o ,� W r.• u yvs sea 11�•1 . a.. GIggad o � G ' 11 .AA V NO h�� 1 We, the undersigned, -rongly advocate that any )development plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beacn maximize citi.zen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help CARRY ATTO10 . 4&nature 'Address Phone A A Lcn - -� r� te-L L!SA 63 ��Jl -7 2 -wip i oT 6.-mod 2Q1 Al *I . ' li ! / ill - � • l�' �, !I i Q .rM 3 - 311 �ecr�SrL 3�cr��' G.�S GaJSi-Av�,� ls.u.r�t�xh 5 36-3364 i i I l I i . I I We, the underbigned, '""rongly advocafach that any ,.development: plan for the downtown area of Huntington maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area.. To further this goal. we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather then removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the rasidents of the downtown community. I Can Hely r AMY A-vzt."F4 ' Signature+ Address Phone �A � H�AtwG 32 • r �,, / /YTS 1 ! 1 / `. .J/,/�•�� •'� / / �-mot"' / I ` /L �, ! � r /' /��t..._!�._-y/�� .i 4W.001XI -IA -� 1419 26 0 We, the undersigned,- gtrongly advocate that an redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Bench maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further thi:.-, lzoal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment pl:Ar_ to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing; structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community, I Can Hely CAMP Ayvar,o Signature Address Phone � A r f / 00, 2/ R ` A t fG UOJ ►cZ' x 3b k t o 1Ova Irb f76P I, O �z , _ ti -90 2.� 94 0 ♦4A e of 4 � i We, the undersigned, :''-ongly advocate that any development plan ` for the dawn:own area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- patios and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any suture building to that which is currently, prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions Imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. ��------� San Het •ARRY AYtetso igmature Address Phone A A 4 6 p 1291 i A. �48f 5ct, a-`c 2.7. u • _ � sts� �9'� 93 8 � +JI 4barNFtL0 H e"LAI-OiOY / .A `QVe I V302 /G-�-- SA, 3 7'z-�I� SJ 7 oZ r c�P� t y 14 Z�s�42-zyoc e I, i I I i I I +fI +I 7 i i We, the urdersigned,,'-Ntrongl; advocate that an./Ao\edevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather that, removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Iiely CARatV Anspoo Signature� Address Phone A �•��cll�'� �.CI T- ?�;3-•� � . i�'�� ;r; ` tom n ---� ��•' t ~,�•„' is •. ,.�._—'i '� � / 'J�Z:Y1 t.,..—11 ,.1, � �J>r, • .� � I+' r� �''� � S j zo�sz z ��!„Gss�+ q 6 c � 5�&-Vlt4f '6 CA � V We, the undersigned,,.;,'N\)ngly advocate that ao'w") redevelopment plan for the downtown ar. .' of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the i downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions bG I included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality S of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Hel CARRq Arte"6 Signature Address Phone A A KTMCM . .�r�...-rQ� tom- � .� 1 ?�G i' � ...� ,5�3 G•-��3 4� t � 1 Y R �AWI�IM 607r _ &4-f A44 Sill 21 / S u - r , N / IIrv i..� �1 `53GCD I We, the undersigned/''`strongly advocate that an redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To furtpher this goal, we urge that; provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and .rehabilitation, rather then removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions ' imposed by this coastal environment, and. to promote the quality of life .for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Held caRRV Arts%o Signature Address Phone �n puRsuG '1. l s,r �.cL " AiLtd?<✓ ].. •1 2c��tun (1t . '' to �/7/ z(rn t � Lfzaz 91 1 r. zC t�sl / _ J� 9r We, the unde,Tsigned,-,.strongly advocate that ai�' redevelopment plan for the downtown area of HuntinGton Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the '1 downtown area. To further thiB goal, we urge that provisions be I included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rattier than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions Imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Heln CARAY *M1 wb ignature� Address Phone u�A�we r - ? 9� �a 1' 4W ,�.�. ,�.t 7 c '6071 • .•- __��.._ . , r«�_�..«-�_.-. �. -»r_«.....+._.ter...�.... ._...-r�.r+.-�.. _I..•++...."�.r ._»r. - 1 ' � lie, the undersigned'"'�trongly advocate that an redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici— pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. ._.._r......., I Can Help CANY A oo6 ignature Address Phone A A t ?Mob 10- <:�k 45 t v •,e g 67gP . 4 STC, G 5{ 8 ra 3 A nV e"w,- r � �� i .�........... �..._�..r..... .. � ... .. .� t 1 i ,i • .� �: S �I � I if '1 l I ��,�� '7��+'�C'� S1� � � ' I t We, the undersigned,Atrongly advocate that any.�edevelopment plan .for the downtown area. of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To .further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently { prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Hel CARRY A-neftb ignature Address Phone vcrron ��►Rt WG '4"tJ'"D. lU (� . �tc 4 �c, G-•5 taG I �-r-ETC VURT HeI-Zmn!MFf? 577 4 emtrr�L ' c �` -x..'--d.J a'..d-awl "/`"+y 11 �.�.I�.. �V_�,• �s�7�� Q$F'✓ jL ZIA �i.LLf. .rGllr�.��r+..�..� �, ��? � / •f�f+i / 1'_li'_� �('• C// J l � i CL C We, the undersigned, a�rongly advocate that anyeredevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to ! limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions E imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I I Can HeID CARRY Astemo .Signature Address Phone � � � A y i v es ILI �Sl1' i 40tn7 • -�L-� � :' �-r— 9Sti � iJ1•�!.-r-t.cL �I. �7 U �//C!, / We, the undersigned, Arongly advocate that anyr,7C pdevelopmpnt plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximy.,O citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve oalheuenu�ug� charthatacter of provisions be downtown area. To further this goal, W included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area., to respect the intrinsic restrictiotla imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. i 2 Can Help CAIGRV A"eti4 Address Phone A A � I .Signature� t�miai puRr»G Ali T / 1 2 i .Sep PA �Y'•t,:sLLt�l� We, the undersigned, %trongly advocate that any,,;edevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximlue citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currontly prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Hel CARRY *me" . .Signature Address Phone ,�A {+Itw% Na..41"s a , IV ff �,... F o 7 �� Z i u'711NMP O 1 C6 1 Sit �=T~��L C. zCSC b-1. 53 5923 We. the undersigned,,^trongly advocate that any—,edevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and -,;o promote the quality j of life for the residents of the downtown community. I C9 Help CARRY ATvewo . Signature Address Phone A A J. ♦ i ok RAU A"\\ :7 7 r , f - • _ .-2) CC& I CS r__ f L r / tom)') i �,�C -- rt 111Lti f*L rr 1 L9 I � I r• r� •� Alt 1 1, , a1 {� �~ r�._ .��R ��1(1-ti - t�c--..--1a.._. C.ti.L4:. -�c.r• � �c._.,..11-t.:. c� 't�,C F `) 2 Z o`-t ?.. We, the undersigned, wrongly advocate that any ,r-gdevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maxi.mi..a citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than rnmoval of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality i of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help CARRY 1 A S060 ignature Address Phone A A �rlr►tion pt�ttiMG �1`,��. 31L)�1Lti,LGSit.J � �• 3'SG�S d � { vy CI 4 S r , s-(.. Dr. 93- 050 ! 4'f I I n It Z L)e 6:5-6,R mae l da D,4r Ala. �VI-vhi DI &IKK- AvE,Mo. . 13 6 J S 7F/ _S G - 3 T 9 9 � 2 193 3 .1 lit = Vol "a rY ( sB , m2 . �` ` - 1 ' 1 We , the undersigned r-strongly advocate that ar"�redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. --��- I Can Hel CARAV ATTat+b ignature Address Phone KA Nw►e�»e if /n / , 4 $� - 3:2 q y ;' t �I tLq 1, /Ss?2 Av/K S t Z-W 4/7 I'G3 Z �cJGry �'� IRV -L 3 7 s 3 7- r 7 A)& G _77 - I J w � he undersigtiedrongly gdvoca -that-ar^red�tre�a�raent plan ,for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help CARRY Aneho ignature Address Phone A A c t A A -AA 41,4.1 �4),?i 3- 7 d 3� a a WQ, the undersigned,---qtrongly advocate that any,.�edevelopment plan ' for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximjze citizen partici— pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help CARRY As spo Signature,,_ Address Phone A 1: cg;�l Cj 3 '.-AjeagA, Q , O .7 -N,17 Ito � V. IQ / /t< �7'2 4 We, the undersigned,strongly advocate that any edevelopmenf: plan for the downtown are4 of Huntington Peach maxiw_ze citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removd! of existing structures , to limit the heigUt of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Het CARRY ATTCIeo Signature Address Phone ^ A gl.�1'�ior� pcA+tt«G [ 1610 S « �her to 5 Lai w LA-V LzLL �-5CFO/ r.�L1�'�� 7 SY - IV. f • We, the undersigned,,,-ntrongly advocate that an�.jedevelopment plan for the downtown are4 of Huntington Beach maxim-ze citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. mo further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown, community. �----� I Can Hel CARRY ATT9wq _ Signature � � Address Phone A A 9- 44M J _ a M-22-9112 - ' vX22 --7G' r r 0 71:7" A i • We, the undersigned�,jtrongly advocate that an redevelopment plan for the downtown area. of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment-1 plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rLther than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the: intrinsic restrictions I imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Het CARRY *"asoo Signature ,Address Phone �A H�KtMG JA"t a L. ('M-) L -C1 lam_ OAA 01, l � 1 J f, 4 / We, the undersignedl^trongly advocate that any edevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maxim-z'e citizen partici— pation and be designed to preserve the ur;ique character of the downtown area. To further this goal., we urge that provisions be � included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building '..o that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality, of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Heln CARRY Arran* Signature Address Phone A A - - _ PtTi'Ttioe1 �C�►Kiws r� t - s O i r �� . ► ,� /� i t4e iI j //Z - �/ - NSF - 3 i w SIX &Z -39 202 #Y) jZ i2p B...�La oe 23s ''� 6 --97 EU L.• z� 3 36 �7��f/ ROW f 'rDen-, R.>'32c cm zt s Gtabt-Aut-) I 5-36- 3 E 1 ;i i f i f J� i I We, the undersigned,,-gtrongly advocate that and.redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maxim,ze citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To .further this goal, we urge that provisions be i included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to j limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote v t p the quality + of life for the residents of the downtown community. t � I Can Help CARrtY Ar"aswo j ig,nature Address Phone A A C. 214 O)rL V i /5.��_ .{ W , ,1 F 1 1{ z_-k lfl 21 t I t`e.{u n )-b 2-1 S Cna))t-Au4-) We-LcNt-&k-s 53u-1360 1 l We, the undersigned,e^`,tronnly advocate that anpaTedevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici•- patiod and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently j prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can F?eln caR%Y Miereo ignature Address Phone �A NuAac��w IMML�) 1 �cLA /nS -Sf V1 31 �'' 8fr s s36-0-70 0 1 r u-. /S C a ,,71AL I l i r z Zz. i I I Wet the undersigned„strongly advocate that any ,.�edevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maxima,,e citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downt Brea. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be E ineludL-. any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovatiLa and I rehabilit,,, n, rather than removal of existing structures, to � 1iLiit the height of any future builling to that which is currently 9 preNailing in t: area, to respect the intrinsic rostrictions imposed by this c(,astal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the res:dents of the downtown community. I Cam Hel CARAV AvTemo Signature 'address Phene ptm;oe� NuAott� a s :T'.�I:- A-el APO A rli/W1MY �Y t I C/ ,r 63�v ' S�7�o 51 - SQ?6 ZS �(f A . . MIS CAPMAL-,,U 53b-33b0 f , 1 . t I� 1 i _ We, the undersignedr--strongly advocate that armredevelopment plan for the downtown are.. of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal. of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Gan Hely Signature Address Phone A A Ib F - 1 O©e. " `7` G 1^ I 7— � i W-t !`! n jC.. tll��ht'- I „ t` 1. U- '-jG, S99 LrA art= G—Sqq? S14 6 4 S G-c n 23 6- 9 7 4- ir ( 2 Z lug l.a. $4 7 89 -7_ ,q71?0 - - ✓ f � �o k6 t5lg/ LR kc-C(c / r 1y" 4 2/' c j i 11 E' tic /� �-�=✓, /U�' �'�7;�r( 1i'. f/ i: j?.� /2 l.— v ^. t (>y 'aL'y a �G 3' - 1:'•'r``�/J ;j'. O- I i a We, the undersigned Vp. trongly advocate that an7..�edevelopment -olan t for the downtown are. of Huntington Beach maxim .ze citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be includ:.d in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Hel CAIMY An800 ignature Address Phone A A POW*" NGRiw� IL•tezlz rl/7 - S6;r �j Zhu, bAma 169I 9 i' 41 !/ }� -n f gJ P.e ]' 7- t�l Iq a 1) ;�_M u n C1 y 8/a A t , r We, the undersigned,?"5trongly advocate that an7--.�edevelopment plan for the downtown .area of Huntington Beach maxim4ze citizen partiei-• pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future buildinG to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Heln CARRY *"i"O; Signature Address Phone a A 1 .> 21 q6; 3 Z L a • qO 7 k9l Lee. i . Nn 1 . {1 We, the undersigned strongly advocate that an?j%Fedevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maxiwj ze citizen partici-- pati.n acid be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further thin goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is curren•4'►ly i prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions i imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality ..;.rot life for the residents of the downtown community. ' I Can Help CA"*# M ter+o Signature-,-, Address Phone �A=bum �,,,, Mt�►Aiti«t. Gd 1 12 5310'(o1 Dal � r Is via 9b6 -low. o i 7{Aft py �e o/� / Oir {i7 c !7•"r Cho o 80 C!)a � )4-o,V)C ° �; 4629 r 4L!, t i t'�wT-re:—;:-r . ..-'�:. .. .. .. .. .. •. ___..� ._� . .. — ,. . — •_ , .,. . I-;::7:,-- - ••"^'t.��is.7�:;.ti ai... �.`�•�„" � We, the undersigned,,,�trongly advocate that any�edevelopment plan � for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this Goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasise renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. 2 Car. Hel CARRY Ar*s"O -Signature Address Phone � � M A 1O z Ror'�GwR r lyl w &9w - 710 7 AjdAA loot ire - .� -- Ir tr - 4��7- &A6 -Z_. -7 D ,r Le 11 We the undersigned trongly advocate that a redevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici— pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment', and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Het CARRY A"emo ignature Address Phous A MMOR pu�►w� e"e?A./� U/ CP 619Z91 ' a�►�n 8 �2 - 7 71r • VU S 171 -77 • 9 Lf ' bpi r his � 7ys' 1 We, the undersigned, "rongly advocate that anyxedevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximi&e citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further thin goal, we urge th6t provisions he included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renn-eation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions Imposed by thin coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Help igmature _ Address Phone A pc�AiK .==. .� gb eN VO / - 6 a 'ftA fill MI IL?6 JLJ 1� ,} i '?5/D-/ c�2/ t7 ' t �' We, the undersigned,.—strongly advocate that ateredevelopment plan for the downtown are- of Hun";ington Beach maxiiu.Lze citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the dowr�L•^wn area. To further this goal, we urg, that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasi!:e renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality -of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Kel igoature Address Phone A A 1S ?/ PtdSi!/'17.at�r At A L )let 4 C. LuA(n;� ?nII-ItIva {,t 0 1t l tom. tr S 6 '�.�_S (O I We, the undersigned, ^:rongly advocate that anyo"Nedevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partsci-- patioa and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and `1 rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. �- I Can Helv CAR1tV • *"sob ignature Address Phone A A 77 t 1 'T,•I t'k J /. !/( /'J, r AptyjR j ZIP,4 1 Oe- 0/1' k JW-- y� PL, 7 / �a s7 7 . ,� We, the undersignedp, trongly advocate that an7o.,redevelopment plan for the downtown are- of Hnntington Beach maxis...Lze citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of ':he downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rasher than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future buildiaG to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown. community. I Can Help CMRAV Artsoo .Signature A&aress Phone A a c. vKn - 5.50 I ion 0 Q c1�'� � �Dgo r. I • • 5 bA�Lc7'*one. fie• - IS'� t p rF' ;� e ; 3 D I 191 L,iz_ Dtckt_u it — ' o . U --16 67 i .I C � yt v e.S S C_ 0 46 3- MO i Me, the undersigned ,strongly advocate that andredevelopment -plan for the downtown are.. of Huntington Beach maxiL,.ze citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown arAa. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be :.ncluded in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and 1 rehabilitation, rather than removal of existiar, structures, to limit the height of any future building tr, that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Heln CA"04 *VTO4 o ignature- Address Phone �� ►R►OG 6v3 . ,mot i., r:l /�"►_ a��:' ` �,' .' i ; , rr�'1 Velco4as - 2 QL ('_ -Ij_-� I yE v l�. . C-k a'tci- o3`/J }pica l.�n, �..d t h. t1c r1- c o t I bs a H&I 1NC14i 01. Cj C, We, the undersignedr-�trongly advocate that andredevelopment plan for the downtown are, of Huntington Beach maxiw.Lz,e citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelo,�ment plan to emphasize renovation and ' rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions t Imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. Z Can Help CARRY A"*" Signature Address Phone A A lam - 19unl4hootj &1) . l v M►Q t.S t a- N� . 1vw ki 4rrN- cQ 1 /x)uQ 13evcr w • `7� ' Lo R,-60 1 2�a�� cnR1•SpgpLv. M. -(l_ 1 fi fez .�iu:1c7 AtLIY'i.tl.L (,a.rL � CNrista V�n�y e67i F nx',sc��n u r Utz - qOa G � 100►.71 co"SrO rU710" OAjAe NUNrINGTVN y �.a 64t La.VcnKf 1-•, �' jOSsZ 1�iJti[1laGt? , Il <OA 4Ti n��. ,�1, 9fc L-? 73 G�.�- r We, the undersignedl.-strongly advocate that an7,,rodevelopment plan for the downtown are.., of Huntington Beach maxii,.-ze citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To furthor this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures; to limit the height of any Future building to that which is currently prevailing in the areas to respect the intrinsic restrictions Imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the resident: of the downtown community, I Cnn Hel CARRY Arr.ao Signature_ address Phone A A ——...__. PEVWOh NtAK1wG L6 L Pv I M. ,iV,)6i /If 0116i 7 Pnnfloa It Ina Dr. t ail f ��1,"' j_. � , , y,�_ t,_� •.. .1 i t-.l�-; r; ; I- t . ��{-.,�� ` �;'> �-- �--- 4 L�'� cl�r�. •o=� W f�? rn c .n.�t�5 7L Oqpy 1 ,7-e�Uc ' i i f i i� i. I E 1, I l� I We, the undersigned 7,st,.::ngly advocate that andredevelopment plan for the downtown are.. of Huntington Beach maxih..,ze citizen partici- pation and be designed to presorve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing; structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality ' of life for the residents a; the e.owntown community. I Csn Fief CORNY A ONO ignature .Address Phone AXVL �► ..�. G ,(L- .3 2 7 7 • �c71.Z D V 1 ,76 r1q-2 2 CR d Cc a I c Ur. 616 Z - 4 7 68 ;; jy 2L-4-n70 eh W Zl36 l Ct c_crct �. -YLn (larkiS I We, the undersigned,--strongly advocate that an;r-.redovelopment plan for the downtown are4 of Huntington Beach maxiiu .ze citizen partici— pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the + downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be Included in any redevelopment plat: to emphasize renovation and j rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic reszrictious imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Het CARRY ATrsMd Signature Address Pbone P&TWOR 1acA101.G - 71 ---�__.. w...wrrr.+...�..r •war n r t� S • 4 S -p-i ef/,2- Yaf f o0P h 6'2_� jLq1 e r Ela- e7 �l r 441— q� D ,�` t -j�{;; , it r !, ''i1�-�!,,.�;. �,';''�• (,'` I ``l� ly,f�: _ `,��:" `1��')'�f -r Q1 Zpl�1 -tom f D 1 C undersigned.^itrongly advocate that anr'vedevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently f prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions i©posed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Hel �AR1tV' 1►rts�ro ignature Address Phone A A I Vol' _a - 30;1,f I iL A • t 203 1 r G i pI c;- , '5 h c Fi /cj/�O Lltrr ,ny ^o3t3 w i '(,f 96 ad i ) 3 ^ 3 V _ _ 1 OA_Au. qC-G .,..�,J �. C' � • ,ram � ; 1536 $To t or 1 t ��.� ... .._. .. . .:,,.. "' ..- ... . •..__. . .,. ... _. . . . ._., - � . ... .._.., ...«•-, .zr,r-w+.:...x.-r�Gs:. .:r-v..wXi'l�7"'.'a,::FE":,`.T•:;tl:-'7s""'.` I undersigned,-trongly advocate that an?^tedevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future L.uilding to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions -' imposed by this coastal environcent, and to promote the quality •-.�� of life for the residents of the downtown community. = Can Hel i CARRY Mrssop �J } iguature` Address Phone �A pr�►ec� Ili 7UF-� A 1f t q 6,ij 41 t %rr� �q Vail .5orleriil �J ' '` � ! �jet' �(�.� y} � r .(S"" �� ''•�_^ i } f �' � ' � '7f7 K 6 - 6�►a, ��' .1'.`t ,.Lr.:_Ir�Z;� ..it�'/., •,h:. 1�?f�! f G t'•.s_ , V t .�� Sir«.n j �/<w�1 .S�'�t,ca•�::f �� . �E,�P_ �-� �� +�_ ��-�'-.t� r /'►Z�v�,�L�C�� cl/ j� f")1.cc-�l��:vui.�wo-. 1 ire�-�/w �- D}1n� lo_ 61v�) uj Ltd i- �/ c ✓'�!'f('�.c c)97) `spcx,'�`k,, � tf,'r. �1�,. 9 j, `Y/C &yr;it..nt'C' ►� +-. 1�r3 `/Gr?/©(" �:y fit• �w�--� jrS i !�J i<-��. z.. ti e-- Cl�rt�•F ,rl�-�►rc�+ dais cY_l)u_Or�{ W ion P2 ill .�rod ! r 7a 6� 1030d�, � qG - � (-2p � r "ll�� - lam rip c?6 9 61 -M b,,� p"Ici q ci 01 x x / tii t+ ter, .., •}7� 0 . J ( ✓]��L x t We, the undersignedratrongly advocate that arfo--Nredevelopment plan for the downtown area of Huntingtcn Beach maximize citizen partici- pation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further thin goal, we urge that provisions be included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal environment, and to promote the quality !j of life for the residents of the downtown community. I I Can Hel CARAY *"IP ► ignature Address Phone A NtA kh ZZM I I I w 11 V41 6-V1 90 11 , .-,a / - .�/_. -ta/ Q Y✓�.�1 d_l't_.� 4/`^, :,Q�Jr%� Jl�� '..►l.;� f�.� �i - �� 70 CN c � $�16 _ l� Cif / +i ZA.e AP300 d ',.. 73 lai�5ctirt Crv� $�709 3 fo + c . a i .. , .. �� i 14 1 1 �� _� � �� I .r �j n r � 1 —'• '4:''«�•t'crc-rT,t,'�"�q.�err-.,:STr':i:. •••.r. -..-... ... ... _�.......�. .. � .•T-..a.+•+,-,r•• - ..... �.�.1iI�.�:�»�'i.:�Y';'(:�u<,,�....y:��i.:��ad'a7.�... I �I WA the undersigned,, 9brongly advocate that an-,Tedzvelopment plan i'or the downtown area of Huntington Beach maximize citizen partici- pation ation and be designed to preserve the unique character of the downtown area. To further this goal, we urge that provisions be it included in any redevelopment plan to emphasize renovation and rehabilitation, rather than removal of existing structures, to limit the height of any future building to that which is currently prevailing in the area, to respect the intrinsic restrictions imposed by this coastal. environment, and to promote the quality of life for the residents of the downtown community. I Can Hal • CABIN Amm*wb i.gnature Address rhone pr. tee N A 04 _?_Ja�Lxtj 16LLL 7� fOl- Ila 57 8 a L�ALL Ile- -Le" . < oil r Ir it I (�. �,. a'�C .'�S' .. 11 . ,"i •'i �' 1s t:i Y Tt. % O'J. 'ent 1. fl-I 2{•' :11_ a :c;, i� :c' r;.� P� , . rzaa^. ctr.i•�e.� ;•ttr t: `t r. .n'. b il:.�•,: t:.. .. . . ?.' .. .l . khis rw%I, ve urn,, that prrvi:iionn Les include:e in any redeverlo-rent i✓lin to +-.uj-, sncizc reno•.uUnn and rr:h.sbilit:Mtion, rztitor thin removal of cxiatinf; at!'"ctu:e D. to limit tlee height of any futus:a building to that: which is currently proveilir.g fit the are x, to respact the ine rincte reetriittions 11n:1,19e:d by thin c+:r:,Gel Envirorirjs nt, and to pomote the quality of life for Ow. -ai L.lynt a of the dc��°:tt�,r~n ec;mss:tity. I OW ITT p 3r ,E�,fp r..?,.•1 :i nr.,��s•:, klilre nn Phe:na `-'Gj"�2�i_,2�1<< .]li�l. •C-� ,� I� � ✓4,�:� C!_.�._Jf�• �- ��f°.-tS� e C.:a_ A �!.'�1 •�i_L/-�c / .':il_.. .Y-�i..y•i��tii , ��s /�-�� ..__Ll-�L.=.__..'�.`� ......_..- ..�.. � .......�.. r' � �u,-�t,�-- ir•`41. zez �c VIL I! �o'! .. L` -- - ��'?'�' ! `161r� (��a.rta�Yur?•t�l. � �(��..,1 �5 `�.� _ i .. e�c�,�., •' .....tea�'1_ti1. ��.�-�:�_ �_.�; ��.�-.-.� ��'�.�. �._.... .�. �_ l�''� .�.... l�_ . � .. r .• ,.� .. '•:.i �t j:.c, ;�' ;yob r 4' � n t:(IVO-:t t hill, -illy `4l'1t.iUD'T+rit '�1 'eli fr%' !iL desl.jiled to fr►:sr.rvc ttlf; ti,,iqu'! ►: wt-tw.r.r al' ih:.' dr,tntoxn mt, To further this gm , �+t! um! th&l. provision: be ir.cluC:u 'In ai.,- r.-i,;vvr irrc li plan to em;►hv;i xe renuv&6nn and r'thj:bi l i tation, vtl'`,cr then ret ov^S i` existing structures, to limit the hoi(ih, of any futurc b►,ilcting to tha':• which is currently prevailinn in this rr•ea, to retaect the i►—,1..►l7ic :v-t.- ; •tion, Npm,6 by this +-oastai envSrr. yr ent, an.4 to p:owr,e the gjb'i ,.y of "WC, 1;70* V:u re:idents of the do,,.mtow) c -muni ty. C S% _ Signature _ _Udrpa: _-_ �1�.�._. '►!•-r�------�c=�-'-='?!.c:4-..;t.a�.� �.�G�n.�_ .iL.�C-1:t�%.S�_�..1�..s� ��.__ .W_ � .._ _ ,__ i:-.,s_,5.:_ •.s._ �i'A/: Cbl� A=-- -5-7 �Y�s�''...:.5-:.�-'+'..�`._�..L�'1....�T-.S;mot./t/J•�•C.��_....�._._._ _.....,..� _ ._�. ..__ .... � ._ ` _ AY e#,, Ts-.3 h' ��/`-.1��F:_�lr.L...�,�!.1 'Z(�.._._.._ ..!-1.�`..rG.../r-Ic`•�trF'�L.fc..� ._._._ a !�` + «�w . X 5 Lc- r, 1 tCL.---�t�tt /U ' 3� '�-�v ''-G, :s ► r""1G P 73:r I 1JAAj Cy I I i f i I (I i '�'ll�{,li.i.;. ,fi• ..'1,L1� ��'i' . . t i i,'' �� ,, L � : :.1 1 , ' 1 . 0,1 1! r}.:..J ,,`: �•,�r ,'('•l. L." t .•,r}li .I:�. rl.l „� �.. l....j y OW "' •�(�f'/��i�1C {-.YV�.. � �'•!`vvitti,.•.�_ �.3� �(� ��7� 5�� __..._J_ _� -41• _ - -- i � 1 � �s%.• �l�. .��•> /�i�f,��CF. ��b�-_�CtiN_�.f�'---1?Y'r.��1CIG I.�7Lv7�..9..? ..__ � I • 1, i• , co( (ir:CCCI(:. 1::'ti: :fft' ii"y.;�.•r .�:1'f,it 1' t �..l� ' '. " IS T: ,l)L.:r� 1.; C{:t.r.' _...ni. Z c i .I':i!• ;+.1 L ,• A►J f#: Can QEY f}T-Tc q ��J��?r �z.��r`�j��'r,L1, �� ,7J�' ��, • � {�� r' :j�11 + err! lri�C / 1 0,4.Lr'C�'».__ a�•_'�r��+e�I,{e<,:�_ _`�r�_ __� 3 C;'^�t�(�t. .- - .��ik•..c.�••c` G� .j�c,-'�k.�1 �().1-tGr t_c_►•u��..._,,S�� ::..� 5..3� ,3 � f�J le r 41 1 , r �..�_ � '� /'1 Y`O1 � � `. +ram 7 _� '� �! y f • - . " ,. _ - . ,� �� f� �� I i !!! l • j' �, � � �� j i i 1 i FIN ltl.•'.,;rt Ctil : •.'.+ • !1! � ��!,. .fir:'. ..;. 'i+.. � fir; �lj 1 : r..J. ' !� _ t111 ti Fitil�?t..•1 r. .� 11 ref.' Jf �,! ;�'Jil ,'I' ilt•�, .'?y{i�_ '•I ('i,lS l�iit+ %i�l1G�t}1 .• � .1, ! tl'�l l L'.. �; + .1� ic/ `7. '.l.11 .. ':tiT + .�ii•: vc. �I,+t which 1 .;irrontly 'c rl'r) I in.po,.�i Uy t111$ Cj 'j ft .��. '• { jn rlt I :i Crarlre,:, A1- ! - LA 2- ` f i ,� /'�701 -�.",- i 1 . I I I i } he, i Id1 and, ti)I, !av+n area. Yo {ur4IAt r AIIA cKisr., .1tI L::. LI l,• i :1t1 i '3' i>' 4 ";l .l! !, , : t. , 15 74a.:ua cc vP�1�'� - �. ' l�f'3/o2_ xf,cCacor,c•e.-kdK .4_ - r ,t�✓I.G! ( v__ _ _ '�l(�SQ1 t!e. �aa �le.�''b/�KZ �� _• ��J `�c7STr' ro 13, ' ��?S1 ..�19cr.�c��•'�tT.`.5' _1�,f3• .�...`��7:�!S�'.71 _ �IS537 LPCERP,001-r c.u. �1/. ,0. FitZ- /363 �j>>C:I�C.t �C.:.�t��!!'�`L .�.��]�..Z. �"`.t�i.�Ji.L�_2.;;f'.ii....�.,.�►.�-�C?c�+�,�-Z,,� �J.i� e flyZ .�? _ r C '1 CIO vW4 t . J1 '� ..3�t� 14'�� _._._ , too's 01 r ' p hZ. �:ic' i'iilU': Sl:)ii „il;. i" ) j t ^-1•: ' l O11 �1ml Di _ + ., i ; i t h 1a ra!1"i':� tly j; 'c'It� If'� 11� Uk ,•i 1^ '� i�..,• , ,"jGl�'r.`r ��f lSrl�C 'GG�It. Li` r , �f770i".Ct by .:1ya�i ► 1 1' ifs'...ri l.'.i��) Zti�.i lilt, t.J• �• ��4�•l r. i i Tft- -.4-44- • ...... ._.-+�-...r+-..•►+.�.�^err..r__..��_ ^�•^'.�`. -- _ 11 .._-...-+-...+�_r.._.+.....•-«+••^^'-^ __- __ _ fir•. _,__.••-r_ ..w-r,.-•�.•-___..� fir_ �• - ... S • ._•.___rr•..__..�rw.r r•. •w-r-rr• ._._-_•.wr• r.�+r-. � ^rw••+ar+•r+r i-^n-.w _�_ .Mr._•.�r_....._ .� _ ..-..�_.«.r-...__..._.rr.«.. •-.r.-...-_._r_r. -r- _ -.+�w.•w-w•_-.--._+`__ _ �_..wrr�.w�.� M •_-lr-+_r- _. I 1 I �''•}.-11 to 3.i, ,I,r ��. : � .1 � ; '. r ..' � ,� •:;i:,i.f r ;� .;�',i i:','J' . ' �. '. r . � i curl. i' ._. .. _ ..._� . .:fit - ._. ....__.._ _ - . . �.. : - ___ - i `'.itl•:• _ _ ' `�_ _. .,.�-' t ' 5 A Zr'l sty i)vc 4y. ._ ',car..-, .._. ..��2'.. D►a __.�• �!._.:�y. -- .i ___. .. . � �1.X.1 .C'." ��• Ib,�,`.._�_U_!_'v��_1_�L'�_...N �_..V_1t..1�_LL�....1__ .� - ,v 231 J i 1 47 do Ia &&Olt �.� Aft F�4LO�`f #'' OP� 77 AO" VA olir _ __vc._- 46 #AJ + i I i r � ,�lt _t:' ''r�. i _ �.. I�:+,i;' i..l'+.+ il U; 11�. !'. 1 iil• .+. "f Ill:•t�l, i t�i � t'Gi i � ._` LIl',• ( ,,• ,S., r L.�1 11Lit'- .,. .) i:r+j ... ;�r t' r;io , f• %�� )�l:..i1�i' . ..� . : . • t l.'! ur' : . .:�' 1+' j .+i�S �t .. � �.�. ti+ !„ uil t t►1.tCtV; �:. u , {;.; ;� t! . .; r. ;tf I► tt,ll Gu' 'I In'� 'cl ii,. .urgently p -V,'A i �l,'! �i; TN % Lc i":rr•; '. P.'t'. �,.(:"{ !. '' � t (7 by this copot`li t m, 1 c-ri;ir:Pl�t •`1'ld~�v t1:`C;;Jt• tl. (� � 4 ty c 1 � CI the csf a Ab LI-Dr4c, tot- t 76 v , --•- -- = -�r��.._._.��-----ter -�-- ._.._.._........ .�. ._ _ 3 � " O S .___.�- J1 4 507 i r f I I _ t rtd�uetc�n+[-,� plan t'cr -�4�r. pa 3 i[I�a� i01n and} C, acwntown area. jo furfl,er whicl, 15 +: t•r_nt 1� � . . • . . r . . ; ,c . . �. reStri Cf ions i, :,...�: ! '�; . . . . . , .. . + � .. •1 , . , , : : . ,'� ' ' vF li¢� for /l� G LCt.s'ti...`��i'�w._.._. -��f.� ..�e!• ,�C,C ..�,Cr�_ E�a � ��,/� �j ,.-� _.. i 1;'i t o�_ ��.�-.v�..,� Arc� T�►�t-..��._1 �.��. 3..4•{_7.2—. ZOO/ 01AA.' 4e, .�,C5_. .. 41!2.-6 zLr VeP N- A-: ke�lz- 70 V 8 -_=�7 ' f /Cvt"FL �c,i 4 AA 71 G1 C,p ! t c' I I " it too*., thit j,n) rcdevelolroent- plan for the Dwet.). wvirif-..c cftl.tr. ptreiciptition and b* 70 furthezr t 111,. 1 Q Urgo Ono: provisions bo included in &ny redevelopment plan VV.IIOV40r- And ri-hplAUttirlon, r,!ithiir than removal of extstinst structures, tc lftil: 11a: bolglic of any future building to that which is currently pro%,Atltnc; III the arex., to ;ntVect the intrinsic restrittLons Itaplosed by t4ia czt;tit, L cnviron,--unt, and to promote the quality of life for the rcuidt-n-.,3 of thk- do.-Sitairn cr,=L!nity. I CAN 11W Phone t C U*le V C- X��CVIA Ile Ct y � L�L�� <<".. �l- __�i ��"'' 7 ...�w�i2�.��c- i 4�'�o`.{ w r��i c:�--.;j'%/-�" i . J7 P I 1? to � ' t.. 11•t r. •fit 1' .. i (.. t . t J ..+r , LtS Llcli tj?-o in vly / l:'L a:� 1.:'t•i1 ^.iw c'. i''. t):,•'t l 1!';'. atI 'r,,i:tt. Li titttt.i•?i1; 5._.:..�l,.l !:il:(7 1.{J:^•:�:. 7'd i•Il. it r,trt,etVl. V, :"t• tl.If Li.' 11c1;:!)L t•' ail future 1)5:11dIn to Ll"r•: t'(tt ' 1 + , ct'rrc,u_ly rrc`t•ni2 S lf; t(. rt .lrtr, to rc ct t.i;r, iniriruir :t1,rnSCe 1), t1;s`t U.>f.•t: ) t11•.'irO:l.3:lt� end to cc,.;I rim r"l"IIt; t'f . i :r' :•`! L21;. rC: '►:. a; ,: Li' �,( :r+ssnw�ity•. 41) Y-1 1_JL j�r+ �SSLI Ll .�� `:L... ._.. .C_ .�t�`L.l._._ ...._t t t:ltut L.:�..? tom= i�"_,�_ ,�:>✓✓t�.�.. �.t.. ' _ f ��1�_�__ a._� �� _ purl 1j:�CUP-1 . z�lc.` ___.. `"J' J C7._ ..___.. . ... .. 1. _. ._ Y f� � _ � 7�O�I�--.._..a- t-7- r,�i,,�1..__l`:� ►;1�rr.�ecl �`��!J .�� .. ........-� . !� ex L Cc• f_Crtr� �'llc '..,ff�;�t�!''(�•�r.<•,. � �c.-) :�-1{{�-�-. �i..� Lc.�_ �.c�(• l' �'.. <��!i ,C._, /�'7tJ � 14 I fiu .CI,,j C 1't tic it ,, ' ttroi Sit: , �,., '�.�• . +. �..:r ,•.r. Man to 1 ��iil�)iiaJ 1 Ya i 1. ...t✓ .1 � .. .. - � i .r J ;�F I 1'hlcn 1� curreTit.'� ��:•::; .t i .,' •„ }"-'t ' _ ,,,� . t � ,• % ; •. �' b- this -31 �vJ4fv' rvr (10.`yl Slcl►�Ll- ��c:. _ 1' 1�. �cF ..`^ Qg_. _ ; .. ._. ; ._ — ;5-Z-171, If G l�..r...t�k.�..�....�►t�.•r.�.__ _---_____._____4 1bG11.9 _C�c1!t�-k.-�e-��cw�-�a[�� -�'-----<._._ __ ____ - -• -•• _ 0&1 n.� 4z .��9P-.2 fr�X•./.!"r, ��'! Y�...__..._..._. .___..___��'' �, GtG.�=� ,tr' .�,rf.��.l P�� `�'' 7�':� i 8741 JF ICA -��- 7 Z. 4 ,,.! . 3.. L1:.Ct {.11 ',rin 3: to ;il'.',�1'+f1i2P rt1ClC':i :ibn Ih:� ra4z:r `.� ". 1:iSli � !•;Y�ta':' �.�J ; :f.�^ +:� ^r OXi 7t.11lp, atruc::ul_aa; to :!•:.::. ;llt hef:;h: or nl:f rez.,frc: tr:: ?.!ii c, ) LIt�: vhir.l, is currently f3:c:Ffiin f•t t!t;- r-!x0 to reitju.t t1.c i11';-' 1f, ion ir.;7:,::d J)' thi'i :a:1t. L t't'3-'I:;11".0 .t•, -Ind to tvv; aA c r� �j` �)�. t`. for ii{�nJ�13YL' ;�i►,'A3 PITC" _ H Ir MIA 1 _ , �-- -�4 �. I (ir�(u— __ �c-3 A-7 �:�,��arry,.__ 9-e-d- :lt,W- LAO wo I I t� U11- l:il�ijl�3 'i ii}; 1" 011C11!C't:'.Lt 07JOY"ill To �n r~'il} „ Bali`.: f�.'..i �'l' " :!:'�: t,,1ll t, rI 0. enS 0 3 j l �.� n L.,ia'.a l f)�. , , �� !, r, Iat.,l:.1 t 1, ; r.. i-+•• t •i i..;t': oil itl:. i :fli: t ! � U� ` t0 0z- .1,tC t ii1'1;.} 1�01 :ri i It.1T i, f ' 01'f. '4' a l bl'%` .r s .9 u1a u! Gi•l'lic'. l'illlr 1 is � y i i . .ill��r !,,..flit,/ LJ' Itli; Cr,'::(il�l Ci11'��i'ii:..�li.•v ili1, 1• jv,t�f .. 7-25 ti": :"+:,j�6ili; U` :'i,'. t�..::;►F:..:11 Cf':::!';13;.�. - :� rl a'' i � ___�'..._.,��__..__._.. . .��._�_J•�,--Vic:._.__ - -----_...._._ I . 6,S ' C2L �1 t I � i � - IJ•'� Y�� i. I �� y 2 7 110 L •••� i,Y a4- .1 L7 I , t I� f I , I I C , I f -. ��dYoctit�. ;any for : . area furrCher r at�!►r: �r. tf�• , .,:�y ;�. ta, ..`t .: :I. c . . tl , f chl . Citia crrtcnt►y , .�?.'r,LY �!i', is ft; .. .[+ ,• . . _..f ••SC �.t: 1 . . � ...� ' ...Cis •; - i to of tl' carownit:y, f s v61, -71 cl— _ -- r 1 � 1 I ♦ '7 .'f �, t �� : �'., 1 i 1'. :,' is i .. 1 1 _ � - V 1 ' 5-36- 1 � i• 1 1 000 ' �� • f i t f ,0000 i cl� op .�^•��-h,. . . _ .. �1 ��l .O�G:A�J .�ur.,. _�.I.� '5.3��- �y�'� 7`-- J'� yw 71t, l� ! V •�1'ec.w �C�G�—. -.jzll Zrtc�t�.v ,� '.�' —� ' it �'/L�`' /.G, � /r-t��-u •f•.L� 1 J'i"G '1.... : . . ...•t j _. ... ._.._..-.�._.__.__. ._ i. .. _..'._.... n .,._ ilk. �.�, �n.•, ..: �' l <� f 1 1 I CAW CY job,- Ifz a BEbQ?MAtW GO Y P> M 7yCZ4 i VQ f IS O Cam"•• ( � `.rl C+v�� .. __._ - U .7 / - -. - ------1-..._,____� I � � i I � ,'' ,�" i Any rtd[vclo�7man4 Plan for { hL r + . . . . f. ' par+lc'I ad'thn jVA 69- tlt;. , 'To fAr t be r 'n �I' :ia., a ,, 1 ��' �, •)- �:1C1'f(?hfJ jri :{!' 1 :ja, Jt: !, .. A(,ta'•'1 !.ir. fi •IC, J{C1�(. ,f (. ,ihY � J ''• .1� �a'I',. - tl. ": :.:'. 1:.._. t t , j tf.i. ' •'.Itl'.'tl'1•: 'c t► n; . ; tt �'r t 't �: :t1,Lc ;�.:it •� t.,, t.:. cal •.t , �S .i:/: Yam. Jt'C'�G? 1 `�i 1. .t .N , _. _.'1' r.,J f .t ! J�(a.a ...:! f 1.R: ItL' (`J •i ,. ( t'7 It j bL{ `;igr•;ul:ti 1. 4T VND SAL MI Z 6.7--7-/ 4.j Qa er - _- Vim, la 1 u ��✓-S? � y11._C ��rt_.. ��9.�_ L�.4c,ccE � r_. �' � � ,� - _cam..�� ;•�i. ...�_��:�� _t . ' t.' 1� 1' }.: :111�':' 11�, .�' ,i, �rS. ;i15' i'1'('4'j1 �• :,� Sian far 1 . i c t afii On and )J; '� �'i'.111��; LC• jt' .. .'i"i:i UP-, Lill 10 ;,.. alfi .... ., l?1 Cti: t. 2i11��',f; :1';h fUi'Cli'?i' tl��•.i t7t)�l , ;'1 Ltrp tht, . u;t I,nciuJC4 '•t '1 UIli) to i' 20("1 err !' -ii:,b' I!L,lI. , er iC,l: ai; to tl i!:.isLing structuto- to, i ��;, ? t',;:c'i,'c. of r'vy {t.ri>�, Which h currentilypt �.' .� ,tl;u 1r, ,hc :.rea, a t :�� . , tttt: to*' rfi't r�.S�rie�irnS tlr,,►:a:nd by this r.:;4attI enum't, &r,o to t�rZ�r��,,cr :I:A u::::3'1tr fa tI r is ide:nts -ji' . �� }ry �-Ifl -4,.Z3-, 76 J.- ,.�•�-- ;�-.=..mac.,_.. -� _.__��_____�� _._ ._. •�_ II 7 tl;.t srt;' redevelop-ent. plan for +htt- :t� ,tt, i + 1tU,�tifl�j'er1 (ieAch '-^:1 cItl Vartieip.:ti,)n and �d ? ;z n .: 1.s , ,. ; • . 'unicLut, CF Arot{r-r of the. dvWA1 Wn area., Ya fur jl+e;r 1:41!, o:l, ee urn-= thrt. jirovic,iona be included in any re:developstnC ply tc L•enov-.lion gild zahALlitari.,n, r. .Iwr than rewoval of wxistintt st,-vcturisr to limit the height of any NLure building to that rhlch is cr:rently F:av,%LHng W t.h. nrex, to respe-t the intrinsic rostriftLons jvn uccd by this vacu.t;il cnvironmcneo and to ticoctate the quality of lira for the re::id •nr.i -)i 4t c, cotyunity. x C" IMP Cakey A ,1;n:tareee :.u,lr� .i c Phone I _ _..� ...,�..-._.._ ..__. _�._._.__ ._. ._._..._.__�__•_._ ....�..... r:arm�_� ' �►�'�,.�.�--'�_ -0'�z ul Ar qv"- ..4^n . b.61...__ il �1111.1f _��.LGs .`�k•O 27a `%'. cal �.. __.f��-1-5 f._._Fi:� I .1:.%._.. ___�U.L_._ �,''Y v — •'•��y ,.,..._. • �. _.._. 1 �, -sv ►_ ►�f Sze- -�GGr,��.�R�v_..�! gq& z J `y& 17 ._. fr�7 OCA -2 7�• i I a lo+n for rrzkvo girxn{ : crl!Ct.Ijtf: tt 1: :I"- . !It li r. ;'ttc' t :+":; l(l}'+i) rr thn : V'tl :L. ,f,elltI �;. i .)'. iii .�), o 1 i' j)i::. ;l I n t 'f nj i f } , IC: un 51,�^'':E:1. �/\. !'n�J �.(,��•.f, . 1 +�.. ' .'1. .�i. 'll 't:h 1 , ( _ y -kip - 1-_- _.-��t"._ �.ram'__��•�-i-:��.�.. �_ �..3_L.--.�.?�J_.. _� r e 0.1 ,— / •lam f_ !lrf.��f...T._.;�JC7.4tLG:.4CG.•_�!1.7,':�__`?I.4. f. ____ ._. �. i� GO 1- r M>w77, l. Yj:3 Y f • / _ .. _fie �t.t,�U. �1� .�11c�d� �c'1r��. �G;C+�Z C F' . l t� { �'/ � -,>'' � 3 •�" -,- i 17 ✓ r-� n �v 8 ;�c g /-- i E i t I I ,J y _ 1 '•t• , . - 1 for the- ,11 t '; , • . ' :.c • r dovmtwrn Ares. CC :UV •1 i•`r? ..1 11(' l0 E;E:a.};.it!: ,. ...?;. . :�s�,.! r'1.1 f:'}: . � +. .t, ' ,t.'i,•t' t�. !'_ ..'Z .ice C'i.i .t lcllJ �+t.Y�iLf 1�!1 ',{ ti' �{�::�l: tiit'' ill+1�i��. f., .: i� L�1�-t1'.0 li !{%•lf""- ii' i.�{•t. ti}��{5.�1 � : �u:re t'; i•.� . z[li.t�s� S i rlsr. 1.:rr .~ � i��• : � i1i',el [::S!,!��'•� (`3'. t:i��i..:'. ..� �.Ci �('!:':•'•�. � (-�,.. •� E1 • ��F ! i fit', i�t •..r U f' d 1.,� talc Tl. �Ifi: .:s:a !i' !tE•.' :' '':,!"�t'... ,�.} . e � ►f cry. t-_ .L'_G�.Z/_ . cz.. �yze �� ft:t� �lr�1G`�`J? �'.. Yr S 24. . . 91 _('I �� le" lb !U 22— Xb- Zzil . .. . •� ,i _ � ?(ii�7• . •�Ll t:t31 . �itt' :u: •1�, i(.. S,.►1' , ')/1 S 0!` h;2 dc,!gated to ;t' .^; yt: ;','_ tf tit�t�_ ..{t+.i ��t.`.r ��i t.t,a r,'r,ritt:.,it� �t`w+: YO further this goal t'tA: u�: 1,.'idvd�:u ir :,lw 1�1all to 1:nphi;i?c renri•/•:i.on any existing Structures, Yu : ;ttiI t, the h:1chC of any ft-L;vry i'c'f IM which is currently pt•zvxllir.g in the znrea, to t-r�, - .. 1'�*, intrinKfr ftl+rlld°a►v, impot»:1 by this I:Q:!.to i eit'i i ror.fa n t, vid W p Jin.)(c! 01,4 a In i Ly :'i � �{'u -':?!' the rep Iclent:, of the dtl::ntr,;r, cG t^I�rsi�.>•. J. :_.t : _ .:�: Sigr•ature Addrei: 67 53 l _ �.!.� -a- III `r _ too i l � I . 1 i t:c &"i jri:.'d to � .. _ 'i.. r. • . t:iti.jF � ;1�:.i L 1 Y.. ,,4' tl..'tl'i.l'.li, G, _ In further th l- go'I , u:-L_ P};c t. F'; .1:ri �.:. f is a , . 0fit I O1an to iGlptl J1 l(Jii ilni 74ii bIIit!'.:i t!iwl i:.:jS�i,ig ilt'.1[:�UIC:., t•_ 7iT�L t i'y I �,iliht: �1 - n,' r(J .tJ',-Q 1)(11}ttIa.1 >r)titc�r Sc. c;trrcnily pre, :' ii,:g 1n thr nr��at t� 1•;.:n::;� .r� : iJtcr;l,�.} _ r :� s, .'or,+ iripC)j by this c:>>::atai a l-1r11•ori-alit, 5ncl i:, i •; ..,c �flr J�.jr. ;.t:.r c:; tht2 t1a. c:,%rStJ^tt•:. 1• a iu4' 02 Ct III •' �, r �. CA 0 . 0-7--OA-ada4 8 y 7`.611 ; . or,ol •.:1' Ui t1 L' further this gua, Ul Jf: Ji.w. ;1i'UYjsi0,ji bn tjjc1.u,j:u ir: oo) pl an to errpbo;i ar_ renc-rs;1u11 n:j I i tnt•i o!), rt:th r that Pdstirr strvcturts, to iia,i►. :FJ hoi.: it of r_r,; future bu11(l1r)fj tv. '„ (.,rrently prevailing 1n the ; ced, to rc.urct tha intrinsic ri-st1 1r�puz4d by this Got,:tnl '11,d to pr Cr„A., v"a quality of 1 i�*e c11 thL. rt,-lLj nt: of 'uhL Ct(;:1t.''.in 4C1i;e'if.'!firv. Y , Sigoature _ A lc�dra4z Hhoni_ 1117 C�..`�-Vic � ��._ 4.�'��► _._ .. _ _._ ct v � / /� `:f •___�____�^� /� t r .�j Gam:-��c' '_ _ . i ' � ',� �"1 i _ ;t �15 5�� S'� f �L� ' (;5 . � � I � j ', 1 i l I A �'-._ whirfl 15 a!1't'c't1t �;' r'L". . I } :,i'+ h• .',t :!: y, 4..5� "IL�i' r 1tt1'pJser. I:VPOO re _ -- - ---- - - _jam _t+: ?V ' .. _. ' "ClIly, t ter -1 JJ * �64 - - .%7ZIV_. WhiJ't-Y6 u !(co51,0i—tiLci. tl ,-v3 12 sip_ la .s71 ._ lea 'rr6o -- t�. � S..I radPf / Qj i 4 ; Al (�►'t,. Gov _ �.,,�Q 7 1�. ..�' S7'h�. . . ' `----` . . tom~ a. t i4 I ch irsf aO 1 /0 71— H-1.3 , ) /© '`�' �8 � �D'•. ..7. E ?. . ,, and, ' .i `.i� j'i : i'��_ �1'L: '!I, •t _ ;,t ? 1l:' .� ill tl','' .'",tflf''.a:, ,� �•,,,��( f lU I . 1 ,:'( :i`•i ';,;,1 �•�1.: t :.,.a -.. !'.:':t.tr•: :•i � ,14 .. .•.t� .. ::,• rp.,dE�ct•io�r,��:?lf" i t: .r• !�_ ,5 ,.:� ,':ic;�, . li r, ,,nJ , ''i�:��t I t C��.1,:7, . t.il,it• L'Ir}}rl .:,Ur"1., , to v ti,. I)-- ;i'it C aai !'•f.Li."ti hi1100 11 t0 11)1, pt!l:lj FTCV,'. �I'M 1'ii' ZrC:Zi� •t::' t C'.:t1@C:. the flit.,'. ,.. �� restric+ir;r.5 Sctinr3�_,' !i Oil l r��L�.l i „�1 :(If,;. .nt, �:i 1 } pl\::.��'t :Itr :�Vi} ' 1ty. �bte re.5 ! ent's iut1r- tt •.,�/ ► � � 74 � - G`� r Lamm cN'L tic,—�.�-!�! -.- _ __..._ . .._ ___ •. . �-'!�_._�1.�L�-'4....._...._. ' _____----_ ..___ _! _: __ _ _4r A ��r�r?e�> e76"r 1. U i lic, Pe- . tFec RB_ '7-6 0-2 1� �_ �. � �, l ! ��' I �� eZ f�r �`cz� J�3 �� I i i i 1 ` 1 i i � � � �I i I I I �I I t I _ _ ... V. �U U0.) (�Uai , , . Ui't ,i4t1j. G i0'• i1.101i. ii',... j' . .'.` . . _ ��)j)t :'l� P 1"r1 tv unpII IT-(; r enL". .''ll 2.it 1 i:.itytirig 5i.1-11 :titli , to :i:,:i ', l t;'.i�.ilt U. i j rto ))tl; tjiflu vitiol is curry;lay .a, to iw1m."G by thi: cans to l �y e Si vraltu.,-O J502- 4c,.kZWS _DP_ 6-2 ell :'r't.7G4t 74s'L�G'(_! _. .. .._.____.__ � _�✓�7L�t��_,:. �r �j..-Ca-t��_ � .��•�7..C�L."...._ .--- --. + .._ ._. .,,o,Oo2r.��- , 61Y: i_ ;7 _ rJtyLL.+�. tL i/14Vt/�-�� Cnf _ T i G'-z•';. '*.�cG.•C`.�...?/L�"y�i�''�r;L___ ��'�'`�C!!('%'12�L '/L1( .C-,t t�C�,�i ,`f`,/ ,7: �_n�C� CC- r7— o i .•ti ll' .�:_ .0 �.:...{ �. :f r!�3L �). . '.t U:1: {� .'.'.��,� LU t. S":!i. l_'1 � 1 �'l, (:� «. it .._. .• - . iCr. .!• ��.. {tit-� .. � Lr � t t . ��.] . iti•.�cl�. i '� • .. ' . ! ..t:�+.�.)'i" . . .�rl t:, � . , _ ;'(. . ��sr+L Li �# �: fit t,t�rlr, AZ ZVI �J,,�,r••�..�..___ ._. � . _.4o.z__�•,l..J�.�..1�.- ' 1 ---_�.i '. 7lr�o._�3a33_.;_ . _. .__ .__. _ - •�► �� . .��c �,.�r� �-�..-�-,..�.:-�e, �_�,�� _. �lo..--�.o.s fir. _ Aa"�,',�►i .0 Sao_ /• _ i y'6,7-/E�/f/ ' . _ ... __ --- ! . _. .. At LX LJO o_L( ..L,7j"_•r�(('�(-�?/`�7/1t�1�;L-`__g-�1`�_-��,�''j^rlf/ _�.1�1'•`r__!_ � ��.��) _�. ._. ..__, • �'-J ? . tl L car r i r { � � ' l ` � - ( _ , f. . - � _ �; �� 1 i I �� . ,. � } . .. . . ..Loy- Ct►c :Stt• ,,� . - !t .f .s 't 4 s• ! :f .:x' .:tlnp tux ti s ';r 4r l t. . fr,r, t. r;rS��1 Ed liYA i --- - - s�!.s..`_ —... I_(r_5; _ l.�c�..� tt}�!�[ .•�t.2�.1 Ali t�..�1i S._ _ _ U - - -_ . . .. . .. T ��r � -, ..> - � - � �f .� I� .� I i !i I . ; (� , I ' �. i f i �. f r}:.. ,is r ,} t!1 + . • I t S. f t; •.t. �•. 1: :• : + tt; ;►c + s' :,�•ir.{rt, : 1,n .'included in ry r,ds•J01o;MeI1t g1011 i-0)Ll :r:nrIeu, r.,!hct : hnn re-zovel of ext stink c" r.)it: 0 1; is r; •tf 4ay futute br►ildir:g to that vhidi I:, cu:rcncly rrrr a:) i•+c t;l r. h. r: to .es, h"t tt:r. intrinsic restribrione viru +. un.l to 1 Cowte l::c yu-MEW of life .t r r •� , ,,tom:ti-- cooks ', zxf" 1K/y►1 �r�/��jl l��' �� l �J, � r��J y` w`^ r'•�-, J'�] �l ��'` .' 1 tp Al 17 k&nn mi f . l I i rills Q' � , t1 Lt's' t FF'( ` .( t'1: . . ' �'Y i. t.,. f , r1'•' t'ilt �►n [ exi. tine j ;t.+stc 1 JI vi 0^11 { .`.t�!•i hr��j• �r:f".'Jt � �.�"� :.:'. u:t).-� r .� �!F._■ :�. {:1 '7 '+. il.:r..?F.f:� t•; i'c:• i 1: iL': f+1:+E2,,!+":_ ..a �` i.Ci .�t� _r:` ,`�. :.:1 �►' Ui: } �' ,. #r'j i El v - _...._ __ _ _ _ _ (• 1�.�;�•r+ is 4�auic,_II .._..-.. +fir.Dr-1 -LUG.- h.r�r� c� cn _S'� �_.�-1_ `�.�!53. .._J �i_(,a l ._ _ ' __._ 1 Ole AA 1 L �Cr ��'' r�—�- ntoo,% Ii f .I� r.•• 1 .t- ��• Ili '�t,:A' 1Lia{ 4 .ji• f l j'�•1:'f.'t' . 1. 1 ' •t .' •. ill. i1. _. .. .. •wl ' .I. . ! i ••C. '•1;: jii ' ' r; 4 �: the f. f Q � further thi-: gu,xi _d,vf +apru+i' plan to crphl;ir,! ven val.lun i.ru 1" iv of existing strvcture.t, to i in-A t :ho h'.-A-1tt of arid• fiirx-e building V.) 1.11- t which is currently prevallIng fit the arei, :,� respect +'h,.- intriwic rrc13-1i V01" imposed by this coastal envirorni,nt, and to pmmotn the gaallt� 'd *')i' the residents of 02 do-wr,'6 .,.,n community. r ,cf.,�, -t-IL° W - + __...__.._ .. Signature -- Addrets Phony4ed !Jvt. -S q P-jA.Z- Plicl^�—-— — 1-6-51�d "A.- w� Gal JDa- 1A,91 'LIN 4,115, .__._..' z Wc-.vr'lo}: . 7 .11 f LST I3� ci•. 'i.t, .� � :: :� ��_ •� ,•, L, •• _ ..,•!clltC t'.i' •. r I • .c• f•:rflc:ip tt n n� hs f.•+ i ` 'f. i . 1Ut'• 34 i:1.. IV t L ttics thi', ��. : i, rC t:rL� c �;• vi►{r�1G �Jrd to any rrevcLcsc-!Mn= piste L'� r..:, !:,::1 e I oo - i+ :� a.,•i r.:t:! ,i! : :,� ;t ,., v,�,^!►,:x than rc-unvrnl of exiatinx Btrnzttir:!s, to tr:c't 1i:'• t:, tFtit of atiy t'tituL4! building to that vhic;t in curr.4n Lly } rrt•Ri:.i ttr t., t,. Sra., to ro:r3�. t- the intrinsic reetrietiona 6) f ..it, c,, rt. L -:�, . :;etle„ tt,d to i ro;octct the quality of life for• Hit! rei;1d1!il'., rrA` Li . c -c. lrt;il �r,p:..utity . x C" uB:.r Orx- Cl w. ILPtwo... OCP Cyr LO lob dt 23q I Zoe • • W�7 4.i J t��•j {,Ltir��j t•��'� i z .��»:C,rU: .. � =�. � .. i. '��,lt u'. •,: j•1Ll:.C-`l),,( 1-,i I, •j `{ v. t �; .. Y.'I:� '1 .i; t i:'.r+ t� •I: ,'. rr •.ire: � ;, fit '. - C .u... ._. -�� . — _ .— — --- -- �� S`�s" .l,, ttc�� .rapt�� !�t�n n 1 rv� �� . .�. 1 �-�-�� { f 4 L 'rid... ��.,Ca -'c � L'(.t tl:�� ,'.rl— 1i'�', t•''rt �•. [^: , r U, :Itl .:i':1 ,•) . :1( �i i':1.:F Ir`I .I•. :��•^ r.l�l .... , i:. . .1, .. I _ :1 :Lr :r_�tl :� :t. :. t'• i :`►t t,: 1 f`'. a .: h..? St11 S. vttt� `n ` t _ . �i ,}: + ' . 1 +.ir. !t1 ;.�: .Z!C� ,• •i•e�. :r, ti.t' i':i:'+ . . !� . t... :.h. rtt: - .�. ::d.:: . +i► rttt 1. • _ TV, 77 ILI til ?•LJ�.SLS-'t N 1 � '! �1 ' � •ILA• ., 6041 _y t U.t>_t'''�►��1LY�,: ►_.i. . 1,��tA;L-tLii.'l Ai _ "'.7.47jt. / / WA,- A,a_ I___ a _ �... Pow 40 hel pia. ka,nn(ri r45(0 �i r ' 4 r .. '.t'•�. .:� r ,l.- ;•��,�t7•. ( •j•.(„`. . . ++UZt '.ii\ 1 .?,it .} Tnt .. .. r•I, i�'' ' ii'E t.tiU IMICi 0)--racl,CT'�of tiie dvrtn.c)ivr, creb , To rurtt:� ►' thl . y)di '.r. lr; a.� irip, F•;'U1' iUn: ti^ Itl(.*.t.tu&..j iit any t'Ci��'VI:rul)frit'il. pIaft to ! 'i.ri}idi,ic rci,kvisioil and -.-:haNI tiltI Oil, rbVIC1' tharl rciaoYJj of existing stiYtcture;, to viralt the h:.Irlttt of r.►>ti' future 5uiirli•ig to tht t which `s currently rri:vu911rc in the nrea, to resj,ccw the Ntriri3ic • „• ; i! mitr.l 1..)llr�,n7ent, and to pr'omte the Quality of 117e %v *.tl. -�-iJ;nts. oP t�t� +.:a.rnt�.rn cc:,zauiiit4•, x ct� .�c�.� 51g.,ature , Addres! "hove • C1� �+rlrt.+ _ R f.l—t1f.T*__.._.*pr.�mr_m_ I J rrr C U , rel_aQ _ Mi"i I -- LIZ, r ' 1 i A t�:"r �� V t.:U., 7:'f1 i• —.il:; •t �Y` .1 13ci° ... t'• .! !'�^.. C1.��1:.!9 N. r l .... 17; C1Y::,�i,llt'il i:! � ..:f.a L•— i l:«! !..l•�. a, f'. ..a_Ct.C.' it i�'.r � . .. . . r• ) �.... . tills 63'1, xc urgn th-It. pr.,vlslons 1Jr lucludcl in 3 i,i•'•::la;:'t•tt,: ;•:0.1 to cu; hnslte recov.itir.n Atid raltnl:il ttpi•:irm,, vs.thr.r Lb.- ;t :f ey!.^tint; 8tru%tUr93, to li7att rtiC ltr.l?,ilt of :.,!iy tut-ire 1--tildit:l, t rll-: Witch ! :neatly ;rc,vai.ltng !n 0:^ atra; t:" re? r.:tt tit: i^.i:ti.v v a-zd by t h i b r,.tN, 'tl an•li::+:t' �;... , .11;d ca ¢•i•Ck•.r,t a 1.l,: z ILIt7r r.csidr, cr,: it7.. ,. ;is.:o[ue•c hddrJntt i'1e�;,� • OgT 467 CVI .- ._ _.._ `rC�;-nv 7l-.c n.e�t. �. a; dt°a-z�- (�. •�t: f 8. 8`f(� S!9 O_ ew em,e.�._ �.go _%9 ?a,L o s-�.� MOA c� t d f 7311 itef C AS—C&, 50y x i W� rhe, unhrs-1 cy eA, strongty advocot'e, that' o'ly ;'1'vc.1: : play ecr �-hc • area of f'unf'inlitn fs . :.l .:Uai n t.i:i•t'r part fGi A.+iun anal bt. PrcrarvL }bt 't- :.! c,hgracrtr 3: t11c dr�11 z7rt: TO fokr4er ;nv 1-1.dev24r.. E . .., - .41 l!), !'0Llh.'r C4111:1 1l:L'.;lV'! .'I :Y! '1I Itt 8n7 £u1.U2'C buildl�� Lc, r.1t.+t 1J171re5�'r:r Lt.e {!,iCil6ic re tri��'icnt Hof-Lf&l and it) yl.:litf ,; 11b ti r ,r,.e /�: .(;�•, �o�.�_.Fly rlt'�"r'r7_ fly �. MIL ev 3/4 cin _(4'_r I ff 511.611 - n `— G - 1>••7S_. ..Y:.'.nYTs.Sw �... � -._ ._.. . .. ....- .... _ .. .. • .. ... � ' ... ..�..._` •�4�"tn• �.3�-jam x,.. ^�iI_• t �� ,r � �r � ,l ~J to j--�p .Y• ,• i r `f 1 i �� i. �. I �� ' i i Jc jl � � { 1 • i j� • •r• • .�= c . .•: ts;l}• .Ovoci.re Hi.t rrcy redevelopment plan for thst ::t ! �j-i r,: it 1s r. participation and be A,, un'our character of Lite downtown area. To further This Foslc urgr. thct: provioiono be included in +any rcdevelopwatk plea Co renovftfcn and rchccbitittition. rAthor than rewtvil al existtnp, nttuc?'ures, to lfuic Oto height o£ any future building to that trhieh is currcnt.ly, prevrMing fit thu area, to reep•cct the intrinsic rc atriAtLoas iL;Yorcd by rhiu c,-,tatr 1 cnvironient, and to promote the quality of life for the iC- thr dt,,,utnun corraunity.. I C" MU c C OM twr(a vo CariKT -11:ne tut v c.;,!tl c::: Pttaaa A ~ _ PLTrita�► �,��- WU/ �4-I Yz I I/I/I IV, �� r ...�G4s�1✓ ��Ci�',�� ,�`�'sc-s�+L+3-,�..,C/��'.� (1_T L' -(�J 7 ��.. C2�m cQo. 1 rd� l_ '�un�t,curr� r �l C ea ;ALL...aeL 47 � •�'Eu�L•�-�t'"c``"( � ��%� CJ�.,...�f',w.�.,',_�;j___._f:L!S....._ .� `(t: •,�-6 •1 3 ...__ r��<..c C/~/"(`LC'z"""yy'•-�- J� / 5,_,/�/ '•'�y�vr i.�'r...�..r._.�.__. .P_._��....�1.r.�G_.1�__ ._.,, '_ ��..(s�t.4�� l�ilrl.ti�. f� �J�� ...L/t•iLl�f.L..—_tir�l_._../ /.�..._-y..._._...—i.�l �r Y +C� ,,,,1.....- b 1Cp-F,t1'n•64 .AY4'V 12. __. � _� r�iC{� / t. -�t_ JiSJZ 'i( StoT7LN H.c'3 { �1}�—�J'��(�, f :� .i '�t�f cl � .ti-. i �ifl!t�'1. +....1:. .C. D: .t' ter.., rl a'I•' . � • t.itts ru.:.1 , „ fit,j"I bn irtcluard in c•n'+ rs-develo ,x•r:t ; •.s,s t::a.il';�1:.- r'�un::ti� �rn11 r. l+:bi4irhtirrt, rr;:lu'r th,n tc;zni-t! a1 car. c tO r hel41+t oC any Cucurs builrlfig to the 0•i'•tt r t:U:I'Crt ty ! •'^'•t{j_a!•V, ttt t! -� 1.rat , Co respwt tIsv intrinsic roz;t t 1,1t t+ rh ixso:;cri b; . .f; 4 .'fvt -.! s.:.viron:':nt , bnd to lrtv.-c t z ►.ita rtu al it;, of I ! ttic TL`1'lr.rti: . ,•i t! : d;�:. t•,+rtr Cc tttity �,>, r f� f •'n ti:. , : �,:', ?: t• '1 . . t 1 + .t'•` ) .`•;t r t � .t ...•f.! !•t,v, aL'r �.CS�i'et, Lf�t' {t',• . . . ,t•c ,.t �,. i't S.:` c.. ' , .r,l crtv::on•. . :nd ►r, r ro o i " : t o:: I J '• t,`1�nC,�_ ..._-. ��1 U l Z,�,..5'c./�'f lc��y i� C•sue,.. L-Al °2f .� 546 tt _ �._.,.f� .. ��_ ��.,.l�i'�..., ��._,__ tom•�� --�.___ .�--_.._ .. -_ _ - . t ..l, s�eNis ,��.. .. , • . .'vv � ' .. uaic.uu :air. n, . . ;. t1i d' . + , . thi s oa.l, uri�i' t he is ;roviei y�.+fi be iiicl+►dcd ia tn;, r► :vr.ri r y+ nr '_ .:.r, to cv'.r1v.rizc renu": . . i-'n '•nsi t'riiiuilittition, ti►an rc2n-.-sl of 1•xr :t1 r: Ftruct.rj*.,:s, ►:( ?is i r ► ii - (i,_i•.:ht of any ,future b"i lding to chant• 011 :U , currenuly prv.1.1atl inr. ti, c:►.; .it•e:, t..) rn•.pect tine ` Iv oruci by r:.Al.tr envLrcii-i-mt, And to I:roanvtc 'lit! fj%1A;11 r of it;'r i \\ the tr : id "nr, r of ti'c c! r.'r ra',m r.' .."ZZO-A Y, r u u __. _ .•� _.___� tarn_l?�x�!u.us-.�''�`1._.. . ____ ._._ .`.�.3._.�.��t l.� �. .__ .. E .. (,tM- _►\U.l _ 4t6 LC. . A.i.. ,�S.f_x.._. 5�../s�_ ..^^�� Y. •�s . I . �� . ' f � ....M. 01 JJ�',,'._.•�'..1�ri L____._..' ' ,.r.� rl:.+.� .✓�'_L{r!�'�t� �-1-:� �..L.�.l..�+ .C/..,Y..!L_._(J �•- •]�S'. - - --. .t _ f I. 9 S f' f ' �: _.. .._..- .i .. . . _.. _._ _ . .__. .._._.._ _ -.._.- -_- �_ . __ . _.. �.� • .. ..r_ ,`` • lam. .. (2-th (t_af�s�jjLo. ..� } fk 24 ! 1 bi _..__ PIA- , .. . _--+'_.__. .... . ___..- ' - •-- YP_ ! . i j .. � � I'r• •t! Lt• ill. 'l/�� `',. ' . �:i1 'f! Cjr� r t t r ' ' '} i t /r :.t,t5 �:f1 , r• `<7 the ''• Co ph +s1. :ir.•t .Arad aLrucl:ur+ aj rctc-),.Ii.it. Like t t yti•t:r�i r�b�J�ili!l,��i c f. ',� r�tr;Qt ;. e,.Yt•e;,t Itoigh� �, r• y Cutucc, t Nl !l:; thr ,� .. • fr rt tellt r�; n•1 tti , r : tri.'.tic,. r, .rare • X 1 •!tt ter of L!,, . F't'�l:`1.,�► !• . I' Ity tt!i ' �? f e%„�/ )c`7"""_�•_� -�/-�-� 'tom r;•G lr',r!f��i,,,,.,,t!. a,�,,�t I .S'� _276 ZV 16 { !LnA 3 .7�:�2 "Lx) ..'. .�XtS4-L .4�.L _j : (.�.1' (�� . �, _ Y r. •! .. - _._--L ., -_- -77 cz 5 l VLit til ,,1-iViqlbus ba Included In to antiri,eeve)Vr.-*4flt Pt-Mcl-urt-i, LcI jltlj,h r1Urj%,j:1 '! ,, *- of any futut-L. j)U(jtjjj[j to tl,.It w 1.1 currently !titf -, arc:;, la resp*ct tl,4,, Intr:nslc r(!ztjjO! jc.jjj I-.,-zmed by t"f! and to I rcl: ze tile (julli..,Cy of It.'. tilt )fit 1-7 96 t 631 - L7 J It 4' r . ` . 1 ;.4,t, i;�tl� t+r• :tC;;,.• L•i::t ;. .:. �;.�1 i.r . !r':f'1 :c ri in ,: l . s • .,, •r{ . .•, L'•'.1'.r:' (.1 a .'!4}f.l, .1.'_:1•:1� ltrIi:i.11'_f:Ir lG 1.1. �11• 1 i.f'.19 r.x ' . •`':f, fi. :r•C1'!; �. t a'a 1.� �' .•il�. 1 .:ill:: L ..'i.:.'Oli .l(� :.0 p11.. .t...� (l� _ 1 f•i SO rl ci ee J . I r i i 1. ..� ,�'",;;_ �3..qucic.lgn ' j t t 7;. of � (�J � �l ( . l _ _ • -�'. I �' (.. _ '` � � _ � r '� t' . � C, I •. . �I 1 r �+ 1 - ..; .. .. _.....,.. ._.. __... -.. .,. . ..._.._r._.....� ...z. :r�--. rr:rvrr•.c:•.,�a1K'�+��:.;-:�:rL3rsn:ew ^� ,�i wa� --- - - - --- - - - _. I BEST PHOTOGRAPHIC i REPRODUCTION POS,JIBL,E, DUE TO I . AGE AND CONDITION OF ORIGINAL, i i DOCUMENTS k.iS4li 00 ��.,�i. .�,..':lti'L.:.<7:�r,:»r:;,r:F�z:fn�wrcr:.tt.,.w+nn..:nz ra�i.;.v.... .'�i.:., , _ _ _ .,,s• � .... I t+� ,.I i � ,;I s d�� r tY:' i!r� CUV_' {'. , .:.('�' .'r,sl � 1 l.'j i ! t .' o, IE( — L(r L'l!:U'.•l c, i� t'. C;,- ;,'t�;'t, :'t:t tt:r {!: i l• h 'C(:1: ?,".:1" li'., 11.�'� t:1 'i' S'. . rii/':?: f. s �i21 �• r�;'.. �,': :0 �r• rlr!!....'.' �' l'1'. 'st t ...mil._ '�l.i /....'. .rt••!JI , .��, r ✓:��. .y.... ... ._.._._ .. __ { � ti( •.r '� �..L,,, ',6- /,�`} 't ✓��t` `»�.t..�4�+.��7t ."� ?... . __ ..... .... .__ il.� ��\� to 1 - dam ` - _.. '•/Cz� _ r. . -f�.-- �`�__�_' _�qr�-;---•;---�„�__...�_ I _ � l.� c2,� 4.4�t1'c1_V_ `�.�..�' .��¢i1.�1. � ,�•c:��._'.i.�ftz.�t�!i.:.'T�`��1�"�tZ�-+G'--• .�1d�_J1"IrC3..li/LC...5' P1�a1� , - ___.__r"+ f ` ,t��►�-� . _ - _ t -.yryf+rS F'V f-t•l�i..�.a•.. -r, -. ... � . � '• •--. -, t • .-... •...._.....r+. 1"t;•►•..r..,.... .,r.....�tw�+u rr • I r /'`"1 �"`1 �. 1 / � �� . • � �. . ; �,i -�`-� � _., . . ! ( !` `• ' .-- { i H � � . , 1 ; �� .. � i � � t �r, i t } i i i � . . j`{ . •.`v-�:7r y' .... .. .'• .. � .... � . L'v.a....�. .. .. ... i �. - . ... .. .� •.e - .. ^,.`YT � ,-:;t':. ..:�': •..ylle(h I'MN hh r Cn�� :.o•�� AS$N� 1 QIZI �� ttl!b jU 4-Al x►t �t� to qt�6�3 �QC z IN ��- - Ap J12- 1 -7 ll QQ 14 • , 'moo- s7.a, i �.� pr em Cl "' _ lo v»-ti, �fiY�'�-GAL ►�'"1 ' r7Z`f� 0 �'✓'9 `'' 7�� i INFO ,53(,-5 oV 53 33C0 . Ijj1 ,�'��t�•� Cj>;�`7�' TAMML3 GOP6,r--Th i �J �u�n�o2'� tbs AkimeTS ►norN 59$ b�c>q 7 /`Y)X�-?ct� �r� 3 /�/j !� 1'JI�Gc� �" � -1�c iJn�jr'�rG , I 4 i «eft ' �14#'Rlrr ,'�s!�Ff�1sL"X {? ."?fC!1 �1`<<trt '�/iritnj:�F .. 't.Y�.� i:i..r�ii: .:t+iri�..�r�F3Ftl,L_ tk_•:1:• y ,._�'-:u;LSi.1...>r.a.at:. I i tT ram' � ��ik�� Cc. c.t; 1,1�•` � .-•"I r `� .�-t`p �b�l�-�i+� L�� C-' �'•J t, '!, h'Wc,✓ ra�.a� ��4��io,� i r l .aOqrlck R6D3l��-t jee z,l.�*c ..� -�-.Etc-.-t :s^�''�1'/�u�{ .>� i1�; .�-`�l�— ° �•�; 7.• h: :� �- � I ..;•yet.ftr Y1 �.L�t�►u��c.�-C� = ��l �";t, ,x_!:�i.•�t..�r--�: _}�'_ �..L' (�1�� 4 S � 1 440L� 1 L.J Sty"� ! � ,�`�p,•�..1 t,i••f3- S`1C' �='�'•�`i Jt .2 C1 .(fihf✓t, t�0�, !lj / If`��OU Qtv"; t• >cl-/j. . . a I 1 r I I, �I i C.A ui I I ' I n .. . . ..`-71 � Lae ��r.-.ai C. 11;�• . • �� two.. 70 •r';��. y �, ':!��ti sue.(_._ �7.72;:,,,�`��• w��i G k�Y''Y-'' GU --- -- +� .�� r J• � •.«•Ct'c -tic •�C r/ .l �- 40, �j �+i .�,�Lip<<} fYi.S'1 �• s ., o *, �j � ..,,• s. .dill .�!�.li..c G�.r-,r-J i < < Pr,VA . At 1377 '' :C�?-'� Ci.�c4 �` t-�-'r, t ">r� ry1,c►.{., ?.' - C`:1 r�1.►- w`,al r --.[.^.1•].. 0 elLEIS '' e� torsi •� . (eta ,;�� .2►r[ � :3�- - �� .�. .. . _-L�( � � .q !1�1i1 tea;..-• ,C�7 fi"^'�. .-,�'. -- /��} �/� C. �6 =2• 'arc hid L e��e.• t/,g, �� ! ri 6but ...� '�vt:sL Get,...-f d L.L�Y yf��:3`�[..<•�Q.�.� Ft� .. ,. ��.'�� 7�.� J� � G?r. J�,d:i�i':!-•�. ,fit �:.'3� 1��.',r,...,�.t= .G.�, ��.- . . . . . �`' Z.?•:�..?.,_./. l r ♦ 1 I t i �✓d./0. //�CMaC��T � Q.Zr ;�.4 i�C-�''_ ...._ �+�'�.r� ls'�r-�-;.� _G:c�� B • �70�•Cl7�r llt rye �,u•�.�., d�..yam.,., . . �o � ��`.��'. �r3 i i I i /J y c� 94 ..5eAl:.ce-. tiS'. (" 40 7. v i?{.-�f1usL. .. . Lf�� sr�,U.,� �i� /r�(�, /U ��✓iU,. I y t3 .. 1 t i 1 i Gv 4�mc�la1Q 2/6157 �� /•-yZ yl d' is -y .. �Jv 24 sr Rt>:t 5�W 001) r- � C-�'�• q tom Tc- inuw tn� co 9fl�5�. S",�G --`.S`�rz--r -- 1 I ., ho -�t 4 1.� Mf. K III t t i 1 - T ! ?1 _, • f'~1 4 i i � .. 1 � ' 1 . .. � r, .. 1�' . .. ' c'�... .... ��..:�r,'. . .. . . . t�, � ,J��'cQ�.► "1. 7 �..�._.,`��.+� .(.JIB .!� � � �. __._. -- _...� . . .. .- � __�__.. .�.._.. - �^h Yam, h�'!ya?� This is a petition t. t: 1. development fronting Ocean Blvd between Lake Ies and bth Streets (and around Main Street) � be low intensity. Of410 Address Signatur Date Phone L, .x d ;3 !0/ Qy GI 0 r 1 -Lb t .. 7Z6 G r� ✓ t -Vo7f r l��'� h{• /lam hfn c� I k4l Z ? 16, _ I l I l I{'h S� • H j3 - �. �,� l��'lv=� 536-a,� i w -'Z- 7 • c , This is a petition 'D tan Sou help"r 1. dovelopment fronting Ocean Blvd between Lake � � 4-es and 6th Streets (and around Fain Street) be low intensity.. Y c aa is 7•- ..a AddTre'ss Signature Date Ptlone •i ce ucx CL&* I t 71 ..,,,..,._ I _4 I . 1 This is a pe'ition �!"`'t; �''� Can Yau•h�1;.; 1. development fronting Ooesn Blvd, between Lake and 6th Streets (nni around. Main Street), be low Intensity. � � ❑ s lid° Address Signature Date Phone °' -" t -C Q C.a. Sod t►r-H s-r. 50 �- L yL�l -15-7G 536 C -�f935 _._.. r. y7aoo A e-1, S-31, � � ��•~ � h �'�' � ' .,.,.�._...- -. �� i is �" ...� j`.. �- ff .�..�, ,'�r.+r `-tip..! .�:; � ._'7"its-- '"/ � •��=- G /I� ' S_ 3��<�� I may— ........)_......j._.._.».. .,.._�...... �...... - -...._....,.. _....,.;...r..,�.._.... a rl Sr > 6 r t t _ This is a petition L�,`•�t: Lan You hole? • 1. development fronting ocean Blvd between Lake � and 6th Streets (an6 around Main Street) � } be low intensity. `a o a - ' t -n c Address Signature Uate Phone � CL d IC1 JA J Ji o � ♦� Div, �4� , • 1 aNwi•�waw�,�w-r. wY ..�.w Mrs• .r.+«w..•r•.w...-.••.�.�..r..•-r«..-•..ww+� .+w+..+..��r�arw••+reww.�.�..�.r-• r� +rraw.w�.a... •.w••w•�ar— ww.w.awa�vawMa �• e•�w•- �•.ww.-...+++.++... •.wr aw+.wr.r+.�.•+.a.•wr aw��.w...'��JI.-•.r...... �.warw..w•`.w.•M-n•�-N.M� �w�wrM.�..rw.-+r_�.a..+FK�-w.��. ' ar..rww•+....r.++r�.a....w�•.+..�...wf .r`.r�•wwwrr .ww�fw•.`•.w r..r r ...r�.•.-.ra -.... l w r r..wa.w.�..+..�..a •r.wr•.+•rrv�•`•a1. •►ti wr.r•a �w � t ' � �irWr 1rrMwrrw�. } 4 w 1 t� 1 i i 1,. • This is a petition tt; Can Yok he(;,? 1, deve2!ypment frontinn. Oce an Blvd between Teske s es and 6th Streets (and around Fain Street), be low intensity. `� h v r 9- •c-� N- -0T one Address Sigma ure Delte Phone u Sal-Ion �`. /-�. •i �Ut. -33 S07— �' JWL Rg" 34 Id i M ` OG 1 ' U/4� ZA w.wA �� -• 1 63 -02r� J� w . y y ..r��... r.-..+� i • -y1Nyy� w�.lrril� �.M 0 t1 r7- la S /2Z, NFL yeti V.tk A • � N N >4 OC esvl l n'-r rl'�n butt hi", � sod - n N M S o°t WL .:., ..` .;. q 17 cv A,rt ul". A A Tir Al# � ..... Sr� ��.a..•�. �vw�`�* ,� 'lq�,� ,! ds4..+.,,�`il �� .-�/��.,,,.1,,-'C;� �l}c.c.�. II 113 wAI„ pt � y b b I ;):I VAC 11 h T c (ob5 �l1� 2Z(( 04. t 124 N f+• 31< • P Ts• A� ftt+ l�• � �� t vAeAn Vac�tnT- r �aa , 1004 olt-Jt. wx PtPTS t ' wN+,ti toe.Larc w rces k14 4 y v At nv% r ' f OA - r 32-ra •r•► �l1 to, F ' ; 7 tfAcA^r Q N 14 /L. AJ 14• 10 PA This is a petition �t: tan YDK 1. development fronting Oce:in Blvd between Lake and 6th Streets (End around Main Street). by low Intensity..sit . `� t . Address SSgnR':ure Date Phone a 1 ..........: 00, gL 534 jw s x-a AeW 7 C -- 1 1 I • � i � i � 3 =ir This is a petition that: tin �oK h�:ip% 1. development frontiwr Ocean Blvd between Lake: and 6th Streets (and around ?Aa!n ::trees.). be low intensity. � 4 L z C.- M L y» dLsS Address Signuture Date Phone 1 II�111 �`ft"t'-`' 7 � "�4f?I, f ! 1•t ' ', r ••ELT f�C�c � r r f f ...�..�.� .M..rq�r«v rwoar.•rrw� w.r.r... i 1ti�•T,�' �i:'}TICST%,i41}, Oreom? mw ?0%%U111u 1117V1:10PI'l.I c 114 eo� 110tti;Ct,:IN AITA OF 1I11,".T11,9fo.! BEACH. V.M. REQULST T'IM— TIIi�. CITY COUNt '!. ST'IMU" ANY 1 ROV I.S TI iy FOR. 11I1{11 RISE W i'IG: CURILKIIL' GCl11TEM, I1141N FOR O}' : jW' UOVYfOWN ARLA OF 111JPINItiGTON ]1MN1311. NA Ar,1;LCss PHONE -All LY 06 ;f 'r?• I1 - 7L.:!__�+/n . ...... ;'-' 4 f �.CZ 11L:c:1:�. _ �„G,:�;.:I•sis:.'kl?.(cEcy-;__. �!_.�t/3'� .. .lt c�_�►.. '�7r. .- . _ ._ ._ ..._-�yr`f�''��!'��'�"-- - .._ �:1-.rk..-� ,_•�, r� ...__. _..._ .._ I,tf�,��C.. .�C✓/'_"•71;;--(c c_-4 s,�--._ ......_.-___. ;J .7,�'~ J � •�• ' ;�:�.'J_s.'lryL. rJi. _ .r_ I��?�f. - ✓�. �"Yd '_S O_�p ;. . I - ,� '.- ram• __. G�_. ` _" 'f�' ..- ! r fG Isla.� y -G '-1 L�',,L.. �.. 7_,a ��•'/`Y.�1r-L' c.t f cS �U 7 � t(-Q _ �y(57-0 .�. .� ._..,►3-.;�!" .... . .. �t _ .'� 1, f 1 �1 ..— -1r''�r-� .1-/�::Cl,ll�./1={�,r ._.. l�':6._�.'l ��'!p •C.1 x1L'<r%f�. 1'51-1 -- •--� -ln�Y�L.Q�G.'fC.IL.... _- ------ ....�..;.�.:..�..7- - �`��.'..4l;t.u..tii"r . � ,�,� � _ ��i°`""��L LZ ..»- mot- ��-Y."" -... ��-. _ � . .__�..G L�.I..__ .l_ .!C-1.t:L 4 r"t'L .-•^-•l-�1J-.__...._._.__.._..._~�i�r�. � �tJ y �� L� tl6i 7 3 � 1 n(:� L ( 1Etli IN POWIT1'OUN ARi:A Ur 1�= 'I:i..: .>11`:1)1w1:SIi�i;i'sD' UI`i'OSI?, 1►tiY I l,tii{L•' 11..Gl1 RLSi: ' ��: .'.� '� ' 111it1TL';G1G;1 lm%cil. 141' (',',"QUEST 1111L ;CITY C1)IECI1. STRIKE ANY PROVISION FOR HIGH RISE Ili THE CURItEitil' GLI-M, LAID I'Olt kIGti1' OI: 'Ii1L' DomUCAM AREA OF 111Jt1TIMTOtt 11P.ACh. l,uu ADDRMS - PHONE t=.f ...�_..... _.L_�F.�=.7.0 f!iti' _(,� /�%i left_6"2 el mot+" 77 2 it � I)o �scvc o" 6 /Q ) Lq-ucudk'a�— �=t f 7i r .� .0 ,•�b W - a7zr -� Z- C.Ll __.__ ZrAl- 001.1 Lk 3.6 Ll ___ � tom'-�,�f.. ._. __.1G� �-��- . ,,,/��'•-'��ra� ��j� c�"Y(6/F'�r _'��2 e f,�J�f.�t. /b.��--`�:�'¢l �'�tat�c+-t+.. �lrt:. /� . �"�� --v�� .•` i Cam- ._._ _- ,,,� ,�•.. G3Z2-..S.��•e�-►t��,�L�l..Tl�-r. ... (t/�g.... . .__. ._. . _. ... _.._ . .�'4�G-�G3s� , • I WE, r,]TF, UNDERSIGIMD, OPPOSEA. Y PWRF, ItlEiz Di;Vlil.cll`ItitTY IId � 11011Ml'OWN AREA O 1 HU!IT1KGT0I--: I3MCII. 14E REQUEST '>IVVI THE MI C01:1":C;Ij. 5'1'R1I:;. ANY MAIM IM FOR IITGII RIFE 1 11; T1IE CUl:lMM'' GENEHiLL PLAN FaI1 OF TIU. I)ttiWMAM AREA OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. � N ADDRESS PHONE � xv �'^ _ �^� � �_..;1-} r. 1 rho ,� _ x.- . Lid_-�j - � ....a___...v._........� �?-•-.� � � -- � - - -- ----.� _ _ .. _ z )CIO 'rid, � ,---_ `__-•- -- ...--��T 'fi .----= -, ______-__.._.._ �..:.�. . . WL$ klll>;L.�ra'tSIGh'I:D, OPPOSE. ANY nU1(li I UR B 1:SE WARUMM AREA Or IIUI,'fI VGTON BEACH. WE REQUEST TIM THE CITY COUC;CI,I. STI I.KE ANY PROVI510N FOR 111611 RISE IN THE CURRCNP GEM HAL PLAN FOR ItLDI:V1:L' 1'1%".%'X Or THE DOWTVA IN AREA OF 11UNIUGMA 11MCII. �lAtk: ADDRESS PIIONE �.4to �.1� r7,l�, _.Z_ rtLam_! �7i�'/rf�`J(.1 ---____.J1�--a..�t:c�__�_::%"? :rt.G�-~'� ./_�v�� ? �:"t_:l•• c:�r�-�=z,��"•...-'+.�x.� ,,/�r[5 ��:`L� -:�'3Uc�'. .f.�j�al.L(.:� _ '-...L•r ( 41-7 F i-i;t •,•{,._ �- ('' •!.-'�. �''Ji //�-�:>•�Z '�! y ' _ t (rtY '-'`'-''� •'/ _....• .I��t;.-...�j/I�.. ,��i� j�/ •-...L.r i// .L.•f/C i �/ .}-J�. !.'.f.-,1 � (,- .:.7 L K `•� L tr L7 .. r�4�^~ (l.•�`(11•-,J�.,..0(.i/. ! •,[.,•! J�+/ (.J a�/�/� ✓ `!` ,Tcz) _. lfi`'�=•r � '1L:t:�'Z _. �r_� �:_ !_�_.:r f_c:t- ` :'c`: t/ I�. r`� �'._. `)rlC" S, ` y' �I - ''� � ��l�f...��;s��_'�.t�'.�.5`-`y.L j"..-�"��s3.�,1•_'-,r':��- ��• 1,�J�t'�7 `v :t(. _ f_S��'4y i or f ( l 7/ ./% :r'C.('., r,-I.•t'�'r�-c� �t ,- /�r-!.� �r %t :J '"1'---�' r� .6: �l s:L'G(!�C..•' �.J••t.ty• •t•� .'('( !'{••'j_. /�//7.!�rf�'''''tG"rCsltll`J, �1.._.,��,- -- -.- - .. 'i �`.c'_-�.�.�,'!c!..t„/ In 1 •ff Cl Cl ,__.._ G•L ,�.�;C...,�-"4 �-.ta11.�4.�.4:r:.........�.�..-��.:�a� __j_. I!(.. _ t , •_J ..l r�.��'~ t/;fit !',��,c�� --.a ....��..� •I (1 S ` ('mac f t,,��a-•yy/�. l i. __�_ . . _• �/,� _ •/'. � .. V.�!'l/j�r(C�lJ,l, �7�t• b�� s !'l.' 1 f ��jy .� f ' , ._/. /•.�,�- .c�.l.-( - �; 1. t [ `, L� __..._ 1�/•-"y G.t-•t„•�Lv.r/i:.n�•��L:`�-' / '•I.i�t .. .~i!,Vw t `/• �� 'f'� /' •' j 6, l �Y0 -3 17. r ... `�.yC�/`T�.4-.�� .t•. 6e,-/� t,.� �!'/%�/ 1r�/r t:J'! �+ (J, j��.+ G./.•cf C� . �...i�!a-•L ��(�•• rrgl�r...v,f:.l-.7-�„;I._ _ .. .%�(j•. /.r, i4�-•._.d. �� t�l f^!�/-7-7 ��,•J�'•! r�?~1.��'/ If•'• �_ t`'"G,ZL'-C•'�--.�c••-'•jI'l�. �-'n-� ';,/�..5','.•.r� ..._:'`s,L c_�'�-��" �/,¢ ti�� c/ " � l Ilj 1 -- 7✓�l,'�l`CrrX-:�..7'�.. ! ;..?_� •'� r• (-r•.(.��r._[.(_c.��L ��' �':.r _ -~� � 7 40 ..� :L X(l Y ''��-��4•YC( ' "- off''`'.. L-C-`�Lr'•t:r4_. .. - /C�S/• �� 71 •• bd! � c'wTl.� C-Ii'' 10, • S�9 3 r� �'�;- i tre., VIP-putS1GuED, OPYOS;: JIMI HSU,.' UVE-LOP►'•II:NI' IN DOuNrOUN AREA OF INI1rINGTOW-IIJ`•.ACII. VC It QUI'ST TIWi 'Till: CITY COUNCM STRIKE ANY 111W.LSION POR VIGH USE i IN TIL% GUJUIEtrT GCtIERAL VI AN FOR rXDt:VI:U Pt•Irr Mr OI' THE DOIRZTWUN AIQA OF IIUNTINGTON IIC.ACII. 1� i DAME _ ADDRESS HONE t ct t. %"/ . ' ' /C.�. c�..�r Imo • �"_-.,r.�..:.L_J,�_�).1__l��r:_s.�. .� 1 .::.f.� /}�:..i_,f•1 �a ► .'s.t�-_ _`�i 1� �i-... _ ._.. . .�- i r. i � � '11 1��L•-,t�•..t..S' C'{ �'-�L�.t,.'�';�..:.._ __._._�._��..L_. �`_.:.:`_"r.�'�<._��.�:�...sS��S•�/.`�..-----_ _. _ ��'-` J r' tlf..'' I - - ten-;,-_, .!.t, ..a.r j`;'.r` -� •Y...//! l�t!5 �- l l� l_,�C_ `�.i ' S-CID 4� ?. /... ',+ r� .�_.I�.a.a..L. ay��_ .�—Y�•�+ �.;L:�_�...J_�..L.'.�....f l_:�+��"�.�11.14r_�.L r-..l�.l.t_+...�.J 1./-�... .._. le ,l �,;j; .c,_._c. ,CY ..�.�..` •�ci�`.t1_5.J-'4;:Y?C�_...._. .. .. .._. ._ `�Clri .��'1�-� ��. �'t� �. �.A �,"l(U�r� 'r- �.",/4Gtd-�. ` �. . .. ..t:�./7.-/� .,.G`�``•.�y ink o ,..,. _ ///• - (,i '7 _ �e.'ric-; �'.�/.�G,x,ac.:..�!_ . �.:C� - ill�; ._L'�7l .<-! -.._ •-._._._.._•- •�:.��5. ca7�-=+1 r" . z- 5 1 etc 16 ;_r : rAo 71 b c .:; 3; ' WE, UTE UNWERSICM-1), OPPOSE AUY ^umL IliGll 1II::lI U1:Vrl,G1'I.11:Iv'C m eN DOS,TPJ'COWN AREA OF ti }IUI7rINCTO1, BEACH. WEREQUESTTM. THE vI'I'Y CUUiIC IL `STRIKII ANY III.IwISION FOR 111MI RISL � i IN THE CURRLI?r GIsN`EM1. PLAN FOR 11HDIIVLL-,P1U;KT .OF TIM DOWITY01,114 A-tTA OF UUMINCTON BEACH. ADDIUISS PHONE y10 -ter / !fit AZ 61, _ ��scc7Y. �.�., ��'�.�Li:�......_�.:�.�i.....-s,�:.,�-�-��,....��'' 1_j•�..!J�.._. ..:.i j G�-..�U � .. . �.t� �/. ♦� �:�L�'t-�JC.. �Jl.li-�''?'wt� �6 j� r• �'t��t `�.�....v /� .�..�..f .._ - -��-'r�,.._. �.7 C ~ 126 - Down Town Redevelopment Plan 197E/77 Public Hearing Material ,��i.}r.�11r",i �•.r` ::; t r. yi��c..wYtrx - � • � . . I• .•r' 1 '• t Y /'•`.t.�••dam.'.'`'�.,'^.•" r�,t.S' , _.. - "••• !. 1 .. , ., .. f lrhr: "!�!' " . ••;,�.;�:fit,"<�•}Xt}a}?hr�t:•�"'s'1•"'. 'L: ,�•• - etr.�J Ate,Y♦`t�.�� 4 ! •Y f Y d '- -1 .. - 3 pF f 4 cs ! ,�� • •for e r Y T. jr 01 tlN�t.LJAjt� tr Ijj'r•�•�fiAyffJr ;i 1 . ` .',: . ti ! f•�•` . ft 1}�4t�� {y 7t 'tj+ '`t �.! , t5 r• 1. J�"Vr,+w.R rj.l�13�'`F•, e t_!f ! �stY�§ .1{, •t •�.� , • � - �ry rf '•lr�?aCd ,�('��y if •� i I r• i +tJ '1- , t !t ��-ram d'rd�• J f7tr. ;. * y,��it �Jr♦.F 'd r , � f.i , - _ _ _ f ' !rt ,.}mil. 'Vf�Y.•� ,.t �}.?iaprt t r' - _ __ - f^!• .t.S Try y,.t. ter... .. '. .• _ . . •+' t ;any f. ! ''1�•.-rr,,, �,lr t -I ': 'i c. .. - 1' � - f r4 'h •.tr.. '-i .�- .4t� r, t i r i r3 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council HE: Redevo lopment Project Provisions of the California Redevelopment Law require disclosure by any community officer of any Interest in property within the project area. This memorandum is to inform you that : have an interest ir. the following property within the redevelopment project area. �r"r-L�.� You are requested to enter this disclosure in your minutes, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33130. Dated: t o/ 3 -6 1 f i TO: Honorable ,Mayor and Members of the City Council RE: Redevelopment Project 1 Provisions of the California Redevelopment Law require disclosure by any community officer of any interest in property within the project area. This memorandum is to inform you that I have an interest in the following property within the redevelopment project area. You are requested to enter this disclosure in your minutes, as required by health and Safety Code Section 33130. Dated:; f,__._ l� i 1 r TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RES Redevelopment Project Provisions of the California Redevelopment Law require disclosure by any community officer of any interest in property within the project area. This memorandtua is to inform you that I have an interest in the :oll.owing property within the redevelopment project area. A .0', You are requested to anter this disclosure in your minutes, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33130. Rated: i f I - I . I I TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council RE: Redevelopment Project Provisions of the California Redevelopment Law require disclosure by any community officer of any i interest in property within the project area. This memorandum is to inform you that I have an interest in the following property within the redevelopment project area. You are requested to enter this disclosure in your minutes, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33130. Dated: 17Z 1 i I . i C I 1 r - , . . . . . i •..J-It-C J 1 . • 4KR7 `'TATU M HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNC IL, DI STI NGU I SHED BOARD MEMBERS AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: MY NAME, AIBERT L. HOFFMAN, 15Li5 JFFFREY RwM, IRVINE I AM A RUL ESTATE BROKER AND I REPRESENT THE MAX HOEPT14ER PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE LOCATED BETWEEN MAIN AND S-'CONI) STREETS IN TWIT SEPARATE PARCELS AND FRONTING ON PACIFIC COAST HIGMAY, THESE PROJECTS ARE 114 THE PROJECT AREA. C11R. ftPTNER AND HIS FAMILY HAVE HELD THIS PROPERTr MANY YEARS AND THEY HAVE ASKED THAT I PRESENT THEIR VIEWS CONCERNING 'THEIR POSITION . BEFORE YOU DECIDE. WE SINCERELY FEEL 'ir;AT THE REDEVELOP.viNT PROJECT I: A STEP 1N THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IT IS A PREL I M i NARY PLQ4 AND ALLOWS FOR A GREAT DEJ.L OF VERSATILITY THAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE RESOLVED Tift01.Si FINAXIAL FEAST- 1 BILITY AND THE INVESTMENT POTENTIAL OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. THE CITY OF R I I NG i ON 1• _ .VO ITS CITIZENS HAVE A UNI QJE OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH AN ;:OU, ,''''.L TAX BASE, BASED ON A GOOD BALANCE OF Cm- MERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THOSE OF US WHO HAVE WITNESSED THE PHENOMENAL GROWT11 IN OUR COUNTY RECOGNIZE THIS PROJECT, IN REALITY, IS A RECYCLING OF PROPERTY RATHER THAN NEW DEVELOPMENT. WE URGE THAT YOU VOTE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR VIEWS. RIC14ARD G. VOGL y ArrORN[Y L-^W CP 2 T 1��; 11115 Civic Center Drive� a� t Santa Ana, California 92703 Telephone. (714) 835-4737 Septc-; her 24, 1.97r ` Edward 1). 5elich Act=ng Director i Planning and Environment Resr;urcna City of Funtington reach P. O. Box: 190 Ca 92646 Res Eltsblic lip.&ring Oct-)be r 11, 1976 Community Redevelopment Com.•ninnion Dear tar. e l l ch i The purpose: of this letter is to inform you that I will be unable to ritrtend the ::eating whic2) ie now Pet for October ll, 1976. 1 n nethelces) want my fselinets as to the rodevelopinent,: progrom %noun to tho Cosmminaion. I would appreciate your duplicating thin latter and mnking it avtilbb.le to the momL-are. y I strongly stipport the redevelopment plane which will be under dincunnion at the October 11t:h public hearing, The old commercial area of Huntington Beach is deteriorating and can only lie revital.i..zed by an n9ancy with sufficient pvwar to curry out its redavel.opment: plans. The: present redevolopmsnt i ptan for apeciality cnd commiii? arnasi is an intelliga t alternative to the haphazard diavelopment: nt ar the pier. I urges the mombexs of the City Council as wall an the project area com:f-onSty to pace and suppor:, the r0eavelopment project. Thrn): you i:or this op fortunity to c.xpresu my feeiingo. I gir:r:er�ly, RIC1i11 ) 0, VQj L Attorney at Lav AG Iak l Novombor 22, 1976 Honorable Mayor and Membors of City Council or Hus,titigton poach: After attending your meeting of NOT. 18, with an impartial view, I find myself against the VTN Program, bocauoa of what I saw and the teatimonies I heard. We own commercial property at Main and Orango, 75 ft. Lot on 3rd St., Triplex on Lako and another small rental on Lake. The rants from these proportion are my only source of income since I are disabled and no longer able to work. i i We find that, there etre countless uncertainties in tho proposed project. We also want you to know that to thia data no one han over contactod un ragarding our i � views, interests and concorna, other than your rocant Lotter of intontiona. 17o J have been oilont oboorvorn to th.la point and a fow of our obaorvationa are no 4 follown, fart of the ronponoibility for tho lack of proper growth in the down- town area is directly due to actions takon by the city council. First, in moving the city hall, police and other facilities away from the downtown, and socond sotting a moratorium halting any furthor dovololmunt or improvamento in lthe downtown arcs. The building department and the fire dopartnonto have onouph laws on the books to make every uub-standard building comply with tho building code or be torn down, We roalizo the downtown arm noodc romo help and yot an old building door ii not nocascarily bring blight. Ono only noodc to observe Laguna Beach with its I business district, with many old buildings, but wall kapt and quaint fronts. Fvon though our building on }lain Strost in among tho noway and bettor kept, we yi would bo willing to modernize or mare nececoary changao to comply with the area f improvemente;. I understand that you havo ro intnotion to do anything with the oi] pumpr, and ta&.o in thin %ran. It aaomn that in a buuineaa in our fray ontorprise nyntem, juat as my rentals are my buGinoss and my source of livelihood. Oil companies should not got preferential troatmont. Farthernoro, in li;►ht of the rncent C,aliforn:n ~tnto 'i+I1rer1a Court doeinlon concornint; IllI-Pht, you will have a vary difficult time nchioving your oxtromo i goals. It soot's liko soma land of a comproei.aing solution could bo worked out. l Si orely, f, John Parnukian 216681 Hilarin Cir. Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 is , _. . ..._.. Southern California Edison Company E PO Box ttt HUNTINGTON PEACH. CAItFORN1.1 9:fi�8 n.W. COMPTON November 18, 1976 a/aYaOi�,rurf rNO• sa aC• f,• /� The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 ' Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Honorable Body: As a member of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Poard of Directors Executive Committee, and the repre- sentative of a major industry, I strongly urge you to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Area. A positive plan and direction must be e!tablished now that will permit an orderly improvement of the downtown area. Please take action now to improve the City of Huntington Beach by adopting the Redevelopment Plan. Very truly yours, H. W. Compton, Manager Huntington Beach j HWC:imr _ ......--....�.._. _.� _�...__.... ...__ ...._.. ..____' .�..•..+-►. ... .... _�-.... __... _.... ._ _ _._.._�+....-.c:.swrocstCTr.wc7t''G'rt:7i7�iY i 4 RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A,r.MVTAN TI+C OANA Or CAL-IrOp N.A BUILDING O/ COJw1tL 16 C.LA.1N ri,i•1{OI W. w. LINOSLT M10001C..OA»L nt•+y P.{iw1 404 CIVIC CCNTCII OwIVC wCST NORMAN rr,1ML010AAr0 JC•.J MUM0»1 ».ROCOCO»OOCLL ■-11774 {MALIN POST Or/ICE 60. 1976 JA»t{{.TUC.CIA R00li A.TSL[ NCWPO RT DCACM OI/ICE OARVIN . 004, 1CR7C. 1!1.11 D 111t1»A..M SA04TA ANA. CALIr7RNIA 92102 JARVI w•M-JLL 1.0•+i{•4AUNDtw MO NL'APORT CCNICq ORIV[.SUITE 000 -MINT r,r►L.tw 1.o.M L 17.♦1 9935.2200 %E*PORT SCAC". CCALI/ORNIA 92660 6104t■t L.P11Lt, MCI$ CcwR[Tr ?MITI P.{IMADLINO t'V•t.0 %LTI 7[LLPr.pwt ITI�I C55.2200 PAVL/Nt OLwiC MAMA r.C.A,P.CLAM. • BO+ALR L.MICOMMIC. JM C.rIC L••1[N November 17 1976 »OrARO I.r.A84110N J0•.C.Tt A•. J0 JAM[{L.tmc.10N CA.L..AIINTO. IN RCP;• PLCASC RC/CR TO VIL1.16.■.N ItI. C.6 :D t./N-L DEN O.C»AND A.CUMNJtT OLOOLM LCONANO A.»AM.tL $'.,•* HUNTINGTON BEACH JO»N{.»VNL1Vf.JR M.L..CI C.wURN MIt»►.L. IM»tLL Alt t A%T ,,..e.1 PLANNING DEPT. •rllluw C ORAr.♦ Mut ,"r,RO. MIL/OMB r.OA»L, • .AA 1.i rN T»tDOORt r.•►LLAc[. /• C•+r.it T »A1111iNOr0 {TVANT T rALDM/ C.I i, COLON C.IbC»ARD LtMQN N 0 V 17 1b j u Mr. Edward Selich P. 0. Box 190 Planning Director Huntington Beach.CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 {�{ Re: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Beach f Downtown Redevelopment Project Dear Mr, Selich: As counsel for the Huntington Beach Union High School District, we have been asked to review and comment on the draft proposed redevelopment plan for Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Project and the final environmental impact report: in conjunction therewith. In this regard, with the exceptiot, of the proposed amendment transmitted to Mir. Glenn Dysinger of the Hunt- ington Beach Union High School District by le+.tar of Nov- ember 10, 1976, the proposed redevelopment plan is virtually silont on the issue of the potential impact of the implemen- tation of the plan on the Huntington Beach Union High School District, By reason of the tax allocation provision of the rede- velopment plan, the project will have, on the basis of the best estimates presently available, a significant adverse impact on the financial resources of the District, in that (1) the District will be deprived of tax revenues otherwise available to it, (2) the propensity of the taxpayers to support the educational programs of the District is and will be diminished to a degree that revenues levied for educational use cannot be shown to have provided educational benefit, and (3) the reputation of the District for fiscal prudence 3 I 1 Yy+C'�iY�'!;!r.+•>...r.Iw+..r.�. .... .,.... .. _.... ... .. ...... a.....r.: _ r.. .. ,..,.,._..�._. - --....�._�._. .. .___.._..r...«...-..*+w..�+.:a..w4tTar..tf)wrw.� n RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Edward Selich City of Huntington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Two will be adversely affected by the inflation of the District's tax rate, with nether short-term nor long-term demonstrable benefit tc 1_he taxpayers of the Di:trict. The project will also have an adverse impact on the District in that redevelopment of the project area will result in increase student enrollment within the District both by reason of residential development within the project area and by reason of the residential growth which will occur outside the project area because of industrial and conu,:ercial development within and adjacent to the project area. Vius, an analysis of this potential impact requires resolution of at least three separate and distinct issues. First, what will be the impact of the implementation of the Plan on the ability of the District to generate sufficient operating funds to enable the District to maintain the existing quality of secondary education in the absence of increased taxes. Second, what will be the political ramifi cations of utilizing funds earmarked for School District use for redevelopment purposes. Third, and most significant, what will be the impact of the implementation of a plan on j the ability of the Huntington Beach Union High School District to provide capital facilities in response to both the resi- dential development within the project area and the residen- tial development outside the project area generated by the increase job opportunities within the project area. For purposes of our analysis, we will discuss the first and third issues leaving the political issue to be resolved by the governing bodies of the respective entities. With respect to the issue of operating expenses as affected by tax increment financing, page 57 of the Final Environmental Impact Report suggests that any burden created by the allocation of taxes pursuant to the Community Redevelop- sent Act on the School District is lessened by legislation which i.11ows for an upward adjustment in the maximum general purpose tax rate, and, if the School District is eligible, for an upward adjustment of State Equalization Aid. After the adoption of S.B.90 and related legislation, this assertion is, for the most part, true in that the revenue RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Edward Selich City of Huntington Beanh November 17, 1976 Page Three limits of the School District closely parallel grcwth and student population. In this regard, the revenue allowed is funded from a combination of state apportionments and local property taxes. Thus, a decline in assessed valua- tion per student is offset by increase in state apportion- ments for those expenditures not funded entirely from local property taxes. As long as the method of funding under S.B.90 does not change, and as long as the annual adjustments for infla- tion and slippage keep pace with the changes in economy, the exclusion of growth in assessed valuation within the project area will not materially affect the revenues avail- able for general purposes. However, a change in school district financing legislation placing more dependence upon local property tax would make the exclusion of incremental i assessed valuation within the project area significant. In contrast, the exclusion of incremental assessed valuation within the project area from taxation will affect revenues available to the District and the long term retire- ment of District debt. Limited tax rates such as a maximum of ten cents for community services simply do not raise as much revenue. Thus, in the case of such limited overrides, the District suffers a direct reduction of revenues. Addi- tionally, unlimited special purpose tax rates must be set higher to raise the required revenue. Accordingly, in the case of such special purpose tax rate the District's t^x- payers must make up the difference. It is for this reason that we would strcngly support your recommendation in your letter of November 10, 1976 to Mr. Glenn Dysinger that S5 - 3.1 be added to the redevelopment plan. As set forth in yrux Letter, the addition reads as follows: If for any reason the project should be found by the agency to work a particular hardship on any itaxing agencies, the agency shall, as permitted by law, enter into agreements with the agencies to make the payments to those agencies to alleviate the hardships. (Emphasis added. ) RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Edward selich City of 11untington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Four While we clearly support the philosophy of this amendment we would suggest that the word "particular" be deleted in that it creates an ambiguity in determining whether a hardship exists. We would further recommend that the Plan acknow- ledge the fact that a hardship is suffered by the taxing agency, either in the event of a direct reduction of revenue rate (limited overrides) or an increased tax rate (unlimited override or override for which the statutory limit has not been reached) to make up for taxes allocated to the agency pursuant to tax allocation provisions of. the Community Redevelopment Act. We would further recommend that the agency enter into an agreement with the School District which provides, in part, that the agency will make annual j payments to the School District in the amount equal to the direct reduction of revenues experienced by the School District as a result of the tax allocation provision of the Redevelopment Plan. This agreement would specifically Identify the statutorily limited tax rates which, when applied to the incremental assessed valuation, create this direct reduction in revenues, With respect to subsequent years in which this direct reduction in revenues cannot now be specifically identified, 4? the agreement would provide as follows: 1 Commencing with fiscal year 1977/1978, the school dint ,"it will transmit to the agency on or before ± Oc4jber 1 of each fiscal year, its statement of the direct reduction in revenues which it esti- mates it will experience in such fiscal year as a result of the tax allocation provision of the redevelopment plan. The agency agrees to pay the school district an amount equal to such estimated f direct reduction in revenues and will make pro- portionate payments thereof within fifteen days rafter its receipt of tax allocation payments. Atiy difference between the estimated and actual direct !! reduction in revenues experienced by the school i district in any fiscal year shall be adjusted in the final payment of such fiscal year. With respect to the impact of the implementation of the Plan on the District's ability to provide adequate educa- tional facilities, there can be no question that the con- tinued availability of qualityeducational opportunities pportunities in • RUTAN & TUCKER I ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Edward Seli.ch city of Huntington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Five and around the project area will attract additional private investment into the project area and will thus assist in the implementation of the redevelopment plan. Moreover, con- tinued implementation of the redevelopment plan will generate significant inceases in the School District's student popula- tion, thereby contributing to the School District's need for new educational and support facilities of various typer, throughout the School. District. � As pointed out at page 93 of the final 1•nvironnzental Impact Report 76-2 for the proposed redevelopment plan for Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopmer.� Project dated October of 1976, tIze Huntington Beach Union High School District has five schools which are already overcrowded with a total capacity of approximately fifteen thousand and a current enrollment of approximately ninet,:en thousand. Continued enrollment growth will intensify the need for ; extended school da; schedules and force continued u:ilize- tion of inadequate clasoronm alternatives. In this regard, the agency should recognize that simply looking at the numbers of students that will be generated within the project area does not Solve the overcrowded conditions of ' the high schools. It should be recognized that students I are bused throughout the District so that no one school suffers disproportionate overcrowding. Thus, growth in any i portion of the City increases the burden +hroughout the Dis- trict. Moreover, the implementation of the redevelopment j plan will generate significant commercial opportunities within the project area which will, in turn, generate hods- ing needs and, therefore, school facility needs, throughout , the Huntington Beach Union High School District. In addition, as you are no doubt aware, the School. District electcrate has de2eated bune ..:repositions on seven different occasions. As a result, the School District has not even approached its bonding capacity, and, therefore, is not eligible fcr state aid building funds. Accordingly, if we are to avoid further overcrowding of clas3rooms, extended cuss days, and alternate facilities, funding for now facilities must come from the source which generates the need. Referencing your ADDENDUM TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, page 2, 55.6.4 (S520) we would strongly recommend the �� • » ... .. . r.• ", •.l 1 . . .. � .. ... . . ---.. �....-.. .... � _.._...mow.... :.+N i3�.^wl+' .."•M:.• ...ter•{LT7:1a'�..w a I •RUTAN & TUCKER ATTOFINCY$ AT LAW Mr. Edward Selich City of Huntington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Six inclusion of school facilities, including educational and support facilities in the list of public facilities which may be provided by the agency or the City pursuant to Section 33445 of the health & Safety Code. We would further recommend that the agreement referred to above relating to direct reduction - avenue also include a provision for the establishment of a fund by the agency which would be utilized by the School District for the i construction of educational and/or support facilities within the School District. Pursuant to this provision, the agency would make payment to the fund based on a predetermined formula which would take into account both the number of R students within the project area and the number of students i throughout the District which will be generated by virtue of the. residential and commercial growth within the project area. The formula for payment could, perhaps, be based on a fixed dollar amount per dwelling unit with a different fixed dollar amount for each commercial development based on the number of employees needed for each such commercial anterpri.se. As an alternative, the agency might consider funding ' school construction based on a formula which quantifies the additional District tax burden which must be borne by the taxpayers of the District by virtue of the tax allocation provision of the Redevelopment Plan. In this regard, the additional tax burden would be computed as follows: The tax burden shall be computed only for over- ride taxes whose rate is set by dividing the total revenue to be raised from secured and un- secured property taxes, including utilities, by the total assessed valuation of the District. The tax rate computation shall be made (a) exclud- ing the incremental assessed valuation of the project; (b) including the assessed valuation of the project; (c) subtracting the taN rate computed ;,y "b" from the tax rate computed by "a" and applying the difference between the tax rates of "a" and "b" to the total assessed valuation of the District, including the incremental assessed valuation of the project. The foregoing com- putation expressed as a mathematical formula is: it I i r • •RUTAN & TUCKER ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Edward Selich City of Huntington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Seven A - A B2 tax burden B1 B2 when: "A" is the revenue to be raised for each override tax that has no statutory rate limit, or tax whose statutory limit will not be reached in raising the required revenue: for the fiscal year. is the sum of the unsecured, secured, and public utility assessed valuations of the district, excluding those incremental assessed valuations nc uded in the project area. "B2" Is the sum of the unsecured, secured and public utility assessed valuations of the district, including those incremental assessed valuations in- clude n the project area. i` " 711 is the summation of the tax burdens computed for the applicable individual override taxes. The tax burden computed by the foregoing method shall be applicable only to local tax, revenues whose total amount is unaffected by the exclusion of project incremental assessed valuation from the assessed valuation of the District. Local tax revenues whnge amounts are limited come under the + ' reimbursement for diz, t reduction in revenue discusued hereinabove. It is further recommended that the City Counsel and the agency adopt reZ _,ltW%ons as part of this agreement that such acquisition for and rr installation and construction of educational and (tit.•-ort facilities in any and all geographic areas of the School District will benefit the project area. +' ! I We are prepared Go present a draft agre• —nt to the agency for its consideration addressing both the problems of i t • •RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS At LAW Mr. Edward Selich City of Huntington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Eight operating expenses and capital improvements within one week after request for wane by the agency. If you have any questions or wish further elaboration please feel free to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER O-A Thomas P. Clark, Jr. E . Attorneys for Hunt-ington Beach Union High School District TPC:pw i V i ' I 1 1 . i Hearing: Nov. 18, 1976 7-11 PM in the Huntington Beach High School Gym Mr name Is: Shirley Ann Strachan I I ive at: 5891 Liege Drive, H.B. Resident: on and off fcr over 37 years. 1 am concerned about Our City Council approving the enabling legislation for the I! Redevelopment Agency because: 1. IT WILL RAISE THE TAXES OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. . a. Because there is not a fixed ceiling on tax increments, the average taxpayer of Huntington Beach does not know what it will cost him per year. 1 b. Historically all RDA's have increased the tax load of tvery city and county taxpayer and the tax increment money is not returned to the tax rolls, but Is used to build erotic buildings. c. The more the RDA spends, the higher the tax rate. According to Section 3.W2 of the code, bonds do not require a vote of the people; yet they must he, redeemed by them. The county taxes increase because money from the higher assessment Is not returned to the Huntington Bt ach district or county. 2. ITS POWER EXTENDS OVER TOO BROAD AN AREA.. ! a. The project arw is physically very large with a mixture of different interests so that It is impossible to administer the pion fairly without a formalized �. device for citizen Input. b. WI^y 688 acres when the alleged blight only covers a few 'blocks and can f be rarmwed with existing laws, zon ei and HUD funds. c. Until the l.hontoyo low is effective on Jorwary 1, 1977, the RDA can declare other nree.s Ilighted even If they tie outside and do not even touch the rorlevela�nt area -xithout a further hearing. 3. IT GENERATES TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL POWER WITi10UT ENOUGH CHECKS AND BALANCES. . i *a. Our City Council Ee2olnted ALL of the following: 1. Itself the Redevelopment Agency 2. The Redevelopment Commission 3. The Redevelopment Committee (PAC) 4. The Planning Commission I 1 b. As the RDA, the City Council decides on the plan and the voters are locked in for 35 years and/or 45 more years beginning at any point within the 35 years. ALL THIS WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. c. In the State of California, only 2 agencies early in the history have closed. Of 41 cities in Los Angeles that began 23 years ago, 41 are still going. d. As the RDA, the City Council will have the Power of Eminent Domain. A police power concept of government. ! Many of our senior citizens will be relocated, and their way of life disturbed. r They will be made to sell their property. This power destroys the basic property rights of an individual and is an issue in the Hillman Ranch versus Seal Basch Redevelopment Agency case. 4. I:S POWER IS IMMEDIATE AND IRREVOCABLE BY THE VOTERS. . a. Section 23604 of the code states that the agency cannot be dissolved if in debt (and ours is) and the voters cannot dissolve It. ONLY THE C17Y COUNCIL CAN DISSOLVE IT. S. THE GENERAL PUBLIC SHOULD BE THE ONES TO \-OTE ON THIS ENABLING LEGISLATION WHICH MAY NOT BE ECONOMICALLY SOUND; IS BROAD; ' LASTS OVER A LONG TIME; IS IRREVERSIBLE; INVOLVES THEIR TAX DOLLARS, r AND ALLOWS FOR A POLICE POWER CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT. r "NOTE: Not enough time has been granted between hearings for this matter to have been petitioned for a public vote. s 1 i October 12, 1976 Ms. Alicia Wentworth City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, -California 92648 Dear Ms. Wentworth: Prior to the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Area I filed with the Office of the City Clerk a Disclosure Statement of interest in the Downtown Project Area. ' It has come to my attention that this Disclosure Statement 1 was not read into the record at the public hearing held on October 11, 1976, and I hereby request that you read this disclosure into the record at the October 28, 1976, meeting, and also state that I had filed it with the Office of the City Clerk prior to October 11, 1976, public hearing, and I its not being entered into the record was an oversight on ! the part of the City Staff. S erely, R g D. Slates Chairman of the Plunti-:ng Commission t i II t '.. .. ... • ^ ...,. .. ,.. ....... . . ..._.... .. ... . .. r.. ..._..__ ._. __ ..._.,. _...............,..,. •..,,o sr-f.•r..r w.rsr�r•a.p�^..rt+irrf TO: Honorable Mayor and Mlembers of the City Council RE: Redevelopment Project Provisions of the California Redevelopment Law require disclosure by any community officer of any interest in property within the project area. This memorandum is to inform you that I have an interest I in the followinE; property within the redevelopment project; area. ' You are requeEted to enL•er this disclosure in ! your minutes , as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33130. Dated: ZO/ '/ -76- i I l�C dG-Cp . I loam arnvlwa— i + 'i i i TO: honorable Mayor and Members of thy: City Council RE: Redevelopment Project Provisions of the California Redevelopment Law require disclosure by any community officer of any interest in property within the project area. This memorandum is to inform you that X have an interest , in the following property within the redevelopment project area. A s You are requested to enter this disclosure in your '.. minutes, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33130. I Dated: ZZf Z� t , i ` 7 a i i J TO: ftonorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RE: Redevelopment Project t Provisions of the California Redevelopment Law require disclosure by any community officer of any interest in property within the project area. This memorandum is to inform you that I have an interest in the following property within the redevelopment project: area. AB You are requested to enter this disclosure in your minutes, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33130. { R i Dated: t } i it r TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RE: Redevelopment Project Provisionsef the California Redevelopment Law require disclosure by any community officer of any i interest in property within the project area. This memorandum is to inform you that i hilve an interest in the following property w:Lthin the redevelopment project area. i yp'� s7 Yotr are requested to enter this disclosure in your I minutes, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33130. Dated: �d S s i ttovombor 22, 1976 Honorable Mayor and Homborn of City Council of Huntington Roach: After attending your neotinC of Nov. 18, with an imrartial view, I find myself aCainst t1tG• VTR Program, bocatuno of what I now and tlto tentimon.ica I heard, We own commercial property at Main and Orange, 75 ft, Lot on 3rd It., Triplex on Lako and another small rental on Lako, Tito ror,tn from tttene properties are my only eourco of income since I an dinabled and no Longer able to work. We find that thero are countlean uncortaintion in tho proposed project, We also � want yott to know that to tltirs data no ono has evor contacted ua rogarding our viowta, interonts and concorno, other thatt your recent lattor of intontionn, i!o i havo boon silont obaorvero to this point and a feu of our obrervationo are an ; follown. Part of the ronponuibility for tho lack of propor Crowth in the down- ! town area is directly due to actions takon by the city council. 11rat, in moritsg tho city hall, police and other facilition array from the downtown, and nocoud aottinC a mratorlum haltint; any furthor dovololKtnnt or lmrrovemanto ill i tho downtown aroa, mho t,uildi.ng dopartaont and ttte fire dopartnonto havo onough lawn on tho booko to mahe ovary nub-standard buildinG comply with tl:o bolding code or ba torn doxn. We realize tho downtown era►nooda come %elp and yet ast old building; loon not Lecoacnrily bring blight, Ono only neodc to obnorvo Laguna Aoach with itu buninents dintrict, with Carty old buildings, but well kept and quaint fronts. ?,von thouGh our bttildinC on llain Strout in among tho newer and bettor kept, we t would bo willing to modernize or make nececoary chanCon to comply with thb area I improvomenta. f I undoratand Lhet. you have ro intnati.on to do anything with the oil punpn and t tanks in thin oroa. It seemn thnt in a buoinonG in our free entorprine oyntom, juot no toy rontalo arc say buninoon and my nource of livelihood. Oil companies should not got proforontizal troatmont. Furthermore, in 11rht of thn rrtcr.::t caalrori)Irt ^tntn .^, lyl-oi,r Co-ut't docivian concornint, 1�1I U, you will havo a very difficult Lino achtoving your extreme f goals, It oJQUG like aomo k-ittd of a co-,promising noldtion crutd be worked out, Sit caroly, r � ,fohn Purnn?:inn 21681 Hilarin Cir. Huntington roach, Calif. 92646 i� t. i e x I` R1':;soLuT1014 The UNDCRS?GNED hereby supports the Huntington Beach Destination Resort Redevelopment concept currently being proposal to the I:untinyton Beach Redevelopment Agency. The U14DCRSIGNED further will actively worl; to promote the concepts contained therein which II •gill bring a greeter tax dollar base to this, City. The UNDERSIGNED holieves �y that an environmentally sound highri.s.e, hotel./business developmelit• fronting on Coast: 11iryhway and the immediately adjacent spec ialt y commercial complex will provide! the catalyst to make. ttuntingt:on Eivach a comrwnity in which thr citi^enry can take great pride. I)ATT'r: : :1ArA.I:� t Gti c4..r AnnRr:ss/Gjyz �,�Nt� /�6rrnrtE .t1� 1__a-jj�..IjOnDRr:ss j8gsO ..LNt"�>1; RESOLUTION t'NDERSIGNED hereby y I supports the Huntington Beach Destination Resort Redevelopment concept currently being proposed to the liunti ngt:on Pe:ch Redevelopment Agency. i The U14DERSIGNED further will actively work to promote the conceptE contained therein which i �-ill bring a greater tax dollar base to this City. The UNDERSTGNE:D believes that an environmentally sound highrise, hotel/business development fronting on Coast Highway and the immediately adjacent speciaAty commercial complex will provide the catalyst to make Huntington Rc:u4`h a community in which thn. citizenry can take groat: pride. NAME _ ADDRESS � NAME Y ADDRESS A I ' ..�-...-..r err•......-,..,.,�- .. RESOLUTION The UNDERSIGNED hereby supports the Huntington Beach Destination Resort Redevelopment concept currently hexing proposed to the. liuntangton 13c ach Rc.drvclanr.u.nt Agency. The UNDERSTGNED further will actively wort. to promote the concepts contained therein %,hick krill bring a greater tax dollar base to this City. I 'rite UNnERS 1GNEU hol ieves i that an enviionmontall}r sound hi.ghriso, Hotel/business development fronting on Coast llirhway and the immediately adjacent. speci.alt ; commercial complox will provido the catalyst to make iluntington Beach a conmun.Lty in which tho citi-eery can tit?;e great Pride. DATf'n: Vr1e'.1' :ttlYltL ADDRESS �� ?f..i�� _ , 11��61�lJ�l �e � At�nitl,ss /r-� 1'.� [G44 6!ct".',IL 1-13 LOX, IVA 6 I 11C1111 ir Ir I c 1)H PS I GIN 1 1 no 1-cl-y supports the hunLington Beach 0 cow:!et)t currently b0illt; !:)I:01)C)SC'd, t 010 litlilt- ill(It011 Bl"Wl', ! Oli( 1'-1c),%1,1,,.,t The UNDER!, I CNIA) i!lr I lh-l- will actively to promote the concept s cont., i ;1, ,,1 1 ,, -:Ilich v.-ill brinq a Chi-eat .,I* dol Itiv brio Ci I T I 1 1)N I)E I z s I CAI' I J I I k -in envi rollmolita I I sound hi.qhl- i clonlow. -,-ont intl Uri Co;I!;L 1i i •jlvaoy 111"I I h'.. iwmotl I -It'k-I y .1d j,WqL!11( .1;1 j ,k I commercial comp] %-jj I I 1,1-nv ;A I lic. (-,1 1,1 1 ys t. to 1:1:1ke I i ll(;t ..)n Pooch a colar.lun i ty ill which tilt A- i t i Can pi-i II l -) - 7 DATPO E ADI)PI:S-S NAME pi e flmv 4 1 x 1cj M PPnIECrA.TZEA C)MITIFFT, iv,,rimnv., f,,r`ACV, CA. IT.r)L 7kq' LOI',,Lr:,Vr AMCY M.M."IMION, HFACH, G1. CITY CY ME 11,01'%SIGN1111 llEPT.BY 911MY"MIS 7111' 11,11iTil DF,.STINAI'ln�.' RESORT RF11I;1Tl)rAfljj1' CONCEPT nMPI'-K,'IY 131*1%, PPOTY)STI) TO IM-797N7F ATM! 71.Ncy. 'IIW- UNMERSIGNT'D MMU"R WILL ACTRI-IN U111"' 'M PlZnwr im; arrurrs WNTAIMID 11TERHIN Y411CII WILL BRING A (;M TFR TAX MLIAR IMSE IT) 'fills CITY- 7111* UNDEMI(u"MI) BELT IATS TIM' NN FIXTRWIEN7ALLY MUNI) HIGIRISF, DFULOPTiNT "'I'MING ON PACIFIC 01A.51' IlIQr','.AY M) 71T ARTACEM' SPFCT."dTY M-t-HICIAL C(Y[PLr-.K NUT TH. (xi-Am's-r To mvx REACH A Mkt%Nll-Y I ' 14111ci1 TILE CITIZENRY CAN 'ii,J` P!Ur)I • - NAME: ADDRESS: Q.L., 3. 4 -7) 6 7 A cfl:z 16. W3 17. 18. 1i oyd ► 16-1 5.4 4,04 20. 21 , 22.'� 23.aIAAA cl C-lia Yc e��- o 7 Q 1 o4v 0 � .. lie Hie ca -44 �z h M YV 1 -3 . r I , 3 ck s Ut,-k U. �� :+„�.�titi�� ' �' �' �� .��r.11.,'�tiQ.:��•�S.4��. }fit�� 1' � �' (( I 0 v Gjt. q1 I IA 6 7=/ � ifo 74 JX�e�7W- �t ©u.P.«,.ram• -tip le ell J-1eo ,_„ ` /-3p i 491alZed ! 2,1002 d CCFW , Avg rF'3 �Q .L-ice C2 It) o a�PQrr4ve 5 o Q 7-6 Lt I- -Uri L!U ul I\ `l ,� dly. `�� .-c/'.rs-.•t�:-: � �:J/v /%1 r Y!>:,. Lu � .�//%:' if'�G• �.,1,' . { p /sa s/ �� c�r�r IV ttl�9 . Gi ��;`.�`` 7 n $ ' �� f'f tti-,•t�I.IN..�jfii�--.- /r� Gt 2 G�f P � I !-B Sala ` 0 / ZL �a r Iq rS _�,�.� r,f'� �,,�,' ,fir/ .�/�p /j�At/Y �'T,� •�,.,�' Sr+ ��u� �� 1`a Via;,;, ,�',•', _�f� �.�� a , 51 ff /3 2-4 9 t eel CH 9X6)4�1 QAttt ,otc J, a. ��('�l`�xL o q47aClara �y", ... � ��' � .. .. ... .•'i: r. ... ., .. . ...a ..Ili « 1. '.,li `��.�- � � '-,'��► : r::� �, �� , . � '�� ,• I ; I l ' t 1 . i Cl,; I �0.va,-Ci (�F�CL�ZQ J S r G�✓ �, ✓�/✓ r Or � 006 s c.� �d-r � - P.1.C+�c f, C�,�./' gL 6 ,Q. 41 � yid, r �jt�y�.J ':t-G�-��-tom--� .��-Z •:� r� . 1• I / ,tom PRODCEDURA L OUTLINE Continued Public Hearing November 22, 1976 MAYOR: Call to order. ' This is an adjourned regular meeting of - the Huntington beach City Council - the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, and i - the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Commission to continue the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Project 1 and, following the public hearing, to consider and act upon the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project and the Redevelopment Plan. i The: CityPlanning Commission is also meeting tonight g 9 9 ` in the event the Council should require their con- sideration and recommendation of any changers in the ( Plan. f Before we begin with public testimony, Mr. Harlow 1, would you please review the plan option. i� MAYOR: For the record, the City Clerk will call the roll of the ' City Council. (Roll Call of Council) The Counu_il also sits as the Redevelopment Agency. The City Clerk will call the roll of the members of the Redevelopment Agency. (Roll Call of Agency) it ' Page 2 The Vice-Chai rman of the Redevelopment Commission will call the roll of the members of the Commis ion. t (Roll Call of Redevelopment Commission) I I I VICE-CHAIRMAN REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: The Vice-Chairman of the :Tanning Commission will call the roll of the members of the Commission. VICE-CHAIRMAN i PLAN SING (Roll Call of Manning Commission) COWII4AYOR: The City Clerk and Secretary of the Planning Com- mission will enter into the record the notices of adjourned meetingsof the bgdies meeting, tonight. A"J( - MAYOR: I will now declare the public hearing re-opened. Ti:e joint public hearing opened on Thursday, November 16th, r:ah recessed to this time for the purpose of receiving the statements and testimony of those persons who had not yet had an opportunity to speak. We have had approxim;,tely 10 hours of hearinga, about G hours devoted to public testimony. Attorneys and spokespersons for the Save our Seashore organi- zation have had snveral opportunities to present their views, including statements by two of their attorneys and a slide presentation last Thursday evening. Mr. Amsbary, will you please set the ground rules for the public testimony tonight. • I i I 1 Page 3 MAYOR: we will call first on those personE who gave their names to the court reporter to speak i tonight and who are identified as residents, property owners, or in business in the proposed project area. Please observe the 5 minute time period. (CALL ON PERSONS TO TESTIFY FROM PROJECT AREA) � MAYOR: We will now call on all others who gave their names to the court reporter as desiring to speak tonight. Please observe the 5 minute time limit. i (CALL ON PERSONS TO GIVE TESTIMONY) f I MAYOR: The City Clerk will now enter into the record any written statements received. f MAYOR: That concludes the public testimony. I will now ask our staff if there are any closing staff comments. Mr. Selsito? I BELSITO: (MAKES CLOSING STATEMENT FOR STAFF) MAYOR: Is there anything further to be asked or received f as testimony? I If not, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing from the Redevelopment Agency, i i (AGENCY MOTION TO CLOSE HEARING) ! Will the Vice-Chairman of the Redevelopment Coin— mission entertain a similar motion from the Commission? page 4 VICE-CHAVOIAN REDEVELOPMENT (REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MOTION TO CLOSE C0I*1I SS ION: 11EARI NG) (KLINGE) Y will now entertain a motion to close the hearing MAYOR: Council. from the City (COUNCIL MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC 11EARING) ACTION ITEMS Redevelo ment Commission in Session 1, Discussion of Redevelopment Flan and alternativc's• (DISCUSSION) ty Council co ncerning 2. Recommendation to land to overrule Redevelopment Plan, oral and written objections to Plan. (MOTION) i�lannin Commission in Session 1, Recommendation to City Council concerning any proposed change" ill Redevelopment plant findin'j that they conform to the General plan i of the City and recommending approval or disapproval of changes. 1 M (MOTION) (NOTE: if the Planning Commission recommends ti roval► a 2/3 vote of the members of the ;) disapp Council is required.) j Page 5 City Council/Redevelopment ASIency in Session 1. Statement_,; by those: who missed part of hearing that they have revie.4ed testimony and are familiar with evidence introduced, and will. participate. 2. Discussion of Redevelopment Plat. and pro- posed changes. 3. Tentative decisions, instructing City Attorney to prepare ordinance containing findings consistent with such decisions and based on evidence!. (MOTION OF CITY COUNCIL) ADJOURNMENT I, Redevelopment Commission adjourns to at in City Hall, + Council Chambers. Planning Commission adjourns to� w at in City Hall, Council Chambers. Redevelopment Agency adjourns to at in City Hall, Council Chambers. �I i, City Council adjourns to + . at in City Hall, Council Chambers. 7 1 i SPEAKERS FOR HEARING i November 22, 1976 (Nate: Speakers giving addresses within the Project Area are listed first.) WITHIN PROJECT AREA :.n,. '". ,• 1. Jonald A. Hart. 2. Robert Stanko 2) 3. Kenneth D. Flint,'_'.' 4. Richard Babiracki`r) 5. Jon Campbell 6. Roger B1oom(F, 7. L. D. Zehnder `'. 8. Brian Hudson(Y) 9. John Manning p) _ 10.- Don Weir 11. Robert P.'Mandic Jr. I _OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA 1. Bob Terry�r% 2. Mru. Robert Q. Shupe { 3. Mr. Ray Cooperliy-) 4. Ernest Ordfield 6. Jim Hemsley ; 7. Deb Dickerson A. Marie Buckland�! 9. Brian Trela t, •.- 10. Lance Jacot 11. Bobbie GoldffYe 12. Jerry Goldfine 13. Denise Jacot 14. Marc Porter 15. Gcrdon Offstein I 16. J. Welch 17. Scott Sullivan 18. Cindy Turley r iV. I I i (ITY OF HunTinuon BEACH J/ P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 97648 PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 September 15, 1976 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed is official notification c..L)m the Huntington Beach City Council and the Community Redevelopment Commission announc- ing a public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Area. This important meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 11, 1976, at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 2000 fain Street, Huntington Beach; and we urge you to attend. The proposed Redevelopment Plan to be discussed is the result of many months of effort by City staff and area citizens to pre- pare a concept for revitalizing the downtown vicinity. Though the plan includes 688 acres, the main emphasis of the project will be on the blocks fronting Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway near the pier. The objective of the plan is to convert this declining commercial area into a healthy tourist-oriented specialty center and maximize community benefit from our unique resources of vast shoreline and desirable climate. The general ' land uses proposed are illustrated on the enclosed Redevelopment Plan Map (Figure 1) . Basically, the City' s redevelopment strategy is to maximize the participation of private enterprise in eliminating undesir- able conditions existing in parts of the Project 1+rea. Public improvements such as streets and open space will be used to create an attractive environment in the area and to stimulate private development and rehabilitation. Land assembly will be done primarily by private enterprise with assistance from the Redevelopment Agency only where "icomes essential for consol.i- dat.ing suitable parcels. Therefore, while all property in the Project Area is subject to acquisition under the plan, it is highly unlikely that any property will be acquired by the Agency outside of the planned commercial areas. This is especially true in the residential areas generally west of sixth Street. Figure 2 divides the Project Area into sub-areas for purposes of discussion. The following paragraphs briefly explain the intent of the plan in each of these sub-areas so you will have a clearer understanding of how redevelopment may affect your .i.ntcrests. Sub Area A: This is the top priority area of the pro- posed Redevelopment Plan and will form the specialty commercial center of the project. Probable uses include Page 2 hotels, offices, retail any: specialty commercial, and parking. This area will be the major focus of Agency activity and might include land acquisition,demolition, and new construction. Sub-Area 6: This area is designated for retail-commercial and office development, including such probable uses as retail and service establishments, offices, and parking. No immediate Agency action is anticipated here. Sub--Area C: This area is planned for continued resi- dential use including a mixture of low, medium, and high density developments similar to those existing now. Ex- cept for the blocks fronting Pacific Coast Highway, which may require lot consolidation, no redevelopment activities are planned here. It is anticipated, however, that public improvements, such as upgrading streets, will be made in conjunction with the Redevelopment Project ; without additional tax burden can property owners. Sub-Area D: Composed of older residential and vacant lots, with a small amount of recent residential develop- ment, this area is not scheduled for any Agency-initiated activities. Iiowever, as in Sub-Area C, much needed public improvements may 1:e made in conjunction with the Redevelop- ment Project without additional tax assessments on the property owners. Designated for medium density residential development, typical uses in this sub-area would include: condominiums and apartments. Sub-Area E: Consisting of large parcels under five owners, this area is designated for tourist-commercial and teed ium high density residential development. No immediate Agency- initiated redevelopment is anticipated. It is expected, however, that private residential development will occur shortly, with tourist-commercial uses phased in on a gradual bt:.sis . Existing mobile home parks may, over the long term (15 to 20 years) , be recycled to higher intensity residential and tourist-commercial development because of the increased property values generated by nearby redevelopment activities. This brief discussion of sub-area:i was designed to give you a feeling for what is probable under t)ie proposed plan. Rather than looK-iny at the Redevelopment Plan as initiating these projects, however, it would be --)re accurate to view it as a generalized plan similar to enabling legislation -- an umbrella document that sets the framework for future development and public and private improvement efforts, not one that specifies exactly what may occur in any particular area at a given time. We have already received a great deal of public comment during the development of this proposed plan. Numerous public dis- cussion sessions and hearings have been held to review alternative I • I R Page 3 concepts; and the Project Area Committee, comnr:sed of City Council-appointed downtown residents and property owners, has played an active role in plan formulation. Because we want the Redevelopment Plan to reflect the needs and desires of � the community as accurately as possible, we would appreciate your additional remarks. ! If you have any questions or comments on the proposed Redevelop- ment Plan prior to the October 11 hearing, please contact the Planning Department (536-5271) or your: representative on the Project Area Committee. (See attached list. ) r Very truly yours, Z/JJ Edward D. 'Se5ic Acting Director of Planning and Environmental Resources ED 14F:ja � i f 1 i i i I II i i RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE Low henAty 0-7 D.U./Gross Acre Parks & Rrerealional Facilities Emuwmmsm Arterial titrce! ® Medium Density ;-Iti Acre PUBLIC FACILITIES tee! ee• Project Area Boundary Isiah Density. Over 1:5 1).!},/Gruxg Acrr. 4-ft Prolmml Nrighborhoml Park COMMERCIAI. or\ Beach l Genera ® T Trans lxertatiun Center s1we:ialt-s 'Tourist Con►tnercial iLecreatian Center f'b INSTITUTIONAL f� Communih• Facilities Patin St. e• ��es e•r es ttttttttt�ta� aeE■reeseeeso ae• F i `.rR`•t•r •ll• a •f r 0000 .0 ca lop 00 P Ficrnt- } 0aaa loan � seee�e•o eo erases � aet '"- l�r'�'�.�� ,�t� -✓�.�t�/.�:l�"` s �i � �� I Fop" 1 REDDVELOP ENT PLAN NwAr- i s,• i �r tc Q� r7 �1 ♦E, j, f� St I Men WWI;IM ii. �r i Ot►}rGF i11E 1'�4 4 C� `� 01 = w.i awn war• �.� . M � --------- loom r v � � of ! �!■per al.+f�d fs F*%we 2 D MINTa^ REDEVaOPWNT ROJECT t S f PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE MEMBERS John A. Schroeder 675--9880 Bob Jarrard 536-4250 Sylvia Susan Shandrick 536-3203 Robes t Terry 536-6588 j Gary Mulligan 1 536-2591 Jerome Shea 536-6581 Thomas Whaling 536-8841 Joan Bennett ` 536-1225 i John Henricksen 536-3144 Leonard Wright t 536-3577 Robert P. Mandic Jr. i 536-6585 ! Jan Gaffney 536-4856 Ella E. Christensen 536-3233 i i 1 I i I 1 i • i Pub_ _sh 4 consecutive weeks September 2, 9, 16, 23 Postcards 0 ; I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, IS HEREBY GIVI•:N that a joint public hearing will be held by the City Courcil of +:.ie City of Huntington Beach, with the Community Redevelopment Cortunission in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7: 00 p.m. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday, the 11th day of October, 1976, for the purpose of censidering the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Downtown Project Area. The boundaries of.-the Project Area are getterall,•: 1. Aench Boulevard from the mean high Lida line to 660 feet north of Atlanta Avenue. 2. A line 66U rect north of Atlanta Avenue fro,n Beach Boulevard to Alabama Street. j 3. Alabama Str^et 660 feet north of Atlanta Avenue to Hartford Avenue . 4. Hartford Avenue from Alabama Street to Main Street. 5. Palm Avenue from Main Street to Goldenwest Street. 6 Goldenwest Street from Palm Avenue to the mean high tide life. 7. The mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean':fruin Goldenwest Street to Beach Boulevard. The legal description of the boundaries of the Project Area .is as follows: Illicit portion of section 3 , 10, 11 , 12 , 13 and 14 of Township 6 south, !t:Inge 11 t•lesL in tale Ifanc:ho L-as Ilolsas ctind the Rancho Lea Bolsa Chica, City of Itunl•ingt:on Boesch, County of Orincle, State of California , as shown on a snag recorded in Ilool, 51 , Page 14 of Miscellaneous Kips in the office of the County Recorder of Said County, described as fellows: l3eyinning at Oe intersection of the southorl.y prolongation of the centerline of Reach Boulevard , being parallel with and 2C . 00 t"eet easterly, measured at right �ringles, from the east line of said Section 13 , wit:, the high tide line of the Pacific Ocean as estab- lished by a record of survey filed in Book 35, Rage 9 of Record of Survey in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thettce northerly alone the said south prolongation ana the centerline of Reach boulevard to its intersection with thf< easterly prolongation of the centerline of Chicago Avenue as shown on a map of the Vista i s l I� 1 Del Mar Tract z:acordrd in Book 4, Page 4 of Mincell.ancous Claps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County: thence westerly .along said extension and L'hr' rvnterli.ne of Chicacto 'Avenue to its intersection wick the cent:erl. ine of Alabama Street as shown on said map of the Vista Dr-1 Mar Tract: thence northerly along the center- line of Alabama Street Lo its intersection with the centerline of the portion of Hartford Avenue west of Alabama Street, as shown on said map of the Vista Del Mar 'Pratt; thence westerly along the centerline of said Hartford Street and its westerly extension, also being the centerline of Palm itvenue as shown on a map of Huntington Reach, Wesley Park Section recorded in Book 4 , Page 1.7 of Miscel- laneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County , to an angle point in the centerline of Palm Av(,nue; thence north- westerly, continuing along the centerline of Palm Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Goldenwest St+:eet , formerly Twenty-third Street as shown on a map of Huntington Beach, Seven- teenth Street addition recorded in hook 4 , Page 10 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thence southwesterly ,aloud the rentc3171in0 of Goldenwe st Street and its extension to iLs intersection with the high tide line of the Pacific Ocean established as an agreement line recorded in hook H183 , Page 3 of official records in the Office of: the County Recorder of said County; thence southeasterly along said high title line to its intersection with the outermost structure of the City of iluntington beach Municipal Pier: thence southwesterly, southcast:erly and northeasterly along a line created by the outer- most structure. of: said pier to it's intersection with the high tide line of t:hn Pacific Ocean as established by the previously mentioned record of survey filed in nook 35, Page 9 of Record of Survey; thence southeasterly along said high tide line to the point of beginning. i 1 Any and all persons having an), objections to the prtiposect Redevelopment Plan or who deny the existence of blight in the proposed Project Area or the regularity of any of the prior proceedings are invited to attend said hearing and show cause why the proposed Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Planning Department. :none: (714) 536-5271 DATED: September 2, 1976 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BY: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Publish Four Consecutive Thursdays, September 2, 9, 16, 23 Number of Excerpts P LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC BLARING NOTICE IS IIERL-13Y GIVEN that a joint public hearing will be held by the Community Redevelopment Commission with the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, for the purpose of considering a proposed Redevelopment flan for the lluntington Beach Downtown Project Area. The proposed Redevelopment Plan has the following objectives: "A. I:l.imiriation of blight and deterioration through land assemblage, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and rcdeveloyment. B. Expansion of the municipal economic base through redevelop- ment of portions of the Project Area to tourist••orient,ad commercial uses. co Improvement of residential neighborhoods to a quality beach- � oriented environment. D. Improvemnnt of traffic circulation within the Project Area through arterial and local street improvements and provisions f of mass transit. opportunities. E. Provision of low and moderate income housing within or adjacent to the Project Area. F, Assurance of continued access by the cleneral public to coastal i resources. " The legal description of t;ie boundaries of the Project Area is as follows: That portion of .Section 3, 10, 11 , 12, 1. 3 .and 1 .1 of Town,lri.p f, South, R,antjo 1.1 t,lest in fho Rancho I,as 13olsas and the Rancho La Bolsa Chir.a, City of iluntington Beach, Country of Or-antle. , State of California , as shown on a map recorded in ttao'r. 51 , Page 1.4 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the Country Recorder of said County, described as follows: i Beginning at the intersection of the southerly prolongation of the centerline of Beach Boulevard, being parallel with and 20. 00 feet easterly, measured ,at right angle,, from the east line of said Section 13 , with the high tide lane of the Pacific Ocean as cstab-- 11shed by a record of survey filed in Book 35 , Paq(s 9 cf Record of Survey in the office of tilt' County Recorder of said Cortnt:y; t lrettre northerly along the said south prolongation and the centerline of Beach Boulevard to its intersection with tho easterly prolonc,aL•iotr I of Hin c)`nLnrlive of Clllracro ,%vonut' as shown '►n a map of tllr Vista nr,1 mar 'I't,a t rocord,-(I ill ! o o) i , vai je i of m i srei 1 ativotls t'1ajis i Il the offire of I:he Couiiry Itoc:ol'clor of ,:,iicl y; thenco wrstel' ty al ong sa id extension and Lho c ontor. l i nu cif Clt i callo ,Avenue to _t:: i nterecct ion with the cerll.orl ine of Alabama ama SI roct: os shown on said map of the Vista Dal Mar Tract; thence norLhorly aloud tllc center- line of Alabama Street to its int:ersectic+n with Hit, centorl ino of the portion of Ilart'for(I Avonue west. of Alabama !Lrvot, as shown on said mal) of the Vinta D I Mar Tract; thence w-t-orly t'll.ong the centerline of said Iitirtf;,rd Stro.et all(( itr westerly exti�nsion, also being tho cenLor 1 ine of Po lm Avorttle as sh(: n on a Dial) of: hunting ton Deach, Wesley Park So Lion recorded in hook 4 , Vage 11 of Mincol- laneous Paps in the Office of the County Frcorder of said County, to an angle point in t1w centerline of Palm Avenue; thonce north- westerly, cont:inuiny aloml the centerline of i'atm Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Goldenwest. street , formerly Twenty-third Street a, shown on a map of Nurlt' irlgton l3each, :�cven- teenth Street addition recorded in 13cok 4, Paele 10 of Mi.scellarleolis Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thence southwesterly along the reii;.erline of Goidenwest: Street and its extension to its intersection with the high tide line of t.ho Pacific Ocean estahlished as an agreement line recorded in (look H183 , rage 3 of official records in t.ho Office or the County Recorder of said County; thence southoiasterly alontl said high tide line to it.!-, inter3v(,tion with the outermo nt struc1:111-0. of the. City of liuntintttnn Ilr.,uh Munivipr►l Pier; lhr-nr.t! soutilw(Istorly , southeastvrl)' and nortllaasterly alonol a lino' treat-ed by the out(:r- most structure of said pier to its inter,ort ion with Lhe hiclil tide line of thr f►aci fie 0coan ;is es; ahi ished by the pr.rvionnly mentioned record of survey fiirnd in Book 35, Pago. 9 of Jtecord r.f Survey; thence southeasterly along sad high tide line to the I.oirtt of beginning. Said Hearing will be Itelcl at the hour :-if 7:00 PJI. , on October 11, 1976, in the Council Chamber Building of the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. All inters seed persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the prol)osod Redevelopment Plan. Further information may beobtained from the City Planning Department. 'Telephone No. (710 536-5271 DATLI) this 2nd day of September, 1.976. CO Ur 0"ENT COMMIS5XON M I F3Y AlE w D. Se ich Secretary I i I I I 1 R E R N A R D C • A D A M S i civil engineer , flennie� � .nl/ttvres ►rildle�, �?*I hr.rkhrrtt . golden drove, .elllerele 926417 . 'hone 1141#44112' f POOR$ specification. t November 22, 1970' j . Golden Haar c/o lib ek Babiracki 306 Paulfic Coast Highway Huntington Beach, Cal. 92.648 Dear Mr. Babiraokis This letter 1s to verify findings of an inspection of the structure at 306 Pacific Coast Fiigrhway known as thn Golden , Bear. I have carefully inspected the roof trusses and roof fralrintr, ar_d have performed some prelim nary studies that indicate the roof structure generally complies with the present Building Codes for vertical load design,. The trusses are quite round structurally and my personal. Inspection of every truss re- ve.-Ied no defects that would adversely affect the structure. , There was no visible damage to the roof structure from earth- quake forces. I did not mnice a comprehensive inspection of the exterlor walls and can only say I have no knowledge of , damage to the walls. The roof trusses are constructed with arched upper chords � of nail laminated members with wood bolted webs and chords. . Walls are anchored to roof framing with round bars extending from the masonry walls hooked. ] nto wood framing members. RoofinE-, 13 applied over straight sheathing; laid or, rafters adequately sized per present Building Codes. l If you have any questtons please feel, free to call me at ,your {) . convenience. Sincerely yours, { I ,,��1-V•t^C:,r L•� �^♦r^•L:.i L�-f.v Lrt, SEANARD C. ADANS, Civil Engineer I Ii 1 9 77`7" Iw7h Sli DITIARIMMI OF 11LA1,(,`!1NG AND LNVIRONMENTAL RESOLIRCLS 11. 0 110X 190, 110i'11INGTON -, -V:11, CAL11 OUNIA !12GW, 11) b3fii!,271 A L TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning Department DATE: November 15, 1976 RE: ACTIVITY UPDATE REDEVELOPMENT lIU13LIC HEARING Since the October 11, 1976, public hearing there has been a great deal of staff work towards the public hearing on November 18, 1976. The following is an abbreviated update for the Council on work done to date. I. Public Information - Public Information office and Planning have gener- ated a great deal of public information in the last 4 weeks including press releases explaining Redevelopment and Plan, published fact sheets in local papers, and a booklet with questions and answers on the Redevelopment Plan. 2. Response to Community Concerns -- Based on concerns raised at the last public hearing and the interim period staff is preparing a list of plan options that could be used if desired. Also included is a discussion of issues that do not, in the staffs Winion, warrant plan options. The Redevelopment Commission and PAC have reviewed and commented on this and it will be transmitted to Council after Mr. Coomes rev.-' ews it Tuesday Morning (November 16) . Also the PAC has responded to Councilman Coon's letter of October 14 (enclosed) 3. November 18 Public flearjaQ - This is scheduled to begin at 5:00 p.m. .Since this is technically a now public hearing and there is new information to be presented by staff, all hearing participants should be present at 5: 00 or as soon as possible thereafter. Thy_ staff presentation will differ from October 11 in that the previous staff presentation will be a 20 minute summary and the remainder hour and 10 minutes will focus on the plan and community concerns. A recess is scheduled immediately following the staff presentation for a catered light dinner in the faculty dining room. Mobile lunch wagons will be present for the public. The Planning Commission, has agreed to adjourn to this meeting to hear public input and be available for acting on Plan Amendments if necessary. It is not a Planning Commission public hearing though. 4. Possible Hearing Continuance - It has been suggested that a decision may not be made on November 18 and what would the procedure be. Assuming that the January 1, 1977 target date is still the goal the I Ordinance must have second reading and adoption by Whoweda December Page 2 This means that any additional deliberation between the affected bodies should be done between tovember 19 and November 24 with first reading of the ordinance November 24. 5. Additional Information for Public Hearing - Staff will be transmitting the documents sent to the Council and Redevelopment Commission for the October 11 public hearing. The only new staff information will be the response to community concerns (previously discussed in Item 2) which will be about 11 pages and possible EIR addendums to later plan options. Res c fully omitted, xwarSel].cll Acting Director EDS:ja cc Redevelopment Conunission Planning Commission Enclosures: Coen letter of October. la , 1976 PAC responses to Coen letter dated November: 10, 1976 i I i city of Huxitlng.�toil BcakiLeft P.o.SOX ISO • 1000 MAIN STREET • CA41FpRN1A 92649 y1.advt.4 MAYpN 1,1.+rlonl+4 w,..l•r October 14 , 1976 COUNCIL MQhAIIERS 1+v1 W US111411 At.."M CO•n Nn.rn•nranA•1 Gibbs IIO"P411"n1011 nnn Sti•n4m" Wthold W S.tWert I) i 'I'om Whaling , Chairman Project Area committee l 213 Main Street Huntington !leach, CA 91648 r Re: RLDEVELOPMENT PLAN Dear Tom: ( � The cooperation of the members of your committec is responding to my questions ,end Concerns set forth hereinbelow would be .appreciated. There may be some overinpping or duplicating of areas t;f concern as my (questions hnve arisen basic+ally from a review of the DRAFT PRO- ; POSli17 10:111i111A.01'MENT PLAN, THE REPORT TO HUNTINGTON BEACH `!'i1i-"rimmaiNT� :N'i'A I �GT' RUNT and comments ma('fe at the recent public fiear ing on re ive opment. i expect. than: some of the questions Mould necessarily have to be nn- swe:red by Mr. Coombs , our redevelopment attorney. 1 . "In all eases of residential relocation , suitable replacement housing will k made available in equivalent or better resident- ial environments" (Draft Pr.,poscd Redevelopment flan; page 7) . I have some difficulty in interpreting what this means . hoes this mend that one who is displaced from ;t single family res- id!eiicc , a hlork or so rrom the hva ch , will he relocated to a( single family residence approximately an equal dist:ncc Cron the beach as the former residence! Z. "tit ruettlres s0 tahlc for rehabilitation will he up-graded thereby contributing to the improvement and environmental quality ." (Draft , 3. 3 , page 7; What criteria will he used in determining whether or not a structure can be renabilitated? Is this merely a structural engineering determination based on health and safety? I 'foal Whaling; 2- October h- 1976 3. "Lower inc persons and sen i car c i t i zees call fixed i uc-rlules nla y f i l d inc-rcasc�d rents r'esu11 ing 1'rom increased prupeI*IY taxes Lo he clnaf- for•dable, It is :ant icipated , however , that such impacts will he nlitig,ited by mechanisms for provision of low and moderate income housing included as part of this plan as +roll as by the City ' s hous- ing assistance program. " (Draft , 3. 7 , page 8) What ntcchnnism% are available to accomplish the proposed low and moderate income plan and is ;.here any realistic basis to believe that such housing can be constructed in the redevelop- mcnt area? 4 . Is it 1)roposed that ran architectural rev Icw hoard be established or the scnpc of responsib i 1 i ty of the existing Design Review Board he expanded to control the development of specialty commercial within the project area in that page 10 of the Draft suggests that a spe- cialty commercial facilities be "► esigned to exhibit a unifying or ,architccture"? (Draft , 4 . 1 . 3 , a)age 10) S . In reading the standards for (levelopanclit (Draft, 4 . 3) , it appears thnt the agency will be developing ordinances governing rehabili - tation nand construction and setting forth other standards which would perhaps be different than the standards applied in other areas of the City . Is this correct? (Draft , 4 . 3 , page 11) G. Section 5. 0 of the Draft makes no reference to rehrabilitntion. Was this excluded for a Particular reason or was it merely an oversight? 7 . "The Agency is authorized to acduire structures without acquiring tho land upon which those structures are located ." (Draft , 5. 1 . l,pat1R) What would be the purpose of this? 8 , in the draft 5 - 5 . 1 , there is a discussion Mahout relocation to "Suit- able and comparable replacement housing and the agency 's responsibil - ity for providing such housing if it cannot otherwise be made avail- able . What is the criteria for determining; :rhether dwelling units. are suitable and comparable to the displaced unit and ghat is the pro- jected cost to the agency for providing such housing if it cannot be ln,nde otherwise available? 9 Are we ' ct,itired to --idollt , ;is part of :I general redc.'vel()pmellt plall , the met,ho is of 1'irlcau1: ; Ilg -is set forth in 0 . 1 anti following of the 1)rait ? It appears , bovd oil :I reading; or this svctlon :and staff pre- svlitati(all , *, llat tax ic'.creiiient 1• inancint; is the only basis for suc; - censful financing; of the redevelopment plan. Do yotl ngrec? 10. Section !1 . 0 of tiv-, Draft indicates that "Vic provisions of this plan shall he effective for 3., Years from the date of .adoption of this Nall by the City Cnunci1 . " On page 71 of the Environmental Impact Report is indicated that "Most provisions of the plan will he effec ive fear years . " Is this a typographical error or otherwise in- ` consistant with the previous provision? 'foal ,�.: inl; �• October 14 , 1976 II . Iit tl►c Report to the 11. 11. City Counei1 , pagc r1 3. 11 is oil, rospon- sihi Iity in reference to reIocat ion of a wolli I home till it the same as any other res, idential or commercial relocation and , it' so, wherc do you propose to glut mobile homes within tilt redevelopment area? 12 . Section 3 . 1 .8 of the Report , suh- section C refers to 1975 prices for sinl;lc fantily units . is the financial feasibility of the project brised on the 1975 range of prices and , if so, is this rca Hstic? 13. 110 to the "high concentration of persons over 65 years old (14 . 31) , sere 3. 2 of Report , 1 am very concerned about the impact on these people of relocation and their prospective inability to weather a displacement , but also continue to inctirithe costs of same. Please comment . 1 14 . The U. P. I . Financial feasibility conclusions are !used on assumptions. Page i8 of the Report reflects that "It is emphasized once more that project area costs , revenues and restilting surplus are 11i Ihly sensi- tive to planning assumptions ." Is there any way of testing the v5T_- ic7,ty of these assumptions (lased on historical data or any object- ive criteria? tl.l'. i . also assumes that tax increment financing alone will be the sole source of agency funds in addition to receipts from land disposition proceeds. " (Page 20 of Report) Would there not be i other methods , short of tax increment financing, to accomplish some of the ohjcctives of the Plan , for example , the street and sewer im- provements and lighting improvements proposed for area C or other f project rheas? Could these not be accomplished by the imposition of an assessment district as we hall originally r_oi►sidered. Ely concern is that , particularly it, refcrritcc to area C being includ- eel in the plan, is that this area was so included merely to support the Miancial feasibility of the entire project . Does your financial Information allow the conclusion that each of the proposed project areas can be redeveloped on a sound financial basis independently of one another or must they all be inextricably related to one another 'i in order for the financial plan to succeed? 1 15. Section 5. 1 of the Report again refers tc1 relocation of families of low and moderate income . I need to be convinccd that low and moderate income housing is sufficient to accomod to those persons who arc dis - placed in that c.itegory will continue to have the benefits of a beach I nriented residence nt about the same monthly cost to them as proceed- ed the t'riocatiott. 1110aSr. Comment . 16. Src'tiiln N . 3 . 2 of the Itoport refers to certain government code,. ;Cction'; and talks ;bc.:it tier comet to the public entity of compelts.1tinl; those displaced perso11!: ur 1111sill `sscs . llas a financial inlii'-':t repor► evoi heen prepared to t1vt ^rmine the prospective cost to the ago.ncy or the- public entity of thi - relocation? Also , it would appear the conilien cation provided for in t h- l ovcrnment ccldc i very low and would not ticarly cover the ct,sts u1' relocation. Please comment. I .again feel that the Socio-Economic impacts of the proposed redevelopment , par- ticularlc• as it relates to residential redacbpment has not been ade- quntc1yaddressed in any of the reports . Tr,m Whaling 4 - tictohcr 14 ,`Ijj.76 17 . In the 1'100 i.c IleariOg , MV . .l;cc'ttt made referenct` to the Montoya Ki l l . What doer: this new Icgis last ion provide for and how would it relate to the !unposed redcvelopment Clan? 18 . During the Public Hearing , Mr. I)ilkes made rcfer•ence to a pending Supreme Court Case , which , he contended , would ultimately hold that vacant lane! would not he inclit(led in a redevelopment plan. no you have any knowledge of this case? in that approximately 22% of the project area is vacant land , this would be significant. 19. Mr. flilkos made reference to Assembly Dill 1267 which allows , accord- ing to Iiint, a School district to pass a tax over-ride if they found that income has been dinliiiisl,ed by redevelopment . Is this correct , and )lavc you considered this as a definite passibility if tax in- crement financing were utilized to fund a redevelopment program? 20 . i feral it would he ;advisable if the members of your Committee , the members of the Planning Commission , Redevelopment Commission and City Council were provided with a copy of pertinent provisions of the ilcalth and Safety Code , particularly sections 33367 , 33369 , 332- 51 , 33321 and 33373 . 1 arm particularly concerned about the findimps, which the Redevelop- ment Agency will he required to make sulnct imc, after the conclusion of the Public Hearing. 'file ordinance which we were provided with in our packet preparatory to the first Purl it Hearing on redevelop- ment , Contained language taken from certain sections of the l)ralth ;rncl S;Ifety Code. It is my understanding that unless stills tantial evidence exists , as interpreted by the riembers of the Redevelopment Agency , to make the findings set i'orth in section 3 of the proposed ordinance , the redevelopment flan cannot be adopted. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached hereto. I am having great difficulty in making rindings in the following areas , based on the information made ;available to me to date : 1 . "That the City Council is sztlsfied that permanent housing facil - itics will be :available: within three years from the time occu- 11:ttrts of the project area art! displaced and that pending the dc'velop,m!•nt Of SUCI1 1*:It1 ,' i1 t ('s tk-ry wi l 1 ht, available to -;rich displaced or_ct pall+.s :In,) re(ats coriparalilly to tho,;v III LIM f'OmIrmllf1j :11, the. I Ir— tit Ih,' ir tl1 �It I:ICt`u1Cnt . 2 . "That thc project arrr.t is .1 111ighted arrt-:I" (;I] though l ;)III aware of the definition of non-stuctural blight ) . 3. "That the lidoltt i oat and carrying out of the redevlopment plan is economically sultnd ,and feasible . " 4 . "'!'hat adcgtiattc provisiris have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. " S . the agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocatx-,)n al' 1':imi I irs and persons clisp)atccd from the project area if the r•edevc1opmcnt plain results in the tempor;lry or permanent displace- ment of any occupants of mousing facilities in the project area. I 'l c1n+ tV�t,11 i n1; October 14 , 11176 A I t hotigh I rva 11 Zc t flat t l llly i " of t lie C.'senct. ill t o 1, i ng ildvalt t :l t,l` ill' I hr first fax illerelllctlt , I can as"Ill-v ylltl that I will take lit) al: t. i cell to) adoll t :111y 1•c-ticvc I clllmcll t 111:111 11111 1 1 1 am t h ruug h 1 y Sa t i s - I•irl) th:11 tl1e imsis for my llrl: i .44intt t (it .11IV tiulol,nlIable by the facts atltl not 111vr1• ly by SC its 1LiVL' assumptinnc , 11ollsing; assistance plans or other such data. Respectfully submitted , : .1 Al Coen Couttc. Oman AC:cb cc : C i t y (:r,unc i t Intel Sclsito, City Administrator Ed Sal ich , Acting; Planning Director Dictated on t0/14/76 , but not revicwed. , `s } i i I I I 1 i 1 TO: Councilman Alvin M. Coen FROM: Thomas Whaling, Chairman, Project Area Committee DATE: November 10, 1976 RE; REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 14, 1976 Dear Councilman Ccen: The Project Area Committee was appointed by the City Council early this year with the express directive to assist in the formulation of a Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Project Area. In pursuit of this Council mandate, the PAC has worked diligently with staff and the general public to bring about the proposed Redevelopment Plan now under consideration. We appreciate your detailed inquiry into the reasoning behind the Proposed Plan and your request for clarification of some points of confusion. We have done our best to respond to your questions honestly and accurately. We have solicited the expertise of the Planning Department, the Redevelopment Agency's legal consultant, and Urban Projects, Inc. , in the development of our answer. We must point out, however, that many questions seem to assume that a specific physical development plan is included in the Proposed Redevelopment Plan, the impacts of which can be precisely anticipated. Such is not the case. Rather, the Proposed Redevelopment Plan is a general plan, a piece of enabling legislation that sets the parameters for revitalization of the Downtown Area. Nevertheless, we have done 1 our beat to answer your questions as precisely and honestly as possible. 1. As permitted by State law and State relocation guidelines, the proposed plan does not guarantee that a property owner or t%--Ant displaced from a single family unit a block from the beach will be returned to an identical situation. However, in the case of displacement from a beach-oriented single family dwelling, both housing referrals and dollar entitlement computations would be based upon single family dwellings, and would also be directed to beach-oriented neighborhoods whenever hot:sing in such areas is found available. Where otherwise comparable dwellings not found to be available in beach-oriented areas, consideration for loss of such an amenity would be made: in both the housing referral process and in payment computation factors off--setting such a loss would be included. These might consist of an upgrading of living area, an upgrading of dwelling amenities, greater land area, and the like. It is important that the Agency' s relocation responsibilities are clearly understood. The Agency' s basic obligations with respect to residential displacees are: a. to offer displacees a reasonable number of potential relocation dwellings which are: Page Two i Alvin M. Coen decent, safe and sanitary located in areas or neigieborhoods noL- lrss desirable than, that from which ciisplacement occurred, taking all environ- mental, public and commercial service and facility consider- ations into account functionally equivalent and substantially the same as the acquired dwelling (but also decent, safe and sanitary) within the financial means of the displacee jb. to ensure that relocation housing payments to which the dis- placee may be entitled are computed on the basis of such "com- parable" replacement housing, the elements of which are itemized above. In the final analysis, equitable treatment of displacees must prevail. Where it is impossible to exactly duplicate the acquired dwelling and its amenities, equalizing compensation must be included in the relocation process, as described above. Finally, it is important to note that displacees m.y move to housing of their choice located in areas of their choice, whether in other cities or in Huntington Beach; the major requirement for dollar com- pensation purposes is that the replacement dwelling be decent, safe and sanitary. In all cases, the State Uniiorm Relocation Assistance Act and State guidelines will be followed. The guidelines are presently being revised and any adopted revisions to the guidelines will also be fcrwarde:l. i 2. Four factors will determine whether a structure is rehabilitated; a. if rehabilitation is not inconsistent with the specific develop- ment plans adopted for an area; i b. If a structure meets or can be improved to meet building and safety codes; c. If rehabilitation effort is consistent with design criteria established by the Agency; and d. If the property owner decides it is economically feasible to do i so. i 3. There are several realistic methods for providing low and moderate income housing within the Project Area of elsewhere in the City. a. The Agency can provide or cause to be provided by others, housing with tax increment funds under a numbar of techniques ranging from land write downs and on anti off sike improvements to loans, grants, and subsidies for housing construction. This is a significant benefit enabler] only by the use of redevelopment. -Page Three .Nlvin D1. Coen b. The Agency could require a specific percentage of all new residential construction for subsidized units. c. Our on-going federally funded Housing Assistance Plan could provide rent supplements for relocated persons. d. In combination, HUD, the City, and the Housing Authority could facilitate new construction in or out of the Project Area. e. City--owned property within the Project Area could be utilized to reduce cost to developers of low income projects. f. Entitled Community Development funds over the next four years could be appropriated for rent supplements or development: assistance to write down the cost of new projects. While provision of low and moderate income housing within the Project Area is obviously possible, is it realistic? In terms of new construction, PAC believes that rising land costs in such a prime coastal area will prevent significant new construction, especially considering that limited funds could produce more units in less expensive areas. Though the use of subsidies in existing units is more probable, that too may be limited because of coastal areas. 4. An architectural review board is not expressly included in the Plan. This power is permitted the Agency by :he Health and Safety Code and PAC feels that the Redevelopment Commission should assume this responsibility. Design review will be a key aspect of the success of any rehabilitation program and the commission should be deeply involved. 5. All development within the Project Area must conform to City-wide development standards. TY._ City' s Zoning Ordinance is adopted by reference, in fact, as a part of the Redevelopment Plan. However, the Agency does have the authority to impose standards that are stricter than City standards, if it desires. In regards to re- ibIlIation, the City' s Dangerous Building Ordinance would have to be modified to allow application to be in a manner consistent with the rehabilitation problem. , Otherwise, the Dangerous Building Ordinance would have to be strictly enforced immediately and would be in a conflict with a phased rehabilitation program. 6. Reference of rehabilitation should be added to Section 5.0. The subject of rehabilitation is covered specifically in Section 5.3. 7. Authorization to the Agency of acquiring structures without acquiring underlying land can serve a variety of purposes, among which, and perhaps most importantly, is assistance to property owners whose structures are either hazardous or inconsistent with development 1:lans and who wish to redevelop their properties in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan. The ability of the Agency to undertake such limited acquisition presents real benefits to participating owners: they would be paid full fair market value for their improvements, yet be in a position of retainwna land upon which to reconstruct. Page Four Alvin M. Coen The implication of the ahilil � is ::i(llrificattt. for- it is a direct incentive for ownors to )art ir. ipat:r: sinco they maintain control of their land after the Agency has rvmovod t ho i r unwant:vd As well , t)ecause Hir' Agc,rlc-y wil:; not. room rvcl to buy tinwallt.e d land, it is able to accomplish more wit.'a iLs limitod funds. S. In addition to the factors of housing comparability noted in the: response to question #1, a specific dwelling-to-dwelling compara- bility analysis must consider unit tYpe (single family detached, duplex, apartment, etc. ) ; habitable space; lot: size; arrangement of rooms (numher of total rooms, bedrooms, hathrooms) ; , special features such as separate or formal dining rooms, family rooms, service porches; amenities, such as fireplaces, airconditioning, wood paneling, kitchen built-ins and the like; existence of garages and carports; and age., quality of construction and condition of structure (except that all potential replacement units must; be in standard condition) . At this time, no definite cost estimation on provision of housing is possible because number and nature of displacees are unknown as are costs of suitable replacement housing. However, UPI die: a rough estimation of costs for the tMain Street area in response to question 16. It should be pointed out, that the Agency is responsible for re- locating only those households displaces] a a direct result of Agency related action. Such act-ion will generally be confined to the Main Street area, the frontage blocks on PC11 from 5th Street to Goldenwest; and various street realignments and improvements. 9. The method of financing used under the Redevelopment Plan will depend on the specific development plans implemented Downtown and will be influenced by the: intensity level of those plans. ?n any specific plan, it is the fundamental goal of Redevelopment to encourage the use of private capital to revitalize our deteriorating areas. When actions of private enterprise are insufficient, the Agency will act. It .is probable, of course, that tax increment financing ' will be utilized to some degree. No other funding source is as reliable. however, other financing sources identified in Section 6. 1. can complement tax increment financing wLerevr:r possible and should not be excluded fro.-it the Plan. To du so .Nould unnecessarily rr�st.ri �:t the financing capabilities of the Agency. 10. The reference to 45 years in the FIR is an •�rrrr. Thirty-fivr_- i:; the correct life of the Plan. This is a ma;:imum, of course, and the Plan could be completed sooner. 11. Relocation of mobilehome occupants is goverriod by State Relocation Guidelines. Occupants of mobi.lc:ljome units receive Acitt,l r.onsideration witil Any to iiant or homeowner by law. The Aa(-ttt-v inly either acquire the mobilehomo park and relocate households as tc•riants to other rear}:s 'Page Five Alvin M. Coen within or outside the Project Area or acquire both land and mobile- home treating households as homeowners and relocating them to other units and parks. It is anticipated that any mobilehome related re- lucation would result only from street alignments and related improvements. Though it is not the intent of PAC to encourage mobilehome parks in the Project Area, such uses are not specifically addressed in the plan and would be governed by City Zoning ordinances. 12. According to UPI, 1975 dollars were used to account both costs and expenditures. It is our consultant's opinion that the financial projections - general and long-term as they are - will not be significantly affected by overall changes in dollar values. The analysis assumed that inflationary trends would proportionately affect both costs and tax increment revenues. 13. The problem of rehousing elderly individuals and families indeed are special. Some may be resistant or fearful of change, while others may welcome it. The only way to handle relocation of the elderly is to provide patient and caring staff support in the form of sensitive, experienced relocation personnel who treat each house- hold as if it were the only one to the relocation workload. In reality, the rehousing of people -- elderly or not -- must be approached as a human experience, requiring sensitivity, continuing perzonal contact , and sincere effort if it is to be successfully accomplished. Furthermore, we must keep a realistic perspective on the number of elderly households likely to be relocated though the percentage of elderly in the Project Area is significant, it does not Follow that all - or even a considerable number - will be relocated. We anticipate that most relocation will occur in the Main Street area - a commercial area not a residential one. I 14. The assumptions which UPI has made in carrying out its financial feasibility study of the Redevelopment Plan are for the most part, assumptions about the details of planning and design which will be carried out in the Project Area necessary to come up with hard, financial data, i.e. , construction costs, rent revenues, future pro- perty market values, and other project costs for acquisition of property, demolition, and relocation expenses. The Redevelopment Plan itself has been left sufficiently general (which UPI recommends in order to avoid a great deal of burdensome amendment action later on) and consequently the plan does not furnish enough specific details on the remodeling or reconstruction of street, utility systems, lighting systems, nor on specific; parcels of land to be acquired, nor the precise number of people or businesses to be relocated, etc. The assumption referred to are the ones pertaining to these very detailed matters which are necessary to produce hard, dollar estimates. Reference to the results being highly sensitive Page Six . Alvin M. Coen to the planning assumptions simply means that if the City should undertake detailed planning and design work that was substantially different from our assumptions, it would obviously affect the dollar results. For instance, an elaborate street lighting program such as the type adopted in the Hollywood and Westwood districts of Los Angeles, would be an unusual program and would vastly increase the cost over any assumption we have made on such an item. A decision to deliberately overbuild the utility system for whatever reasons might be an item beyond our typical assumption. Another example would be a decision to vastly increase the density of develop- ment over the entire redevelopment project area from that stated in the plan at this point in time would have great affect on future market values and, therefore, revenues derived through tax incre- ments. A great depression in the economy which halted the develop- ment trends now in evidence in the project area or which drastically changed the style of housing would be a factor that would change our assumptions. Consequently, the question is not so much a matter of testing the assumption on the basis of historical data or objective criteria, but rather the question of the City carrying out a reasonable program consistent with the general criteria in the plan and other statements of intent that have been made to UPI as it prepared its work. Some of the assumptions are merely based on the considerable experience of UPI with cost ratios on relocation expenses, the ratios of acquisition costs where property is acquired to its current market in essessed value, etc. These types of assumptions are based on considerable historical experience which UPI has encountered in other redevelopment project situations and, of course, UPI has confidence in these types of data. There are, of course, other means of financing redevelopment work in the project area besides the tax increment method. Assessment districts would work very nicely to carry out certain types of improvements, such as street and utility remodeling and creation of additional parking lots for that mi.tter. There is no restriction in the Redevelopment Plan or operation of the Agency that prohibits it using any type of financing available. The City can use general funds to carry out the works specific types of revenue bonds could be seild when there is a provable source of revenue to make such bonds saleable. Parking 4uthority work is a common type of revenue bond operation and has been implemented in the past by the Huntington j Beach Parking Authority. however, in those instances the City has had to take, in effect, a guarantor position backing the revenue bonds sine sources of revenue were nebulous at the outset of that program some years ago. UPI has examined the Parking Authority history and feels that now that parking revenues have been proven through experience that there may be some possibility to utilize that history to support additional revenue bonds which might be less restricted with respect to City guarantees. However, the amount of revenue that can be derived in this manner will not go too far in carrying out the total project activities in the redevelopment area. 'Page Seven Alvin M. Coen Assessment district financing has a very immediate and direct impact upon the property owners residing in the assessment district, of course. If utilized to carry out street lighting, utility, neighborhood parks, parking, etc. , it results in an immediate tax increase to the property owners concerned that increases their tax burden considerably. In a project area with mixed use as in Huntington Beach where a number of older single-family dwelling units are immediately adjacent to commercial properties and so on, the imposition of an assessment district can cause some very unequal impacts, that is, the immediate tax increase of an assessment district might be quite a burden to an older, single- family home owner but relatively a light burden for a business owner half a block away. The tax increment approach doer not have this impact at all upon { property owners in the Redevelopment Project Area. Under this i method various desirable improvements such as street lighting, utilities, additional parking, etc. , can be carried out and there ' is no immediate or direct impact on the taxpayer in the project area. What is happening is that the tax revenues from new improve- ments 'in the area which could be represented even by simple re- I modeling additions that homeowners were making to their dwellings 1 are retained by the local redevelopment agency to pray for new � improvements locally rather than sent off to other taxing agencies such as the County, the School District, the Flood Control District, ` the Metropolitan Water District, etc. In a local selfish sense then it really becomes a question of whether the local property owner in a given project wants to see the future tax increases from new development sent off to pay for County social programs and to feed the ever rising bureaucratic costs of often distant water districts, school districts, and other public agencies rather than utilized for direct improvement of local conditions in the project area. This is the genuine choice that is made when a redevelopment project is adopted and tax increment financing is utilized. The whole process enables the local community to use the tax revenues from local improvements to carry out betterment in the local. district. . . This philosophical question is really one of whether the future tax revenues from new things that are happening should be used for local improvements and upgrading of the local neighborhoods and communities j or should those revenues be sent off to other taxing agencies to support the ever increasing inflationary expansion of bureaucrFacien and governmental services which often go to people other than those in a local community. Tax increment financing is the only .,,,pe of financing method that gives the local community this choice. 15. There can be no guarantee that relocatees will be moved to identical locations. The Redevelopment Plan, however, contains all provisions � and safeguards established by State law. Relocation law and regulations ensure that sufficient housing is ; I available to .displacees prior to displacement. As goon as specific program planning activities indicate that -3isplacement is required for a specific project, the Agency is r, •fired to very specifically examine the housing needs of site L. runts, r i I Page Eight Alvin M. Coen survey available and comparable replacement housing, analyze the degree of "fit" or "non-fit" of needs to available housing supply, and provide for creation of replacement housing when the supply falls short of the need. If the Agency cannot demonstrate sufficient availability of replacement housing units in appropriate sizes and at the required prices, it must take steps to provide such comparable replacement housing prior to proceding •with displacement. Because the law provides that no person may be required to move unless or until suitable replacement housing is available, should the Agency be unable to demonstrate availability or itself create the necessary housing prior to displacement, the displacements simply could not occur. We want to emphasize at this point that beach relatedness is not the only concern of relocation under the Redevelopment Plan. it safe- guards dealing with a household' s total life environment - friends, church, shopping, special amenities, etc. Further, it is anticipated that most relocation will be necessitated in the blocks surrounding Main Street where residential uses are minimal. Agency relocation would be rare elsewhere. 16. As mentioned previously, the exact number and nature of displ.acees cannot be de"armined until more specific development plans are approved. Each proposal will be considered individually prior to approval. For purposes of the financial analysis, UPI estimated relocation costs assuming selective clearance, rehabilitation, and facelifting within the six-block Main street area: ` 97 rental unit households 04 ,000 each = $388,000 87 businesses @ $5,000 each = 435,000 Total relocation cost $823,000 In regard to how realistic is the compensation included in the Plan, the Agency - as requested by PAC - is already committed to looking into the adequacy of these numbers. The maximum payments allowable are currently established by the State, but the State Department of Housing and Community Development is currently investigating this question too. It is presently an unresolved legal question, however, whether the Agency has the power to pay more than the values stipulated by the State. 17. Attached is an analysis of the new redevelopment legislation approved this year, including the Montoya Bills (AB 3673, included in that analysis, was vetoed by the Governor) . The general intent of this legislation is to reduce the possibilities of abusing the Community Redevelopment law and increase the accountability of the Redevelopment Agency. Proposed amendments to the Downtown Plan - already endorsed by the Planning Commission - are designed to meet the new legal requirements which are applicable to our Plan. These proposed amend- ments call for a yearly audit, limit the time for utilization of • .1 • age Nine loin M. Coen eminent domain, and limit the amount of bonded indebtedness and tax increment revenues allocated to the Plan. 18. The pending Supreme Court case in Sweetwater Valley Civic Association vs. City of National City, et al. The Project Area, in that case, involved a golf course under single ownership to be redeveloped to a regional shopping center. Mr. Dilkes' proposal overstates the case if he predicts the Supreme Court will hold all vacant land project areas invalid, since California law clearly provides for such projects meeting the criteria set forth for blight, and they have been upheld by the California Courts. Our legal counsel believes the Supreme Court decision will turn can whether the National City project was, in fact, a blighted area as defined in State law. If the decision comes down before project development, it can be considered in the context of our Project Area. one of the Montoya Balls (AB 3672) restates the definition of blight for vacant land projects. It should be noted that much of the vacant land within the Project Area is already subdivided into inefficient 25-foot lots held by multiple owners. 19, The complexities of school financing have been oversimplified by Mr. Dilkes. in 1972, the State legislation adopted SB 90 (Chapter 1406, Stats. 1972) which imposed a revenue limit on school districts and tax rate limits on other taxing agencies. School financing is based an a number of complicated formulas providing for State basic and equalization aid to districts and local district property taxes. Generally the formulas for the equalization of State aid to school districts are based on a required local property tax adjust- ment calculated from the assessed wealth of the district. Following the enactment of SB 90, the legislature adopted legislation to remove from the formulas for calculation of both State aid and local property taxes, the assessed value of property in a redevelop- ment project area resulting from taxes being allocated to a Redevelop- ment Agency (e.g. , education code section 2704, 2904, 2905, and 2935) . The net effect of this legislation is that the total amount of money available to school districts is not affected by the existence within the district of a redevelopment project with tax increment financing, although the district property tax rate, depending upon the equali- zation formulas, may be affected. lalph Anderson and Associates in a 1975 report, entitled Redevelopment ar.1 Tax Increment Financing, concluded that tax increment has not cry "ed serious fiscal problems for other local taxing agencies. On 1, 51 of the report, where this conclusion is stated, the impact of tar. crement financing on school districts is summarized as follows: Unlike L nties and special districts which operate with property tax rate 1A,. " s, schools are subject to a State-imposed revenue limit. The _ nue limit guarantees a school district that it can raise and r+d a fixed amount of money, based on district revenues in 1974 nd adjusted annually for inflation. The i I r I j . r 5yt�fc' .1,f°,' PT '.iT fYw:y!, r It}i r' T.3Y:r•'.�Y."M�tT-tj'fT'y77T."'"':'1 l . 7 �� r't r 31 4Y F.'�'", Yi y�•l�ln` 'q'"...�- 7 7,,7 •;4<p3t�tY7 •ni�,.., � c fit. w `' •.t )�T "tart x "C L rS �t1�t S i '� t �'" 1�i � ;A" 3''R t +y ,•�';;f;' R Page Ten " Alvin M. Coen amount to be rail, -)cally is determined by deductinq State basic and equalizatic, aid to the district from its overall revenue limit for that 'fear. Because the State has assured school districts that ti.r,y may raise an amount equal to their revenue limit, redeveloprco nt and tax inrremen= financing gen- erally have no impact on t,,.,- amount ultimately raised. However, tax increment financing can have an impact on property tax rates or State government : -venues depending on the fiacal condition of school districts. or example, the State Consti- tution and State law provide that all school districts will re- ceive basic aid ($125 per student) from the Star ,, toward a basic "foundation program" . Foundation pr.-1gram levels axe established by the State, and are $909 (elementar-) and $1,0_ ' (high school) per student in 1975--76. The State wig, also pro'. 'e a school district with equalization aid, but only if a St:. -determined "computational tax rate", when applied against th, osessed value of the sche)ol district, will not raise the 0iffere- between basic aid and the foundation program amount. Any 'ference be- tween the two will be provided by the State a4' equa zrad aid. The Education Code provides that the assessed val.uu icrements of redevelopment agencies shall not be included w lz,plying the computational tax rate to school district asse. valuation. Thus, to the extent that this accounts for payment 4dditional State equalization aid to individual school district:. , the ac- tivities of redevelopment agencies have resulted in sor- i State fiscal impact. The State Department. of Education estic. �d this impact to be approximately $12 million in 1974-75. On the other hand, if State equalization aid is not required,, but the school district has to levy a property tax in order to raise revenue, it can be assumed that a higher tax rate will be levied on the remaining assessed property of the school district due to the frozen assessed valuation of the redevelop- ment area,. However, it should be emphasized that while this has the effect of a tax shift on property, it hap -!o overall impact on the amount of revenue raised for the school district due to guaranteed revenue limits. Additionally, the Downtown Project Area accounts for a minimal per- centage of the revenues of the various taxing agencies. However, if in spite of the above, the project should be found, by the agency, to work a particular hardship on a school district:, the Cammunity Redevelopment Law permits the Agency to make payments to the district to alleviate that hardship. 1 20. Prior to Council adoption of a Plan for Downtown, a revised ordinance will be prepared by legal counsel. This ordinance will include specific fi:xdings that tie Council conc?usiarls to evidence actually submitted. Ver truly yc 'lrs, Thomas M. "i.ng, Chairman I Project ea Cn-nnitt•_e :gc I 4 SlJIriTS OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING -r TONCONSIDER ADOPTION OF PROPOSED T.0 PEDEVELOPMENT PLAN H.D. HIGH SCHOOL GYM NOV. 189 1976 Tom Whaling, Chairman of PAC, A and Jerry Shea, Vice Chairman of PAC, spoke in favor of the proposed plan. The following persons spoke after t+ 8 P.M. l-Peter Wallen, attorney representing SOS fix` 11340 W. Olypmic Blvd. , Los Angeles. f Spoke against the proposed plan. Indicated the Council does have the power nk to defer to the vote of the people. He said A a PAC is designed~ tnskm-tin cd make sure a redevelopment dproject will work to the benefit of the {; people in a ,dprtject areayr and he felt that this city's od PAC is not: serving that need, t� drne.v� Wallen said that they the represented Chet PAC We%*0 were able to pla^.e into the redevelopment plan4t a statement that "no business shall be misplaced unless there is a suitable and economiel,ly replacemc:tt facility ready for occupancy, " 2-Pauline Noen, 16232 Brimhall Lane, II.B. City resident Spoke against the proposed plan. Felt the power of eminent domain is unamerican and dunacceptable and it can go rampant. 3- S Darrell Ward, President of H.B. Chamber' of Commence, 20701 Beach Blvd. #115 (business office) . Spoke in favor of the proposed plan. ; . The Chamber neeml6ery (600 membership) pftmfttlx unanamiously passed a resolution on Oct. 18 in support of the proposed plan. ThAo-vas dag urged the Council to move forward. This resolution was presented into -ire record. W.rRM^.lab Nl',,.•^.R.w...r•• ... . • .til ......... .. _�.�..... - ..... ....._.. . ..� _.. .ram...................w..r.nwasw+.v +.•�v�.y n+.....w�w 4- Henry W. Hohrman, 7�1.12 Poston Lane, N.B. City resident Spoke against the plan �rtth- rocli-f�i-Eaic3ri. Felt the plan is too xnx vague whLch is no plan. Ile felt it would Allow anyone to do anything (Carle Blanche) . Feels the Council should be fiscal responsible oriented fie .felt there shuuld be a spe(cific plan definition;'"' 5-Phyllis Sarlega, 21671 Saluda Cir. , II.B. City resident No positi�i -with modifications She represents the League of Women Voters for Seal Leach, Westimisrer, X Fountiain Valley & HuntinPton Beach. She said the League had not completed its sutdy or add4ressed the redevelopment- plan in total, however, the local, state and Nationnal agencies are r�ncerned about low and moderate income housing. She urged the plat) be amended to provide for low and moderate income housing and 207. of Tax Increment: monies be utilized for such housing within and outside the Project Area. 6-Laura Romek, 20872 Crestview, 11.0. City resident Spoke against the paoposed plan. She indicated she previcusly had not position but after listening 40 to all the testimony she felt all the facts weighed heavily against. redevelopment. j 7-Diane Elaine Parry, 20572 La Vonna Ln. , H.B. City resident student at Edison High School and member of Senate and Sr. Class. She was against thc 'proposed plan but did not address the Council 8- Richard Wann, 201 14th St. , H.B. Resident in Project Area Against the pooposed plan but not there to speak. '9-Mike Rodgers, 9861 Lapworth Cir. , 11.13. City resident Chairman of the 11.B. Ccunci.l on Aging,. Spoke in favor of the plan with modifications. Requested a moderate Redevelopment Plan be considered with the folbowing; a-place restriction on condemnation of single family and other residential housing in area. b-Include that 20% of Tax Increment monies be used for low and mnrinrnt:e incnme lhrnicing. .::e:.ca...w.w..........:sr..e..».....-.....r.................—.r.�.. .._ .,. . _. ..._..,�._� ... ._---,�._.....--..__..-......-.....rx.. l:'u.r.,w.....�,,,.,ptalaK.e:Y.na.•w • lq•Leonard Wright, GAG Ul.h St. , II.B. r"� Resident in project Are, Member of PAC.- Spoke in favor of the plan WILL modifications. Suggested that the following be done: a-remove eimienL domain from TownloL4 Pa rte of Oldtown areas b-75 ' height limit in Down�onK commercial area. c-45 ' height limit in TownloL along 11C11; later eoninb k would have setbacks LA away from a 45 ' higi-f wall effect . 11-Kaye MacLeod, 9942 Continental. Dr. , 11.H. City resident Member of Huntington Continental Townhouse Assoc. Spoke against the propos—ed plan. She didn't want ik the area to become another Jones Beacl*. Ar 12-Richard Wann, 201 14Lh St. , H.B. City Residen in Project Against the dproposed plan (was present to speak, see #8) C8l1NGI�. He suggested Wallow reasonable development and free enterprise will take care of -IL; the blight is due to a lack of allowing decent development and not permitting development in certain areas. 13-Glen Davison, 15582 Pelican Ln. , 11B.B.' City resident. No position with modifications. Asked the Courci.l to do everything possible for the elederly citizens by providing them with a good place to live for as little money as possible and locate them close to r;ba things that are ors familiar to them before redevelopment. 14-Fred EAert Non resi�went Vista Volunteer in a project dfor Legal Act--ion for Better Housing with offices at 520 pecan. He resides in Westminster. Spoke. against the proposed plan. There is no protection On oY interest for elderly and low and moderate incoc.-w_- famL.b ;1' to Pruj,!.:t: a:- � , �:� 1 ��:'i�• ,. ,` ..:� : ►. 15- Shirley Ann Strachan, 5891 Liege Dr. , H.B. City Resident Spoke against the proposed plan. She sufimitted a letter into the record. ` 1r- Mary Ai lien ,Matheis, 104819 Theseus Dr. , H.B. City resident Member of H.B. Board of Realtors. ' Spoke in Favor of the Flan for the following reasons: a-increF., economic income to city b-increased tax base Lo city c-increased' pride or c• i.ty ."fir-Thomas Dawes, 6901 Vista Del Sol Dr. , H.D. City resident ~= c redevel opmentx but was not present Tw sP4&rrk. 1$- Rutht Bailey, 5641 Marshall dr. , il.B. City Resident Chairman of Human Resources Council. No position - with modifications . 1 She read statement from the Executive Board: it al{ Request provision for low and moderate income housing in Redev. Plan. b-Be consistent with Montoya l.egistation by providing 20% of Tax increment manic Abe usa4 for luw and moderate housing in or outside the t Project Area. 4-Eve DobkinJt.6732 Husby Lane, H.D. City resident Spoke against the proposed plan. Felt Main St. needed r to be redeveloped b�t felt prmvate monies I could be used to accomplish it. B "ernard Rodgers, 1733 LaK(St. , H.B. City resident Spoke against proposed plan. Citizens don't want redevelopment. No one questions• that Downtown i} doesnot need re:frubishing and rejuvination just the manner of how it will I..: done. ' 24- Mrs. Berr.ard Rodgers, .33 Lake St. , H.B. City resiedent • I' Spoke agaii.st proposed plan ;r f Would like to see % alternatives to the plan, the present plan is too drastic. �•,zt,�,N `. She submittes with approx. 1,000 signatures taken tick in 1974 regarding increased traffic and noise, and hazard conditions For children at time the City Hall was builit. She did a recent jurvey with Mrs. David Parry and the findings were: a-don't consider high rise or .e1 high density b-don't consider widening streets in residential k area. c-don't make on%: person leave their home who doesn't want too, t 2A-E.F. Colditz, 21061 Manessa Cir. , 11,13. City resident Spoke against the proposed pl.n n. . iArea r t 23-Robert Jarrard, 515 llth St. , II.B. Resident In Project Member of PAC. Spoke in favor of the proposed plan. He spoke as a developer who has had difficulties in developing in the Project ARea. "Nothing better can come of this meeting then to finally settle the issue of who is going to count in front of the the Council and Redevelopment Commissionk , those of us who want to build a community, let- it eip stay as it is or tear it down. 2fanx Albert Hoffman, 15115 Jeffrey Rd. , Irvin be ;Von resident lie was speaking For Mac C. Hoeptner(7) who is a resident. Spoke in favor of the plan. 25-non MacAlister, 1502 Bolsa, H.B. City resident Spoke as a trustee of the H.B.High School District. No position. Submitted a letter prepared by their attorney. Their concern was for impact of # future taxation within their school district boundarOY., ' 2$-Bruce L. Greer, 18792 Stewart St. , H,B. City resident Spoke against the proposed plan. He felt it should k go to the vote: of the people. t F} 2F-John Gable, 310 9th St. , II.B. Resident in Project Area ;._ r. Spoke against the proposed plan. Ile showed slides that he felt xksxadxsxidaNztt disproved facts that ►. there is no blight. 21- C. Edward pilkes, 11340 W. Olympic Blvd. , Los Angeles Non resident "-� SOS yip group. i I � Spoke against the proposed plan. I I Made refrence t new lm proposed legislat i , regarding how sales Lax will be collected in the State in the future;Sweetwater case; inadequacies of some portions of Ell? Alg� /ubmlUed an assessment study data study that was cmiducted in kk an A wwU 8 block area opFlcE of Clain St. ; map showing consolidation of parcels, and Post vacancy survey. ...�.. __, 114 'r ;z 3 /�tSersr+a.�7 �rtTA s rNay �� ► +�' - MAI i#r Ci&+SoAiP fr.c,v *or PROd-&X Area 2q -Jan Gaffney, 121 Main Sh . , H.B. (buss) Businesswoman in Project Member of PAC (lives in Long Beach) Spoke in favor of the proposed plan. Been in business for 4 years. Felt there is both physical and psychological blight. %C-LesDreis Jr. , it25241 Orellano, Laguna Hills Property owner in --3 Project Area (709 Palm, Apt 2, d.B. ) kx Was against the proposed plan but not present at meeting. ' Businessman in Project Al If-Ed Farber, 163111-'antasia, H.B. & City resident Has a business at 305 Main St . and Vice Pr' sident of DMG Spoke in favor of tl.e proposed plan "We have put this to a vote- members mfx* (Council) sitting here tonight will Vote for us. 11OThe City Council was elected on a Platform of upgrading the downt•(.wn area. " He said it is time the Council, members fis give their affix mative vote. "If we have redevelopment I ' ll be relocated, but I 'm in favor of uPgrgdin,. " Charles Palmer, 1?01 Kings Rd. , N.B. Non resident -school distric Deputy Superintendent of H.B. City SChool, District No position - with some concerns The board is not for or against the Redevelopment Plan but has 2 conclerns. a-The district has never enceunted this type of problem before- Hope the guidelines by Council will assist them regarding greeZing the Assessed Value in this area. h-knrd to predict student enrollment over the next years. With • • 4 inflation and 9 capital oiiL la}• increasing, they don' t want tp j present a burden# to the Loxpayers. � Resident in Project Area f A�-Leona�Sally) Tunstall, 423 9th St. , U.B. Spoke against the proposed plan 3r- Prim Shesa, 6802 Lawn Haven Ur. , H.B. Propoerty owner in Project Art Spoke in favor of proposed plan. Felt redevelopment k espeZeiall.y of the downtown commercial area is necessary. 3,(-Michelle Mims, 918 Palm, H.B. City resident k No position Spoke on the decline and k quality of life'in downtown over the last ttwo it years. Sylvia Shandrick, 2281- Main Sf. , H.B.. Resident and Property owner in Project- Area. Member of PAC. 'i Spoke in favor of proposed xnd 'plan. j 3 - John Manning,410 9th St. , H.B, Resident in Project Areid Against the proposed plan (his wife submitted his letter) erxrr•aIT a s- o4ogA$wv.w.t'9 Le�►r'e.t fl i- Mrs. Melanie Manning, 410 9th St. , H.B. Resident in Project Area Officer or SOS group :A .Spoke against the proposed plan. } She fmwix is doubtful that redevelopment -is necessary for rehabilitati and revitalizion. For enforcing existing codes and '6re regulations and encourage k private enterprise to improve themselves. ` SOS feels they have filled a void in informing the public. She felt the PAC is a self interest group. She also# spoke on the Terry lawsuit; lack of adequate park acreage in plan; and felt a decision on the proposed plan should be done after Jan. 1, 1977, to assure the protection and assurance of the Montoya legislations d� pDtIG`y� Y�+ !�e••,••..f ,�1<...s.� I.� 7`- �J��•�.• !` � r t i REDWELOPMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 76-2 - a ADDENDUM #3 = November, 1976 • `r S„ ,t } 1 T; r !. �y,yyrp�r��a w,�..w .. _._.. ....�,....--....•-�.,+....�. __.. .w..., .a�.� lr ... ,, .a.-�._ ...._ -...-,...�.....,..rr+�-....�.. rw.i.w+.�++r.wr.Y<Lt!'!'i�r.�-.�/• t � i The followingalternatives assess the environmental impacts associated P with thegeneral land uses of two possible Project Area reductions. 4.5 Downtown/Townlot Project Area This alternative eliminates Area 1 (Old Town) and Area 2 (Mobile Home) , leaving the Downtown Mixed Use Area and the Townlots in the Project Area (figure 4-2) . The implications of such a decision would be as follows: 4.5.1 Land Resources The bluffs north of Atlanta Avenue would not be altered by this pro- ject. The tidal marsh area below the bluffs south of Atlanta would be eliminated from the Project Area thereby reducing the scope of • liquefaction impact on life and property. Residential population sub- ject to liquefaction and earthquake hazard would be reduced by 6,750. i Tlie single archaeological site is elirC hated from the Project Area and no effect is expected. 4.5.2 Water Resources Local drainage problems (increased runoff and decreased percolation) and adverse impacts on water quality would persist. The removal of the area below the bluffs would eliminate the impacts from potential 't � Legional flooding. 1 4.5.3 Biological Impacts s Impacts on vegetation and wildlife would not change substantially. 4.5.4 Traffic, Air Quality, and Noise `r,a �R The reduction of the Project Area would reduce project generated •yehic:le trip ends and air emissions by approximately .36 percent. At ultimate development, 'however, traffic; volumes on streets and arterials within and outside the Project Area would remain unchanged. yy l Areas land 2 will still develop according to the General Plan, main- taining the same level of traffic and air emissions. As a result, the traffic and air quality conclusions arrived at in Section 3 .4 would hold true under this alternative. t S f, 4.5.5 Public Services and Utilities f The removal of Areas 1 and 2 from the Project Area would reduce the projected ultimate demand on public zervices and utilities by approxi- mately 36 percent. w� i i A ' I it y =f, AREA REDUCTIONS II _ 1 V f 4• ::SY•`•`tir:: •:4�:W I$•:h:•`S'` ti t ._J�. - - -- L_ �•. n \ .•:,`.'`\f.'ff•.• l• �.;.�• -; �,• 1.,i. _ sys'w; .SO•. �y�e:,:•:s:':::s}mot --� --- — — -- ---- -- i..:.._ ^, �::•.:ti�s•:;.•:te •., r Z:'�. �"_} } —' ii�'t j{C-"jft- 1 1 {r l: ::: :: :.,::..,.•.f,2f }}L..,'• {.,.•..•. •:r ;• _rl io ....pi r: ; :;4s•.::is •'r. ..;.;:.,.'..: ti.;. ;.s an :r.l i--1 L_ ........-•,Y••-s�-•-'�•.— �.. ,,.,�. i •r=........... :?::::•`',Yt;, { 'a.•.w r''�it" '•� 3 wwr�tis•:i• :: — .......... r. •.;.'.S•Yr:•�::... l Figure 4-2 DU OWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ,AREA � } POSSIBLE PROJECT AREA REDUCTIONS AlSGEJS? 1976 _ �i r /1 i 4 ..5.6 Human Habitat Development according to this alternative would accommodate a total residential population of 12, 198. The projected number of tourists and beach users would remain unchanged. There would also be fewer persons relocated due to the boundary reduction. However, the real imparts on social structure would remain unchanged. Some population relocation would still be necessary in Area 1 north of Atlanta Avenue in order to widen Atlanta and realign it with Orange Avenue. The same would hold true for the mobile home park as Huntington Street •is realigned to connect with Delaware Street:. Demolition and urban character impacts would not change sigrificantly. 4. 5.7 Economic Considerations Most impacts discussed previously are only apparent changes. The boundary changes tend to reduce the magnitude of environmental effects, I� but if Areas 1 and 2 develop according to the General Plan there is no real change in impact over the long-term for all areas combined. The most significant real changes would involve economic consider- . i ations. The loss of Areas 1 and 2 would reduce projected revenues to the Redevelopment Agency. Beyond the first year of the project, the Agency would yield annual net deficits. The deficits Would reflect added costs of parking facilities, a relocated civic center, and townlot improvements. Annual deficits could range frotr. a projected $2.76 million in the third year (1978-79) to $150,000 after 1980. To ' mitigate this effect would require the use o> oa,clde grants or HCD funds. Another possibility would be to reduce annual costs by fore- going a downtown replacement site for the civic center. A final effect of the boundary change would be to reduce the magnitude of revenues diverted from public agencies to the Redevelopment Agency during the period of outstanding debt. These agencies would include the City, Orange County, school districts, and various special p;»rpose districts. 4.6 Downtown Project Area This alternative eliminates Area 1 (Old Town) , Area 2 (Mobile Home) and Area 3 (Townlot) , leaving only the Downtown Mixed Use Area in the Project Area (Figure 4-3).'. The implications of such an alter- native are similar to those described in Section 4 .5 (Downtown/ Townlot Project Area) . Consequently, only those impacts experienced due to further reducing the Redevelopment Project Area through elimination of the Townlot will be described. i Y 4 i ff' AREA REDUCTIONS i � � I ( t i t • i y s :r%t.;{.::_:.::�.:•..:}.y�;. •r.-.;{;;:'•::�•}}:•:•}}:� r•r`••;{.}r \1`.\•c, \:�- ./i .�� :�::f•::•ti::•}}::' '•:ti:•:::•:ti }:'?::.i.S}.ffh��T��.SY.•�,f.L;}}:•}}:':::• }:•:V:15' :•;:.�t.:'f O-N-:ti::•: :I fr.`.Y 1: 1\ ) //"• •�/ •::S:•:::'r ti :: Sl::'`N:�lX.•''IS•:�}h J:•} '"rY..:.,`S ;:;:f.•;'S A..,}...S.. S S.�• . ••• Y/•. v �. :•:ti;:•:;.;:;}:1,., .:'}:•}::•:•::St i:i C t l{..; !.Cr:titi{3i avV�81:ruai}v w �rv.-ums ,s,'• r} r ':�rerr •'rrr f VV/', t • �'� '•'}i:v..:... +,�.,., }; :•:.:t:r _•••y{•f,f• :,;;:rr;:= �T., r^'Se!+t+,��. .vr . \ 'r,': ::%v}' ,:.-::.;:•::.:;.•.•rr r ::::. %:f{#} f_f }'ti:t}:•:•. i}%r }�y;:vu%::;:: }ti f `. .:v: ::s'=:s''••}'••:}:=}:;:}} %MJ1iL , LIr�V4�M',�4VHrlVGTIV J�l'ti 'J'..V'.•.S } 2•::S .•.•.f.1•:.'. ./.. \ • ,T • ::S•::':::.•: .rVM .�wa 'Li.'t•.S•:•�.�1':{ ,:•'L,�tiYY W ✓•• ( ♦ `•.r••, �r.'.S• ;}:•:•:•:. 1 _'=:h=:tti�r:::; :}'�::.,r•�•;::.�.�'r,},"�.rf•::r jf :.;;:==S ;.,rfr•'•}:Ttir ti.•' `�} s{x;:-•,T,ev, 1 :fn{�: :;r.::: �ti:,.;{.;i•:�•• r�;: :: -''•';r .::>4:%,? }:- •'r'.fh•'•{• •:r :•ti.•r \.1 r; •r :. •'r•'v.s ':g.;:f:-'�,r.•::.•.v}:•. '• { ti s:,.� Iti r.•.• �},%� }rr '.•'%'. .}�:.� }1.er+r .r. ,. ll �: ::.' rr�};:;:;:%: �%•:=:%::�:•. 'i{} ::titisti ' rrx,�i► \rAVJ►LLNL•�Mw� V�.R;};r;.:"• i. v:: :%}•'•::ti::::• Y.S• Yti•}1'7{�Y,'Y,'.�:Yl�a 7YS•'T. �yLY�•yyy�•T� �1[4MVY.VVM�{�IM MM, JLa' Y?;:�;.;.}`�}�,' ;r,?:�5:;.�::}:•••'S'' {}';;�T:''Jr�;:�i.: -.` {;; y{.,•;Y�.:: •`}5,J%.sCam:;}. :�.❖:S? r}T:,Y} S'•:L : : "'., ..T S•.r. ❖.: :`:❖::•::•}.❖. :t .;f.S:,.,::. fi.•~.it{•:{%si'{=f:: {{fr'.}�..s 1a ..f..::::Xs?4•:{r{},• }{,L#••:r !I ,^^'1• :if.;.fr :;'.}f r :•:ti :•.• ;.}`: :%�:%:=::.:�.•:.••:.•.•. •'.�• .•v. }:r..,}..f•Ls{r.•: s,•. � �'• � r v s} �;s ~ "n^r};M:rv .r.'4 -4 r--•--=u .%%%-•. v •: :•'.•.sINme:' }}: .r L:l' S;r •.:}: f1r •' .'.}••.. .Y S•'• .}•:`:;:;:;:•::•:;i:lr .,s, }{wY r. .., . { 1 :•r %'.j =::p-- ik- .•:. :•:%}:}:•:•:'.•:=:•:%}:%::i% :�.•.• . _.. ..-�1_� :•.�::.•'.• ..mil S'�'}' }}}:ti 'tirti:•:Tti 4:•S•.f,.':•.S��::::; �--J � �...�.n }..�.} ..�. j tir:%'}titi%'v:•.}• :};i•:%7:;:16NX iF.;'r}• +wir.❖r'� '3Y'.:r. --•.r~• X. wd ,:ti- ....:. 3 I _ Figure 4-3 i F DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA y POSSIBLE PROJECT AREA REDUCTIOJ'lS { AUGUST I Ll 4.6.1 Land Resources Eliminating Areas 1, 2, and 3 would reduce the Project Area by 503 acres. Correspondingly, 13,8°0 less persons would be generated. In terms of impacts on land resources, this means that 503 fewer acres and 13,850 fewer persons would be affected by the project in terms of liquefaction and expansive soils. 4.6.2 Traffic, Air Quality, Noise This alternative would generate approximately 73% fewer residents than the proposed project (5095 persons as compared to 18,942 under the proposed project) . Vehicle trip generation and air emissions at- tributed to residents would be reduced by the same percentage. Cor- respondingly, negative .impacts from traffic noise would not be as severe under this alternative. Projected traffic from tourists and residents outside the Project Area coming into the Project Area would remain unchanged from the proposed project. 4.6.3 Public Services and Utilities Since this alternative would generate 73% fewer persons than the pro- posed project, ultimate demand for public services would be reduced by the same percentage. 4.6.4 Human Hahitat Population Intens#.ty Population associated with this alternative is projected at 51095 i persons, 13,850 persons less than projected for the proposed project. The number of tourist and beach users will remain the same under this alternative as detailed in section 3.7 .1 of the EIR. Demolition and Rehabilitation The public improvements scheduled to occur within the Old Town, Mobile Home, and Townlot Areas under the. proposed project would no longer occur as part of the Redevelopment Project. 1n alternative method of upgrading utilities and streets in these loca-,.ions would have to be developed. Urban character Eliminating the Old Town, Mobile Home, and Townlot Areas from the Project Area would hamper the development of a uniform image for Downtown Huntington Beach. Limiting the boundaries of the Project Area to "Downtown" would nean that within the Project Arec! , the exist- ing image of an old seaside recreation and oil community would be transformed into a modern tourist resort/sre--ialty commercial image. Ad ft. 2 f But outside the project area, particularly in the Townlot and old Town Areas, the old image would continue on. Consequently, the Downtown Area of Huntington Beach would have two separate images and the City's goal to establish community (as outlined in the adopted Policy Plan) would not be furthered. 4.6.5 Economic Considerations The elimination of Areas 1, 2, and 3 would reduce projected revenues to the Redevelopment Agency. Given the size of the Townlot Area and the quality of development removed, the Agency's annual deficits would exceed those generated in Section 4. 5.7. The $150,000 annual deficits from 1980 to 1984 would be eliminated since these costs reflect improvements for the Townlot Area. To balance the cumulative losses, outside grants or }1CD funds would be required, and another method would be needed to finance street improvements in the Townlot Area. A final effect of the boundary change would be to substantially reduce the magnitude of revenues diverted from public agencies to the Redevelopment Agency durirg the period of outstanding debt under incremental financing. i ..'...,.,w,..rr._-......��_... _....._........r-..�..__... ......�. � ., .lY-.. ... ...-..r�...�.-....�...._-...�.��.�....V-�...•+.w...��-�....� ��...�..yyrey/r.�� • I I SUWIARX OF EVIDENCE FOR THE E10hr'NTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 . Land Use Conditions A. Project Area Size: 688 acres, 78% developed, 228 vacant D. Residential Uses: 27%, 3400 units 1. scattered development on small lots 2. incompatible use intrusions C. Commercial Uses: 4% 1. declining care 2. marginal businesses D. Industrial Uses: 3% E. Institutional Uses: 1% F. Open Space: 15% G. Streets and Alleys: 40% H. Zoning 1. Residential 49% 2. Commercial 371 3. Community Facility 14% I 2. Structural Conditions A. Downtown Specialty Commercial Area 1. pre-1933 structures: 70% 2. unsafe construction materials and methods 3. signs of deterioration H. General Cummercial. Area generally satisfactory C. Townlot Area mixed age, condition, and type D. Lake Street - Atlanta Avenue Area 1. mixed age 2. some substandard units E. Eastern Pacific Coast Highway: generally standard � 3. Fire Safety Conditions A. Project Area 3rd in fire incidences B. Project Area 2nd in fire-related non-emergencies C. Project Area has 30 percent more combined incidents than remainder of City i i 4. Public Facilities ; A. Deficient Storm Drains - B. Sanitary Sewers inadequate to accommodate growth ; C. Water System deficient for fire requirements D. Street lighting deficient E. Streets and alleys structurally deficient F. Traffic capacities and parking facilities inadequate 5. Critne Incidents A. Crime in Project Area up 8% per year B. 207% greater deployment of police i C. Highest incidents of burglaries and narcotics 6. Medical Emergencies: 40-50% higher than remainder of City 7. Social Conditions A. 14% vacancy rate B. High percentage of renter occupied units C. 50% of City' s subsidized units . D. High concentrations of young and elderly E. Few minorities F. Significant percentage of low income households B. Economic Conditionr I ) A. Less than 5%' of City work force f B. Stagnating business activity C. Minimal share of City's assessed valuation D. Increase in values 50% of City rate of increase E. Land Value of greater importance than structures . fY , _ 1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN PROJECT AREA Prepared for Joint public Hearing November 18, 1976 ' I lip i i SUMMARY OF' THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Project Area is summarized here in order that the residents of the City of Hunting- ton aeaoh mny have a reference document. Specific details and additional informatior, about redevelopment for the City's Dcwntcwn Area may be found in the following reports wid documents avallablc at the Planning Department. A. Proposad Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Project (draft) B. Environmental :mpact Report 76-2 Proposed Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Project (final) C. Rules Governing Participation by and Preferonces of Owners, Operators of Businesses, and Tenants in the Huntington Beach Area (adopted August 16, 1976) D. The Report to City Council which also contains the State Relocation Guidelines and Proposed Relocation Plan for the Downtown Project Area. • 1. • I i t INTRODUCTION The Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Area encompasses an area of approximately 688 acres. This Project Area includes the business district in the vicinity of the municipal pier, the surrounding residential areas, the entire Townlot Area to Golden- West Street and Palm Avenue, and the largely undeveloped area east of Lake Street and west of Beach Boulevard. The precise boundaries of the Project Area are illustrated on Figure 1. The Plan establishes land use designations for. the Project Area in an effort to create a new role for Downtown as a beach dnd tourist- oriented environment. The City' s redevelopment strategy is to maximize participation of private intestment in eliminating the blighted and deteriorated conditions presently existing in the Downtown Area. OBJECTIVES The Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Project has the following objectives: A. Elimination of blight and deterioration through land assemblage, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and redevelopment. B. Expansion of the municipal economic ban=_ through redevelopment of portions of the Project Area to tourist-oriented commercial useR. C. Improvement of residential neighborhoods to a quality beach- oriented environment. D. Improvement of traffic circulation within 6-he Project Area through arterial and local street improvements and provisions of mass transit opportunities. E. Provision of low and moderate income housing within or adjacent to the Project Area. I F. Assurance of continued access by the general public to coastal resources. LAND USES i All development in the Project Area shall be in conformance with the Land Use Plan Map as shown in Figure 1. The land uses indicated are for residential, commercial and public use. Mixed use develop- ment concepts are to be provided for in all lani use districts in conformance with all local and state development standards. 2 • 'u Residential: Population densities to be permitted within the residential areas shall not exceed the following limitations: ' Low Density: 0-7 D.U./gross acre or 1 A.U. per 25 ft. beach lot in Townlot or Oldtown area. Typically, low density develop- ment would consist of single family homes attached or detached and low density planned residential developments (condominiums) . Medium Densiit_�: 7--15 D.U./gross acre. Typically, this resi- dential density yields triplex and fourplex apartment units, larger apartment units and medium density planned residential developments (condominiums) . .' High Density: Over 15 D.U./gross acre. As the most intensive residential category, high density typically allows for larger apartment or condominium developments which may include multi- story or high rise development. The total number of residential units within the Project Area will ,) be approximately 8,140 under the above density provisions. Commercial: General Commercial: This category is considered to have two pr mary components, convenience retail and office. Typical � uses in convenience retail are most retail commercial activities Including but not limited to drug stores, grocery stores, banks, liquor stores, personal services such as laundries, barber shops, dry cleaners, etc. Typcial office uses include general office uses and medical and dental facilities. Specialty Commercial: This category permits the development of shopp ng facilities appeal to shoppers seeking a novel, leisure-oriented shopping experience. Typically, these facili- ties would be located in centers and have a unifying theme or architecture. Acceptable uses under this category would be restaurants, small retail shops, and other related uses. Tourist Commercial: This category permits those uses that- appeal to the tourist market. Acceptable uses under this category would be hotel and motel facilities, convention facili- ties, theme •park/tourist attraction, and other related uses. Institutional: Community racilities: This Is a general category for community facilities. Typical uses are libraries, community service centers, recreation centers, senior citizens centers and other public Facilities. �-'' Open Space: Parks and Recreation Facilities: This category is for all s gni icant open space and recreational facilities whet-her public or quasi public. RIGHTS-O?-WAY AND CIRCULATION The principal streets and highways within the Project Area are shown on the Map. These streets and highways together with other public rights-of-way within the Project Area may be widened, altered, abandoned, closed or realigned as necessary for proper development and public streets, alleys and easements may be created as needed to support redeveloped uses and efficient circulation system. DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS All real property shall be developed and rehabilitated in conform- ance with the controls and requirements of this Plan and all appli- cabl•a local and state codes. The Agency is authorized to establish such standards as heights of buildings, land coverage, design criteria, traffic circulation. and access, avid other development and design controls necessary for proper development of both public and private areas within the Project Area. In establishing development standards, the Agency may require that such standards may exceed but not be less restrictive than the requirements of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS The Agency proposes to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight and deterioration in the Project Area by: I 1. Acquistion of certain real property; 2. Rehabilitation of: existing structures approved for retentions 3. Demolition or removal of certain buildings and improvements; 4. Installation, construction, or reconstruction, of streets, utilities, and other site improvements; 5. Disposition of property for uses in accordance with this Plan; 6. Redevelopment of land .for uses in accordance with this Plan. The Agency may acquire real property located in the Project Area through negoiated agreement with the property owner or, if that fails, may utilize the eminent domain procedure in acquiring property. vow 4. PARTICIPATION BY OWNERS AND TENANTS i It is the intent of the Redevelopment Agency to encourage property + owners and tenants to participate in redevelopment of their prop- erties or place of business. Opportunities to participate in redevelopment activities must first be provided to owners and tenants in the Project Area without having to compete with persons and firms who are from outside the Project Area. The Agency has adopted Owner Participation Rules and Regulations which clearly describes the manner in which all Project Area prop- erty owners and tenants may participate in the redevelopment of their property, place of residence, or business. REHABILITATION AND CLEARANCE Any existing structure within the Project Area which has been approved to remain shall be repaired, altered, reconstructed or rehabilitated in conformance with all applicable city codes and ordinances. The Agency is authorized to demolish and clear building and sitrac— tunes within the Project Area as necessary to implement the Pl_:.:1. i PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT The Agency is authorized to install and construct or initiate installation and construction of public improvem^nts and public utilities (within or outside the Project Area) necessary and in accordance with implementation of the Plan. RELOCATION In implementing the Redevelopment Plana, the Agency will attempt to minimize relocation needs. However, when the relocation of a business concern, family or other parson or concern is necessary the Agency shall: 1. Assist in finding other suitable locations; and 2. Make relocation payments. The State's Relocation Guidelines and Relocation Plan for the Downtown Area describe in detail the relocation benefits and assis- tance that the Agency must provide to all Project Area residents, business concerns and others as required by State law. 5. +�►� r�. A i I REAL PROPERTY DISPOSTION AND DEVELOPMENT When the Plan is adopted, the Agency will be authorized to sell, lease, exchange, subdivide, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber by I1 mortgage or deed of trust, or otherwise dispose of any interest ih real property. In accordance with the Plan, the: Agency shall offer real property for purchane and development to owners and tenants within the Project Area prior to the time that real property would be made available for purchase and development by persons who are not owners or tenants in the Project Area. The Agency shall be authorized to pay for, develop, or construct any buildings, facility, structure, or other improvement within or outside the Project Area. PROPOSED FINANCING METHODS Upon adoption of this Plan by the City Council, the Agency is authorized to finance this Project with financial assistance from the City, State of California, property tax increments, interest income, Agency bonds, or any other available source. The most significant method is tax increment financing . Tax increment financirg is the method permitted under State Redevel- opment Law that will allow the City to finance projects and activi- ties within the Downtown Project Area from funds generated in the Project Area. Tax increment financing works like this: When a Redevelopment Plan is adopted, the Agency determines the present income from property taxes collected in the Project Area. Through redevelopment, the Agency will cause major now developments to take place in the Area. The increase in assessed value from new developments generates new tax revenues which will go directly to the Redevelopment: Agency and not to other taxing agencies while the taxing agencies will generally continue to receive the same amount of revenues they got before redevelopment. The additional revenues over and above those flowing at the time the plan is adopted will continue to be paid to the Agency until it has completed the project and paid all .its debts. The Agency may borrow money and use anticipated tax revenua inerenses to pay off the debt incurred. DURATION OF THE PIAN The provisionsof this Plan shall be effective for 35 years from the date of adoption of this Plan by the City Council. G. 1� f .MaiY•LJ,.-.r r:t•i.1i....�+s R..w........... Ir. ..,... ........ .,..... ........ ... r.. ..... .._.. ...�........,.......... ...._ ... �.�.....�-....�..�.+r•r•....•.r..rw.rnwV.' r is .. ... .. . __._ .. The purpose of the 35 year period of time is to assure the Agency control of all development, rehabilitation and recycling to be in conformance with this Plan. If implementation of the Redevelopment Plan should occur prior to the 35 year period of time, and if there is no outstandi"g bonded indebtedness, the Agency may determine the need for redevelopment no longer exists and request the City Council, in accordance with State law, to terminate the Redevelopment Plan. FjP 7 I r RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE Low Densitv 0•7 D.U./Gross Acre 3' Parks& Recreational Facilities Arterial Street Medium Density ,-15 D.U./Cross Acre PUBLIC FACILITIES sarisaa■rn tsR Project Area Boundary High Densit v(her 15 D.U./Cross Acre Propo,ed tieighborlso(A Park COMMERCIAL Reach ® General j Transportation Center Specialty Recreation Center Tourist Commercial INSTITUTIONAL '•�,� Cotnfnunity Facilities Taleu t:. s ariosu� sis sir rrsr�se sri ormMMria ups • ��i1 i •.tip:••. ••L,�,� ••Yf � li so Rx QA& � •i'•tt :l•:. h Y •.v 0 0 as �+7r8 i ltrsiAs�lsla ~ •J ' f'�'` �Y�'�rJG`` +�LF �^�v�. .� _�� '�® REDEVELOPMENT ELOP'MENT PLAN MAP 1 t TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council, FROM: Edward D. Seli.ch, Acting Director DATE: November 16, 1976 i ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator j SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Since our first public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan, considerable public discussion on the merits and methodology of the Downtown revitali- zation effort has been generated. The Planning Department ttas reviewed the public testimony and met with interested citizens; and as you requested, we are presenting Council with a selection of planning options in response to the concerns voiced so far. The Community Redevelopment Commission and the Project Area Committee reviewed these options at their joint meeting of November 11, and their concerns are included in the following report. PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: First we would like to focus your attention on the six plan amendments :) proposed prior to the October 11 public hearing. Five of these amendments (Exhibits A and B) are in response to newly adopted legislation that be- comes effective January 1, 1977. Generally these proposed changes set limitations on bonded indebtedness, tax increment revenues; 'And time period to initiate eminent domain proceedings while requiring more specific details on public facilities and improvements. Also included i in thaFe early proposals is a Planning Commission recommendation to in- Cludo in the Plan requirements for annual work programs, budgets, and ; independent audits. FURTHER PLAN OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Limitations on intensity: On several occasions, the: public has stated a concern that som��tation be incorporated in the Plan to define the intensity of development allowable under it. As the Plan presently exists, intensity and density are controlled by zoning. a. Restate Zoning' To ad3resa this concern more specifically, the r1an could b3 amended to restate the provisions of the zoning ordinance in terms of maximum residential densities and structural heights now permitted. These maximums would change as the xoning •ordi- nance is changed. The Redevelopment Commission and the PAC concur. b. Zonis mihimum Requirement To make the Redevelopment AGency's responsibility to the zoning ordinance more explicit, the Plan could be amended as follows: Revise existing Section 4 .3 (S 408) p. 11 --last sentence to read: "Such standards may exceed--but may not be less restrictive than-- the requirements of the City' s zoning ordinance." The Redevelop- ment Commission and the PAC concur. c. Tem orar . Hei ht Limitation Shouid the Council desire to impose more permanent restrictions, height limitations could be incorporated into the Plan It is the recommendation of the Redevelopment Commission and PAC that a temporary height limit of 35 feet be imposed in the Project Area until a comprehensive high rise ordinance is developed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. 2 !^� d. Height Limitation A more definitive height limitation could also be imposed if desired. Such height limitations, in addition to the density restrictions in the Plan and the Zoning ordinance, world set identifiable parameters on development intensity. A possible height limitation is suggested below: Add new Section 4.3.4 Height Regulations "Development w°'.:hin the Project Area may not exceed the maximum hf-ight limitations set forth in this plan and as illustrated in :fyure 4. 3; a. In Gistrict I (General Commercial and Specialty Commercial Areas around Main Street) no structure shall exceed seventy-five (75) feet in height. b. In District Il (Iligh Density Area fronting Pacific Coast Highway between Sixth and Goldenwest Streets sough of Walnut) no struc- ture shall exceed forty-five (45) feet in height. C. In District III (remaining residential area west of Sixth Street) no structure shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. d. In District IV (Tourist Commercial, General Commercial and High Density Residential Areas east of Lake Street) no structure shall exceed the height provisions of applicable zoning ordinances. e. In District V (Medium Density Residential Areas east of Lake Street) no structure shall exceed thin:y-five (35) feet ;in height. This option was found unacceptable to both the Redevelopment Commission and the PAC. It shcU1.1 be noted that any limitations placed in the plan restricts the flexibility of the Agency in responding to future conditions. Therefore, temporary height restrictions pending formulation of an ordinance is probably the more desirable option. 2. Low and Moderate Income Housing: Concern has also been voiced regarding a commitment to low and moderate income housing. unrelated to the Redevelopment Plan, the City is currently involved in provision of low and moderate income housing through its Housing Assistance Plan. At present, about 50 pec.ent of the nub- sidized units in the City are in the Redevelopment Project Area. Should the Council wish to guarantee further commitment to housing for low and moderate-income households, a portion of the Agency's tax increment funding could be specifically allocated to such a purpose. Such an allocation will be required by State law in Plans adopted afcor January 1. ill i •3 To channel funds to low and moderate income housing, the Plan could be amended as follows: Add new Section 5.6 (S 516) Low and Moderate Income Housing. "The Agency shall utilize noz less than twenty (20) percent of tax increment revsnues allocated to the Agency and not otherwise pledged to indebtedness for the provision of low and moderate income housing within or outside the Project Area. ' Exceptions to the 20 percent requirements are perm,i.ssible if one of the three findings, based on substantial evidence, is made: 1. that no need exists in the community, the provision of which would benefit the project area; t 2. that some stated percentage less than 2V percent is sufficient f to meet such housing need; or 3. that a substantial effort to meet such needs in the community is being made and that this effort is equivalent in impact to the tax increment funds otherwise required to be scat aside, after giving consideration to the need that can be reasonably foreseen because of housing displacement from within or adjacent to the project area, because of increased employment opportunities, or because of any other direct or indirect result of implementation of the redevelopment plan. " The Redevelopment Commission concurs with this option. The PAC finds it unacceptable. 3. duration of the Plan: Requests have also been made to limit the duration of the Plan. Section 9, page 30, already sets a maximum 35 year .limit on the life of thv Plan. Previously proposed amendments also suggest a 12 year limit on the use of eminent domain and a 30 year limit on the establish- ment of Indebtedness. The Redevelopment Commission and the PAC find these options acceptable. I 4. Work Pro rams and Budgeting: Citizens have suggested that controls or safeguards on Agency activities be established through mandatory work programs and budgeting. The proposal of the Planning Commission (Exhibit B) calling for ., annual work programs and independent audits addresses these sug- gestions. The following amendments to the Planning Commission pro- posal could further delineate Agency activities. i a. Long-Term Program Add new Section 11.2 (S 1102) Establishment of Long Term Program Following adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency shall prepare and submit to the City Council for approval a long-term program indicating redevelopment C�ctivities and priorities in- cluding generalized budgeting and financing information. b. Five Year Work Program c� new Section 11.3(S li43) Formation of Five Year Work Program The Agency shall prepare and update previously approved five year work programs annually and submit them to the City Council for 11.iid;i�ii7ffr'AiifL' "L'aR"�' vy llr.a...+++w•r...+.++�.-w..�.�++.�...++.r... ___. - 4 approval. Program documentation shall be designed in sufficient detail to provide a basis for the City Council to approve the budget and financing plan for the program period. The Redevelopment Commission and the PAC find these options acceptable 5. Use of Eminent Domain: Many people seem to fet' ? that the Redevelopment Plan proposes condem- nation and elimination of existing residential uses within the Townlot Area. This has never been thc: intent of the Plan. Should the Council wish to stipulate this fact more definitely, the following amendment might be in order. Add to existing Section 5. 1. 1 (S 502) p. 18 as third paragraph: "However, the Agency is not authorized to acquire by eminent domain for purposes of resale for private development any property within the area bounded by Goldenwest Street, Palm Avenue, Seventh Street, Acacia Avenue, Sixch Street, Walnut Avenue, Twenty Second Street, and Orange Avenue (Townlot Area) . " The Redevelopment Commission concurred with this option. The PAC did not believe that any limitation on eminent domain should be im- posed in the Plan: 6. Facts of Tax Increment Financing: Finally, many people have been apprehensive about the impacts tax j increment financing may have on the school districts. In a well- respected report by Ralph Anderson and Associates, serious critique j of tax increment financing concludes that no serious fiscal problems i are created for other local taxing agencies by such financing. if i in spite of this well-formed conclusion the project is found to work a t hardship on a school district, the Redevelopment law permits the Agency to make payments to alleviate that hardship. Such provision could be expressed by the following amendment: Add to existing Section 5. 3.1 (S 604) Division of Tayes, p. 27: "The Agency shall be authorized to make payments to other taxing agencies, other than the City, which in the Agency' s determination is appropriate •co alleviate any financial burden or detriment caused to any taxing agency by the project." The Redevelopment Commission and the PAC concur with this option. RESPONSE TO OTHER PLAN ISSUES Many comments submitted by the public cannot be addressed in terms of amendments but deserve response. They are presented here in two categories: policy issues and plan i.ssw ,. it I s 5 1. Policy Issues: a. Destination Resort Concept The most evident policy insue raised over the last month concerns the Destination Resort Concept. This is the fundamental concept of the Redevelopment Plan and was selected by the City Council in 1975. The Destination Resort Concept calls for a maximization of the City' s coastal and climate resources to attract tourist dollars to the community to offset costs generated now by current beach users and to supplement the general community tax base. The Proposed Redevelopment Ylan is designed to implement this goal by revitalizing the Downtown Area. If the Destination Resort Concept: is no longer acceptable to Council, then the Redevelopment Plan should ba redrawn in light of new objectives. b. Growth A second key policy concern is that of growth. Some have stated the Downtown Area should stay "as it is. " This will not ae the case with or without Redevelopment. Even if just vacant land is developed under existing zoning, the population of the area will increase significantly and the tourist-traffic to the beach will continue to increase as the population of Southern California i grows. The purpose of the Redevelopment Plan is not, therefore, to generate growth that would not otherwise exist, but rather to channel and control that growth over time in a manner desirable to the Project Area and the City as a whole. w. Plan Issues a. Inclusion of Area E This land has been included in the project area because it is necessary to carry out the plan objectives of creating a tourist- oriented environment by providing market support to the commercial development in the Main Street area. A Redevelopment Plan here is needed to provide controls necessary to insure a balance of land uses which am necessary to the overall success of the plan and also to stimulate a methodical recycling of under-utilized ocean- front property to its highest potential as provided for in the Plan. In this area, the following redevelopment activities are contemplated: to assist in the financing of major street alignments to create more attractive parcels for development by providing off-site im- provements; and to provide public amenities harmonious with the creation of a tourist/commercial identity. Such amenities may include special street furniture, landscaping, signs, pedestrian crossings to the beach, and public spaces. b. Inclusion of Area C The Townlot Area is included in the Plan because it contains A significant number of structurally inefficient dwelling units <-•,i inadequate public facilities such as streets, sidewalks, drainage systems, lighting and other utilities. The area is characterized by substandard land subdivision in which ove!. QO percent of the land I G is devoted to streets and alleys in an inefficient circulation pattern . Some residential rehabilitation is necessary as are new or replaced curbs and gutters, alley improvements, and sidewalks where none exist. Contemplated redevelopment activities include: assistance for housing rehabilitation programs; provision of public improvements, provision of public amenities necessary to create community identity for a residential neighborhood adjacent to the tourist/commercial area. c. Use of Assessment District vs. Redevelopment In theory, the use of an assessment district to finance the majority of improvements needed in the Townlot Area is possible. However, assessment district financing has a very immediate and direct impact upon the property owners residing in the assessment district, of i course. If utilized to carry out street lighting, utilities, etc. , I � it results in an immediate tax increase to the property owners concerned and increases their tax burden considerably. The imposition of an assessment district can cause some very unequal impacts; that is, the immediate tax increase of an assessment district might be quite a burden to an older, single-family home owner but a relatively lighter burden on a major developer nearby. The tax increment approach does not have this impact at all upon property owners in the Redevelopment Project Area. Under this method various desirable improvements such as street lighting, utilities, additional parking, etc. , can be carried out and there is no immediate or direct impact on the taxpayer in the project area. What is happening is that the tax revenues from new improve- ments in the area which could be represented even by simple re- modeling additions that homeowners were making to their dwellings are retained by the local redevelopment agency to pay for new improvements locally rather than sent off to other taxing agencies such as the County, the School District, the Flood Control District, the Metropolitan Water District, etc. It really becomes a question of whether the local property owner in a given project wants to see the future tax increases from new development utilized for direct improvement of local conditions in the project area. The redevelopment process enables the local community to use the tax revenues from local improvements to carry out betterment in the local area. d. Postpone Adoption Until Next Year It has been suggested that adoption of a plan be delayed until after January 1 under the mistaken belief that new legislation will then alter the Plan. As previously discussed, the first series of amendments proposed prior to the October 11 public hearing would bring the Proposed Plan into conformance with most laws effective January 1. I 1 . 7 The main reason for adoption prior to January 1 is money. I the Plan is adopted in November, tax increment funds will be avail- able to the Agency in August, 1977 . However, if Plan adoption is delayed until .after January 1, tax increment money will not be available until fiscal year 1978-78 almost two years from now. The 1977-78 increment will be lost. if the Agency is to continue to operate until that time, it can only do so with loans from } the City. a. Civic Center Site Use Recently some people have suggested that the old Civic Center Site remain in public use. The Proposed Redevelopment Plan presently designates the site for Co"unercial use but public uses, by definition,, would be permissible. You will recall that this issue received considerable attention during the formulation of the General Plan and the Preliminary Plan. At that time, it was decided that the site should be identified as Commercial in case it could be used as a catalyst for spurring private development. If such opportunity did not arise, public uses could always continue. 'd. Public Vote on The Plan It seems to be of general concern that the pubii.: will not be allowed to vote on the Redevelopment Plan. Redevelopment is governed by the State health and Safety Code which does: not pro- vide for referendum. Legislation introduced this ,year would have permitted referendum on redevelopment issues, but this bill was , vetoed by the Govarnor for technical reasons. t e. Elimination of oil Problems The question has been often asked: "Why can't existing oil regu- lations be used to clean up oil--related problems in the Project Area. " The answer is they can be to a certain extent. The existing oil regulations are presently being enforced. However, these r gulations cannot force abandonment of oil operations nor can they eliminate oil encumbrances such as the multiple sub- surface oil lines. These lines are both active and inactive and held under many ownerships. They run both perpendicular and parallel to the streets and alleys and even exist on-site making private development and even public improvements ex- tremely difficult. it should be kept in mind, however, that oil-related problems are not the overriding concern. substandard subdivision of land, lack of or inadequate public improvements, structural deterioration and diseconomic use of land are the target problems of the Redevelopment Plan. MF:gc } i i I _ —Z,XHIBTT lj ADDENDUM TO THE PROPOSEn REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Addition to 5.1.1 (S502) Acquistion of Real Property (as third Paragraph) Eminent domain proceedings to acquire property within the Project Area must be convii,ced within twelve (12) years of the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Plan. i l Acid to 5.0.4 (`15201 _Vcycl(jlu'Knt (New; delete existing; 1st paragraph) To the extent now or hereafter permitted i)y law, the Agency is authorized to rehabilitate, develop or construct, or cause to he rehabilitated, de- veloped or constructed, dwelling; units for rental or sale to persons or families of low or moderate income where such dwellings are necessary to replace dwelling; units for low quid moderate income persons removed from the housing; stock as part of the Project. To the extent now or hereafter permitted by law the Agency may pay all or a part of the value of the land for and the cost of the installation and crn- struction of any building, facility, structure or other improvement which is publicly owned, either within or without the Project Area, and may reimburse the community or other public corporation for all or a part of the value of such land or dll'or part of the cost of such building, facility, structure or other improvement, or botli, subject to the consent of the City Council and the determination and findings to be made under Health and Safety Code Section 33445. j The following public improvements may be provided by the Agency or may be provided by the City or other public corporation with reimbursement of all or a portzon of attendant costs to be made by the Agency upon the appropriate determinations and findings of the City Council as required by law: 1. New or reconstructed streets and other public ways. Z. Water, sewer and utility systems. 3. Street lighting, street furniture and other similar improvements. The following public facilities zmay be provided by the Agency or may be pro- vided by the City or other public corporation with reimbursement of all or a ppoortion of the value of necessary land or improvements or both to be made by the j%gency upon the appropriate findings and determinations of the City Cotmcil as required by law: 1. Public malls in the downtown core area. x. Public parking facilities in the downtown and beach areas. 3. Pedestrian overpasses, underpasses or other means of pedestrian traffic flow in the downtown area. I r -2- . 4. Improvements to the Huntington Beach Municipal pier. 5. Improvements to the former Civic Center site for public use. 6. Public mass transit termii,al facili�ies in the -! ,wntown area. 7. Improvements to an existing community center in the residential "town lot" area. i I I i 6.3.2 (S605) Limitation Upon Taxes Allocated to the Agency f The portion of taxes described in paragraph two (2) of section 6.3.1 to be allocated to the Agency shall not exceed a cumulated total of $35 million i fcr capital expenditures; however, should bonds be issued, such portion of taxes shall not exceed $80 million. { 6.3.3. (S606) Limitation Upon Establishment of Indebtedness Loans, advances and other indebtedness to be repaid from such allocation of j taxes as described in paragraph two (2) of section 6.3.1. may be established at any time within 30 years of the date of adoption of this Plan. Such in- � debtedness may not be established subsequent to experation of said 30 year ' period. Such loans, advances, or indebtedness may be repaid over a period of time longer than sucli time limit. 6.3.4 (S607) Limitation Upon Amount of Bonded Indebtedness Outstanding bonded indebtedness to be repaid in whole or in part from the allo- cation of taxes described in paragraph two (2) of section 6.3.1 may not exceed r $30 million at any one time. f i I EXIITBIT I) SUGGESTED ADDITION TO PROPOSFD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DOI-INT014N 'I I I �II �I i 11. 0 (S1100) METHODS FOR PROGRAMMING ACTIVITIES AND MEASURING ACCOMPLISHMENTS j 11.1 (51101) General Description of the Proposed Activities The Plan will provide a means for carrying out redevelopment activities in sub-areas of the Project by programming and timing activities in order to achieve systematic accomplishments as funds become available and as development opportunities occur. Specific plans and programs shall be prepared pursuant to this Plan on an annual basis within the context of a long-term program. Staging of activities should permit annual redevelopment activities in several separate contiguous or non-contiguous sub-areas. The long term program and its annual increments shall be submitted to the City Planning Commission and to all other City Departments to which the program and the increments are directly relevant at the time the program and increments are submitted to the Council. 11. 2 (51102) Programming for Annual Incremental Activities 1. The Agency shall prepare new and update previously approved activity programs annually and submit them to the City Council for approval. Program documentation shall be designed insufficient detail to provide a basis for the City Council to approve the budget and financing i plan for the activit: year. Such documentation shall include but not be limited to activity programs for major Project activities such as real est*:ate acquisition and relccation. The consideration by the Council. of each annual activity program submitted by the Agency shall include a review of the use of tax increment financing in carrying out the Plan. The Council, in approving each annual activity program, i shall establish appropriate limits, controls, standards and criteria for the use of tax increment financing and the expenditure of tax increments and tax allocation bond proceeds in carrying out each annual activity program. 2. In formulating 1--he activity program, the Agency shall work closely with the departments of the City and other public bodies whose interests and resources may be affected by the proposed redevelopment activities. In formulating such programs the Agency shall also consult with and prepare the programs with the advice of an advisory committee appointed by the Mayor, to be comprised of representatives of a fair cross section of the owners, businessmen, residents and trade or other organizations in the Project area. 11.3 (S1103) Management System i The Agency shall prepare progress schedules which clearly portray the schedules of activities and which provide a means to measure actual accomplishment against the schedule. The Agency shall utilize a formal management system involving sequential event control. The progress schedules and formal management system must be main- tained on a current basis throughout the activity year and be uti.11zed by the Agency to supervise progress and be available for review by representatives of the City on a periodic basis. 11.4 (S11.04) Annual Independent Audit The Council shall cause to be performed at Agency expense an annual independent audit cov6ring the operations of the Agency in carrying out this Plan. All such annual independent audits shall be public records of the Agency. II j i III II I Ai AI► t _ _Icy• _ - .� Li Li UI i . C-._)E11E [JC NM VLO E�- E lE lE l 1 ElE F-I E� E�IEJEJ 0 �- .r. PARTICIPANTS IN THE NOVEMBER 18, 1976 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PUBLIC 11r11R?NC City Council Staff Mayor Wieder Administration Pattinson Belsito Coen Harlow Gibbs Matthews Siebert Cohoon Shenkman Bartlett Attorney Bonfa Planning Commission Amsbury O'Connor Slates Boyle Planning Parkinson Selich Finley Florian Gibson Austin Newman Contreras Shea Kohler Redevelopment Commission Fire Perez Picard Garofalo Gerspach Klinge Ott Milkovich Bazil Harborn and Beaches Granger Moorhouse Greenbaum Police Project,Area. Committee Robitaille Whaling City Clerk Mandic Wentworth Schroeder Jarrard Brockway Shandrick pIO Terry Reed Mulligan Shea Building Bennett Vogelsang Henricksen Gaffney Public Works Christensen Hartge Wright Redevelopment Attorney 2 Court Reporters Joe Caames Consultants Clemens Sjoberg Rogers } I NOTICE 1 I 14OTICE IS HERESY GIVEN THAT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HELD HOHLAY, JANUARY 17, 1977, WAS ADJOURNED TO MONUAY, JANUARY 31, 1977, AT 7:00 P.H., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA. 1 Alicia M. Wentworth Clerk for Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California By 4puty City Clark THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE NOTICE WAS POSTED ON TILE BULLETIN HOARD AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL CHANDER OF THE CIVIC C-'=R, HUNTINGTON REACH, CALIFORNiA, 014 TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1977, AT 9,00 A.M. Alicia M. Wentworth Clark for Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California I Py E)Qputy City Clerk Lz�RTIFICATE OF MAILING (Notice to Property Owners) I E. Ronald Contreras whose business address is2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, -Cal..if rA& do hereby certify that I caused to be mailed a copy of the enclosed notice jof public hearing and statement concerning acquisition of property by the Redevelopment Agency, to each assessee of land in the project area of the proposed Huntington Beact: Downtown Redevelopment Project as shown on the last equalized roll., according to the list of such ansessees and their addresses attached to this cert.ificat •; and that I personally mailed such notice and statement by deppsiting a copy of same, addressed to each such listed last known assessed, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, in the United States mail at Huntington Beach, California, on September 21, 1976 Copies of all returned receipts are on file in the office of the City Clerk. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. r Dated: October 11, 1976 E. Ronald Contreras Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENTS (1) Notice of Public Nearing - City Council (2) Notice of Public Hearing - Redevelopment: commission (3) Statement of Acquisition of Property (4) List of Assassees and Addresses J • CITY OF HunTln Ton BEACH J•� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENIAL RESOURCES P. 0. BOX 190, WNTINGTON BE.1CN, CALIFORNIA 9264E 1714) 536.5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment Commission Planning Commission ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning Department DATE: November 16, 1976 I SUBJECT: MATERIALS FOR DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing on the Downtown Redevelopment Plan is scheduled for Thursday, November 18, at 5:00 p.m. in the Huntington Beach High School l Gym. The following items are transmitted for your review prior to that hearing: 1. Response to public continent 2. Redevelopment Commission Resolution 3. Proposed Redevelopment Plan ! A. Report to City Council 5. Addendum to Report to City Council 6. State Relocation Guidelines 7. EIR Transmittal 8. EIR and Addendum 9. Planning Commission Report and Addendum 10. PAC Report 11. Owner Participation Rules 12. General Correspondence i � Items not previously transmitted to the City Council are printed in blue. Items printed in white were transmitted for t'r,e October .11, 1976 public hearing and are unchanged from that time. aefu y mitted, • i Acting Director EDS:MF:ja J 1 Encicuures 1 I 1 { Ira 1,1,ey e b NvN7 r�4 7/u zl-* c 7 .w yO Lmllboord Internotional TOkht 1975 . G�4 (l� ,j a4 a .. � 1971 All /-oz 1 � r l•� G h� a crud-�i,�•�rs�a �c��u-�. � V � D / � f • �l•L] I G�� GOS Q J , 1 • i 1 4 , Billboard Talent Forum 1975 -04" 6L-e �� ,,,.�,�c7...-- ..r�c...c_.(:l.t-/� l..c�xJ v'�,/l._.L• �'ILx-ti-i.C�..• ,..St�r�./(. ✓.�—+•- �.cti1�' d..�-ri. �,tt--,�t....v CC., ....i1''Yt-�.L�-�1J • C�-el�--{'�� `--� /�C..� cu •/r�. .--,�,�. .-�_.r,�, c� �- .tar, ,p4 .-�-�- �9 73 .mil -mil C/U C [(,�.4 �.t. ✓� A, I I � !IliInternational Talent Forum 1975 1,../�LL/ �t./ � V> 4''L•-�)�J ✓ G.1 5 Gib • • it �5 Lr.'1..ri1..• t,r�u1.-L•• t.-� 1.�"L�i •'tom � ceL.-� (r..•�j � CL 6L_-a W)V I C{1 -- /ICJ �� V /� �/�.�CjtJ''C.-C., �IJ--►� r- �L�v``' �1�..��zR....,�,..,. 1...�)'1..L' t�f�-C..(.t,��t��• y 1...--�o✓'L�rr�..A-,--y., �,/�--'--•arv.-c-�•- �.-��./C.Lt.r�l..rti--,�...�(,c...�-�-�•�-'�•� Ok /V, �x • Billboord International Talent ( 19,75 I 71 �111-1 I r G ""u � 1 /c,..�i.•7tlk.-c.t�t �`�-�•.i� � �--t,�m.c� c....•� 's U�--f`r'P-7�ri/ � Cc...O �,6�--�t.�...�•�-� G...� �i;.-ft-�.� C�i-r�.-�.,a�j � 1...�-�..it.2t�rs.-l.� /�� tic.+-�+► t..�-•�..c. i i G � 11 - ♦ �/r�/ (,j mil. /��`,yL�.rr^j'y c.�Zf�l�—r "t7� �,/L,,•� �'� �'/��.C,... ,,,.t„l��R�! /( .� �.{ �-tom.... r SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1 ✓ FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Land Use Conditions A. Project Area Size: 688 acres, 78% developed, 22% vacant B. Residential Uses: 27%, 3400 units 1. scattered development on small lots 1 2. incompatible use intrusions C. Conunercial Unes: 4% ' 1. declining core 2. marginal businesses D. Industrial Uses: 3t '0, it E. Institutional Uses: 18 J F. Open Space: 15% G. Streets and Alleys: 40% If. Zoning 1. Rosidential 49% 2. Commercial 37% 3. Community Facility 14% ! r 2. Structural Conditions A. Downtown Specialty Commercial Area 1. pre-1933 structures: 70% 2. unsafe construction materials and methods 1 3. signs of deterioration B. General Commercial Area generally satisfactory C. Towulot Area mixed age, condition, and type D. Lake Street - Atlanta Avenue Area 1. mixed age 2. some substandard units E. Eastern Pacific Coast Highway: generally standard 3. Fire Safety Conditions A. Project h.rea J"rd in fire incidences i B. Project Area 2nd in fire-related non-emergencies C. Project Area has 30 percent more combined incidents than remaihder of City f- ._._......__........._._.... .......,. ... .. ' ,. . .. ., ......_..... .......... ... . .. .. ..,�i•. ;>al�:.ciz.a...��r�:r.*rr+✓irrw • n � _ 4. Public Facilities A. Deficient Storm Drains B. Sanitary Sewers inadequate to accormodate growth C. [stater System deficient for fire requirements D. Street lighting deficient E. Streets and alleys structurally deficient F. Traffic capacities and parking facilities inadequate 5. Crime Incidents A. Crime in Project Area up 88 per year B. 207% greater deployment of police C. Highest incidents of burglaries and narcotics 6. Medical Emergencies: 40-50% higher than remainder of City I 7. Social Conditions A. 14% vacancy rate B. High percentage of renter occupied units C. 50% of City' s subsidized units 0. High concentrations of young and elderly E. Few minorities F. S4.gnificart percentage of low icome households 8. Economic Conditions A. Less than 5%' of City work force B. Stagnating ,'business activity C. Minimal share of City's assessed valuation D. Increase in values 50% of City rateof increase E. Land Value of greater importance than structures I I I- ;7 MAYOR, MEMBERS OF TFII; CITY COUNCIL, C11A I R(1AN G IBSON, CHAIR-MI BAZ 1 L, APJ� MEMBERS i � 'I RS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND RE— DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. THIS IS PERHAPS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT OCCASIONS THE CITY HAS EXPERIENCED OR WILL EXPERIENCE N014 OR FOR SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE. I r1AVE BEEN ASKED TO BRIEFLY REVIEW WITH YOU PAST EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY TO REJUVENATE THE DOWNTOWN AREA IN ORDER TO CREATE A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR BUSINESS 114ITHIN- THE COMIMERCIAL AREA, l THIS AREA WAS ONCE THE CITY OF HUN`iINGTON BEACH"--!T 14AS INCORPORATED IN 1909 WtTH 915 PERSONS LIVING HERE, c� THE COMMERCIAL AREA GREW ALONG WITH RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY, OIL BOOMS OCCURRED IN THE 2O' s, 3O's, 40's, AND 5O's AND WE ARE NOW UNDERGOING AN UPSURGE IN RESIDE14TIAL ACTIVITY. ALL OF THIS HAS SHAPED THE AREA 114TO IJNAT IT IS TODAY MAJOR GROWTH IN THE CITY BEGAN IN THE 1960'S, ONCE 1111 S STARTED, THE ROLL OF DOI-INTOI-IN HUNT I NGTON BEACH CHANGED--11* WAS NO LONGE T((E GEOGRAPHICAL CENTER OF THE CITY, AS NE14 SHOPPING CENTERS WERE BUILT TO SERVE THE NEWER I AREAS, THE DOWNTOWN DECLINED AS A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND SUBSTANTIAL COMMERC1AL USES KRE REPLACED BY MARGINAL OPERATIONS$ , 4 I SUBSTAn-I'AL-COMMERCIAL USES. 4IERE*-=REPLACED-B`�-"1,1ARG;tdArL OPERATIONS, • ALONG WITH THIS, PHYSICAL DETERIORATION OCCURRED WHICH PRESENTED A MARKED CONTRAST TO THE NEWLY DEVELOPED "ORTIJNS OF THE COMMUNITY. WHILE THE NEW COMMERCIAL AREAS HUMMED WITH SUCCESS, DOWNTOWN HUNT I NGTON BEACH WAS AN G I NC, OUTMODED SHOPPING DISTRICT TIIAT NO LODGER FUNCT I ON9 AS A DOWNTOWN. AS FAR BACK AS THE LATE I950'S, MERCHANTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA RECOGNIZED THAT A LACK OF ADEQUATE OFF—STREET PARKING 14AS PRESENTING A PROBLEM/ HOWEVER, EFFORTS TO FORM All ' ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FAILED . i r THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT EFFORT TO UPGRADE DOWNTOWN BEGAN IN 1965 WHEN THE CITY CALLED IN A TASK FORCE FROM THE URBAN LAND I 14ST I TUTE TO ASSESS THE CITY AND MAKE RECOMoMENDAT I ONS ON THE FUTURE DIRECTIONS TO BE FOLLOWED, THE ULI .STUDY CONCLUDED THAT THE C I TY'S ECONOMIC C FUTURE S' COULD BE ENHANCED BY IMPROVING ITS "FRONT WINDOW" (THE I OCEAN FRONT AND REVITALIZING THE DOWNTOWN AREA . THIS STUDY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH NO LONGER SERVED AS THE TYPICAL D0WNTOWN, AND REVITALIZATION WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL ONLY IF A NE14 IMAGE WERE CREATED i s ' IMMEDIATELY AFTER THL ULI STUDY, THE CITY BEGAN A PROGRAM j' TO IMPROVE THE REACH FRONT/ SIGNIFICANT IN THAT EFFORT WAS THE CREATION IN A PARKING AUTHORITY, WHICH PROVIDED IN EXCESS OF 2,000 PARKING SPACES�BETWEEN THE PIER AND BEACH I30ULEVARD , IMPROVEMEN�TSUWERE I I1S�ALLED ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, AND THE PIEfiADERVIENTNIMPROVEMENTS, , ALONG WITH THESE PHYSICAL SIGNS OF COMMITMENTS TO THE OCEAN FRONT AREA, THE CITY BEGA14 PREPARATION OF A 360 ACRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT FOCUSED ON THE PIER AND DOWNTOWN AREA, THIS EFFORT CULMINATED NATED III I TI! THE ADOPTION' OF A PLAN I N LATE I969 CALLED "THE TOP OF THE PIER PLAN, " i THE PLAN CALLEll FOR A DESTINATION RESORT ENVIRONMENT 14111CII HOTELS, OFFICES, SPECIALTY SHOPPING INCLUDED G AREAS,E N RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND EXPANSION OF THE PARKING FACILITIES, / ONE OF THE j_0E PRIORITY PROJECTS OF THE PLAN NAS TO EXPAND THE PARKING AUTHORITY INLAND AND ADD 32 ACRES TO THE EXISTING FACILITY-(AT THAT TIME 11' WAS FELT THAT THE USE OF THE PARKING AUTHORITY WAS THE MOST VIABLE MEANS OF PROVIDING IMPROVEMENT TO THE" AREA UNFORTUNATELY/SUPPORT FOR THE PLAN MANNED--A LAWSUIT WAS r FILED AGAINST THE CITY, RESULTING IN THE PLAN BEING DROPPED IN I97I , • ` I THE AREA WAS LATER DESIGNATED ON THE GENERAL PLAN FOR DESTINATION RESORT ACTIVITIES. i IN JULY I975 THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED THE P. ANNING DEPARTMENT y TO PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN FOR TNI�S AREA, TO I ASSIST IN THIS EFFORT, THE CITY HIRED A TRAFFIC CONSULTING 4 FIRM AND AN URBAN ECONOMIST, � I BACKGROUND INFORMATION WAS PREPARED AND THREE ALTERNATIVE PLANS WERE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FOR ANALYSIS, THEY WERE ENTITLED "SEASONAL BEACH COMMUN!TY, " "REGIONAL POINT OF INTEREST, " AND "DESTINATION RESORT, " +� THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY PROPOSED I-I I TII I IJ EACH' OF THESE PLANS } RANGED FROM THE LOWEST LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AS DEPICTED IN r THE SEASONAL BEACH COMMUNITY,.TOnTHE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ACTIVITY REFLECTED IN THE "DESTINATION RESORT PLAN, " y . '+ TI IE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNC I l�,HYAS TO PURSUE A MODIFIED DESTINATION RESORT PLAN, SUCH A PLAN WOULD PROVIDE THE CITY WITH THE GREATEST ECONOMIC BENEFIT, TK GENERAL PLAN THEN SERVED AS A BASIS FURAPREPARATION of FOR A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS AREA, THE ADOPTION OF WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED BY YOU THIS EVENING 1 SO MUCH OR THE HISTORY AND EVENTS ,HAT BROUGHT US TO THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT") NEET11-16-41011, 1 WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE A FEW POINTS ABOUT THE AREA AND THE PROPOSAL OF A REDEVELOPMENT. PLAN: THE COMMERCIAL AREA IS NO LONGER THE VIABLE BUSINESS V DISTRICT IT ONCE WAS. IN FACT;/' I THINK IT SAFE TO SAY THAT THE AREA IS IN A DOIIN14ARD TREND AND MANY OF THE (' USES ARE MARGINAL. ! 2/ NEW I MPPOVEMENTS WHICH WERE THOUGHT TO BE CATALYSTS TO I: UPGRADE THE AREA HAVE NOT WORKED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, SOME OF THESE INCLUDE: TIIE ,SECURITY BANK, WHICH WAS 13UILT SEVERAL YEARS AGO--UPGRADING OF THE IIUNTINGTOh N BEACH NEWS, WHICH ALSO OuCURRED SEVERAL YEARS AGO- - CONSTRUCTION OF THE CROC.KER 13ANK, AS WELL AS MANY INDIVIDUAL EFFORTS BY BUSINESSMEN IN THE AREA, i 3, THE ASSESSED VALUATION WITHIN THE AREA MAY HAVE INCREASED; HOWEVER, THESE INCREASES ARE 111E RESULT OF INFLATION RATHER THAN OF SUBSTANTIVE IMPROVEMENT:, It . IN THE TOWNLOT AREA NEW CONSTRUCTION IS OCCURRING. BUT THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION IS SIMILAR TO PUTTING THE BANDAGE OVER AN INJURY, 11' CONCEALS THE REAL PROBLEMS WE WILL HAVE TO FACE IN THE YEARS TO COME./THEY INCLUDE: 1NADEOUATE INFRASTRUCTURES, SUCH AS DRAINAGE, STREETS, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. ov r', ......_«................. ..... ._... ... . ... . .. .. ., ....._ .._... .._ . ... ............ .. Est wr m7r.. yr.. 1'.<0:.1 a: a.t. rTw'w.w THE CITY MAY RCOUIRE A DEVELOPER TO ITAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, HOWEVER, WITHOUT AN OVERALL COMPRE- HENSIVE EFFORT TO UPGRADE UTILITIES, WE ARE ONLY POSTPONING I THE INEVITABLE. i i ,5- " ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS IN THE PAST EEAVE FAILED, PRIMARILY I BECAUSE COSTS HAVE BEEN TOO GREAT, THE LATEST EFFORT WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO IN THE AREA BETWEEN ORANGE AVENUE, PALM � AVENUE. GOLDENWEST STREET, AND I7TH STREET. COSTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON A 50 FOOT LOT RAN APPROXIMATELY +' $6,000 9OLLARS. ALSO, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COSTS OF THIS MAGNITUDE HAVE A ' DIRECT IMPACT Oil PROPERTY OWNERS AND INCREASES THEIR TAX BURDEN, THERE ARE ALSO SOIME UNEQUAL TAX IMPACTS, ESPECIALLY TO OLDER HOMES AND PERSONS ON FIXED INCOMES, ANY FORM OF REDEVELOPMENT WITH THE AREA WILL HAVE TO OCCUR OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THROUGH A PHASED CONSTRUCTION PROCESS,-NOTHING tit!I LI APPEAR OVERNIGHT. THERE MUST BE A CONCERTED EFFORT BY BOTH THE: K"2LIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR TO IMPROVE THE: AREA NEITHER ONE CAN DO IT ON THEIR 01,111. THE DOWNTOWN AREA. CREATES A IIEGATIVL IMAGE, I BELIEVE WE ALL WANT TO MAKE THIS AN ATl RACT I VE AREA, ._ .. � •.. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 1..,t'• :Y.. Y.Y.VITS I{ly^.•:!y!.w./sl J OUR BEACHES ATTRACT OVER a 11 I LL I ON PEOPLE ANNUALLY, MOST OF WHOM LEAVE NOTHING MORE: THAN THEIR LUN BAGS AND TRASH BEHIND. THIS CREATES A FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE: CITY I N THAT THE RES 1 DEId TS OF THE CITY ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A RECREATIONAL. FACILITY THAT PRIMARILY SERVES PERSONS LIVING OUTSIDE THE AREA, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING DONE THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE ECONOMIC CONDITION; OF THE AREA, ENCOURAGE THESE PEOPLE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND THEREBY, HELP DEFRAY A PORTION OF THEYEXPENSE.. . IY3, ALL OF US AT THE PUBLIC I C rIEAR I NG THIS EVENING ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE PROJECT AREA, SOME FEEL EFFORTS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO MAXIMIZE ITS ECONOMIC POTENTIAL?- OTHERS 14ANT IT LEFT ALONE, THE BASIC REASON FOR BOTH POINTS OF VIEW IS BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS HERE JN HUNTINGTON BEACH, II . ,- IT HAS BEEN APPROXIMATELY 10 YEARS SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL 1 HAn AN OPPCRTUNITY TO ADDRESS REDEVELOPI-iENT IN THIS AREA, YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN FACED WITH THAT TASK, j 11'. I BELIEVE WE HAVE COME FARTHER ALONG THE ROAD TO DOING ` SOMETHING POS l 1 I VE IN THIS AI'r A 'THAN 111E HAVE EVER ACCOMPLISHED BEFORE, I 3-1 ` SINCE THE OCTOBER [ I PUBLIC HEARING, WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO IDENTIFY ISSUES OF COMMUNITY CONCERN rD,, l STAFF WILL BE DISCUSSING THESE POINTS LITTER IN THE EVENING AND OFFERING PLAN OPTIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATIONS. 14,`' OUR CONTACTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY LEAD US TO THE CON- f CI_USION THAT THERE IS SUPPORT FOR AN EFFORT TO UPGRADE � THE AREA-,-WHETHER IT IS CALLED REHABILITATION, REDEVELOPMENT, OR A FACELIFT, THERE HAVE BEEN UNTOLD HOURS OF STAFF TIME AND A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT TOWARD PREPARATION OF THIS REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE OPTIONS BEFORE✓ YOU THIS EVENING , ADOPTION OF A PLAN AT THIS TIME WILL ALLOW US TO DIRECT OUR EFFORTS TO OTHER ISSUES AND AREAS THAT ARE ALSO IN DIRE NEED OF ATTENTION. IG; A DELAY IN THE: ADOPTION OF A PLAN WILL RESULT IN A REDIRECTION OF A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF STAFF JIYE AND .. MONEY 'BACK THIS EFFORT, A LUXURY NE tilE CANNOT f AFFORD . 1 Tv THE FINAL FORM OF THE PLAIN WILL BE DETERMINED BY YOU AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. I TRUST THAT WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH SUFFICIENT OPTIONS TO ALLOW YOU TO ADOPT A PLAID THAT IS � ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY. I� MANY" P(KI NTS OF V 1 EW 4� ILL RE D I SCUSSEU^DURING THE PUBLIC HEAR 14G, YOUR TASK H 1 S EVEN I NG--I S. TO L I S A, CONS I DER- i TH SE POINTS OF VIEW, AND TO ACT ACCORD 16 TO YOUR OWN CONSCIENCE, YOJ! TASK. I S NOT AN EASY ✓ONEv, %' WE DO, HOWEVER, URGL YOU 10 TAKE THE STEPS TO ADOPT \-'A PLAN IN WHATEVER FORM YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE, � i i , I 65 00 1. : •'}t:vver , it ' 1)("t•,, our ('.ti!%rrivncc 1)var he venrn that :'hei; 1 Co;1 t t,f:ta l l.1' I,1! 111 t.li t :'C' (1;iI1C :':, I:. 1:t' v• t i1ll)1 C 7. 1 r1'7:lrY;:b10 nxaiNplvs or that Ili other part of I to c1ry , and � t '. 'a :+i1I'e ILh.a t no.-,t or you ,a ry t .�'. l l i a r .:i -, I I Hui On o ( i occurti , the ;�:'U1)C'n:. lt}' for %TUI►l;rGl:; tO It;' ':�L1'. ' , :c s l 1 f ke everybody o f ..o i n thr c i t y c,� cs , a:it .1 ►.(!u t .l f ' 6 s ncerel;i I Me to sev Sums th i ag done i n : lie" it r l'% As t o � t Our the answer in , that ' `; np ;o pou , 11rin you. M!". `SUCH: Chic.I i'iril:•<! i:, t. t C1111:F 1'11:, RD: We are down LU l:hr :ins i i arva ailed t'.:i:: 1)rc:ccnratic)n r(,"hresetits ri"dical j r=7r'C$RJitS' C•!N:' 1 , it'L� ill from actite We t.11w oning r � ' r , C' CItCil:•. So r!i1 , I,01111! J; it,v `.'t:lf - - ;:t1t! 1 1!(1:I C l;:ir+.;i O.'It the :;tilt !:;tl : . :iry bet.1%.v •ll tilt` nur'1hvr of 1'a : 1 :. th::t wv reneive and the total rinwhur rf• incidents Wit ac'lilall :cur -- this repre5enrs the i,riater clennity unp tllar you i 'c;' 011 your rir;ht and the annropriatc• ►'aloe.-; are : here. ; i course, thpaj are for thv tli :' trie: OVIt „r1c iu.t i ;•;�•Trt�"(1 by Ch. i:f Itnititaliilc" and r•i valt i►rov;0tv. 1y, hhic;s � is � .".''7ril►:I:scs ;.li"_' i►i'upo) Cd arca.s it, 1 , C, i111.1 1), and or Colli-so nI t Ut1::Clit ra ions 1'U::t i :i A. 1 Thin printer (density :tail) an the screen not.., h 7 I ^►o,enf:; I aid!; tll;�t ha.. -tucl yea;:; - f 1;.1 ll vfilt v:c•;111:. T-rn d a n u a r y " ' t! i hr')!'.,i( l lt_ 'a K 2l:1 s again We art' l thr()I %h. 10. 'il., prin+ ip:ll .:l'C";i . of ' - .:'se, Is thr 1),?t•.ni "an area , which i't`t; it) 1lt tlll : 4 . '101 :)) ili) MACAtl1.CY tk MANNING 5A►,TA ANA. CALM 0141 M++OO I it - , fi G 1 particular ca:.e . The next area i s around 11rookhurst ankl 2 Adams , and it represents a v lue-.of 7 . So , that meant there j 3 are 30 percent morc__jjlcidgr.ts occurring; in the Duvntowti area i } 4 than in the next area . Then from there it julhps, to 5 and- 5 the lower density 4 , and where %-oil sce �- ing; lc dory , _1.1uit- S represents 0. So , other than tic one area in the Prooklitrrst S 7 anti Adavis area , the Ilowntown area represents at Icast 40 to g 50 percent more traumatic errerpency , medi;:al emerp ncies g than any other portion of the community. 1 havc a breakdown ' r 10 of those, tr`. � �/t- �� 'yrlcf �'•� rs�a•^y 11 This gives you a feel , There arc tho r•eportin i 12 districts that were discus sect . 'flicsc arc• the age g;:•oulin 13 that are i two Ived . )tie broke them down ro 1 to Zo , 21t1 rc 3o , 14 and over 40. 41P re. N. of the iI Cidvnts ( 15 occur in 451 and -151• principally is: the main Street wren . ds � 16 The classification:. that are brokendown arr cardiac/ respirato % , majari ty in R51 ' 11(17�, only eight in trr:Tt" ��r <«rrMe � ; t? pa-rt-i-erti r'r proposed redevelopment :, rea `anti nrine of them in 1� 4S1 ;-3emotional stress , 451 ; violent accitents/tranma , this also encompasses traffic accidents and others , .131 again ; drug; related c�merfiency concentrates in the Downtown area and the total is 63 in the; whole 1::-devclollment ►'roject. Area :incl .5 in 451 ; al l other' represent ' r 3 . 1')te total medical incidents in the proposed rcc'V%'(• lrprWtlt .( rr,r this: •car, to �63 ' n ' date, is .157. I'llank you :•rry rlut 1l . 25 ' :. ! ' MAYOR til:IDER : Mr . Set ic:h'' Ilm Al? 1177 MACAULCY & MANNING. OANTA ANA. CALIF (714) 558 7AQ0 f i AX2 Q reres. 1L, P of r. vG ep I I i I w I Dr sG' S l�eln- -s TO: Honorable Mayor and City .:ouncil FROM: Edward D. Selich, Acting Director DATE: November 16, 1976 ATTN: Floyd G. Belsiro, City Administrator SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COM11ENT ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Since our first public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan, considerable public discussion on the merits and methodology of the Downtown revitali- zation effort han been generated. The Planning Department has reviewed the public testimony and met with interested citizens; and as you requested, we, are presenting Council with a selection of planning options in response to the concerns voiced so far. The Community Redevelopment Commission and the Project Area Committee reviewed these options at their joint meeting of November 11, and their concerns areincluded in the following report. i PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: i First we would like co focus your attention on the six plan amendments proposed prior to the October 11 public hearing. Five of these amendments 1 (Exhibits A and B) are in response to newly adopted legislation that be- comes effective January 1, 1977. Generally these proposed changes set limitations on bonded indebtedness, tax increment revenues, and time period to initiate eminent domain proceedings while requiring more ' specific details on public facilities and improvements. Also included t In these early proposals is a Planning Commission recommendation to in- s elude in the Plan requirements for annual work programs, budgets, and independent audits. FURTHER PLAN OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Limitations on Intensit : On several occasions, the public has stated a concerti that some 11mitation be incorporated in the Plan to define the intensity of development allowable under it. As the Plan presently ' exists, lnteni;ity and density are controlled by zoning. a. Restate Zoning To address this concern more specifically, the Plan could be amended to restate the provisions of the zoning ordinance in terms of maximum .residential densities and structural heights now permitted. These maximums would change as the zoning ordi- nance is changed. The Redevelopment Commission and the PAC concur. ' b. Zoning as Minimum Requirement To make the Redevelopment A:.ency' s responsibility to the zoning ordinance more explicit, the Plan could be amended as follows: Revise existing Sectior. 4. 3 (S 408) p. 11 --last sentence to read: ! "Such standards may exceed--biit may not be less restrictive than-- the requirements of the City' --- zoning ordinance. " The Redevelop- ment Commission and the PAC concur. C. Temporary Height Limitation Should the Council desire to impose more permanent restrictions, height limitations could be inc:,7rporated into the Plan. It is { the recommendation of the Redevelopment Commission and PAC that. a temporary height limit of 35 feet be imposed in the Project Area i until a comprehensive high rise ordinance is developed by the Planning Conunission and the City Council. t 2 d. Height Limitation A more definitive height limitation could also be imposed if desired. Such height limitations, in addition to the density restrictions in the Plan and the Zonincl Ordinance, would set identifiable parameters on develops- ic intenuity. A possible height limitation is suggested below: I Add new Section 4 . 3. 4 Height Regulations i "Development within the Project Area may not exceed the maximum height limitations set forth in this plan and as illustrated in Figure 4.3: a. In District I (General Commercial and Specialty Commercial Areas around Main Street) no structure shall exceed seventy-five (75) feet in height. b. In District II (Fligh Density Area fronting Pacific Coast Highway between Sixth and Goldenwest Streets south of Walnut) no struc- ture shall exceed forty-five (45) feet in height. c. In District III (remaining residential area west of Sixth Street) no structure shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. d. In District IV (Tourist Commercial, General Commercial and High Density Residential I.reaseast of Lake Street) no structure shall exceed the height provisions of applicable zoning ordinances. e. In District V (Medium Density Residential Areas east of Lake Street) no structure shall exceed t'.iirty-five (35) feet in height. This option was found unacceptable to both the Redevelopment Commission and the PAC. It should be noted that any limitations placed in the plan restricts I , the flexibility of the Agency in responding to future conditions. Therefore, temporary height restrictions pending formulation of an ordinance is probably the more desirable option. 2. Low and Moderate Income Housing: Concern has also been voiced regarding a commitment to law and moderate incase housing. Unrelated to the Redevelopment Plan, the City is currently involved in provision of low and moderate income housing through its Housing Assistance Plan. At present, about 50 percent of the sub- sidized units in the City are in the Redevelopment Project Area. Should the Council wish to guarantee furl her commitment to housing for low and moderate-income households, a portion of the Agency's tax increment funding could be specifically allocat d to such a purpose. Such an allocation will be required by State law in Plans adopted after January 1. 1 3 To channel funds to low and moderate income housing, the Plan could be amended as follows: Add new Section 5.6 (S 516) Low and Moderate Income Housing. "The Agency shall utilize not less than twenty (20) percent of tax increment revenues allocated to the Agency and not otherwise pledged to indebtedness for the provision of low and moderate income housing within or outside the Project Area. Exceptions to the 20 percent requirements are permissible if one of the three findings, based on substantial evidence, is made: j {I 1. that no need exists in the community, the provision of which would benefit the project area; I 2. that some stated percentage less than 20 percent is sufficient to meet such housing need; or � 3. that a substantial effort to meet such needs in the community is being made and that this effort is equivalent in impact to the tax increment funds otherwise required to be set aside, after giving consideration to the need that can be reasonably foreseen ! � because of housing displacement from within or adjacent to the project area, because of increased employment opportunities, or i because of any other direct or indirect result of implementation of the redevelopment plan. " The Redevelopment Commission concurs with this option. The PAC finds it unacceptable. ! 1 3. Duration of the Plan: i Requests have also been made to limit the duration of the Plan. Section 9, page 30, already sets a maximum 35 year limit on the life of the Plan. Previously proposed amendments also suggest. a 12 year limit on the use of eminent domain and a 30 year limit on the establish- { ment of indebtedness. The Redevelopment Commission and the PAC find � . these options acceptable. 4 . Work Programs and Budgeting: Citizens have suggested that controls or safeguards on Agency activities be established through mandatory work programs and budgeting. The proposal of the Planning Commission (Exhibit a) calling for annual work programs and independent audits addresses these sug- gestions. The following amendments to the Planning Commission pro- potial could further delineate Agency activities. a. Long-Term Pro ram d new Section 11.2 (S 1102) Establishment of Long Term Program Following adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency shall prepare and submit to the City Council for approval a long-term program indicating redevelopment activities and priorities in- cluding generalized budgeting and financing information. b. Five Year work Program Wda new Section 11. 3 S 1103) Formation of Five Year Work Program The Agency shall prepare and update previously approved five year work programs annually and submit them to the City Council for i a 4 �. approval. Program documentation shall be designed in sufficient detail. to provide a basis for the City Council to approve the budget and financing plan for the program period. The Redevelopment Commission and the PAC find these options acceptable 5. Use of Eminent Domain: Many people seem to feel that the Redevelopment Plan proposes condem- nation and elimination of existing residential uses within the Townl.ot Area. This has never been the intent of the Plan. Should the Council wish to stipulate this fact more definitely, the following amendment might be in order. Add to existing Section 5. 1.1 (S 502) p. 18 as third paragraph: "However, the Agency is not authorized to acquire by eminent domain for purposes of resale for private development any property within the area bounded by Goldenwest Street, Palm Avenue, Seventh Street, Acacia Avenue, Sixth Street, Walnut Avenue, Twenty Second Street, and Orange Avenue (Townlot Area) . " The Redevelopment Commission concurred with this option. The PAC did not believe that any limitation on eminent domain should be im- posed in the Plan: 6. Impacts of Tax Increment Financing: Finally, many people have been apprehensive about the impacts tax increment financing may have on the school districts. In a well- respected report by Ralph Anderson and Associates, serious critique of tax increment financing concludes that no serious fiscal problems are creaked for other local taxing agencies by such financing. IE in spite of this well-formed conclusion the project is found to work a hardship on a school district, the Redevelopment law permits the Agency to make payments to alleviate that hardship. Such provision could be expressed by the following amendment: Add to existing Section 5. 3.1 (S 604) Division of Taxes, p. 27; "The Agency shall be authorized to make payments to other taxing agencies, other than the City, which in the Agency's determination in appropriate to alleviate and► financial burden or detriment caused to any taxing agency by the project." The Redevelopment Commission and the PAC concur with this option. RESPONSE TO OTHER PLAN ISSUES Many comments submitted by the public cannot be addressed in terms of amendments but deserve response. They are presented here in two categories: policy issues and plan issues. r 5 1. Policy Issues: a. Destination Resort_Concept The most evident policy issue raised over the last month concerns the Destination Resort Concept. This is the fundamental concept of the Redevelopment Plan and was selected by the City Council i in 1975. The Destination Resort Concept calls for a maximization of the City's coastal and climate resources to attract tourist dollars to the community to offset costs generated now by current beach users and to supplement the general community tax base. The Proposed Redevelopment Plan is designed to implement this goal by revitalizing the Downtown Area. If the Destination Resort Corcept is no longer acceptable to Council, then the Redevelopment Plan should be redrawn in light of new objectives. b. Growth A second key policy concern is that of growth. Some have stated the Downtown Area should stay "as it is. " This will not be the case with or without Redevelopment. Even if just vacant land is developed under existing zoning, the population of the area will increase significantly and the tourist- Lraffi.c to the beach will continue to increase as the population of Southern California grows. The purpose of the Redevelopment Plan is not, therefore, to generate growth that would not otherwise exist, but rather to channel and control that growth over time in a manner desirable to the Project Area and the City as a whole. 2. Plan Issues f a. Inclusion of Area E t Thin lana has Been included in the project area because it is ; • necessary to carry out the plan objectives of creating a tourist- oriented environment by providing market support to the commercial development in the Main Street area. A Redevelopment Plan here is needed to provide controls necessary to insure a balance of land uses which are necessary to the overall success of the plan and also to stimulate methodical recycling of under-utilized ocean- front property to its highest potential as provided for in the Plan. in this area, the following redevelopment activities are contemplcted: to assist in the financing of major street alignments to create more attractive parcels for development by providing off-site im- provements; and to provide public amenities harmonious with the creation of a tourist/commercial identity. Such amenities may include special street furniture, landscaping, signs, pedestrian � crossings to the beach, and public spaces. b. Inclusion of Area C The TOWnlot Area is included in the Plan because it contains a significant number of structurally inefficient dwelling units and ; inadequate public facilities such as streets, sidewalks, drainage systems, lighting and other utilities. The area is characterized by substandard land subdivision in which over AO percent of the larld 1 , 6 is devoted to streets and alleys in an inefficient circulation pattern . Some residential rehabilitation is necessary as are new or replaced curbs and gutters, alley improvements, and sidewalks where none exist. Contemplated redevelopment activities include: assistance for housing rehabilitation programs; provision of public improvements, provision of public amenities necessary to create community identity for a residential neighborhood adjacent to the tourist/commercial area. c. Use of Assessment District vs. Redevelopment In theory, the use of an assessment district to finance the majority of improvements needed in the Townlot Area is possible. However, assessment district financing has a very immediate and direct impact upon the property owners residing in the assessment district, of course. if utilized to carry out street lighting, utilities, etc. , it results in an immediate tax increase to the property owners concerned and increases their tax burden considerably. The imposition of an assessment district can cause some very unequal impacts; that is, the immediate tax increase of an assessment district might be quite a burden to an older, single-family home owner but a relatively lighter burden on a major developer nearby. The tax increment approach does not have this impact at all upon property owners in the Redevelopment Project Area. Under this method various desirable improvements such as street lighting, utilities, additional parking, etc. , can be carried out and there is no immediate or direct impact on the taxpayer in the project area. What is happening is that the tax revenues from new improve- ments in the area which could be represented even by simple re- modeling additions that homeowners were making to their dwellings are retained by the local redevelopment agency to pay for new improvements locally rather than sent off to other taxing agencies such as the County, the School District, the Flood Control District, the Metropolitan Water District, etc. It really becomes a question of whether the local property owner in a given project wants to see the future tax increases from new development utilized for direct improvement of local conditions in the project area. The redevelopment process enables the local community to use the tax revenues from local improvements to carry out betterment in the local area. d. Postpone Adoption Until. Next Year It has been suggested that adoption of a plan be delayed until. after January 1 under the mistaken belief that new legislation will 1 then alter the Plan. As previously discussed, the first series of amendments proposed prior to the October 11 public hearing would bring the Proposed Plan into conformance with most laws effective January 1, i i i 7 Th Tnain reason for adoption prior to January 1 is money. If the Pl« adopted in November, ta:: increment funds will be avail- able he Agency in August, 1977. However, if Plan adoption is del.. until after January 1; tax increment money will not be available ntil fiscal year 1978-78 almost two years from now. The 1977-7E1 increment will be lose. If the Agency is to continue to operate u,•,til that time, it can only do so with loans from the City. e. Civic Center Site Use Recently some peaf. '.e have suggested that the old Civic Center Site remain in public us The Propose' Redevelopment Plan presently designates the site .',)r Commercial .:3e but public uses, by definition,; would be permissible. You will recall that this Issue received 1 considerable attention luring the Formulation c; the General Plan and the Preliminary Plan. At that tire, it was decided that the site should be .identified as Commerci 1 in case it could be used as a catalyss;; for spurring private de lopment. if such opportunity did not arise, public uses r Ml.d alwa,. continue. d. Public Vote On The Plan It seems to he of general cancer,:~ that public wall rot be allowed to vote on the Redevelopmc:•rat Pi Redevelopment is governed by the State Health and safety )de which does not pro- f vide for referendum. Legislation in"rod •ed this year would have J permitted referendum on redevelopment it is, but this bill was vetoed by the Governor for technical •�s. e. Elimination of Oil Problems The question has Been often asked: "Why c.-in' t existing oil regu- lations; be used to clean up oil-related pre 1ms in the Project; Area. " The answer is they can be to a cert. extent. The existing oil regulations are presently boinq • forced. However, these regulations cannot force abandonment of o; 1 operations nor. 1 can they eliminate oil encumbrances such as the tni1 ltipl.e sub- surface oil lines. These lines are both active antd inactive and held under many ownerships. They run both lie rpcndic:ular and parallel to ::he streets and alleys and even exist on--.site making private development and even public .i.mprovement , ex- tremely difficult. . I It should be kept in mind, however, that cell-related prole;lams are not the overriding concern. Substandard subdivision of ?and, lack of or inadequs,te public improvements, structural deterioration and diseconomic use of land are the tar:;et problems of the Redevelopment Plan. i MF:gc 1 i ti t ".XHIBIT A . ADDENDUM TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ' Addition to 5.1.1 (S502) Ac uistion of Real Property } (as third Paragraph) Eminent dor.: in."�roceedings to acquire property within the Project Area must btkommenied within twelve (12) years of the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Plan. u r - 1 �c 4 '.I j1 1 t � t 1 Add to 5.0.4 (S520) 1kvel2pment 1 (New; delete existing 1st paragraph) To the extent now or hereafter permitted by law, the Agency is "authorized i to rehabilitate, develop or construct, or cause to be rehabilitated, de- veloped or constructed, dwelling units for rental or sale to persons or families of low or moderate income where such dwellings are necessary to replace dwelling units for low and moderate income persons removed from the housing stock as part of the Project. To.the extent now or hereafter permitted by law the Agency may,pay all or a part of the value- of the land for and the cost of the installation ana con- struciion of any building, facility, structure or other improvement which is publicly owned, either within or without the Project Area, and may reimburse the comrmaiity or other public corporation for all or a part of the value. of such land or all or part of the cost of such building, facility, structure or other improvement, or both, subject to the consent of the City Council ' and the determination and findings to be made under Health and Safety Code Section 33445. The .following public improvements may be provided by the Agency or may be provided by the City or other public corporation with reimbursement of all or a portion of attendant costs to be made by the Agency upon the appropriate determinations and findings of the City Council as required by law: i ..4 1. *v or reconstructed streets and other public ways. {.?� 2. Water, sewer and utility systems. }§ ' 3. Street lighting, street furniture and other similar improvements. Ihe. foi llawitig public facilities-may be provided by the Agency or may-be pro- vided by the City.or other public corporation.with reimbursement of all or a � Ys portion of ,the .value of necessary land 'or improvements or both 'to be made y the Agency upon the appropriate findings and determinations of the City Council as required by law: �' ' c 1. Public -malls in the downtown core area. r 2. Public parking facilities in the downtown and beach areas. 3. Pedestrian overpasses, underpasses or other means of pedestrian traffic flow in the downtown area. i ,r :i .t i Y: (fe/:T'.. +.a.:S:. .. .. .U' .. •' ... v. . ... .,.. ., ... .. .. - ...-' .... .. .... .... .. . W:...:si".'c'.1t�.it.;,,�,^b.nj3}.:a'`'.1 4. Improvements to the Huntington Beach Municipal pier. 5. Improvements to the former Civic Center site for public use. 6. Public mass transit terminal facilities in the downtown area. 7. Improvements to an existing community center in residential "town lot" area. q 6 .i .....�....�..........�._ .. .�.. ._ .. ..`.... _. .._.._....r.._.. _. ._. .. __. .. •rum+w...... rr� - t I + 6.3.2 (S605) limitation Upon Taxes Allocated to the Agency_ The portion of taxes described in paragraph trio (2) of section 6.3.1 to be allocated .to the Agency shall not exceed a cumulated total of $35 million for capital expenditures; however, should bonds be issued, such portion of taxes shall not exceed $80 million. 6.3.3. (S6061 Limitation Ugon Establishment of Indebtedness Loans, advances ,and other indebtedness to be repaid from such allocation of taxes as describad 'in paragraph two (2) of section 6.3.1. may be established at.lany time within 30 years of the date of adoption of this Plan. Such in- debtedness may not be established subsequent to experation of said 30 year period. Such loans, advances, or indebtedness may be repaid over a period of time longer than such time limit. 6.3.4 (S607) Limitation gMn Mnunt of Bonded Indebtedness Outstanding bonded indebtedness to be repaid in whole or in part from the allo� cation of taxes described In paragraph two (2) of section 6.3.1 may not exceed $30 million at any one time. " • s -..._..._..�...». .� ,...... .,r ... . -.. a., ,. .. ,. •. .. ., .. .. .... ... ,. . . .. . ....r.�;•,e'i.i..;.-."f: iai•..;w�:�l.Ly t EXHIBIT S SUGGESTED ADDXT.ION TO rHOPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN r ' s } 11'.0 (S1100) METHODS FOR PROGRAMMING ACTIVITIES AND ' MEASURING ACCOMPLISHMENTS i I 11. 1 (S1101) General Description of the Proposed Activities . I ` The' 'lan will provide a means for carrying out redevelopment ab ivities in sub-areas of the Project by programming and timing`. activities in order to achieve systematic accomplishments as funds I become . available and as development opportunities occur. Specific Plana and programs shall be prepared pursuant to this Plan on an annual basis within the context of a long-term program. Staging of activities should permit annual redevelopment activities in several } separate contiguous or non-contiguous subs-areas. The long - term program and its annual increments shall be, submitted a to the City Punning Commission and to all . other City Departments to which the program and the increments a. e directly relevant at •ihe time the program and increments are submitted to the Council. i E 11.2 (S1102) Programming for Annual Incremental Activities 1. The Agen-y shall prepare new and update previously ' approved activity programs annually and submit them tc the City Council for approval. Program documentation ` shall be designed in sufficient detail to provide a basis for the City Council to approve the budget and financing lapi plan for the activity year. Such documentation shall include but not be limited to activity programs for major Project activities such as real estate acquisition and relocation. The consideration by the Council of each annual activity program submitted by the Agency shall include a review of the use of tax increment financing in carrying out , the Plan. The Council, in approving each annual activity program, shall establish appropriate limits, controls, standards and criteria for the use of tax increment financing and the expenditure 'of tax increments and tax allocation bond proceeds in carrying out each annual activity program. � .. 2. In formulating thv activity program, the Agency shall work closely with the departments of the City and other public bodies whose interests and resources may be affected.by the proposed redevelopment activities._.- 7n ' formulating such programs the .Agency shall also coIniult with,and 'prepare the programs:,with the advice of an. , ..advisory committee appointed by the Mayor, to be comprised, of 'representatives of a fair cross section of the owners, businessien, icsidents and trade or other organizations in the Project area. 11.3 (Sll03) Management System The A encY .shall prepare progreS3 schedules which clearly Poxtira Y the schedules of activities and which ,provide a means to measure actual accomplishment against. the schedule. The Agency shall u'iilize a formal management system involving sequential event control. The progress schedules anO.. formal management system must be.,main- tained on a current basis throughout the activity year and .be utilized by the Agency to supervise progress and be avail"le for : - review by representatives of the City on a periodic basis. 11.4 (S1104) Annual Independent Audit ` The Council shall cause to be performed at Agency expense an annual independent audit covering the operations of the Agency in carrying out this Plan. r All such annual independent audits shall be public records of the Agency. r' i w for L - IRV - A r -Y• FIEF r QUU r ; E�L�E�E3 PEEP HUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNCYS AT LAW i • w wytJlt M••n ►ttl tN(' "^14- Of Cal�1 I)III/IA flu-t 0114C. .'1,•4t'.•• �IDrD 1 1.I••1 M,C«.kD / C"'C Cf11/1!1 (IIIIV( N.1 11 ODOIw«uwr La rgrl rlt n+Iv•. w-,St Ltt,�r fit'. Iq/l. .rt•• fuG.(A /•tlGtr• CnI Mif NI art h• 1.1 At•• Q/I `I. OAtI VIN 1,S«ALI t*109r04+ [Ow.+p A teal t«• .l• SAN1A ANA, CA!,If0g111A pt102 r1.O -.rwrru• •.•I 1. "• .[ 'I 1100 JIu[•a.YOD+t t«Ora•• tl t...nt r • - tlta/Lw/w wAL.[• •AA•r w LluatC••r• 111.11 O)b•J0JO tlCwrOq• OC Co.I CAt1/ORr1A 99060 I w0/Lwf LI ae11[• •+uG[• i0•/[rr root[w, /r10L•«O •ft.«tw 7 ♦ut• iCl[/l..r•.1 PAUL#at0(r.0...rr •«OrN I.CLIrI .a. Y0Y(w L.rGCO+••'C+. • PAr10 C a..(fh November 17, 1976 ltOw•aO r rAaaltO+ '0••..C /1 AL [bC+fOh P..1,[t •,wlhlDh IN w(/t/ rtl AS wG1t4 f0 WILMA.1 w /.,L Ca Ir10•0 l /rr[Otr w1i«Iaa A.Cuah1.111 �00L04t• t1:li!Tli�C�i 0►1! car►cc� LtO+•AD A.t1Av(a •w1«u•v •l0rsr .10r1p P.t•Vat/ur.AA. YIG«Ita O.wualh n�nn�Nlivc� o r�r. YICl/ALL w.IYr1kL Wv.at 111 A a/rIu►1 MIWAY C Ot•NS YIwC w.r1«■0r ItILrO+P w C. act 0A«L. 0 A..Ir 1«[000rClAItLACS.in Cr II.r•rOt J.. 1wAD OAV•/YAa1A al• ID t.CO►O•M Sit. actLMO• P. 0. 13OX 100 Mr. Edward Selich Huntington [leach.C4 92648 Planning Director City of Huntington Beach P. O. box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Selich: As counsel for the Huntington beach Union High School �.; District, we have been asked to review and comment on the draft proposed redevelopment plan for Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Project and the final environmental dr impact report in conjunction therewith. In this regard, with the exception of the proposed r `;; amendment transmitted to Mr. Glenn Dysinger of the hunt- ington Beach Union High School District by letter of Nov- ember 10, 1976, the proposed redevelopment plan is virtually silent on the issue_ of the potential impact of the implemen- tation of the plan on the Huntington Beach Union high School ;.t. District. +'s" By reason of the tax allocation provision of the rede- velopment plan, the project will have, on the basis of the bast estimates presently available, a significant adverse Impact on the financial .resources of the District, in that (1) the District will be deprived of tax revenues otherwise available to it, (2) the propensity of the taxpayers to support the educational programs of the District is and will be diminished to a degree that revenues levied for educational use cannot be shown to have provided educational benefit, and (3) the reputation of the District for fiscal prudence .r4:ay i3.-.\PA,.r ..... YI/.M r.'Q., w.'•'�+w lF it - . .... • l. ... r..1.w. .....a.••I.+ .rw...L:•'Y+t:.iAnabhl•'N .h RUT,AN & TUCKER ATTO"N1:Y5 AT LAY/ Mr. Edward Selich City of Huntington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Two will be adversely affected by the inflation of the District's tax rate, with neither short-term nor long-term demonstrable benefit to the taxpayers of the District. The project will also have an adverse impact on the District :n that redevelopment of the project area will result in increase student enrollment within the District both by reason of residential development within the project area and by reason of the residential growth which will cccur outside the project area because of industrial and commercial development within and adjacent to the project area. Thus, an analysis of this potential impact„regaires resolution of at least- three separate and distinct issues. First, what will be the impact of the implementation of the Plan on %he ability o£ the District to generate sufficient operating funds to enable the District to maintain the existing quality of secondary education in the absence of Increased taxes. Second, what will be the political rainifi•- �f cations of utilizing. funds earmarked for School District use for redevelopment purposes. Third, and• most significant, what will be the impact of the implementation of a plan on the ability of the Huntington Beach Union High School District to provide capital facilities in response to both the- resi- dential development within the project area and the residen- tial development outside the project area generated by the increase job opportunities within the project area. For purposes of our analysis, we will discuss the first and 1 third issues leaving the political issue to be resolved by the governing bodies of the respective entities. With respect to thr_ issue of operating expensesas affected by tax increment financing, page 57 of the Final == Environmental Impact Report suggests that any burden created by the allocation of taxes pursuant to the Community Redevelop- ment Act on the School District is lessened by legislation ; ! which allows for an upward adjustment in the maximum general purpose tax rate, and, if the School District is eligible, .� for an upward adjustment of State Equalization Aid. After the adoption of S.B.90 and related legislation, this assertion is, for the most part, true in that the revenue ' �.�..w"'�"'i.`.. -._.�"w+....an.w.m.:wW'+.r.t}... ,,,,'G..slu.tale.•..^•.ww-:..T::'..'w..:... . . •... aa...: v...:,Cbn',- !'3r.1e'? ��. I RUTAN S TUCKER 101� ATTO"NCYB AT LAW Mr. Edward Selich City of Huntington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Three limits of the School District closely parallel growth and student population. In this regard, the revenue allowed is funded from a combination of state apportionments and local property taxes. Thus, a decline in assessed iralua- tion' per student is offset key increase in state apportion- ments for those expenditures not funded entirely from local property taxes. As .long as the method of funding under S.B.90 does not change, .and as long as the annual adjustments for infla- tion and slippage keep pace with the changes in economy, the exclusion of growth in assessed valuatior within the project area will not materially affect the revenues avail- able for geteral purposes. However, a change in school, district financing legislation placing more dependence upon , local property tax would make the exclusion of incremental assessed valuation within the project area significant. In contrast, the exclusion of incremental assessed valuaition witiiin the project area from taxation will affect revenues available to the District and the lone term retire- ment of District debt. Limited tax rates such as a maximum of ten cents for community services simply do not raise as much revenue. Thus, in the case o! such limited overrides, the District suffers a direct reduction of revenues. Addi- tionally, unlimited special purpose tax rates must be set higher to raise the required revenue. Accordingly, in the case of such special purpose tax rate the District' s tax- payers must make up the difference. It is for this reason that; we would strongly support + your recommendation 'in yo-jr letter of November 10, 1976 to t Mr. Glenn Dysinges• that §5. 3.1 be added to the redevelopment 1 plan. As set for::h in your letter, the addition reads as follows: If for any reason the project should be found by the agency to work a particular hardship on any taxing agencies, the agency shall, as permitted by law, enter into Agreements with the agencies to make the payments to these agencies to alleviate the hardships. (Emphasis added. ) V � — .�...� ....:r rr,r,. ram. .. y :... +...... :....`.......ter .........»1.. y RUTAN & TucitCR 'AT70f?f1GYS, Al LAW Mr. Edward Selirh City of Ilunti.n:jton Beach November 17, 1976 Page Four %.1hile we clearly support the philosophy of this amendment we would suggest that the word "particular" be deleted in that it creates an ambiguity in deternuining whether a hardship exists. We would further recom:n_iaii that the Plan acknow- ledge the fact that a hardship is suffered by the: taxing agency, either in the event of a direct reduction of revenue rate (limited overrides) or an increased tax rate (unlimited override or override for which the statutory limit has not been reached) te. make up for tuxes allocated to the agency pursuant to tax allocation provisions of the Community Redevelopment Act. We would further recommend that the agency enter into .an agreement with the School District which provides, in part, that the agency will make annual payments to the School District in the amount. equal to the direct reduction of revenues experienced by the School District as a result of the tax allocation provision of the Redevelopment ,Plan. This agreement would specifically identify the statutorily limited tax rates which, when, applied to the inc::emental assessed valuation, create this direct reduction in revenues. With respect to subsequent years in which this direct 1 reduction in revenues caniot now be specifically identified, the agreement would prop►ide as follows: Commencing with fiscal year 1977/1978, the school district will transmit to the agency on or before October 1 of each fiscal year, its statement.of '. the direct reduction in revenues which it esti- mates it will experience in such fiscal year as f, result or the tax allocation provision of the redevelopment plan. The ageitcy agrees to pay ttie school district an amount equal to such estimated j direct reduction in revenues and will make pro- portionate payments thereof within fifteen days after its receipt of tax allocation payments. Any difference between the estimated and actual direct reduction in revenues experienced by the school district in any fiscal year shall be adjusted in the final payment of such fiscal year. t With respect to the impact of the implementation of the Plan on the District's ability to provide adequate educa- tional facilities, there can be no question that the con- tinued availability of quality educational opportunities in • k . i RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORIMY5 AT LAW Mr. Edward Selich City of Huntington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Five and around the project area will attract additional private investment into the project area and will thus assist in the implementation of the redevelopment plan. Moreover, con- tinued implementation of the redevelopment plan will generate significant inceases in the School District' s student popula- tion, thereby contributing to the School District' s need for new educational and support facilities of various types' throughout the School District. As pointed out at page 93 of the final Environmental Impact Report 76-2 for the proposed redevelopment plan for Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Project dated October of 19761 the Huntington Beach Union High, School District has five schools which are already overcrowded with a total capacity of approximately fifteen thousand and a currentenrollment of approximately nineteen thousand. Continued enrollment growth will intensify the need for extended school day schedules and force continued utiliza- tion of inaddgUate classroom alternatives. In this regard, the agency should recognize that simply looking at the numbers of students that will be generated within the . project area does not solve the overcrowded condi thins of the high schools. It should be recognized that students are bused throughout the District so that no one school suffers disproportionate overcrowding. -Thus, growth in any portion of the City ?.ncreases the burden throughout the Dis - trict. Moreover, the implementation of the redevelopment plan will generate si4niticanr commercial opportunities within the project area which will, in turn, generate hous- ing needs and, therefore, school facility needs, throughout '.the Huntington Beach Union High School District. In addition, as you are no doubt aware, the School District electorate has defeated bond propositions on seven :j different occasions. As a result, the School District has not even approached its bonding capacity, and, therefore, is not eligible for state aid building funds. Accordingly, if we are to avoid further overcrowding of classrooms, extended ' class days, and alternate facilities, funding for new facilities :rust come from the source which generates the need. Referencing your ADDENDUM TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, page 2, 55. 6.4 (S520) we would strongly recommend the 1 .J ,.....-.... ._..._.................... ...... .... .........4.''.. •---+�...._.... .. .'i::, .. ..'7"tv.^'>w..........._...,�,r..+a.w„...e„uiltij w."..7.1�'."�J�rl�T�lrt# r-►•pin 4I4E'�i • RUTAN & TUCKER / AJrORNCr5 AT LAW Mr. Edward Selich ' r City of Huntington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Six inclusion of school facilities, including educational and support facilities in the list of public facilities which may be provided by the agency or ►:he City pursuant to Section 33445 of the Health & Safety Code. We would further recommend that the agreement referred to above relating to direct reduction revenue also include a provision for the establishment of a fund by the agency ; which would be utilized by the School District for the construction of educational and/or support facilities within ! the School District. Pursuant to this provision, the agency would make payment to the fund based on a predetermined formula which would take into account both the number of students within the project area and the Number of students throughout the District which will. be generated by virtue of �• the residential ind convnercial growth within the project area. The fornsla for payment could, perhaps, be based on a fixed dollar amount per dwelling unit with a different fisted ' dollar amount for each commercial development based on the r ---�, number of employees needed for each such commercial enterprise. As an alternative, the agency might consider funding ; school construction based on a formula which quantifies the additional District tax burden which must be borne by the taxpayers of the District by virtue of the tax allocation provision of the Redevelopment Plan, In this regard, the additional tax burden would ha computed as follows: The tax burden shall be computed only for over- .} ride taxes whose rate is set by dividing the total revenue to be raised from secured and un- secured property tastes, including utilities, by t the total assessed valuation of the District. The tax rate computation shall be made (a) exclud- ing the incremental assessed valuation of the project; (b) including the assessed valuation of the project- (c) subtracting the tax rate computed by "b" from the tax rate computed by "a" and applying thy: difference between the tax rates of "a" and "b" to the total assessed valuation of the District, including the incremental assessed valuation of the project. The foregoing com- putation expressed as a mathematical formula is: 1 '„"+�'w.�..•,�..""�.•rwiaf.iSMLBwrtw�►Yft•::+'L.-'.:tv;:�.i:9x+s.....�--.. ..«�a.•.asJ� ..:l.t:-tin.r....+..._•+a.u•..w/..e.wa• r - t ' 1 ' R (JtAN TUCKER ATTOPHrYS AT LAW Mr. Edward 5elich City of Huntington Beach November 17, 1976 Page Seven T t A — A n2 = tax burden B1 B2 I ' when: "A" is the revenue to be raised for each override tax that has no statutory rate limit, or tax whose statutory limit will not be reached in raising the required revenue for the fiscal year. MD11" s the sum of the unsecured, secured, and public utility assessed valuations of the district, excluding those incremental assessed valuations 3.nc uded in the project area. "B2" is the sum of the unsecured, secured and public utility assessed valuations of the district, in'c' luding those incremental assesse4 valuations in- c u -e in the project area. is the summation of the tax burdens com uteri►' _ p for the applicable individual override taxes. w The tax burden computed by the foregoing method shall be applicable only to locvl tax revenues whose total amount is unaffected by the exclusion of project incremental assessed valuation from the assessed valuation of the District. t I Local tax revenues whose amounts are limited come under the reimbursement for direct reduction in revenue discussed } hereinabove. It is further recommended that the City Counsel and the agency adopt resolutions as Part of this agreement that such acquisition for and/or installation and construction of educational and support facilities in any and all geographic } areas of the School District will benefit the project area. We are prepared to present a draft agreement to the agency for its consideration addressing both the problems of R • RUTAN 6� TUCKts r"1 ' ;TTonNCr5 AT t,nvi Mr. Edward Selich "•`� City of Huntington Cseach i November 17, 1976 Page Eight I I� ` operating expenses and capital improvements within one week jafter request for same by the agency. If you have any questions or wish further elaboration please feel free to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, RUTAN TUCKER I v Thomas P. Clark, Jr. Attorneys for Huntington Beach Union high School District ' TPC:pw s I ' I it •1 rli l ' .'•1st•. .F r j _._. .�».. /'+.v.y,.rrr!,wa.. ......... ..I•.. _ .._. ........e.. .. _ ... :1 .... ... .f.. f -:R:.nM:. :..'.{<.Yf.. ...;'Aw`'G3nY..7"•!'r;.Pr,:malj+,.'.•-wYj��R��' ' ! 1 I , I AIC, (14.0 7q f l . <L,rz;,a .L71 �L �f C fit s��,�l�I�s-t✓,Z 1r Art, 1f' .i,/tQ— . �k'�.c- �G,. Cti�i�`w' .: 7-FIZ-11/ce A_ Sty Since our last public meeting, I have had further occasion to listen to the public express their concernsrbout the proposal redevelopment. I wish to thank them for participating in the process-for with out this, ours is a government by default. I 1� good experience I had Tue3day at Edison U.S. would like to s n ' Ltlws.�i•+r.� . and earlier at 6(olden West. Tfiene were the only Ainstitutions that took up the challenge to invi+ to speak. I believe that when the council gave the citizen group known ae the PAC unaniyti�ous g g �' the charge to develop a plan for a concept called "modifidd t dLstination resort" . 'ahoy were well aware that the reasons behind coming up with a plan was a desire to do the following: 1. @amply with Health and Safety Code parameters of the x j Redevelopment Plan. t? 2. Properly develop the face of the City and improv3 its ;» image and create a good environment for the blighted areas of the •,,•,� coast. ' 3. Develop a better tax base for the citizens of the City as a whole to reduce the impact of rising taxes on the homeowner. With a City planning ex,enditure of close to $100 ,000.00 in .he . •91, last few years and the putting in of 150 plus hours h� in 1977� the PAC came up with a plan that attempted to meet those goals without going into the details of the plan, I will still ' attempt to show how this plan answers the concerns of our citizens: lst - -- To those who don't want Tourist pollution: We already have it. This plan is an attempt to manage it ` �,t'+..R.'s'r.LA py.fl Ic t':rJIi4Ye'.11lJ f:.t,`'•t2" .....f'. 4,1i K'. .v ...rr..........-.«....v...t. ....} .l ti'...... ..."............w ....,..w-."..�—. .........�. '^fJ� 1 `M+M.l..1MWM!'\eUI.WpM4.*'►.IM�{jj' ',M r ` t 1 t t i and improve the environment and recapture the present tax dollars the local citizens are spending on the tourists. Now what facts is this statement based on: (1) 05% of our beach is used by non-residents - source of that statement - Dept. of Harbors and Beaches in 1975 . (2) The only alternative to recapture the tau dollars�on the beach is to sell it to the state. I believe that all the f' citizens need do is look at the state beaches. This City has { done a fantastic environmental job with its beaches which are a real credit to the Harbors and Beaches Dept. And it has been x-us, as one of the most efficient and economical departments within the City. (3) . The voters in this City have often expressed a concern about the rising taxes. In fact there is a mandate in this city as the result of the November 1976 voting o-, Proposition M and N. This City must respond to that mandate. I believe, that the City must not only find a better way to use taxes for the A4s benefits of its local citizens, but must� develop meansn to take the burden off the homemaker. It should be pointed out that a few homeowners have told us that they don' t care how much taxes thoy pay, for they do not wish to see any further development of any kind. In fact, some of the rentors have told us that because of current development they are being excluded from the market place because of rising prices.And further it should be pointed out that }t many mortgage payments of currently New buildings are greater f i than the rents that could be received. And this fact invites overcrowding, .another bad environmental situation. t+t" t ` ' 1 [ _ •. �. v i.f. rtr n.t V y , �A!/.. : , ,:"r1 . �• • •1' [' .. .! l t f i 1t, b •L,l ,1' .fit! {�'y/,4�,`,�}�S t�j��g�?F� • • �h,�r':.tt.? r5.r,S ' S#f}��[L s�'y�,rFx'�r �1';t?�� I believe that the tourist pollution can best be managed by insuring that we develop the property to a use that effectively solves the problems we currently have. The problems I allude to are as follows: 1. The ;:o-:sta1 commiaion is awaiting a redevelopment ' plan for the townlot area an coast highway from Golden West to i 6th Street. (I have given testimony on this before as to what happened in 1974 and 1975 the problems of lot consolidation) I will siumit as an exhibit testimony before the coastal comniss3ion this year. 2. The downtowi. is; n dead area. I can give you personal testimony of Mofrtgage payments that are met by the owners with out appropriate income from tenants. And I can give you personal testimony Rolbusinesses failing left and right becau3e :J. of the blight that currently exists in this area. I can testify that 7 of the most prominent and permanent surfboard shop owners wart redevelopment and have signed a petition, as some approximately . . 200 other owners and residents of the area have with their ` addresses filed with the City Clerk which reads as follows: i (see attached) `3 i 3. Pacific Coast Highway and Boach currently are not managed to handle the traffic we currently have or contemplate f in the future. 4. The sur,fina sea is becoming over crowded. S. The City has lost substantial revenue because of the problems with the Sheraton and lack of sales in the Downtown 1Ysi !r, 4i zr',t .'� .t•.u. . . .... _ ;; •. . . .,. :aa .itr'r":^Yf rt v.• tt�1t�`t''"•G�: cjiy'•:RCr�+��.0 t"J� it.fii . . ✓C`S ^3.. �: .�_ , '" r e • �,• ' iu ' f �.. ,,,t ',�f� ki fir_ • i.. ,C 1 r � area and because the nature of the Downtown area has not created a environment where families or the elderly desire to come. We currently have tourists here. They do ndrspend money here, but they use our facilities. The condition of the downtown is deteriorating and while some of us have improved our Lcildings we can't attract businesses until the entire area is cleaned up and rejuvenated . And there is no effective tool tool like redevelopment to manage the present and future tourist pollution. Secoon, s highrise in many persons mind is inherently evil. Well ; that's an aesthetic problem that cqn only be worked out as time goes on. And if we develop a plan that totally precludes highrise we will not attract the kind of develop e t we II need. We will only attract the 2 story, A unit motelsAthat is rr currently built on Coast highway at Bth ,4A+ t-i�i,g4Warir. And Look at the lack of environmental amenities we have in that project. I feel that since we chose to develop a plan first and then attract developers that we must be flexible for if we don't develop flexibility which includes the potential for some highrise whi::h is enviornmentally sound, we will be stalemated as we h-ve for the last 10 years. Third, the citizens have been misled into believing that: A. THis is a rip-off B. This will increase their taxes. C. This will keep their property values down and will make the property difficult to sell because of'a purported claim that there will be a cloud on title. D. TH$I will chive out hordes of people from their homes by eminent domain. �f � I�dFYi.t'yJ.J'I-'� 'yr... ' 'v ...r'. ...f .. .0:..l: , - >'-'S'•• ti. ,.,a l•:'¢•��.:. ! Its,'Y�h..'�"�,�7.��,,Ifl��W��,S' ��. i a TO��-, I Since our last pub is meeting, I have had further -occasion to listen to the public express their concerns bout the proposal redevelopment. I wish to thank them for rarticipating in the , process-for with out this, ours is a government by default. I " c would like to state a good experience I h.--.d Tuesday at Edison' II.S. "^ and earlier at golden West. THese were: the only institutions that took up the challenge to inviteme to speak. I believe that when _. the unanimous council gave the citizen group known as the PAC the charge to develop a plan for a concert called "modified e distination resort" thoy were well aware that the reasons ' behind I i coming up with a plan was a desire to do the following: 1. comply with Health and Safety Code paxam-.±ters of the . k Redevelopment Plan. 2. Properly develop the face of the City and improve its image and create a good environment for the blighted areas of. the • ' } coast. 3. Develop a better tax base for the citizens of the City as a whole to reduce the impact of rising tares on the homeowner. With a City planning expenditure of close to $100 ,0.00.00 in 'the last few years and the putting in of 150 plus hours f++ i in 1977 the PAC came up with a plan that attempted to meet those goals without going into the details of the plan, I will still 1 attempt to show how this plan answers the concerns of our citizens% I lst - - To those who don't want Tourist pollution: We already have it. This plan is an a: tempt to manage ii .... ...�..«.....-...........-.-..«..+........—..«w..«.�,........-.....�....-............._.-+wv.,., Y:.....'.Y .z': u...r.h C,...a.....�,....e-+.-.� �...w.....+wr.b.xM',eK;,i�Y/:..�"Mr+ifl�t.uPr+. I 4" and improve the environment and recapture the present tax dollars the local citizens are spending on th3 tourists. Now what facts is this statement based on: (1) 85% of our beach is used by non-residents - source ; 'i of that statement - Dept. of Harbors and Beaches in 1975 (2) The only alternative to recapture th.: tax dollars on the beach is to sell it to the state. I believe that all the citizens need do is look at the state beeches. This City has done a fantastic environmental job with its beaches which are a real credit to the Harbors and Benches Dept. And it has • 'been run as one of the most efficient and economical departments = � r within the City. (3) . The voters in this City have often expressed a concern about the rising taxes. In fact there is a mandate in this city as tha result of the November 1976 voting on Proposition M and I N. This City must respond to that mandate. I •believe, that the ri City must not only find a better way to use taxes for the benefits of its local citizens, but must develop means to take the burden off the homemaker. It should be pointed out that a 'few homeowners have told us that they don't care how much taxes they , pay for they do not wish to see any further development 'of any ; kind. Tn fact, some of the rentors have told us that because of i current development they are: being excluded from the market place because of rising prices and further it should be pointed out that , ;j many mortgage payments of currently New buildings are greater ,t than the rents that could be received. And this fact invites overcrowding, another bad environmental situation. .�..._...�.�..............r.« sn xw•..r.s...,•d «+o:r:5.•»..., ....«c..sl:. . :.�;.:;:-.ii:.�,::,t7..,:.r..u-s....•...�++...«..........»....•.......v.r+v.•.er+►.K»h A.At►�T.n"S�Cy,J:y'y�.�A"b1X h • . r. • i r r 1 I I balieve that the tourist pollution can best be managed by insuring that we develop the property to a use that effectively solves the problems we currently have. The problems I allude to are as follows: 1. The coastal commision is awaiting a redevelopment plan for the townlot area on coast highway from Golden West to i Gth Street. (I have (liven testimony on this before as to what happened in 1974 and 1975 the problems of lot consolidation. I will sumit as an exhibit testimony before the coastal commission this year. 2. The downtown is a dead area. I can give you personal testimony of Moortgage payments that are met by the owners with out appropriate income fr:.•m tenants. And I can give you , personal testimony fohbusir.esses failing left and right because 'r of the blight that currently exists in this area. I can testify that 2 of the mast prominent and permanent surfboard shop owners want redevelopment and have signed a petition, as some npproximately 200 other owners and residents of the area have with their + addresses filed with the City Clerk which rands as follows: (see attached) 3. Pacific Coast highway and Beach currently are not managed to handle the traffic we currently have or contemplate in the future. 4. The surfing sea is becoming -over crowded. 5, The City has lost substantial revenue because of the problems with the Fheraton and lack of sales in the Downtown rrmw++Y..w +....�.,,+`.yrivs...,x .•,v.yrs-s:a,...wv...�.......•..�.w. .•i.., .....�..... L I t area and because the nature of the Downtown area has not created a environment where families or the elderly desire to come. We currently have tourists here. They do no spend money here, but they use our facilities. The condition of the downtown .� is deteriorating and while some of us have im?roved our buildings we can' t attract businesses until the entire area is cleaned up and rejuvinated And there is no effective tocl tool like redevelopment to manago the present and future tourist pollution. ,+ Second, highrise in many persons mind is inherently evil. Well , that's an aesthetic problem that con only be worked � out as time goes on. And if we develop a plan that totally ise we will not attract the kind of development �'. precludes hlghr ment we P need. tic will only attract the 2 story, 11 unit motels that is currently built on Coast Highway at 8th and Pacific Coast Highway. and Look at the lact of environmental amenities we have in that project. I feel that since we chose to develop a plan first Yi and' then attract developers that we must be flexible for if we don' t develop flexibility which includes the potential for some highriss.a which is env iornmentally sound, we will be stalem7-ited as we have for t the last 10 years. Third, the citizens have been misled into believing that: A. ^His is a rip-off i'•; D. This ' 1 increase their taxes. ` C. This will keep their property values down and will make the property difficult to sell because of a purported claim that their will be a cloud on title. D. Tfisi will drive out hordes of people from their homes by r- omincrt domain. ti t ...+wra•.,.x+.naatsll"tl^C+l/:...Tt.:n.7 Xr*n:i\«l.i?t'.,1-..... ... ..».., -.'. .... .rr..r. ...........--.»..,.... ... ,..«..«..-.»r...++...w........+��.. R�J.i?M+EiO•` 1' I must say that the few people who came before us never read the plan or its provinions. They were the victims of rumor and innuendo. They wanted a physical model of the plan so that they could see what could develop. The problem with that is that this project area did not have a development specifically planned because it must first have a general plan pursuant to the Health and Safety Code. A. No facts have ever been induced to show this is a zip-off. H. While in fairness we can not at this time say that ' redevelopment will decrease taxes; we believe we can say that it will decrease the rise in taxes if in fact the projected revenues are obtained. No facts were ever shown that this project would - increase taxes per se. { C. z personally have called the Title Company, the Assessors office ai.J the County Recorder to see if ::he claim made by SOS 1 concerning "notes attached to deeds showing property is under emminent N 4s��cr• j.� i,t domain isAtotally false" . f D. No facts have ever been induced to show that people will be driven out of their homes by er.:Ainent domain. The fact is that 1 ys very few homes are effected by this redevelopment plan. ,3 •r V11�• ., tS'4' 'i�'S�.�: !72', :1. ':"0 .^, .; _ ,a. 1:,,f` ,`•1"t:a)fr��!17�! L'?.1` !' ti t {w✓ "yii ) }i w1i �r.t � { � t r11 ,3fu t �- '•! 4 •1 � /' `}y ;YS:Y,} `1 ii�� y�,t(�yY'+.� �,M�t��, k�K rr/1,-;�it L •r r�f+ri�� •tt '}i ,.,i ,. 1 .f. .t a)...,) t � ' {� r`L `t"$'.1{1rt }�Q�l�c•�JS F}'"'� ' r{ t RESOLUTION r The UNDERSIGNED hereby supports the Huntington Beach Destination Resort Redevelopment concept currently being proposed to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment � Agency. The U1DERSIGNED further will actively work to promote the concepts contained therein which ,,.•.ill bring a greater tax dollar base to this City. 'rho UNDERSIGNED believes 3 that an environmentally sound highrise, hotel/business development : +?' fr.ontinq on Coast Highway and the immediately adjacent specialty commercial complex will provide the catalyst to make Huntington Leach' a comminity in which the citizenry can tale great pride. f NAM, ADDRESS NAME ADDItTSS ' . .• ,. ,tie•$`: r �..y.qi,V.w/�......�....r........r•...w. ...Pwcr,..n•e,..Mt+wr.,..r�.�..�..r.... .v w:.t*-.:JANM wu++•Drqr........�.....+wa......r.�•..r.n...�.rw�+M+�.s+w•..w N.f'Ar1A'i,77^ . ' ,t b. Appeal No. 2 :76. Appeal of Leonard 0. Lii z)rg fs^om decision of i South Coast Regional Commission denying permit to divide 1.8-acre parCal and eon- atruct 2 fourplexes and 5 triplexes on cast s:de of Lake Street, between Palm and Acacia Streets, Huntington peach, Orange County. Mr. Bodovitz eaid there is a critical need for proposed major redevelopment projects that would increase public traffic to the ocean to accommodate the traffic and transportation needs. He said staff believes this type of major, ! attraction to the waterfront won' t work unleso there are corresponding.provisions for transpertation. He said such a transportation provision to the ocean would i probably be along Lake Street, perhaps by negotiating with Pacific Electric right-of-way to widen that street. -fie eaid the question is whether it would be consistent with the Coastal Act to develop it in a way that might have the unintended result of significantly impeding a major public accessway to the oceanfront. lie • ! said these issues were before the Regional Commission and staff believes their decision is amply Supported by the record and there were no procedural issues war- ranting a different conclusion. He said the planning issue is that allowing development before these issues are reolved is premature and inconsistent with q the Act. He said, therefore, the staff recoamenda no sul.stantial issue. <j David Dahl, representing the applicant/appellant, said he objects because there was a finding of fact made that the area could be a transportation corridor ! when there had been no discussion of this in the Regional staff report. lid said he felt, therefore, that there should be a discussion of this on the State ' level. He said they discussed at the R6gicnal level the redevelopment, parks and open space issues. He said he has to agree with the State staff report on these issues, and was surprised they came up with a negative iecoameadation. Mr. aodovitz said the problem is that the redevelopment planning,of forts ;;•:} within the City =y clusnge the general plan. Hey said the applicant believes he °•� i should be able to go ahead without waiting until matters are resolved, lie said •-:f staff believes under the finAtings of the Coastal Act a Project that could possibly impede coastal access should not be allowed to go ahead, eupecially when planning is going on. 1 Mr, Mal Carpenter, Executive Director of South Coast Regional Commission, L ' said the redevelopment agency.pIan has not been approved by the CiV yet, and although this p:eject cantR:;ns to the general plan; Fie red'eveao2ignt:,pian could '►: change the planning in this a ea, lie said he felt the planning option should ' • 'be...re�Qrvad' or`_r"'iho �i�yr. , Mr. Bodovit« said many permit denials in the early days of the Commission were � :• really on the same general plan, He raid the staff has tied to exaMina -each t� cave tv detormino whether the City is making a bonafide effort to resol�le these issuen. He said in this kind of redevelopment in Huntington Beach, transportation • � is a major oonnern. MOTIONi Cc=issioner Benioff moved the Commission find no substantial issue, daoondod y Co=issioner Frautocry, and the hand vote was 7 in laver end O against, o, AMeel No, 217776, Appeal of Zelpha E. Wars from decib.�-, of Central N Coast RegionalCCxT.'Lisslon granting pannit to Joseph Lyru% for 2-atory, single- fa..rily home on Merced Avenue, 1151 north of Wasteliff Drive, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz .1"OuntY, `•..,...w..w^+.+�.-�—: ••__—...................... �.... -......r_.. ...,-...-,.......,.... f'.','�tii,:S•: ....:.��,.:/ant•�tr..a..#caw. .^.r4✓xrr.C7lr.•..r,rw+++•sae.�rr.++ir+..w'w"M7fi r t ' // � 99•�d 1 G'il► if ..Sj'►'�r'�/:,� l 7ri 4 /t Although the Hunt.nl;tol& Beach units of. the Lc-4nia of )„omen Votorg have riot completed `(�(��y+may their redewalopme.AO udy and cannot at thia time address the redevelopment plan in total., the local, scare and national League has a long-standing concern low and moderate inccme housing. We therefore strongly uNO the Redevelopment Agendy to Mond the plan to Include the r000=ended provision for allocatior of tax incro font flinch to provide for lour arse moderate income housing. Sectiob 3.7 of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan stators "The socio-oconomie fobrie of the neighborhoods included in the Redevelopment Project will be affected by project Aativitiev both in the near and long teams. Inner inec►me persons and senior cis aris on fixed in6nnos may find increased rents rewil.ting from increased property tyres to be unaffordable• It in anticipated, howaver, that such impacts rill be mitigateO ;a by nachruituras for provision of lea and moderate income housing included as a print R* of this. Plan'-nq Well as by the City$s houcring assiotanoo pivgrm.►► ; At prusent .the extent of the City's housing assistance program as related to the proponed, project area is rantal assistance under Section 0 to lU7 families. Thin ►' barely touches the prosent hcu sing need without aldi easing the impact of radavclopnonte ti j The onvir(xuiental impact report (76-2) states at the end of nection 3 7 lt. , "Aa -ISO it I valaau increase, a higher ineemtt population will displace mach of the low : icUtme ` population and tha elderly. This will be partially mitigated by the prov?aion of low and moderate inorune housing *,rithin or adjacent to the Project Area„" 'Tke-tr�rar�fo ` �•y�+sg3•ecmd..sr�l7. �1-y'-trcc�k-ott�ho •; sc�r#o-aoor:amisr-effeaw of-re It 33 essential, that the dity of im ' its oommitt:nent to the Wends of�'he•ar sa.bye proposed amrrndmvr:ti a tvon section 5.6 to the r . e�m opmt plan entitled bf and Lbderato Income Houainga �� raqui ink +-.\r'. 0 percent or t Y incrment revenues allocated to the Agency and not other:-!see pledged to indebtedness for the provision of lour rd moderate income housing within or outside the Project Area i ;��q'..i•�\,}r •. ,r. . _.. . - -r'./ .tr...• •sr�:t{.•�:'r;"' ,'•. M;`7t1?t�1^'.�r i t.`,.t' 1v, . , ,.;.: R\ .ql s.,$"7�!�,,, J { � !�S. ',d(rri t7' a. � r`1 in addition to rauponding to a vory definite neadj this n.:._-ndmorit riould broaden the options of tho city for piwif. fim-, ticedod lo,r avid noderata incomes housing; and would bring the Redavelopnent Man into conformity with the requirements o'. the sta.e law which takep ;effect January lute + • a .;•._._,-,1.-,� ;�;-..tom,.,r. �t. e-- Irz Vol ,...,,,. �-�,.�,,.'_,.��L.�,,.��•t;.' .../,z'�LC:_`" . � �..t_ L.C. � 'C_. �� t'..��c••v^ J 4 r f { i i `�+..'M r..[�.......... ""NJs�e.-err [a. .... .[�.'. .. »_._. ._.. «.»..y..... o... .. .. • ._.........�.....—�.......�..�.N..aY/8/ i ;fle eouncll on Aging r^ CII'Y OF HI)NTINGT'ON PEACH j „,�„M,,,,,n.,►, 1706 Orwigo A-unitw • Htlt,tington K!,i i, C,,Iifornid 92648 Ph. (71,0 536-9387 t November 18, 1976 t Honorable Harriett wieder Mayor, Huntington Beach Chairperson, Redevelopment Agency The Huntington Beach Council on Aging requests that a moderate redevelopment plan for downtown Huntington Beach be considered by the 11ndevelopment Agency. Such a plan: 1. To place a reacriction on the condemnation of single family and other residential housing in the redeveloping ' area. 2. Include now, the provision which will be required of, ;f redevelopment plans after Jan. 1, 1977, namely, that (20%) twenty percent: redevelopment tax increments monies be set aside for the provision of low and ' g moderate income housing. Low and moderate income housing, is a priority ` which affects human beings directly, and must be q ven a fair share of preference Spl any brick and mortar { project:, in redevelopment planning. 4 ' f•': !dike Rodgers, Chairman j Council On Aging f � f 1't 1 ' Tot Mayor Wieder City Counoil, Pros'`'�Lacnard Bright 9«20..76 city of HuntinQt;on Beach 606 - 15th St, HB Sub cots Corsento concerning the Oct. 11 hearing on redevelopment The following items may be of Interest concerning the Cot. 11 hearing on redevelopment, a o the pr b)AIM that 0111syne ve e Information letter (Ed eelioh plans one) to go out with the legal-noti& letters to those in the redevelopment area. These should also be available at the hearing, a Start presentation oovering all the significant items. , Full position• statemente by the PAC verbally at the hearings • Tom Whaling will probcbiy deaoribc the majority positions. ' • Other PAC members probably will state their minority posltiona to the extent appropriate. Whenever someone recognizes any misconceptions or erroneous statements (either during the hearing or otherwise), state your ande7rstwAing of the ites, or rotor them to the FD. C n.SL.otm- Q o3 isenR For possibly 1} years VTN assured the public that they Intended low Intensity development for the piss area. Thern, after the public wwt maws with this, M presented their development proposal -- which vas the opposite of all previous assurances, Then some (wholre stxongorc ri;r the VTst proposal) Intlattod that tho publio's previous soceptarve of th;, low-intensity assursnoss someMw moons that they accept the oppoc:te --- the current VTN plan. Such duplicity creates distrust, Many p+eopYe therefore frol that they'll be given vague promises and empty assurances to defutio opposition. Then after itls too late for theypublio to have an Izpact (possibly sometime after the redevelopment pion 1s approved), the more algaitleaat � of their concerns will be proven correct. I belleve that when all the facts are neighed, that (dospito what appearances may be to none) reuanablo decisions wM alleviate Jzstifivd concerns, Thus my approach has beam tot r . publicly support redevelopment (I fix strongly for Xt"onable redevslap- sent). . keep most of y other stLtementi non-publio or quasi-private (this Bar change at the Oct. 11 ho*rUw) . • not promoto ar4thing that would till redevelop wnt. A sizeable segment of the public wants to know what tho powers of implementation will be used for before granting the powers of implemon» tativn. They want assumaos that redevelopment will be used Roll. 6 CZ t ' Wih ' j I L. Wright to CC. '6ef- 11 hearing. -2• Some possible "B'%urances might Includes . policy statements after the public Input, but during the heart g, the PD and CC outline dcmina►nt oltieen ooncerns ends e ways to accommodate reasonable concerns. ' the philosophical ammomm of the CC. For aaany' sonthe citizens harm asked about oonaerne extupliPied by the VTN plan. They've always been told that wet" not: considering that Roar, 1 4 but that night be considered later. Then they ass- the VTN plaan approved«in-co noept with no opportunity for ' public input, They get the fooling that soaelhUw 21ke thin stAt gel: approved and that they've still not been able to crake tidy public Input. It's difficult for the publio and most; of ups to know exaotly the best time to publdoly disouse oortain items. At the Oot. 11 hearing, I'll ape" on several items' 1, Support for the redevelopment plan with the stipulstIms in my r sincritr roporti. 2. Conospts A, 8 and C as defined in the HIH and as desoribed in my g•l..?b paper attached (Thine as an atom separate frara the adoption of the redevelopment plan) . 1 3. Possibly my opinion on the lawwuit, r • 1 � 1 ` i LevY...,cd t+l-Aght, 9 -1-?6 Sub eot: Preference for concept B (intermediate intensity) or lower (wee after p. 60, Proposed Redevelopment Plan LIR for HB downtown redevelopment project, July. 1976. Concepts A. B and C are not pert of. the redevelopment plan, but are alternatives that could be developed subsequent to adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. We would support a policy that development intensity not exceed that of concept B (possibly lower if thts proves practical) . .....� . �....A.._ ___ ..�...w...r ,r�MlV Y• U.V��.IY�M Y• •�-.r�- .....r..V..Y r• 1. Qncevt A . High YntonaltZ QM14_,,, Plan)- ), a. Foints in favor The surplus project revenue of $5,303,000 a year for the 9-blook area• is greater than for the r other.alterzativess , concept B: $1,983,000 a Tear concept C: 31.287,000 eh Year Possibly this revenue advantage may be partly (or wholly?) offset i under concept B or C from revenues outside the 9-blook area, b, hints in opt:os�,ltiign, . The supply of commercial space under this alternative would far ! exceed the space requirt necessary to neat the area$& market potential (BIBS p. $1) .emen neces . IFavor existing bun!7,;.sss* would MA it economically feasible to return to the nine block area (EIB, 'p. 62) . . Current owners of .businesses in the first blodk mad be frozen out of partioipating, *Vter redevelopment, Has the greatestiolf the 3 concepts, The same amount of project income could be available with develop" ments In other parts of the redevelopment area, • Would dramatically change the orientation of the area (many feel. detrimentally), • Too many restaurante on the pier side of PCR. inhibite restaurants on the land side from sufficiently fulfilling their funotlton as anchor tenants. , Too many people in the pier area from: the proposed structures. This tight conflict with other uses (beach and speolelty-shop oriented) . Too much congestion of people and traff,lo, traffic circulation problems (Including not having 2 swain corridors nearby) . Possibility of using up enough market potetstiul that some other areas may not develop. This type of development looated here would force nearby property ,values up to the extent that residents. would be forced to move. This is aontiory to the goal of letting those of Moderate means litre near the ocean. As a result pressurev woltld mougt to change the zoning or nearby residential areas. . "ONt citizen reaction has born unfavorable. 1 Concopt B or lower -Z-• —Laonaze Wright. -o-z3.:1o. • Thin is the opposite to VTNIs previous assurances to the public of Intentions for lox-Intenalty development. Thia indicat;eo a subter- fuge that should not be rewarded. • This plan indl.cates a complete 4ioregard for citizen Input and reflecto an attitude that VTN 'and the lawsuit pertieo feel they can get about what they want , We shouldn't be forced to accept a development concept because of' thrents of a lawsuit. • . Too much blocking of view and breezes When viewed from inland. . If this type of development were deslreable (and thle is not an endorsement of i0v it would be much more praotioal in Urger areas under separate ownership. Also, this type of development should be towards the center of the anmeraial area. A. Con4eot B - Intexmedl att. jMten■. sly alb faints in favor b� Less alteration to the existing street network than vculd'ftmder .%Oncept A. . Three times less demand on utility axed energy resource supply capwbil+ties as under concept A. ]Probably could afford ualle (aaauming that you rant walls) . b. Points in opposition . The commercial floor area ezoeeda the requirement necessary to most the area's market: potential. .although it is not as excessive as in concept A. Less businesses should find it economically feasible :to return to the nine block area than under concept C. but more cy3uld return than under concept A.Some may feel that the 5-stor; c tul re allowed at Lake is too high. f. 3. CQ3J�ceot C - Rehabil„itat 4n a, ri»tea in favor ■�ri■■■i■Y�■•r1■�■ �rrr• Lass alterations to the existing street network than would be under concept A. Four tines lose demand on utility and energy reeauroe supply capabilities as under concept A. . Would use existing alleys as pedestrian paths thereby reducing U.e nee-i for relocating utility lines. . Mare Weinessem should find it economically feasible to retu= tw* the nine block area than under concepts A and B. . Possibly the greatest chance of otmer of business in the first block to participate in the same location after redevelopment. b. ,manta in oAt�osiLion . Although commercial space exceeds market potentialIp ltis not by as such as undertvanoepts A and B. . . Rehabilitation may be insufficient for some structures. . Might not be able to afford mulls (aasuming that you want malls). POrhaps a arose between concepts B and C Vould be practical. RICHARD G. VOGL Aironrmy AT LAW 1133 Civic Center Drive Vest Ssnta Ana, California 92703 Telephone: (714) 8334737 September 24, 1976 IiLJiv i iivG i C»1 PEACH Edward D. So'.ich P .f.'N' n`pj. Acting Director Planning and Environment Resources 5�'r' ' l ih City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 n, 0. r:o, 19U Ca 92646 }lunfing�ton F-C.- i.CA 92648 Re: Public Hearing October 11, 1976 Community Redevelopment Commission Dear Mr. Selich: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I will be unable to attend the meeting which is now set for October 11, 1976. I nonetheless want my feclinga as to the redevelopm©nt program known to the Commission. I would appreciate your duplicating this letter and making it available to the members, I strongly support the redevelopment plans which will be under discussion at the October llth public hearing. The old commercial area of Huntington Beach is deteriorating and can only be revitalized by an agency with sufficient power to carry out its redevelopment plans. The present redevelopment plan for speciality and commercial areas is an intelligent alternative to the haphazard development near the pier. I urge the members of they City Council as well as the project area community to pass ana support the redevelopment project. Thank you for this opportunity to expross my feelings. incerely, RI G. VOG L Attorney at Law RGV:ak "^�r..w.f+Ns.Ma..MV w.w..-....+...na...s i.•.N1•. • .►.... ....w...n.1. . -u.,s ......-.--..»..-........... .. . ...-... i . - 1. • O .T. .T. 9 FIN A 1111>441N IiA19T NUNTINGTON OEA.CN. CAI.IFORNIA 92048 6� O tr 28, 1976r�7,yCf04�,o REDEVELOPMENT PLAN DOWNTOWN PROJECT AREA f City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 5264E Attention: Mr. Richard Harlow Asst. City Administrator De..7. Dick: I Enclosed for your information is an extract of the Chamber of Commerce Directors ' meeting of September 20, 1976, reflecting their support for the adoption of the City's Redevelopment Plan at the scheduled i October 11, 1976 hearing. Very truly yours, JJS/h Enclosure cc: Messrs. Ed Selich w/encl. ?' Tom Whnling w/encl. 1'I r= t 1 I" "'..wAM/wbG+'4✓'CYeYIYdlR4«�Il4w'.aSJi4. ...'481':i'ifJ..rI�1N)'.l .Y.1l.l+.. war. • ..... ... .. - ... ....... ...V..w t All%, EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CUMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1976 - I RESOLUTIOW: Chairman Compton presented the following Resolution in form of motion: WHEREAS, the: Huntington peach City Council has previously adopted a destination- resort concept for the Downtown-Pacific Coast Highway area of the City known as the Project Area under the auspices of the City's Redevelopment Agency, and WHEREAS, the City Council acting as the Redevelopment Agency has prepared a Re- development Plan for the Project Area containing residential, specialty-commercials tourist-commercial and public areas Gf activities and a source of funding from ta"; increment revenues generated from the Project Area, and WHEREAS, the successful implementation of said Plan can give now life to this Import- ant area of our City, create a new and broader tax base for our City and create the kind of "front window" to our City that we can all take pride in, and ' 'WHEREAS, on October 111 1976, a public hearing for the aforesaid Redevelopment Plan will'be hold and the Chamber of Commerce wishes to express its support, NOW THEREFORE, the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Huntington Beach - the Pacific Ocean City with miles of open beaches, does hereby acknowledge and expresn Its appreciation to the City Council and all others who have encouraged and assibted In the creation of the Redevelopment Plan, The Chamber fecognizea that,the Plan le general in nature and will need many refinements and further serious cpnsideratlon f to specific projects in tho Project area, but it also recognizes that in order for such st,aps to be taken the first step has to be the approval and adoption of the Rodovelop- ment Plan. THEREFORE, the Chamber approves anr: racommends-the adoption of tho-Redevelopment Plan at Its October 11, 1976 public hearing and looks forward to its successful im" plomentation, the long-awaited improvements to the "front window" of our City and the generation of now City revenues from visitors to our City for the benefit of all tho residents of our City. Motion seconded by Director Rollings asrried unanimously, tvlth director Slates abstdintng , 1 +..rf.:.{;+..... .a...-."1'.�..e Y.r..,as.-.r ata...».•I,r....r... ....... .. ..a , .. . .w .,.. ,....--.. ....................—......«'.._,�«. ..�.......•+............+•�.w.'�..Rtif�Y4XLY�•I/i' rj li • Tat• City Council 1 Proms Leol-kd Wright 3LO-4-76 City of Huntington Beach 606 - 15th St, HB MJ19.11 Oot. • 11 hearing on the Downtown Redevelopment Plan U Roort:-f r, the.Rian For many years we've granted to see downtown EB become revitalised. Ter -few people oppose improving the arcs. Any long-range government- • bNjed plan has ;ite ntisl pitfalls suoh as s concepts promoted and accepted for certain benefits are used different (sometimes detrimentally) than expfeoted. . the sake-up and philosophy of controlling bodies can change. . it's difficult to forsee what willahappen. An area that seems to have little going for it might catch fine and expand rapidly once businoss investors sense something is about to happen (possibly due to a new attractive venture) . Or the area well-looated may not take off even after substantial amounts of planning, support and investment. Shoe most of us aren't experts or experienced in revitalising blighted business areas, we can't be sure that what we support will be both suooe&sful and beneflolai to;*those soot heavily Impooted. I support the rederelopsent plan with the stipulations desorlbed widen . Tam increment f inanoing . Senior citizens housU6 . D+eveloyment on tho pier . Old oivio oenter alto . Parks Developsout :onoepts A, B and C for the lawsuit area and Main Street The city has made extensive efforts to inform the public. From the aorsentes I've received sinoe our last PAC sooting, further olarifying will be needed for: 1. Th,�,,eac_„h�.nt o ,�snent darain. Tp a „a_r,_ea, The Townlot area (6th to aoldenwest and Walnut to Pals) was added to provide tax•inorooaent-financing fundso but the esioeiat dogaln Poosibliity applies 'to all of they redevelopment: irsa. Elderly widows (and .some younger•pee)ple) are especially oonoorned. I 'nelieve that the plan indicates afn intention not to use esint.nt domain in the Townlot, You may e3-11M3aate a lot of apprehension (and possibly some Opposition) if9 . before public Input bagins, a councilman indicates that the CC ! intends to change the plan to prohibit eminent domain in the ToMnlot area (YOU MY mnt to oheak with the PD for feasibility) . the plan ins so amewed. � •• ... ... .. .. .. .. .......... . -.. r ,. ...,r•i x a.A3l'.:J.:Y.rz.w".yt". tww.:LPn.r+.+v • t I Y,sonard Wright to CC, 10--4-76 iwatown 8odevelopment gomeocrner in the ogre business area A homoowner in the 200 block of 3rd street is concerned with being relocated further away from the ooban, They favor an Old Town specialty shop development similar to that of Scottsdale, Arizona 85252 (C of Cr P.O. Hoar 129) . A downtown business said that his experiences with relocating 6meowners •;as bad. ctow,z buu�c�nesees A couple of the owners of downtown business buildings are conoerned about losing their buildings, One is in the first block of !lain tat, They vAnt to be able to upgrade their buildings if needed, f 1Ze Pa_,rY People here are concerned, My understanding is that mobile-home- parks are considered as a temporary land uset and t1a t it's probable that a number of these peo�le will eventually be relocated, This may be a number of years away say 10 or 15). Questione arise as to where at that tine --- especially since land is being used up, There are a lot of subi.le homes in the redevelopment area, • 2. TU SX-algaent fUMoing Mont people don't twderstand it, They feel that their taxes will go up (especially more than ottywide since they're In the redevelop- seat area). Other concerns inolude: , tax increment funds used on other than redevelopment projeots, , a000unting of and monitoring of ;Rinds, , taxes rising because of redevelopment costa. , property taxes rising because of the impact of redevelopment 3* Ift h1fib dgMalIX area a PCH be x on 6th d Golftliggil High density zoning is reasonable here (except where long-estab 11ehed homes are in the upper half block of 8th and west side of upper half block of 7th) since this strip fronts a major arterial. But a nus bbr are concerned that high.-rise could go In there. The P1,0 was sensitive to this from the start and (in essence) r000wmended that this ba eliminated as a high rise area, ' My ispression is tWAta no one on# the CC, PD, PC or RC considers the area for high rise, Those concerned have expressed oomter-argumants: If M tells us all along that they intend low-intensity develop- Rent for the lawsul►t area, then propose a 20-story highwrise, bow • are we to believe any assursnoes that we're given on anything? . , It a high-intensity development is approved near the pier, that$s Pat a first step. Later on others will say that since that's there, itts reasonable to do something comparable nearby. Possibly these concorno can be minimized if a councilman saya that this area will be zoned fairly soon and with a lo.- height limitation, i ' Leonard to CC. 10-4-76 -3- DowntoxA Sodevelopment Leonard Wright 19INORITYJMAJORITY REPORT ON TAX INCREMENT FINANCING SUGGESTIONS: ' 1. Ancourage investments by .private enterprise and use trot increment financing only as much as is necessary. 2. Retire Tax Increment Financing bonds as fast as praotical. 3. Do not include more area within the redevelopment boundarieo then is necessary. 4. Limit use of redevelopment funds to financing standard recognized redevelopment -activity. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Ma or was besides rivate enter rise) to finance redevelo men -. a. Grants in aid (such an urban renewal) Wig often. resulted in destroying more than was created and in dis- placing (without relocating) those on low and moderate incomes. b. Tax Increment Financing- (TIP) Use n place of grunts in aid. 2. Financial Impact of TIP a. revokable ome areas would further deteriorate (dwindling revenue to government bodies) if left on their own. TIP can enable halting deterioration and bring revitalized areas. b. Unfavorable When tei ncaue to the City (rand County) is frozen at a given points . The city (and county) won' t get, more property tax money from the area for the additional. buildings and population created in that area. Thus, (failing substantial increases in sales— tax revenues from this area) , the other taxpayers will pay snore; tares to subsidize city and county services (utilities, street improvements, schools, fire, police) required by new developments in the projact area (also for increased costs in current aervicas) . The wider the included area is, the less taxes the city receives ,. and the greater the subsidy required from taxpayers outside the area. There seems to be little adverse TIF impact when the percent of the city under redevelopment is small. But . ' this can change if larger areas are put .into redevelopment boundaries. j �M._1'w.j"1/•"�4w..s.. .r.w.w w...s.....'.....+e... .....« ♦ti ... ..r . r............. _........ . . w....r.. t i ♦\'. {... , .MrrlWi.�iMM..w..Yr!/MVI.�hF�'X.�l�'M' i i • Downtown Aedevelopment -4• Leonard .fright to We Page Two MINORITY/MAJORITY REPORT ON TAX INCLEMENT FINANCING_ -- .. 3. Potential TIP Abuse As redevelopment progresses and funds become available, there's a temptation to finance items that should never be included under redevelopment. This unnecessarily expands the debt and loss oL revenue to the City. I I. .~ DowAt own $edeveloYm zt Leonaz l�44ght to GC o 10-4-76 !EHt08 CITXgJ11Q o HOUBZNG SUGGSSTIOM 1s Assure that senior oiticeno housing is available in and/or near the redevelopment area. Zo The housing should not be such that it wouldn't be allowed It It aren't for a worthy cause bsoause: an adverse effect is the same no matter what its orlglns . we could then conceivably have pressures for•speolal oonwsideratIon for any nvaber of "worthy causes.m . if you do it for one. ,then others oau argue that their ease is not signIfioantly differents M. M 1. The overwhslaing number of senior citizens I've tanked with have paid their dues to society. They've made major efforts to be Independent and self-reliant. Buoh people merit consideration when the tollles of society and other factors create hardships. Causal factors include rising taxes and inflations 2s A sampling of senior citizens shows that: s They ask nothing for themselves but do speak of help for other senior oiticetns they feel map eventually need it. A high number are not in favor of special subsidy. ' Most would prefer to live in thel?.- homes if they own them. These attitudes and actions indicate merit for aid when itts needed, t Because of their attitudes of self-relianoag very fox would participate in planning prograins. Nevertheless, deservflng people can be Found to fill. housing when buiits • - •. •.. ..w was Fv.r+s•-nw..awww.n.r..vw'gARitt •1. t .-1 Leonard Wright to CC* 10-4-76, -6.- Dousitown Redevelopment I r i inaT�c+r SF1PO DN DHV _ FM 2 ON THE Un MWIDI9M Limit pier activity to refurbishing what's thereo laws_ bsoauaa of the inherent ocean/beaah visual advantages zwotaussnts and ' retail developsente should be United on the pier side. This lets the restaurants on the land vide function aa anchor tenants, Then the ;Land. side developwints are more Ukely to-fulfill their fanotions e UPI analysis shows a restaurant potential of 4OpOOQ sqe ft. (5 to restaurants) in the redevelopment ar6so No more than 25 peroent (101000 sq, ft. or a "z.�,of„2 restm�g!ats pier side of PCS. ) shou3.d be on the I • i I i• , :l c• i t I •+�me+e+tnw.tir:,.r..y..*.errmrf+w j . • 1• t 1 1 1 . Leonard Wright to CC. 10-4-764 ' Do�rnto�m 13ed®velopment -7- . MINORITY REPORT ON OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE REFERENCE pp 6-7, letter from Leonard Wright to City Council, Planning Depa t- mant, Planning Commission, Project Area Committee and Redevelopment CoMission. subjects Parks, dated 8/16/76 j • SUGGESTION: i Currently keep the old civic center site for public use. REABONSs 1 . UPI analysis shows that selling the site might produce a long- term deficit and ita only advantage would lie in' its ability to provide initial start--up funds. Land sale revenues of $700# 000 are offset by possible costs of $1,993,000 to replace the library, community facilities and park site. 2. UPI believes that the Agency can obtain the required front- and money through other financing techniques. 3. The claimed benefits of selling for commercial development may not materiolize. • A commercial catalyst may be more practical in the 6 blocks fronting Main between PCH and Orange (Villa Sweden and Horse Federal haven't been catalysts) . ;. • Comsrercial that outstrips market potential can result in un- developed property and/or a number of marginal businesses. The i ! EIR indicates that even Concept C (the lowest intensity concept) exceeds market potential. 4. The City Is Investing a considerable amount. It may be best tos �- See redevelopment actually progreas before making further commitments (especially since we've had so many aborted plans in the past) . See what actually does develop before considering other than public use for any of the site. S. This would avoid actions that we can't recover from. 6. It may be desired (currently or in the future) to have an adult covinunity park limited to about 2--1/2 acres. If this should be the case, it will be nearly impossible once this site is developed. (See minority report on parks) • I Page .2 Minority Report on Old Civic Center: SUGGESTION STION The library should remain. RZASOONS • �. tther nearby buildings don't have the neces,7ary physical design. 7. It's wasteful to destroy sound structures, i • I • I • • i • t • 'Dovmtov a Rrdeve3r70. * to..4.76• =9- Leonard Wright to CC. MINORITY REPORT ON PARKS R1,FERENCE pp 1-5, letter from Leonard Wright to City Council, Planning Depart- mnnt, Planning Commis:fion, Project Area Committee and Redavalopment Ck:,,:AJjtee. Subject: Packs, 4ated 8/16/76 OUGGESTION Provide parks in the Redevelopment Area using somewhat the same 'criteria, that the City Council Concurs P.re reasonable for a city- ,*wide parks program. 1 . Park ,proposed in the vicinity of' Delaware and �'hicago is Old Town Using the standard of one park per quarter section, Old Town should have 3 parks; but putting a park at this site brings the total to 7. Originally it was believed that acquisition would have to be through negotiation. But it' s possible that we may get this site through dedication when condominiums are developed nearby. z. Par_ k suggested for Old Civic Center Site Perhaps an objective analysis would indicate if an adult community park limited to I-1/2 acres is substantie ly desirable (according to what the City Council concurs with an park program criteria) . Points in favor include: '•'' 0 The beach (83% of the beach goers are from out of the City) serves a different purpose than parks. It's reasonable to have parks near the. ocean (examples: Heisler in Laguna Beach and Bixby in Long Beach) Higher than usual developer park fees for this area aren't reinvested here. The Huntington Beach Co. originally "gave" the Old Civic Center site to the City with the understanding that it would be a perpetual park. Since the City already owns the land, there could be no r.i acquisition costs. Current land value shouldn' t determine if a given piece of land { is used for a park. Otherwise we'd eventually get rid of our ; parks as increasing population causes land values to rise. If this immediate area is further developed, it could .increase the need for a park - a park that would be impoa6:ble to provide' because of high land costs and scarcity of land. { DOVI1"itOWn Reds1e10p WM- •1U•4-?0* Mtv- Le(--Ard wrlght zo ue; , Paae.Two . Minority ReporIs on Parks Even with the park, the City woulA still be short about 9 cwnunity park acres in this area This is not a suggestion that a park be developed here, but that an analysis be done to determine if a park should be here. ' CENERhL COMMENTS i. our parks budget is the most economical pe4. capita of the 16 other cities over ,100,000 that we compare gurselvas •,pith, 2. It's important for each resident to be within a reasonable distance of a park - for recreation, relief to urban congestion and as a constructive alternative and date--rant to less desirable activities. 7 i f t i� •' ' 'r ' is • r . s . t '•S i .i; I Loo"rd Wright to CC. Dammtow n SedeTelopment. 10-4-76. A�•aendii a. Ds t: oe is A S d C e s a and a+n 8lReat, The MM describes these alternatives, They need not be a hindr tce to adapting the redevelopment plan. But It's reasonable to dlsousa them@ now sinoe s • , to R lot of people, the type of development (and whare) is the most wiSMflemb part of redevelopment. peopl6 may have a better feeling about redevolopmont•if fhay know and agree with what direction it'n likely to take. A. Aoa the eur U EY 20111gn were.,00ndyot d . No PAC member (eroept 2 in the firat block of Main SO were contaotad (I previously knew that they felt like signing). Major. businesses (muoh se banks and San companies) weren't If the owner or manager mon't prevent, or was busy or tho trailding was closed --p no farther effort was rate to contact. Beaters in residences weren't surveyed, b. a s 1te,,.e�f,,. ,°uxvep s►ud ye-titrIon • Two people favored the VTN plan. One felt that you should get ar much out of any property as possible. The ether said that he oamo here S years ago Intending to get something going like that • Most of the buslnees-owners don't own the buildings. • Majority sentimant seemed in the direction of rehabilitation •-� to make the area better, but to limit redevelopment Isere to no core than is neoeasary. • Most were in favor (ooze very strongly~) of upgrading the area. • A number who favored the petition didn't Leant to siM since they didn't knew what the position of Uieir landlord mas. • Some surfboard businesses didn't want to sign (some did) because they felt that &M redevelopment would wipe them out. Since their feelings seemed evident and consistent, I skipped a number of surfboard businesses. • Ono owner (7) signed. then orosoed-out his name --- I bellave that he felt that any of tho redevelopment concepts would raise his costs. • Some owners were oonoerned about eminent domain (Inoluding one in the 100 block of Main St; They mnt(,a to be able to upgm4s) their buildings, if neoessaryr. . .A considerable number were concerned about being forood-out by j redevelopment. Leonard Wright to CC. Downtown hadevelopvant. *'10-4-76. 2. r for eom th n between Cones t C Rehab litat n oe t H OngedLtte 1ntgVxIqJ 'I don't know whero the "economically practical" line In., My 'feelfng ie that moat people in the Umediate area- prefer a reactively • Tow intensity. Specific items aret A, 21d Town opgaeut fo a 6 b a e gZantIng Mkin botweenP Simi ar to the Concept C dlag:rsm) More quality small Weinesses could stay or return. The first block of Main would thon•aot to "runnel" or "draw" customers into the Old Town specialty shop area. b. 5 s dory ofxic-3 ,-tower t„�,�e a„Lii,,,o It such a building is allowed in the core business area,, thin Is tnu beat place for It since: . itse a distance from the nearest rooldentially-aone) area (4 blooks) . itIc at the intersection of 2 major arterials. Thie is not a recommendation in fervor of suoh a building. Those i who may be lmpaotsd should be heard from on any building.: 06 such „ reight, { I ' I � 1 r ` ter.•l ,." .. ,:is c?, t":G'C ..• ....,.., , ....,... ..... .. .,. ... t � .. .. ._�....._. ._...._. _.. ,. :..8✓,.1't't iY17 r✓;J.'a:.:'14C).t71!►iJll L 1 1 t i,• A-3. 1 Db��ttoxn Redevelopment Leonard Wright. *thee 10-4.7! Preference for concept B (intermediate intena%t,y) or lower (see after p. 60, Proposed Redevelopment Plan HIS for HH downtown redevelopment project, July, 1976• Concepts A, B and C are not part of the redevelopment plan, but are alternatives that could be developed subsequentto adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. We would support a policy that development intensity Not vsoeed that of concept B (possibly lower if this proves practical) . _ .�.+..r.rrr_•._.aw...r..+....—....•�.+.•r .rrr .•r✓r rrr✓w wrr .rr rrY._� �..��.r� .._.� le Gonaept A • High_ Intensity (VTNPl w, ti.i B inw favor AL wri�YY�r The surplus project revenue of $5.305,000 a year for the 9-bloolc ara%is greater than for the;other. alternatives: e concept B: $1,993,000 a year . concept Cs $ll2876000 a year Possibly this revenue advantage may be partly (or :*holly?) offset tinder concept B or C frogs revenues outside the a:ea, bo points—in gaosition The supply of commercial space under this alternative would far exceed the spaoe requirement necessary to meet the ardass market potential (EIR, p. 61) . . , Power existing businesses would find it economically feasible to return to the nine block area (FIH, *p. 62) , . Current owners of businesses in the first block way be frOEen out ; of partiolAting. after redevelopment. i Has the greatestvof the 3 concepts. . The same amount of project Income could be available with develop. � wente in other parts of the redevelopment area. e Would dramatically change the orientation of the area (unsay feel. detrimentally) . i . Too many reeta:urante on the pier siAe of PCH inhibits restaurants i on the land side from sufficiently fulfilling thoix function as anchor tenants. . Too many people in the pier area frost the proposed structures, This might conflict with other uses (beach and apsoialty-shop oriented) . Too much congestinn of people and traffic. . trAffic circulation problems (including not having 2 usin corridors nearby) . Possibility of using up enough market potential that some other areas may not develop. . This type of development located here would force nearby property ,values up to the extent that residents would be forced to moue. f This is contrary to the goal of letting those of moderate mean& live near the ocean. ; . AG a result preasures would mount to ohmage the Boning of nearby I reeidential areas. . Most citizen reaotion has been unfavorable. E Downtown Hadeveioymen. A--w i Concept H or lower 0.2" Leonard Wright.- 135niuv • This In the opposite to VTN's previous assuracoee to the publIe of intentions for lowwintennity development. This indicates a subter- fuge that +should not be rewarded. . This plan indicates a complete disregard for citizen input and reflects an attitude that VTN 'and the lawsuit parties feel they can get about what they want. We shouldult. be forced to accept a development concept because or threats of a lawsuit. . Too much blocking of view and breezes when viewed from inland. if this type of development were desixeabie (and this is not an endorsement of It), it would be much more practical 1jj larger areas under separate ownership. Also, this type of devel,opmenji should be towards the center of the commercial area. 2. Canaept 8 - Intermediate-intensitr Ike 29ints in favor he Less alteration to the existing street network than would*=der concept A. Three times less demand on utility and energy reeouroe supply ' capabilities as ruder Concept A. Probably could afford malls (assuming that you want malle) . b. Paints in oepoettion The a'o=ereial floor area exceeds the requirement neoeseary to meet. the area'a market potential. .al.though it is not as excessive as in concept A, u Lose businesses should find it economically feasible to return to the nine block area than under concept C. but more t►iuld return ' than under concept A. . Some may feel that the S-storr Btuolwe allowed at Lake io too high. � 3e Conaent C - Rehabl itatioD j �r+� OiYa�1r..�i�..� �11rr wr.r Yi to 101nts in favor Less alteration to the exiettug street network than would be under oonoept A. o Four times lees demand on utility and energy resource supply Capabilities an under concept A. Mould uve existing alleys a:, pedestrian paths thereby reducing r the need for relocating utility lines. More businesses should find it economically feasible to return to the nine block area than under concepts A and Be Possibly the greatest chance of owner of bueineza in the first block to participate In the same location after redevelopment. be tint n_ in oppoaltion Although commercial space exceeds market potential., itle not by as much as under tooneepts A and Be- . ABhabilitati.on may bo .insufficient for some atructuree. Might not be able to afford malls (assuming that you want malls). : Perhaps a arose between concepts m and C would be practicalf T I 4 s r i • I , i ...may byt „r �„y'1a3�.. a. . v1,�...Y,:.�I:C i'•{-ai., r aa�.u:... �."a'.l.i .:'�•i.l;J; G�.., .,.. ....•�.'wt' •.r-� y... . ��. . Il,k'�ti .� ..... .•ir,�, ..i•,:� '. "r.�'Ci+'c_'+:p?"`i t'r•jw�. v ' 0 — — is r l r l r I �r 1 1 4 MAYA 05 r t 1 i - � e r � Hearing: Nov. 18, 1976 7-11 PM in the Huntington • Beach High School Gym My name is: Shirley Ann Strachan I live at: 5891 Liege Drive, H.B. Resident: on and off for over 37 years. I am concerned about Our City Council approving the enabling legislation for the Redevelopment Agency because: I. IT WILL RAISE THE TAXES OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN IIUNTINGTO14 BEACH.. a. Because there is not a fixed ceiling on tax increments, the average taxpayer f of Huntington Beach does not know what it will cost him per year. 4 b. Historically all RDA's have increased the tar load of ovary city and c-ounty taxpayer and the fax increment money is not returned to the tax rolls, but Is used to build exrtic buildings. I' I. c. The more .he RDA spends, the higher the tax rate. According to Section j 33662 of the code, bonds do not require a vote of the people; yet they must be redeemed by them. The county taxes increase because money frors the higher assessment is not raturned to the Huntington Beach district or county. 7. ITS POWER EXTENDS OVER TOO BROAD AN AREA.. a. The project area is physically very large with a mixture of different interests f so that it is impossible to administer the plan fairly without a formalized device for citizen Input. b. Why 688 acres when the alleged blight only rovers a few blocks and can be renewed with existing laws, zones and HUD funds. 1 e. Until the Montoya low is effective on January i, 1977, the RDA can declare other areas blighted even if they lie outside and do not even touch the redevelofinent area without a further hearing. 3. IT GENERATES TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL POWER WITHOUT ENOUGH fi CHECKS AND BALANCES.. *a. Our City Council appointed ALL of the following: I. itself the Redevelopment Agency • 2. The Redevelopment Commission ; 3. The Redevelopment Committee (PAC) 4. The Planning Commission b. As the RDA, the City Council decides on the plan and the voters are locked In for 35 years and/or_ 45 more years beginning at any point within the 35 years. ALL THIS WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. c. In the State of California, only 2 agencies early in the history have closed. Of 41 cities in Los Angeles that began 23 years ago, 41 are still going. i d. As the RDA, the City Council will have the Power of Fminent Domain. A police power concept of government. Many of our senior citixem will ba relocated, and their way of life disturbed. They will be made to sell their property. This power destroys the basic property rights cf an individual and Is an issue in the Hillman Ranch versus Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency case. a. ITS POWER IS IMMEDIATE AND IRREVOCABLE BY THE VOTERS. . a. Section 33604 of the code states that the agency cannot be dissolved if In debt (and ours is) and the voters cannot dissolve it. ONLY THE CITY j COUNCIL CAN DISSOLVE IT. 5. THE GENERAL PUBLIC SHOULD BE THE ONES TO VOTE 061"THIS ENABLING LEGISLATION WHICH MAY NOT BE ECONOMICALLY SOUND; IS BROAD; LASTS OVER A LONG TIME; IS IRREVERSIBLE; INVOLVES THEIR TAX DOLLARS, AND ALLOWS FOR A POLICE POWER CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT. •NOTES Not enough. time has been granted between hearings for Ihis matter to have bean petitioned for a public vote. { t i a I I I I I I f MY NAME IS: SHIRLEY ANN STRACHAN ' I LIVE AT: 5891 LIEGE DRIVE, H.B. RESIDENT: ON AND OFF FOR OVER 37 YEARS ihs � ►M��i 4 5 a �� P�' c �,{ t �o r r, I_ d� •�I I AM CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CITY COUNCIL A60VINC THE ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BECAUSE: 1 . IT WILL RAISE THE TAXES OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. a. BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A FIXED CEILING ON TAX INCREMENTS, THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IT WILL COST HIM PER YEAR. � l,t,;• f �,a �, I b. HISTORICALLY ALL RDA'S HAVE INCREASED THE TAX LOAD OF EVERY CITY AND COUNTY TAXPAYER AND THE TAX INCREMENT MONEY IS NOT RETURNED TO THE TAX ROLLS, BUT IS USED TO BUILD EXOTIC et�+ s. s-�yc.�.,cE-uvcS y r - c. THE MORE THE RDA SPENDS, THE HIGHER THE TAX RATE. ACCORDING TO SECTION 33662 OF THE CODE, BONDS DO NOT REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE; YET THEY MUST BE REDEEMED BY THEM. THE COUNTY TAXES INCREASE BECAUSE MONEY FROM THE HIGHER ASSESSMENT IS NOT RETURNED TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH DISTRICT OR COUNTY. 2. ITS POWER EXTENDS OVER TOO BROAD AN AREA. . a. THE PROJECT AREA IS PHYSICALLY VERY LARGE WITH A MIXTURE OF DIFFERENT INTERESTS SO THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ADMINISTER THE PLAN FAIRLY WITHOUT A FORMALIZED DEVICE FOR CITIZEN INPUT. b. WHY 688 ACRES WHEN THE ALLEGED BLIGHT ONLY COVERS A FEW BLOCKS AND CAN BE RENEWED WITH EXISTING LAWS, ZONES AND HUD FUNDS. ' I i i i c. UNTIL THE MONTOYA LAW IS EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1, 1971, THE RDA CAN DECLARE OTHER AREAS BLIGHTED EVEN IF THEY LIE OUTSIDE AND DO NOT EVEN TOUCH THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA WITHOUT A FURTHER HEARING. 3. IT GENERATES TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL POWER WITHOUT ENOUGH CHECKS AND BALANCES. *a, OUR CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. ITSELF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2. THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 9.4 3. THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (PAC) -fa hr. cv c �'►»� y t K a v i�2 w�.�.4. L��c,� � • I N cc rL�•�- {�C vL•o ,. 4. THE PLANNING COMMISSION i I b. AS THE IRDA, THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDES ON THE PLAN AND THE j VOTERS ARE LOCKED IN FOR 35 YEARS ANDIOR 45 MORE YEARS I BEGINNING AT ANY POINT WITHIN THE 35 YEARS. ALL THIS WITHOUT f VOTER APPROVAL, milk- sitf,1l pla)e e4a . r: c. IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ONLY 2 AGENCIESkARLY IN THE HISTORY HAVE CLOSED, OF 41 CITIES IN LOS ANGELES THAT BEGAN �3 YEARS AGO, 41 ARE STILL GOING. is P nbeo d, AS THE RDA, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN. A POLICE POWER CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT. } i MANY OF OUR SENIOR CITIZENS WILL BE RELOCATED, AI4D THEIR WAY. OF LIFE DISTURBED. THEY WILL BE MADE TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY, -3- x THIS POWER DESTROYS THE BASIC PROPERTY RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS AN ISSUE IN THE HILLMAN RANCH VERSUS SEAL BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CASE. 'flu e.t. cam- 7 S' R iD A 15 '1 h L f�► �' 14. rn or{ o to � W Y1&41 Oh Q ur'vk o (- t..p�v 4 yY.dc� e r a�� ca►� C� ko I lrc h a v �, berv� 1J V�wt�k c -tam •t-L.c 13:.tw.'cv ►.I.'.►t ' 4. ITS POWER IS IMMEDIATE AND IRREVOCABLE BY THE VOTERS.. a. SECTION 33604 OF THE CODE STATES THAT THE AGENCY CANNOT BE DISSOLVED IF If`I DEBT (AND OUR IS) AND THE VOTERS CANNOT DISSOLVE IT. ONLY THE CITY COUNCIL CAN DISSOLVE IT. 5. THE GENERAL PUBLIC SHOULD BE THE ONES TO VOTE ON THIS ENABLING LEGISLATION WHICH MAY NOT BE ECONOMICALLY SOUND; IS BROAD; LASTS OVER A LONG TIME; IS IRREVERSIBLE; INVOLVES THEIR TAX DOLLARS, AND ALLOWS FOR A POLICE POWER CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT. *NOTE: NOT ENOUGH TIME HAS BEEN GRANTED BETWEEN HEARINGS FOR ! THIS MATTER TO HAVE BEEN PETITIONED FOR A PUBLIC VOTE. fb K r A Hearing: Nov. 18, 1976 7-11 PM in the Huntington Beach High School Gym My name is: Shirley Ann Struchar; I live at: 5891 Liege Drive, H.B. Resident: on and off for over 37 years. I am concerned about Our City Council approving the enabling legislation for the Redevelopment Agency because: 1. IT WILL RAISE THE TAXES OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. . a. Because there is not a fixed ceiling on tax increments, the average taxpayer of Huntington Beach does not know what it will cost him per year. b. Historically all RDA's have increased the tax load of every city and county I. taxpayer and the tax Increment money is not returned to the tax rolls, but Is used to build exotic buildings. G. The more the RDA spends, the higher the tax rate. According to Section 33662 of the code bonds do not require a vote of the people; et the 1 � e9 f� P Y Y y must be redeemed by them. The county taxes increase because money from the higher assessment is not returned to the Huntington Beach district f . ! or county. 1 2. ITS POWER EXTENDS OVER TOO BROAD AN AREA.. a. The project area Is physically very large with a mixture of different interests so that it is Impossible to administer the plan fairly without a formalized device for citizen input. I b. Why 688 acres when the alleged blight only covers a few blocks and can be renewed with existi:g laws, zones and HUD funds. c. Until the Montoya law is effective on Jarwary 1, 1977, the RDA can declare other areas blighted even if they lie outside and do not even touch the redevelopment area without a further hearing. 3. IT GENERATES TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL POWER WITHOUT ENOUGH CHECKS AND BALANCES. . *a. Our City Council appointed ALL of the following: 1. Itself the Redevelopment Agency • 2. The Redevelopment Commission 3. The Redevelopment Committee (PAC) 4. The Planning Commission i f, b. As the RDA, the City Council decides an the plan and the voters are locked in for 35 years and/or 45 more years beginning at any point within the 35 years. ALL THIS WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. c. In the State of California, only 2 agencies early in the history have closed. Of 41 cities in Los Angeles that began 23 years ago, 41 are still going. 4 d. As the RDA, the City Council will have the Power of Eminent Domain. A police power concept of govemment. f i Many of o+jr senior c4lzens will be relocated, and their way of life distorbed. They will be made to sell their property. This power destroys the basic property rights of on individual and is an issue In the Hillman Ranch versus Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency case. i 4. ITS POWER IS IMMEDIATE AND IRREVOCABLE BY THE VOTERS. . a. Section 33604 of the code states that the agency cannot be dissolved if In debt (and ours is) and the voters cannot dissolve it. ONLY THE CITY i COUNCIL CAN DISSOLVE IT. 5. THE'`GENERAL PUBLIC SHOULD BE THE ONES TO VOTE ON-THIS ENABLING LEGISLATION WHICH MAY NOT BE ECONOMICALLY SOUND; IS BROAD; LASTS OVER A LONG TIME; IS IRREVERSIBLE; INVOLVES THEIR TAX DOLLARS, j AND ALLOWS FOR A POLICE POWER CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT. *NOTE; Not arough time has been granted between hearings for this matter j to have been petitioned for a public vote. y a !1- 'Pon / t �1 t. L Zfo ��v L JK!i'f S F.r d.►.s •• l u• fiv L / r vat n 1-04 oo Je Izl' 1/1 !�'f'r �/t f/7 �lhFt' d f� �l• Iv• T !f e „/ tO�J��'�-.lira+! _._..._. `Cff K �� r `�/� C,.,O•✓.'� /per/Trt J'I!c A rf •i.•�.�i �i-�,r f�i!r �to t !r ' l / /} Z Q�{ / .+ •,.�.A o. p.1G.r/sl.C.r w,:/�iJ'4 ��•( J ._. .. .. _ .q17� ui7Jnl,'�TAilw A7•.ri r/t /� .ra.. i.+,i"J: ... .. /'v f/.r A V ,f•iil A�/ !Qi'1/�(r fr+i.n /�r OI I.� t'/9�y - .. dOw / �._.. _ vJ'�✓ --g1., af«. /1 ©ram-�•�� G7� d7- . ow cz f> /l f ,,_.r) Al eiys 71!0 .4/gd am loll glow, A� 0 m wer - .en.�. �. r . i � `.Seri i9� /-{�•'4� 4 L� r ... 7 soma S J�•J j rip s rMI4 i .,Fapoow;o s0000e f � } iqo-/q:k 4*o. 4111�� ON BEHALF OF OUR BOARD, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ON THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. 1. 1 BELIEVE ALL MEMBERS OF TH E COUNCIL HAVE COPIES OF OUR LETTER OF THE 17TH TO MR. SELICH, AND I WANT TO COMMEND MAYOR WEIDER AND THE STAFF FOR THE COOPERATION THAT BROUGHT THIS TYPE OF DIALOGUE ABOUT. i 2. 'FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE LETTER ENTERED AS A PART OF THIS HEARING. 3. OUR BOARD VIEWS ANY SUCH NEW : PROJECT ONLY IN TERMS OF iTS IMPACT ON THE EQUITY OF TAXATION AND STUDENT HOUSING FOR THE ENTIRE 52 SQUARE MILE DISTRICT. 4. WE HAVE DIRECTED OUR STAFF TO WORK WITH YOUR PEOPLE TO REACH CONCENSUS ON ANY PROBLEM AREAS, AND HOPE THAT YOUR STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE SIMILAR DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL. i BELIEVE WE HAVE THE RUDIMENTS OF AGREEMENT BEFORE US, AND AGAIN WANT TO THANK MAYOR WEIDER, THE COUNCIL AND YOUR STAFF FOR THE PROGRESS MADE TO THIS DATE. I f i a I t •_ .a.. . . .t, _ .. .f . .,. .. ...., .. ... _ _.. .... .. ,. ... - ..�... _. ... .. .. .. ....__....,..,,....n.r.lt,: .'S crwr`+r pia PPS� 1 � � ►� r -MV- I T('13-1 V -A-4 76" IS !~0l NCO SOa 03 _ gSoo b po o q Ufa 06 37,St7 d1 3 `�._ ..._ MCC tn.__._..___. f ! 3a_ _f 3 �f 3 7s'c7 700 _15' 8 6"90 �780o 1 qfa 78o ' o z 3Ito lsso l4(10 � to Sago . . 76a-n i 1 I Pig a 0,00 - - -- -- __ to ----- -- 2670 Z7Yo_ to 6b 12 �3 Z ._ �__ _. .._... . ylie 2-710.. 7830 16 17 Z7 to 71 Gyq TO I i ___MP._ 306 ?'J?o__-- We gB00 Sao gas°. �f 130 ! 1 1;?,870 k t I � 1 1 76 2-030 I - • Z 3170 . _-- 36/0 3(,tv ' 2-t5'60 _ z sic . i co Z / o z ,to It Z 6.?y Z'S fo _ 1 7e _ if IPS"D _._ir °.D 17 0* 8 730 3610 4. 7s 6 Pro �s�v _._ ZoYo jQ C480 12- ?DAD 63Bd 13 1y6o _ 1330 • - r .•,"y`�•i; �,r-k!-Wit:tirC\��.:w' ..:i:tT� 014(7 76 PSO 7(/0. Z; Zl3Q 2%foZO I Zoo i f 1 T 3� 416 30• �z�o C 35 2 .110 z<oa ' t j�j r Z'T ZVOIJ "SO 6'iPJO 7%29 .Seth- d(/0 ©___. Zo <4�60 _ tss r`�•:�j 7�� r r 0(0 f' I am an officer of the' WtVa Our 'Seaeide group and own ray own home on 9th Street. In general I am doubtful that a Redevelopment Plan is necessary for the rehabilitation and renovation necessary ; of the downtow►ii area" of our city. The changed and improve- . ; men*e neceseatry would appear best facilitated by fiirst enforcing ex:.sting codes and laws and then encouraging private j business interests to improve themselves. I am in opposition to the already approved General J11an Amendment 76-1A which ! makes possible the implimentation of a plan geared towara a tour'iet-coruercAlal specialty center.which of itself increauen ddneity, may incorp-)rate hi-riae atructurea and in likely to '•:, be too high in ooiit fcr the :ieeds and budget of Huntington leach. I Seel that it is grossly inappropriate to approve and proaotIa legislation which Mill enable a project of such magnitude to so much a s be'��ygin r' . . . I ace offended by the lack of u w�rrww. co=ittee3 to, deal with thin matter ' nd feel that 3.0 S has done m$ch to fill. thiK void in `making the public; aware of the redevelopme±i*. i4sauea. I eilso take ob�ecti ,n to the power vented in the 'Project Area •�om.,.i tree m--de up of caelf-avowed C •�spooial in'tbrostu who hrive uecn 1:��eI,sti.'Ja to citi on input. 1 "have to learn of the Lnfluenae of the "Terry l.f �Wifiui�t" upDh r;t t si2ou_d be an open and unprejudiaad natter E 4' �4dd by the 'benefite realised by all citizens 'of the Project i Area. The agreement to put that lawsuit aside appears i-, give 'prtGrity consideration to a limi'ted number of people and 'their desires to develop the beachiroat cts k'�� 1-1 5 �� Y��cIT ' L'�.�,-af�rS•r1Qt Y•�'C�ti;l.{.k-C1'r}Y.S�."�;' i One of- ay specific questions regarding the present redevelopment plan aslit stands is the lack of adequate parks and open space in the`Project Area. In' the final Enviornmental Impact Report submitted for this plan, the Planning Department lists under 1 "irreversible enviornmental changes" the following: "The most significant lose Will be seen in the decline of open space that presently takes the form of vacant land. As development occurs within the project Area the' tstablishne t of open n apace may ` prove io be economically unfeasible.",t �e c"N allow econwic S 3.1: ' consideration to o•tershadow the human considerations such as open space for reareatio4 and relief from urbar. congestion. r As density oftthe downtown area increases, which is now the c case and will greatly escalate in the event of the proposed plan, there is a greater reed for more open space and park facilities. The beach currrently provides almost all of the K open apace land une in the project area. It is lees than totally adquate open space,-use in that it only borders one { aide of r,he p roject Area and is separated from the area by the bulp* Pac:ifie Coast Highway. In the event of a redevelopment plan, there is likely to be a wall of combination high density residential and general, specialty and tourist commercial development between the downtown area and the begeh. I also r feel ` hat the beachew can in no way be combined with the neosseary -park acreage standards as the beach serves an ontirely -. different -function than the parka. . Its •uppe Nt of ijr,failings, I refer the Council to the lettbr frog y 'the' Environmental Review Committee on 9/l/76 from the Huntingtog 'Deaah:-Xivironsental Council which states in parts "The beach sc one cannot meet the park %nd recreation needs of any age "The envirohmental Council reiterates ig) every rt `mew of the downtown arcs that the acreage for neighborhood mind eo,mmuntty parka in the area must be increased to nerve the neias of., the residents of the denaley populated area. The' . 'Old'Civic Center site with its established trees MUST remain as a public park, and other sites must be designated as well." (EIR 'p. 65). There As a proposed neighborhood park nearmDelaware &ad Chicago Streets. This is certainly a positive step though the lmcatiop A s in the far corner of the Project Area. However, with the i addition of this neighborhood park, the project area will stikl be about 9 acres short of tle requiredecommunity park area. If this k were converted to community �= F� Y park' facilities, the shortage of community park area would be about 6 acres (EIR p.42) . i I realize that bake Peck is adjacent to the project area. However, in the weekends and, in the summer, both Lake Pack and the beach are overflowing. I urge that serious aonsideratiion need be given to green belts, parks avd open space on general with perhaps the addition of more neighborhood parka and/or co=uni,ty park facilities. Specifically the 01d civic Canter site, originally given to the city f r the purposes of public US ,, be' saintained as a community center incorponrating the Main jc Streit Library Annex, the Free Clinic and such Park and recreational facilities as are needed. The redevelppm►ent plan currently denignated. this choice area for Commercial use. As .&,homeowner in the Redevelopment Area, I propgme that reievelopseat -be put aside in favor of stringent onde enforoe- aea�t;a�;�ill as encoursgemeit and support froo the city to privKatO 60eih#sq. and hose own6rs. The ver;r flexibility and general nattare of i odtYelopeant which has been advertised as a •trosg point IA the very facet which eauess man$ of us to shiver and shake. There. are too many "ifs" and "aaybes" and to few concreje concepts. Ahy cbanges"in the ;J-Ar*otsr or structure. of the,,downtown should have as their first priority the enbaaelseat of the quality of life of its residents. At, the very 3ftlst,. I f ail that the City Cotincil should at the fiery leasht put th salter aside until January let wheawwo).ean be aasured ofi protections and security f the Nont"Oys edevelopment Legislation. (-I -5 1: 1 s To the 11onarnble Mayor send City Council, lay name is Gertrud Therenin REILLY Paid I reside st 507 Tenth St.H.B. We os%m our home,in. the s;ocel.led C--Section. I went to state,thst I Pin cetegoricelly o-)nosed to the downtown Redevelopment P1an.It in much too vogue end general vnd will put our horse and property under the threat of"Eminent Dorzpin",with all its adversere sid6 -affects, for the next I2 yre or 30-35 yrs3,rrhichever figure ,you will fi.nslly settle cn. I have sttended most of the downtown Redev,lonment neetings,in the pant years. I was present Oct.IIth,75 end vgsin the other night 2lov.I8th,76. It is a fact,thst the downtosm area certainly needs improving but this is only a small section,of the proposed Plsn. Improvement in the dormtorm area can be secomplinhed by other means.Let the City enforce the buildindcodes.Strenghten your Polcce Force and let them en— force the Law s+nd make it ns difficult end uncomfortable an pos3s3ible,on these so called undesaireable elomints,which supposedly,frequent the dovrntovm area. The City needs to do some long neglected street maintaince. ` At the Oct.Ilth meeting Police Chief Esrle W.Robitaille snd Fire Chief Raymond C.Picard both ststed,ths{t although the crime rate and emergency Services:; needed in the downtovm area,sre among the highest,theyn1so 6tatted,th4 Redeve-- lopement of this; area,vsould increase this factor. I n6jiced,no mentioning rrssr made of this fpct,nt the Nov.I8th meeting. The really bes►utiful Sescliff Shopping Center,rrhich recently bed its Grand Opening,is; still half empty Pnd .has; difficulty leasing,available space. So I ask you,why do we need more of this spine unprofitable venture in the dormtovm area? I sure submitting this statement in writing�rsther then to speak publicly,so as not to bore our Honorhble tleyor Wieder,enymore than nece ss ary.I noticed during the Nov.IIth,hearing,thst it i:: ex-re-nly difficult to capture her full i attention,es she is so easily distracted,while the public spooks * r ti.�wv+7�r::.d.'•.l::,w=,:«,i+•7�'E:,.::;.'�:,....�....,�.. ::.4.. , -.. .r- ..«.. , .+ • .. .. ., ......+...r.ys...• •iv.�«.i+.-r....,.-w..awYa.lgM�' f....��: 1 , t AGREEIIF. NT - THIS AGREEMENT entered into at the'City o. H ritington Beach, State of California, this 16th day of du]y, 1974, by and � I between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as CITY; VTN CONSOLIDATED, INC. , herein- after referred to as VTN; ROBERT TERRY, individually and as a member and manager of the class; MARTHA HOLT, individually and as a member of the class, and MARTHA HOLT, Trustee of Martha w Holt Trust; and GEORGE INGRAHAM, individually and as a member of ' the class, WHEREAS, ROBERT TERRY, individually and an a member and manager of the class; MARTHA HOLT, individually and as a member of the class, and MARTHA HOLT, Trustee of Martha Holt Trust; GEORGE INGRAHAM, individually and as a mem'uer of the class; =' and other owners of real property, have filed a class action, f Orange County No. 1811119 (hereinafter referred to as "class � ,. action") against CITY in cofinection with CITY'S proposed development of the downtown area and pier; and e- WHEREAS, VTNis `preparing a,development plan for the downtown area-and pier; and - WHEREAS9 it is to the beat interest of all parties that an amicable settlement be reached so that further litigation will not -be-necessary, - -• - NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agree- ments contained herein, it is agreed by and between ROBERT TERRY, -Individually and as a member and manager of the class; MARTHA HOLT, individually and as member of the class, and MARTiIA HOLT, Trustee of 14artha Holt Trust; GEORGE INGRAHAM, individually and , as member of the class, VTN and CITY as follows: 1. VTN shall prepare a development plan for the downtown • •rs. ' 1C ; -�� a'"..7.F�,Y:raw,:f'4'w•.T",s4t.:..•. . .r•..N.:,.`,S'«_,.... . .,' ......w r,. v..-. .-'. _ ..., "i_",...*..-....-s ...•....- ... ...,.. ..-� area and pier in Huntington Beach, California. The CITY will cooperate with VTN in its preparation of a development plan for the downtown area of at least the five blocks that in the ssub- Ject of the class action and the pier. It is understood that the cost of the preparation of the plan will be borne entirely by VTH with the CITY cooperating in the preparation of the plan. The plan will be reviewed by CITY staff and presented to the Planning Commission as a proposed master plan amendment and will go through the normal due process procedures as expeditiously as possible. 2. It is the intent and objective of the parties to this agreement that the class represented by ROBERT TERRY will, If the development is carried out, be enabled to market their property on a reasonable basis, except that CITY does not guar- antee that it shall purchase said property. 3. The CITY will provide public parking facilities; where required by the VTH :plan. 4. In conjunction with the VTN plan, the CITY, VTN, MARTHA HOLT and ROBERT TERRY shall work out s detailed imple- mentation plan. _ �. Upon the execution of thio'Agreement, Cedric White, Appraiser, shall be; retained by CITY to update the appraisals he has heretofore made on the following described city-owned prop- , ertie6, ai>> upon conclusion or such appraioalop an escrow shall be opened by which CITY shall sell to the below-nomed "partieu, and the below-named parties shall buy such hereinafter described properties at the Cedric White appraisal values, which sshal. be at fair market value. Such escrow shall contain the following ' contingencies: (1) opproval by the City Council of the VTN plan. (2) The VTN plan, an approved by the City Council, shows the following city-owned property to be not needed for public parking purposes. j 7 � J 1 r , (3) The dism'.uual with prejudice of the I class action. (4) The below-named purchasers of said property agree for themselves and their successors in in-- . •terest that such property shall be used only for the purpose ' i of implementing such counell-approved VTN plan. { The following described city--owned *prop- erty, located in the five-block area, bounded by Walnut Avenue., _ Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street and Lake Street, shall be placed in escrow as described in this paragraph: Block 101 to VTN: Block 102 and 103 to MARTHA HOLT as • Trustee of Martha Holt Trust; Block 104 to ROBERT TERRY; and Block 105 to OEOROE INGRAHAM. 6. VTN will be responsible for the funding of the 'j development and construstion of the entire redevelopment project, Including the CITY pier, in accordance with said VTN plan. 7. If a convention center is oart of the plan, the CITY will encourage private development of the convention center. However, if private Idevelopmuut i:n not feasible, CITY will de- velop a convention center, if it is feasible to do so. F 8. The CITY agrees to install underground lighting :t . ; improvements in the aforementioned five-block area. }iow' ever, if the convention center is constructed through private development, CITY agrees to install all necesearY underground round utilities � G in said five-block area. g. The CITY will utilize the Community Redevelopment ; Act to implement the plan, if required. 2 10. Commencing immediately and continuing Tots the duration of the procedures and provisions contained herein, a moratorium shall be placed upon said class action pending against CITY, and the parties thereto shall so stipulate and such 3. •i . " ..-w.+r-. . ,rw..wa.,........-�...-,......... .... ...r.. ...:. r-r�......,r-r+^+w.w...d„r.+f.riY'« stipulation shall be submitted to the court forthwith for its; approval. Said stipulation will provide that the period of the moratorium herein providel shall extend for an equal period the time to obtain judgment pursuant to Section 563 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; that the CITY shall waive the statute of limitations to bring to trial for an equal period. 11. After the :fanning Commission has adopted the plan prepared by VTN and simultaneously with City Council ap- proval -thereof, the class action shall bir dismissed with prejudice. 12. All of t,1e terms of this Agreement shall be sub- J ect to all legal requirements. • r 13. Vie City Administrator is authorized and directed to take whatever steps necessary to implement the procedures contained in this Agreement subject to the approval of the City Council. ill. Upon dismissal or said class action, CITY will 1 pay prevent Counsel of Record in said class action reasonable attorney'ss fees to be determined as soon as possible after exe- rutlon of this Agreement by the court in bald class 'action for legal services rendered in connection with subject class action; and such fees shall Ve placed in escrow by CITY and shall be paid over to said attorneys of record,upon the dismissal of said class action with prejudice in accordance with paragraph , 11 of this Agreement. • X 15. All parties hereto agree to cooperate with all other parties to this Agreement for the purpose of assuring the suce-sss+ful accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement. 16. By executing this Agreement, none of the parties hereto makes any admission against interast nor does any party hereto waive any rights in and to the litigation and the subject matter of such litlgation except as expresslx provided in this Agreement, and only so long as this Agreement. remains in full '.Kr 'I 4. 11_ • .r`• v {{1717 :♦ f force and effect. if at any time this Agreement terminates or if the performance of unexecutea portions hereof become impos- sible, the parties;, at that time, may renew their respectJve posltions in such class action without prejudice upon twenty (20) days written notice to the other parties of this Agreement. Nor shall this Agreement or any part or provision hereof bn used in evidence in any legal proceeding nor any of the evefitss or circumstances les:ditsg to the execution of this Agreement be used in evidence in any legal proceeding including the class action discussed herein for any purpose whatsoever, except that the attorney's fee provision contained in paragraph 14 or this Agreement shall be operable In accordance with the terms of paragraph 14, and further except that this provision shall not apply to any litigation whose purpose is; the enforcement of thins Agreement. The Intention and purpose of this Agreement is to accomplish the successful redevelopment of the downtown area " of Huntington peach, Caiirornia, anti collaterally this Agreement Is intended to be 1n settlement and compromise or the class (FtE5T OF PAGE NOT USED) t r, i 4 IL ^T•"7"1�+ •�..�..j.Cl�l!'�`w�Y•i'.:S%J�J:-:•::�iF•.'I'.+t{ai:i r." r4'.1.w..en•.•r a ��;{��'`�! .. .•r.•3.J•:...n ....'.iiJ�J.A wr•••r.r.r•r.wA•.n�•sri4rl.iMwti SYS7l°.4�♦.•.1.r...•.��V.+w.•Y..�i.^+ • 'fl f action described herein. 1 IN WITNESS WJ1EREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day, month, and year appearing below. DATED: A,..._,, 1973. CITY OF HUNTINGTON DEACHs i a nicipal corporation, { Ma;ror ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FOWL: City Cler city Attdriffl7v DATED: 1973. f VTN CONSOLIDA!'ED, INC. BY ry\Af-0,% ROBEtrr—TURY, indiviftally and as member and manager of the class ; iO1.`!' indiv du�uXry 1AR �A }ihLT Truss ee o and at; member of the class Martha Holt Trust APP119Y.FID AS TO FORTS: �; •UR INGRAII ' , individually A orney fur F'lairt f s �.•� and as membefrof the class; S. noci p 1. Boz:�r/, CLty Att��rne� AI 976 1 f•IIC1lr1EL H. M LL.:R, neputy City Attorney �+ City n: tiuntin5tan Beach �'�1LLIHt.1 E Yi;' c, .' P. O. Box 190 Deputy tlt;ntingLon 13.iach, CA 92643 { � �, 4::, .;.r 5 • Attorneys for Defendants DEC � '� 17 1 y I 1 � SUPERIOR COURT OF '1'Fi".. .S TATL OF CALIFORNIA 8 1 . g FOR THE COUMY OF ORANGE ' 14 11 ROUZRT C. TERRY, Executor of the ) No. 181 149 Estate of Elmyra Irene 'Ferry, In ) � 12 Dahal f- of Ftimrelf in a Represe3nta-- ) STIPULATION UNDER C.C.P.§533 t t ive Capacity and Al. Other (Xrnors ) EXii:1•:.DI1►G TIME FOR BRINGING 3.?, , of 133 Parcels of Land, ) ACTION'TO TRIAL WITHIN FIN:. • ; YEARS 14 Plairttff, 15 va . ) 3.6 CITY OF' 11UNTINGTON H£:ACH, ) *. a municipal corporation, ) 17 , ) 1 Defendant ) . 19 • WHEREAS, the above Class action was brought against the j i 20 Defendant, CITY OV gMWINGT.ON BEECH, seeking damages for diminution 4 21 sit property value, and; rai MIEREAS, the City and the leaders of the Class are desir-f settlincg the Class action without litigation and are eKplor-••2 plat: by which the members of the Clans will receive: a bernefits'. :,' 25 S*ft. WHEREAS, the development and implementation of a plan ; 1 S! 26 :which will benefit. the class and thereby form the hvi3is for a cotr- 27 promise settlement and dismissal of the action requ.Lres that the ; 26 Class action be- held in abeyance for a period of time sufficient try I eft 1.9 accomplish this goal; and, 30 MIEREAS, C.C.P. §583 ('a) provide: in part:, "Arty action .'•'L iieretat'ore . . . ca=ienced shall be dismissed by the Court . . . t:ltla:::t •;;';' 32 such action is Lrouaht to trial within five years after the Y+d,l•:t.jl.ti+' ta .14 1 ` 1 II has filed iiis action, except where the parties have rilecl a Stint - 2 i elation .in writing that the time may be extended. " 1 3 I,OW, THEREFORE, the parties, through their resnocti.ve counsel below, stipulate as follows : 1. The time for bringing the above action to trial as set -forth in Code of Civil Procedure §583 is hereby cxtercied far 7 a period or three years subject to the following terms and con-- I 8 ,I ditions: I 9 , A. This his period of extension shall continue so lonfr 10 as reasonably promising efforts are mutually pursued by VTH Con- 11 :olidated, Inc. , and the City of Huntington Beach, which are di- 12 ratted toward the prompt creation of a plan of development which 1,1 include: the five block downtown Huntington Reach area afrected 14 1by the above Class action (namely, Blocks 101 through 105) ; r r 1.,r � D. Any party to thi., a.c.,inn may bring, upon proper ,I A � notice, an Order To Shot. Cause clearing to have the Court 's detor- 17 f raination of whether or not the plan is being pur:iued in a rewson- 1F I able runner so a:: Lo achieve the Coal of this stipulation; IJ C. In the event the Court determines that the ` 20 i rrlati is not being diligently pursued, or if it appears that the • ' 21 1plan it incapable of producing a benefit to the Class, then the 2 Court , prior to the and of the three year period of extensVin pro- 23 %,tded in Parageaph 1 above, may fix a reasonable dal;e can or beforo 24 i :•inch any party m13y file a Certificate or Rc: c; .:sr::,a i in this ac► :.u.. i• '1st 1, 1;on Lhe fi linrc of. Ilse Certificate of Rea_dlneszJ , the matter *t;r ll I Proceed ;n trial (hVtC.:` all motions peruiinC, and future live 27 i� h;wstrri) ire thu usual course or Court busi.ne•-cs having :�r.1,r thuiew I .. prior: ' i.(!.^,, it any, provided by sta'E.11te. d " no Ce kl lcate: of •i ills f� � •`•' Ihuadirte.;:.i !z rllc•:i ::lthin the time permitteo by the Court, the ti .10 1i Nat,ter n:,Ati, tie dist;Usneu for 7ach of prolwcribon unless, 'th.c• tine 1' " r 1 ' .1 w; ue'!i (.�,..; 0 1 l e M. , , 1 u. r i -1:u• „ �,. :; , . ri a ,c: .,h:� 1 ►Z.xvc b un •. v.t.�riclr•.�.i �,y tsh .0 ,. i1 ::11�)!1111 Cif' J'.)r 111:, Ole it (•!Ir• i ; • ij n ' I {f 7 7 1 ( D. xn the event a plan is developed which achieves 2 the goals of this S4i.pula"Lion and produces a satisfactory benefit 3-Ito the Class , upon noticad motion by any party, the Court shall • 4 i a- hearing, upon such terms and conditions as the Court: shall 5 iset Idi for the purpose of considering the fairness of the coir.-- G �'promise and issuinE, its order of dismwissal of the Class action 7 �oased thereon; and E. Nothing herein shall in any way prejudice the , 9 -erits of pending o: .uture motions in this matter, nor constitute 10 'an admission of liability by the parties hereto. 11 12 �lv oi In and Approved: 13 CONSOLIDATED; INC. ` 1 '_`-- By � y <<ax !.�. rson Don Y. Ufa, C',f t Attorney 16 Its AEtorney Attorney for Devndant I{ City of Huntington Beach �I 17 A,c. .q6��( 3•, �97.7 is ;. Arthur D. Guy, Jr. Attorney for the P1 int11"fo 20 21 • 22 APPROVED AS T4 FORM .................»....,..........._.»......»....... I DON P. so.,FA ?nl� 2I City Attoriiay 25 I� I . 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: DEC 10 1y�3 :.: 21.) JUDGE `I •, r I ' i Ilk ' 7�OL A-0 AOL tom.., } ro •� JPrV h,zc♦. rt1�e Ccn -1'�c�r.� PILL • . 9 /t4A t-t��a pAo I-e 1,� CAX XCA 40 ate. FiXvp- 0-4.4-0 Idx �t �►-��,P 9VI ate ' e Of pv:e �.- oe ' �- ' I • I w - on • f I aa.A.&�- `f QSti K. y~�.. cum CAL t ,1+�-"-C GQr-too L.�+.w+._ r� .v'•-� "� ..' V'•�✓t11.. , ( �-�► -✓1 ate.CP 74o"� 0.0 a L 0-i"el' ' � . .00 &04 ..' .. plot 4's' 75' -- — s. � -�.• - 'mac 1 CA I,.s a-ov�4,�AA ' r C �. . . `�'`�'�-c�c.'}�'v !��-st. /Zc.u-s- .�c.�-t•�-E c.,e�z.-t�, �'�,c ��—• ` .fi;.�( 'j�.f�.� �..o .�. G••�-L•�.�. �--�. 06. ®r � l • err �. . ef 4**�" - - a 'h : I 1 t , f 1 t _ /tafa � f 3 Na� �n . t '10+ QL CIhNfIJdr Q��i. t Ta•f7f'N. t QC'S/J�IldN •1% L, r L t - CA4 C . Cs �._.... z6t;o so li r .. i •C ahnnrtonr*ent of the roposed ota own redeye open 1) Un•lo�r tax incrtment financing, as provided for in the pro- ' posed plan, taxes derived from inor•cas-s in assessed valuation of the property within the project area are paid to the redevelopr not agency rather than to the other taxing authoriti:ts which levy taxers on property in the project arPn. Thus, these taaiTIK s!rencies will be forced to either increase their tax rates or re:luce their services or both In orAor to oor*pensate, for the monies tint will be diverted to the red eve?orrrtent; aaancy, tii* incrPaeP or reduction in sprviens or both will bo felt by P,vPry resident in Orange county not living within the nroj-ot area. These resid»nts have had no opportunity through any elected representatives to affect the decision to adopt the plan, nor slid they consent to the adoption of -1- 40%2W .�� y ter.► ��..,,��,,��// ,,��ll • the nlnn. Th*refore, tnx incr-r-nt financing as it Is cur- r,�ntly irrnl-rAnt Pd violates t:he equal protection and due ornapas of law guarantees of the U,S, and Californian Con- stitutlon:i. Historically, tax increr,•rt financing in California has � raven users by cities and rndty!►loprrent aFoneins to circumvent ' i bona ref*renda requirer ants for public improvements, and to or-ate an unconscionable, burden on people within the roderatc to lower income brac'•tets in the project area; all to the sub.. stancl al benefit of parsons in the higher incotpo braoltets a who, Y; by virtue of their econnrnio class are allowed to take advantage of public money and the private property of others, An;nne in the, relevelopront Area in the, moderate to low in- eome rrgnk•ts ray be subject to forced relocation from thm.ir property. And althouch an os ansible. purpose of tax increment financing plans is to provide adequate: a,lterrf;te housitrg for such people., a r-c-nt study* of redevelopment housing in L.A. county shows that tax incrnrr-ent financing has not produced a j nlrrlo tinit of housing for such 'people in that county. The only , housing Priem available was for pmrsons in the high income brac- kPtst or, if housing was available to moderate and lower ineotres I•. it was as a result of projects inlepenrlent bf and undertaken prior to the *nactr+ert of a tax incrmrp nt flnanoing plan, or as a s -2- ReAwr-1 onr o'nt in California: Corer rants on the neert for I.e - 19 I;^ Tel-.in of , obrowsky, Wallin do Dilkess riw o cPs, .A. rasa:s;.��;�,�:, ,,,`; ..,,... ;:"r•,,; ... .... . . ..._, .0.. .. .. ... .. . . .. ...._. .......-. .... ._..._«.+........••^+4n1.',Lea..IN.l4tX'l/Jla:kj4�.;+tr_r:� ti re!su2 t of ^2dt-ral fund 1 nrr, i AccorAlna to the hrnrsing oleront study done by the Huntington Bench Plnnnirm Der.arf' • nt in 1975, there was a 5500 unit short:- nao of noaprnt- to lower incoon houninir units in Huntinton Beach. � CSYen 6s shrrtarp, the history of tax tncrem,pnt financing, and the lack of sneni f I c nrovi sl ons for the housl ng of moderate to r low^r incorrR n^rsons, the ACLU cannot assure that suali housing will be nroviAed by the Huntington Beach redevelopment project. Ther-fore, unl.-�ss and until steci:'ic provisions for the housing of r �`- '., r Sn .•r, '- is provided , with s»eclfic fun4n 9ilncptr1 for such horrsing for each and -very person re- loen*-d, any ntto-r-pte:f reloent•ion of such persons will be in violation of f4r.ir rights to oqunl protection a of Inv as s..t forth in th^ U.S. and California Constitutions, The forcol relocation of el.ierly pr.ople on fixed Incomes within the rrAevelopr"-nt area, is a r 1scritllnatory practice bused on age and eoonomlo status. Such people, having no control over their income cannot 44►• comply with reel- evelnoment staninrds. To authorize their relocation by virtue :ty� : I of er•ine:nt :lor^nin, when the neconsity for such relocation has not b-en clearly -stabl ished , r1 olati-s their rights, both as a elaiss Onrined by Aae and by income, to equal protection avd.--Uw )."6464-of low. t •,,,� ,,�/ e n- f t -� {r^'i�l•t�.t.{� ��`o' � •r t�'k( 5;.'�.ytt4 I I or tic ots is a •eiscrimtnatory practice based on ecop roic tntun. A �o if furtt,pr s�-wty in-'icntes "hat any such a sons � r'l re of a innri ty`T Snco'r ' o ethnic brijSln,ri -ir111 be /M I r of such erisons is a direetlrt! Ult contention that the -� / I of tb^Ir r cial or ethnic o I i- net that an relocHt/ion y I virtue. of a ^inent otrnlni' wh .n the sec it r sua 1 eel o ati n hRs not hee clew -1'yfestnblis ed , ,hr111 °viola thpi right oth as a cl �s pfined by Inc n and racial or et o on in o equa rot . tion Rnd A—_'pz.Qess_ of law. Any rise in property taxes as a result of the implementation of th•s rpdeYelopront plan, affecting to their detriment moderate arA loirpr income p*.rsons u► jacent to or within the redevelopment wren� i .• c or a . � p eo will be oor si.Onred a 019oriminatory practice, pnrpotrated by the city of Huntington Brash and the rede.Te•lopre►nt agency for the purpose of forcing such n-rsons out of the community, in violation of th+bir rights �. I to. oqual protection of raw, conclusion re thRt th- HonElYMMMa opr,+ent, pro is Q. de:si ad to benefit the rich at the expense he floor. We t see no ne for high-rises in Hun on Beaoh, nor the kind of redrve:l oases Ian the: y is eonteioplating. Therefore, we nus nRly suggest that the Huntington Beach City Cotinc eject the do Hit rndevelopment project, and -be►gir. o ©eoor+oAate the needs of a our moderate to lower. -4. 1 tR incnrib. rpnnl e, raf-h-r thnn nnyinct therr. lip while acoornaaUlffr rho avarice of the wr►a . (--A O-L UIS 1L CIA- It 1 ' A�-`� -� �� •� tom., • A • J N. 1 a +N 3=..W'J'. .rr.� �,.�...L.iJ•.•�.'�...Y\�y�F�rw;..rn..�. e.y.,�'�s t_ y:,.•.V•4,l f4�;►'{'t..X%i.X t�.�*�'�Y�"1"f�^�,4• 1 11/22/7G John Manning 410 M Street Huntington peach, California I am a citizen who - as most of the citizens here tonight, and last Thursday - can be vitally affected by the proposal before you. I spend a substantial portion of my time working to generate income to support my family and the various governmental bodies and agencies that seem to proliferate daily. I personally have not }.he time nor the resources I need to combat the actions of those governmental agencies which feat upon mL. My comments, therefore, on the earlier staff presentation Justifying a redevelopment plan an the answr..r to all the problems in the area under attack - and the only answer - are brief. I detect very little balance in the staff presentation - less balance last .„ Thursday than on October 11. It appears that a conclusion was reached; and then all evidence, farts, charts, graphs, etc. supportingl the conclusion were presented. Any non-supporting data was .ignored. Tt is inconceivable to me that given all the talent, time and resources of our city staff, ncr': i one detrimental aspect of redevlopuent could be unearthed by them. Any concerns of the citizenry have been answered - disposed of - end of discusalonl I do not feel that the citizenry should be in an adversary position with the city staff. t • In listening to the staff presentation, I lr--came awed by all of the things that redevelopment will do that we cannot - absolutely cannot - do in any oL•her way! This reinforces one of my greatest concerns that redevelopment will become an entity unto itself - uncontrnllnble by those who created it - as big governmmr?t has become so uncontrallable. we, the people, have ceased to exist except as feacers of the -,ysteml 1 A -z- 1 i' There are many specific aspects of the plan which concern me and concern �I many others. You have heard from many people already and I will not repeat all that has i been said by others just because I share their concexns. There are two points, however, that I wish to particulary emphasize: + The first has to do with the admittedly special interest group which has been in close contact with VTft in the development to date of the Redevelopment non-plan. ' I am speaking, of course, of the Project Area Committee. When this committee was first formed, the Project Area was much more limited than the area it now includes. As a result, virtually all the residents and citizens of what is now the Project Area were excluded from contributing to the Project Area Committee considerations. Virtually all these residents and citizens did not then belong to the special interest group even though they would be severely impacted by the decisions of the group. The deliberations of the Project Area Committee ultimately led to General Plan Amendment 76.-1A - which I referred to earlier as the Redevelopment Non-Plan. Subsequently, the Project Area was expanded and the Committee was broadened to include �.-J-o my knakledge- member in the new Project Area. By this time, the original special interest group had established its position and if any concessions at all hove been made to the residents of the broader area, they have been cosmetic only or of such a minor nature that they have escaped notice. � . i I feel that you should either reduce flf Project Area to its original boundaries t and discuss the merits of the Non-Plan in that respect only; or that a brand new Project Area Committee shembd be established that represents fairly the r ttiire area. Ands further, that this new PAC shoulo begin anew, forming their own concepts and building their own foundations. . .....�,.......... _. ,... . . .. .. _.. . .. ._._.. ._ ,_... .__..,..,...,.,�.,._...:cif.. .. ,.:�.;:;';�",' i ( � i Lastly, there is one aspect of the redevelopment scheme that is especially abhorent to me. That is the method of financing - tax increment financing. i In certain extreme - very extreme - instances, tax increment financing might have a valid, moral application. When there is absolutely no other method 1 to infuse capital into an area that is blighted beyond all other help - tax increment financing might be a moral fd.nd raising method. In the particular cese of the 688 acres under consideration, tax increment "I financing is nuthing short of stealing. We propose to steal, for our own use, tax funds which would normally go to other agencies. And our-.city 0 staff tells us - "Well, it isn1t really very much." This is the rationale j of the shoplifterl who pays for the shoplifter? This is what the person ;,'•F'I who pads his insurance claim, to get back his deductible says. Who pays f� 4tr i higher insurance rates? This is the thought of the tax dodger, the person who waters the milk that he sells. This is the same logic that you would hear from the litter-bug. .t.I It isn't very much?? Indeed! The combination of all the "not very couches" weigh on us every day of our lives. I feel that on the merit of this issue alone, the redevelopment scheme should ► t• be rejected, is Thank you 1 J! e . I 2a5- zE9 �. Maww to -q�ssJ, B,cA i v n ulzzl7b C vHMBeec� -- 3z ,a� a �a A I �Yw.r+OmftY.YPi."Y.• f. ^wCl•`.T's.:Tyl',fe•.Y.a•ewl v.a-......... . � :t.. .. ..... ... . .,. - ... � . - (' � ._ . ... � .. . � ,.._•.......�a.r II i 1 LW C.- n '' � 1 � + _ s� �____-_�..- r.._... _'-. �/r•�. •ram-`� ti`�1-• • ........ • .. •.+__ •� � _ • _._ ._._. .•__...__-- -..,,. t a i I f - - i y • I f i � t i - ' I , �,i',.i1.1tb` •"!;�^.•�. '�• . '! ,�lj � Ja: .. l•. r. ._..• ... .. ... .. •.._..•.,-.;•bcr�:p-...,�_ ,y �.. � 'I • . . .. . . ;t•, t.. aci �i�{..1}1 Zi:iEl;•e �r i��t�k 1�/n� �i i I i . �'°� ram`'► i i t • �,► f"„y . . _� .�..�. ... ._ ... ..! ,A � ..� ... �....�� ' I, 1 \'� 7 j _ ` .� .. _. .._...._........ 1 l f ;. } a _ 1 r_.. . ..y. _ ._ .. . .� - . .. . .. .. _ . ,�._.. �� ..,�� ;,yi' >>3"'!'r�.. �. ...,1• � � . � ..., �.'�-.� .�'�..,,.:. .. 'Y::•'i:: +•�Li�r:1�"1r{�.��7i.L-�w�•�- 1��. '{'i1D" . 1 i yp 7CP people oi O-r¢, CIO te.t¢Il C,.b 4.i n st t �!"�`► �►r�. '�Oww�,0�.,,�. !'�Un�"in far.. �ar�, ^t\eaeu¢.�cpn�ci�t,{' I I b it 3 qL a 1 ,r .� • Pfo I 13 3(a) Ac 1.5 AA S I !U -/8 - 76 oe 01 �. ..t f� � C� • btu-c. go k c+- � 1 is 70 ICI r rb ,177 9n._ _.._. _�..._..__.�. . ._ z, lid ZrLo Ll A �:}{;..�"1�• fit A ?, 6 .,,. ''• A�1�n� �.L�4�•.�r��'__..��.r�f Q'�O/_~l�-/�e�'_ - .-__ . . . --1 irk- ------____. ...---- - _-_----__ ____.___.-�' f��i.';'.,h:f; •. I am opposed to the formation of a Redevelopment Agency which will affect my Property. Pro Descript Pion: 1� +�� ► /`� �ln" n�G� aturp) Phone -- I . �,,••.• .. - .••••••��-� .�+++.r..«w yPr.YM+/wwrrwnMRwae A/y11GibRK7iJ1.';I.Y7Y.w+'t*M�7w/{tfll�I�LiFL'�'r. •,.••• • .1 __. •• '... ;. 1. � A 4,1 • 'a S,IkY lk IT X,'.4 76 rj' IN'k .144 -e PAP- .131 6A 7tf-k.-tx lu .44 4t, , FF. IF --wr