HomeMy WebLinkAboutDowntown Redevelopment Plan - Old Civic Center Site - For Mi �• �., 3f Rmd Cr
/4
NAME AND ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY ♦ TELEPHONE NO FOR COURT USE ONLY
C. Robert Ferguson (213) 684-2810 �� •, , y
301 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 514 7�
Pasadena, CA 91101 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAM
r. OFFICE OFT E CITY CLEM
ATTORNEY FOR(Name) Plaintiff MEAIORANDLM OF SErWW
Insell name of court,ludrpal dstrlct or branch court.It any,and Post Office and Slleet Addrr.s SERVED ON
Orange County Superior Court
Courthouse, 700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701 .'
I
PLAINTIFF: _~�PRUCL55 SERVER
M . BURTON HORN
DATF�f�.Z _J�t'
TIME: ��•���
DEFENDANT.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY OF
i HUNTINGTON BEACH, and DOE I through DOE X, inclusive,
r..r
SUMMONS CASE NUMBER
NOTICEI You�hsye been sued. The court may decide IAVISOi Usted ha lido demandodo. Et tribunal putllde
against you without your being heard unless you respond decldir contra Ud. sin sudiencla a menot quo Ud. re-
within 30 days.Read the Information below. sponds denlro de 30 dims.Les In Informacl6n que'sigue.
1 It you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this SI Usted desea solicitar at conselo de un abogado an
matter, you should do so promptly so that your written este asunto, deberia hacerlo Inmediatamente, de vista
response,It any,may be filed on time. manera, su respuesta escrita, sl hay alguna, puede set
registrada a tiempo.
1. TO THE DEFENDANT: A civil complaint has been filed by the plaintiff against you. If you wish to defend this lawsuit,
you must,within 30 days after this summons is served on you, file with this court a written response to the complaint.
Unless you do so, your default will be entered on application of the plaintiff, and this court may enter a ludgn)"
against you for the relief demanded in the complaint, which could result In garnishment of wages, taking of md*by I.
or propi:rty or other relief requested in the complaint. rSA
2 71979 LEE A. BRANCH I?�{`� ) ►!
DATED:SCP, Clerk.By _ . _ _ __. UW
(SEAL) 2. NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
ar�4%l a. [] As an individual defendant.
b. [ As the person sued under the fictitious name of: . . . C
c. E)On behalf of:/%Cwr ir�rgf i�iKsY amFTA� GJ�y �!� f�rir
. '�Iwrfti �
Under: Q CCP 416.10(Corporation) Q ( )
4:CP 416.60 Minor
(D CCP 416.20(Defunct Corporation) [] CCP 416.70(Incompetent)
r CO CCP 416.40(Association or Partnership) Q CCP 416.90(Individual)
[]Other: y
d• j� By personal delivery on(Date):.Step,0 .
A wntten response must be M Ine form prelcnbed by%to California Rules of Court of must be bled In rhrs court*fill trio proper filing tee and proof r
of serwlts of a copy on each plaintiff's attorney and oh each plaintiff not represented by an attorney The lime when a sunlrncns I$deemed served
on a ivy Tay vary depending On the method of servr:e For example,see CCP413 t0 through 415¢0 The word"complaint"Includes cross•compta ni. '
"p4mldf Includes cross-complainant "defendant"moudes cross•defenaant,the singular Includes the plural i
ram Adopted by Rule 982 (see fewe►ee for Proof of$*Moe) 7GS8180 Maw.1.7912-79 i
Judicial Council of Calefornla SUMMONS pCO25 CCP a12 26,a 12.20,
Nwised Effective January 1.1919 415.10 1
ISPACE VELOW roll 1-'11.L4FJytt`ELY)
1 G. ROBERT FERGUSON '
ATTORNCY AT LAW
GUITX JfJA MUTUAL SAVINGS NUIL011/0
2 1401 CAST COLo11AD0 QGULSVA40
1'ASADCHA.CAUPIMNIA 91101 SFP ;? '1' 1979
(ft1�I aa�•salo
3 LEE A.
Canty Clerk
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
i
10 ,
11 M. BURTON HORN, NO.
12 Plaintiff ) COMPLAINT , 21
� f
13 vs. (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief) 1
14 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF )
THE CITY. OF HUNTINGTON )
15 BEACH, CITY OF HUNTINGTON )
BEACH, and DOE I through DOE ) ,
16 X, inclusive, )
17 Defendants . ) i
18
19 Plaintiff alleges: i
20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21 (Declaratory Relief)
22 A. Description of Parties
23 1 . Plaintiff M . Burton Horn is the owner of real property within the
24 Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project Area. 1
25 2. Defendant Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
26 ("Agency") is an Agency established by the City of Huntington Beach pursuant
27
,
'I
1 to the California Community Redevelopment Law. Said Agency is responsible
2 under the Community Redevelopment Law for implementation of the Warner-
3 Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project.
4 3 . Defendant City of Huntington Beach ("City") is a municipal
5 corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State
6 of California.
7 4. Defendants Doe I through Doe XX, inclusive, are persons, firms,
8 corporations and public or quasi-public agencies that have been instrumental
9 in, or have participated in the events and proceedings herein alleged and have
10 wrongfully and/or negligently committed acts or omissions to the detriment of
11 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not k,.ow the true names and capacities of defendants
12 sued herein as Doe I through Doe X and plaintiffs will amend this Complaint
13 to show their true natnes and Capacities when the Same have been ascertained.
14 B. Administrative Procedure
}
15 3 . On or about July 18, 1977, defendant Agency adopter' "Rules for
16 Owner Participants and Property Owners Desiring to Participate in Redevelop-
17 ment" to Implement, encourage and permit owner participation (hereinafter
18 "Rules" or "Rules for Participation") .
19 6. On August 1, 1977, by Ordinance 2212, the City Council of
20 defendant City of Huntington Beach approved and adopted the Redevelopment
21 Plan for the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Project Area (hereinafter "Plan".or
22 "Redevelopment Plan.") Said Plan mandates that persons who are owners of
23 real property in the Project Area shall be given LNe opportunity to participate.
24 7 . On September 4, 1979, the City Council for defendant City of
tJ
25 Huntington Beach, acting as its Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Section
26 33200 of the Health and Safety Code, adopted Resolution No. 4790 declaring !
i
27 that the public interest and necessity acquire the acquisition of plaintiffs' real +
28
-2_ ;
1 property in the Warner-Goldenwest Project Area in the City of Huntington Beach
2 for redevelopment purposes and authorizing the acquisition of such property by
3 eminent domain.
4
C. Controversy: Improper Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan
5 S. On or about October 3, 1977, defendant Agency, after a public
6 hearing, approved a Particlpatlon Agreement with L.C. Smull and Business
7 Properties, Inc. ("Participants") . Defendants executed said Agreement on or
8 about January 5, 1978 .
9 9 . Defendants have infonred plaintiff that no other participation
10 agreements exist, that no other development applications have been received,
11 and that no further participation/development opportunities are available.
12 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information
13 and belief alleges that an Owner Participation Agreement or some form of
14 comparable unwritten understanding exists between defendants and William
15 Landis, an owner of real property within the Project Area; that as part of said
18 Agreement, defendant Agency will acquire the real property of plaintiff M. Burton
17 Horn and possibly that of other owners of real property within the Project Area,
18 with the ultimate result of transferring said real property to William Landis.
19 11. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiff
I
20 and defendants concerning their respective rights and duties in that plaintiff
contends that defendants' acts with respect to h participation
21 h p the panic pat on rights given
22 William Landis are fraudulent, in bad faith, and an abuse of discretion.
23 Plaintiff further contends that no necessity exists as required by C.C.P.
24 , § 1245.230 or the Community Redevelopment Law.
25 12. Defendants deny plaintiff's contentions and contend that all rights
2 and requirements with respect to participation and notice of said participation
f3 P P P
27 rights have been complied with; and, that the only participation agreement
28
-3-
_ a
i
• I
1
I existing is defendant Agency's Agreement with Participant as described in
2 paragraph 8, supra
3 D. Declaratory Relief
4 13 . Plaintiff desires a judicial determination as to whether or not
5 defendants have complied with the terms of the Plan and the Rules and whether
6 a public use or necessity exists which entitles -'efendant to exercise the right
7 of eminent domain pursuant to said Resolution No. 4790.
8 14. Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time 3n
9 order that plaintiff may ascertain the applicable rights and duties, avoid a
10 multiplicity of suits and expedite the litigation of this issue.
11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
f
{ 12 (Declaratory Relief)
' 13 A. DescrIRtion of the Parties
i
i
14 15. Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 1 through 4, inclusive, and
15 incorporates the same herein as though set forth in full.
16 B. Administrative Procedure
17 16. Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 and incorporates the same
28 herein as though set forth is lull.
19 0. Controversy;_ Improper Implementatic..: ;Sf the Redevelopment Plan
20 17 . Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 and incorporates the
21 same herein as though set forth in full .
22 18 . An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiff
2? and defendants concerning the respective rights and. duties in that plaintiff
24 contends that the giving of undisclosed owner participation rights within the `
25 Project Area is unlawful.and complies with neither the Plan, the Rules for
26 Participation nor the Community Redevelopment L.-'.W. Any action to condemn
27 plaintiff's real property until such unlawful implementation is corrr:cted, is
28 unlawful, void and of no force and effect.
_4-
1 19 . Defendants deny plaintiff's contentions and contend that the only
2 participation agreement existing is that entered into with Participant an or about
3 October 3, 1977 and executed by defendants January 5, 1978 .
4 D. Declaratory Relief
5 20. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination as to whether or not
6 defendants must first give participation rights as described in said Plan prior to
7 exercising eminent domain and whether a public necessity or.use exists prior to
e the time such rights are given.
9 21 . Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in 'A
to order that plaintiff may ascertain the rights and dutiea of the parties, avoid a
II multiplicity of suits and expedite Iitigation of this issue.
12
13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
14 (Declaratory Relief) .
15 A. Description of the Parties
18 22. Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 1 through 4 inclusive, and
17 incorporates the same herein as though set forth in full .
18 B. Administrative Procedure
19 23 . Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 5, 6 rnd 7 and incorporates the same
20 herein as though set forth in full .
21 C. Controversy: Improper Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan
22 24. Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 and incorporates the
23 sane herein as though r3et forth in full .
24 25. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiff
25 and defendants concerning the respective rights and duties in that plaintiff
26 contends that defendants may not condemn or exercise the right of eminent
27 domain with respect'to plaintiff's real property until plaintiff has been first given
28
-S- .
1 participation rights pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and the Rules which are
2 comparable to those participation rights given to William Landis and which are,
3 as yet, undisclosed.
4 26. Defendants deny plaintiff's contentions and contend that the only
5 participation agreement existing is that entered into with Participant on or about
6 October 3, 1977 and executed by defendants January 5, 1978 .
7 D. Declaratory Relief
8 27. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination as to each of the followin
9 Whether or not defendants may condemn plaintiff's real property in abcordance
10 with undisclosed participation rights, whether a public necessity or use exists,
11 and whether defendants must make such rights available to plaintiff.
12 28 . Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in
13 order that plaintiff may ascertain his rights and duties, avoid a multiplicity of
14 suits and expedite litigation of this issue in one action.
15
16 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 (Injunctive Relief)
j8 29 . Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 1 through 27 and incoeper ates the
19 same herein as though set forth in full.
30. Unless and until defendants City and Agenty are entined and
20 j
21 restrained by Order of this Court from undertaking any action to condemn real
22 property under the Community Development Law and pursuant to said Resolution
23 No. 4790, said defendants will cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiff
24 and other real property owners within the Project Area i that their real property'
25 will be condemned and acquired by defendant Agency for the use and benefit of
26 William Landis and such taking shall constitute a taking without public use or
27
28
-6-
1 necessity and is outside the Community Redevelopment Law, the Redevelopment
2 Plan or the Rules for Participation.
3 31. Such conduct by defendants will cause plaintiff great and irrepara-
4 ble injury since plaintiff will lose real property. By reason of the anticipated
5 loss, plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. The determination of the issues
6 raised herein will avoid a multiplicty of actions..
7 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of
8 them, as follows:
9 1 . For a Declaration of this Court that the condemnation of plaintiff's
10
real property is not for public use and is Invalid.
11 2. For an Order restraining and/or prelimin'erily and permanently
i12 enjoining defendants, and each of them, from taking any- action to implement or
13 carry out the Warner-Goldenwest Small Lot Redevelopment Project in any manner
14 which in any way adversely effects plaintiff'g title to, or possession of,
15 his ., real property.
18 3 . For costs of suit herein.
17 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just.
18
19 _,•+'
20
L
21 C. Robert Ferguson
Attorney for Plaintiff
22
23
24 '
25
i
26 i
i
27
28
ROBERT L. SMITH RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
ATTORNEY Al LAW CITY OF
t,a N^1f# STREET NUNTINGTGNBEACII,CALIF.
HUNTMOTON OCACII.CALIFORNIA 82848 I jil�1 Ft
171-61 536 0673
I
V
April 8, 1978
ROBERT D. BAZIL
Chairman
The Iuntington Beach CunununitIl Ah
Redevelopment Conlnlission - 1
P.O. IIox 196
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: Down Town Redevelopment
1 Dear M.. Bazil:
We have noted with great interest t?,,a Analysis of Business
Owners/ Property owners Questionnaire results forwarded with
` your letter dated April 4, 1978.
I Now that we have the results and it is evident that r.very-
one wants to get the ball rolling, what happens next?
Let l u not let the analysis, gather dust, a:: has been the
fate of so may prior studies and reports.
As an indication of the interest of the business owners and
property owners in this area in the analysis' I am attaching
i a sheet of other business and property owners who concur
with me that the first order of bunine!ss is to get moving
on upgradini) the down-town area.
I
7
Very truly yours,
ROBERT L. SbiIT11 l
RLS/c
f
Encl .
cc: Mayor Ron Pattinson
f Members of the City Council
Planning Department
I
• 0 CIS' s OF HunTin (a ;On BEACH
14 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT COM MI5SKM
• p. O. (3oX 190, HUNTINGTON I)EA411, CALIFORNIA 926r48 014) 536.5271
1
April 4, 1978
Dear Property owner and/or Business Owner:
In' December 1977 and January 1978, the Redevelopment
Commission of the Ci +:y of Huntington Beach conducted
a questionnaire survey of all property owners and
business owners within the proposed Downtown Redevelop-
ment Project Area. This was done in order to gather
information and comments to aid the Redevelopment Com-
mission in its ongoing eiforte to develop an accept-
able, workable revitalization plan for the Downtown
Araa.
Attached, for your information, is a copy of the analy-
sis of the questionnaire responses.
The Commission thanks all who were able to participate
in this survey, and encourages and invites you to attend
their public meetings to express your opinions and
ideas. The Redevelopment Commission meets on the second
and fourth -1hursdays of the month a- 7:00 p.m. in Room
B-8 of the City Hall.
Sincerely,
THE HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
r
Robert D. 0azil, G
Chairman
RDB:PD:gc
Attachment
I
li .
r i
( IT" OF jiuvine,�Tui , i3encH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX 1!m, HUNTINGTON OLACH, CALWO)INIA 976111I (7141
TO: Redevelopment. Conunission
FROM: t'lanning Department
DATE: Match 23 , 1978
SUBJECT: Analysis of Business Owners/I'roporty Owners Questionnaire
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
i
As directed by the ne(lovolopment Conuni_.sion at 1-lici r sleeting of December
8, 1977, Staff prepared the yue:rt:ionn.aires deve:Loped by Commissioners
Garofalo Pnd Harman for dissemination, and mailed them on January 5 , 1978 .
The distribution list for the questionnaires was composed of all property
owners and busipess licenses within the presently designated Downtown
Redevelopment P foject Area, as vgrifiud by the Orange County Assessor 's
Rolls and: City of Huntington Beach Business License rolls for December, 1977.
To simplify the com()ilation of results by area , the project area was divi&d
as indicated on the attached map, and the eyue:stionnaire:s mailed to those
areas col(_r coded as indicated in the following chart :
Area Pro22rty O«mers Lkisiness, Qkners Color Cods
1. Main St. 67 154 White
2. Downtown Commercial Core 63 58 Yellow
3. Coast Hwy. Area 127 63 Green .
Total 257 27S
A total of 532 questionnaire )packets wore mailed, with each packet con-
sisting of (1) cover letter (2) questionnaire (3) :stamped, return addressed
envelope. ; Questionnaires were received From January 5, 1978 to February
10, 1978. . "
s
2. 0 AVALYSIS:
Of the 532 questionnaires mailed, 121 or. 22. 7t were returned with respons s.
The average re:.,ponse ratio was approximately 20. 0'6 per area , except for thy:
Main Street Business Owners, who had it respaiise rate of 33 . 1% evidenci.nt1 J
a high interest Zroln the individuals in that area.
2. 1. 0 QUCsTIONS COMMON 7Y1 BOTH GROUPS - Of the eight questions asked of
each group, five: were similar in nature and arc correlated below,
2. 1 . 1 LENGT11 OF PROPRIEII011SHJP - Of the 49 property owners responding,
16 nod c�e_d having owned property in f+lro area t; years or lotiywr, with
451. indic�tinn ownership fora 20+ years. Statistics for length of owner-
ship by area .ard:
i
i
j
w
1 Page Two
G years + 20 years +
Blain Street 86'6 58 i
Commercial Core 741% 50%
Coast Highway 56'� 34%
Of the 72 Business Owners re:sponditt,i, 50% indic,%tod proprietorship
in this location for 5 years or with 34% indicating 2 years or
luss. By area, the rc.,iponse ratios for 5 years and less were: Main
Street, 53%; Caimnercial Core, 66t; coast highway, 761U1 .
[. 1. 2 SATISFACTION WITH CONDITION OP DOWNTOWN - When asked if they were
j sans ied wit 3 tie_ present condltlon of t1ye: downtourt, the overwhelming
a response from--both property owners and 'business owners was NO (86% and
89% respectively) . For the Main Street area and the Commercial Care
area, the NO responses were LOOB - 94% and 1001, -89% respectively
between property owners and bus4nei;s owners. The Coast Highway area
responded with 69%-67%, NO. There was a stronger expression from the
business owners that the area is deteriorated (30% versus 10% for
property owners) and a strong expression from both groups for action
and upgrading activities (35% from property owners; 19% from business
owners) .
2. 1. 3 AWARENESS OF CITY'S REVITALIGATrON EFFORTS - 84% of the property
owners and 88% of the business owners indicated awareness of the City' s
past efforts. The predominant sentiment from the comments solicited
indicated a preference for action (physical activities) and less dis-
cussion (47% of property owners; 42t, of business owners) . A specific
tool for that action suggested by the property owners (14%) was to
let the private sector take over.
2. 1_ 4 SUGGESTIONS TO T11E REDEVELOPMENT COMPASSION - Again the strongest
sentiment indicateil was that some action to 'ge-JE things moving" should
i be taken (49% of property owners; 40V. of business owners) ; with 16% j
of property owners specifically suggesting that the private: sector should
take over.
2. 1.S FUTURE. PLANS - Over two thirds o1 hnth tiroupti indicated plates to
ma ntain the:1r prose nL pusition " ittde:i iitiL-01l '" (70:, of propvrty owners;
69`b of business owners) . 12% of the Main St. business owners indicated
li they definitely plan to leave within a year or less.
2. 2.0 OUESTIONS ASKED OP PROPERTY OIINE14S ONLY: '
2. 2.1 SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGING DOWNTOWN - General upgrading was favored
6y 4 %. Strong interest was expressed by the Co.tst Highway Group 0-121.)
to be allowed to develop "as they wish" .
2.2. 2 TYPES OF BUSINESSES FOR DOWNTOWN - Wit'li the scluction of types
presented of specialty-comme:rcial or. ent-ertainment, 45t indicated they
felt both would be successful. Of the Main Street: group, 36% favored
specialt`y commercial over entertainment . The cumments solicted recommend-
ed a wide choice of users and suggestions, With 17';. recommending that "free
enterprise should decide."
I
t
1
+a
1 EDEVELOPME'N'1' C4,)A)MIS$l0N
BUSINESS OWNV145-PROPERTY OWNERS
QUESTTONNAI RE
htri lc•t out IL-L1u7101
Main Street 67 14 20. 95
( [PROPERTY Commercial Core 63 12 19. 0
I OWNERS
Co,zst ;iiyt)wsy f �7 23 18. 1
257 49 19. 1
I
,
Main Street 154 51 3 3. 1%
111IS INI:SS Conunercial Core 5E 9 15 . 5
OWNERS
Coast llicltiway 63 1'.? 19 . 0
'ri),VA I, 275 7;! ?6. 1
GRAND TOTA!. 5.12, 121 .12. 7%
j
I
I
I
11
i3agEf 3 ,....1
2 2 3 BEfc.11' _C_OU1tS1. OP ACTION .'Ol( T111: 11; 1�ItOPE'IVIT - 4 3':. (.,t all proporty
t7W11(!r5�rl?sI:C)I1CIl1itJ l:1(1lt:.110 a (Iei;ir•e: Lo rehal,.i11 L,ILt_' e:Xi 'itiIttj struetllL't!:i.
By area, however, 79;, of tho Main SLruut group indicated r•ctrabiliL•aLiun
with the remaining 21% expressing no choice, while the conunurcial corer
i group and Coast Iii.cjhway tlroup c:xpro.,;:i.'tt I lire f(-voncc to sell to accom--
modatt., larqur dvvolopmt'nt (42;. and 1'. . l 1 \'t' IV) . No Sian-ific.ulL
Ll"011d was 111drC:ILod ill ( Ilk' C0 111111 0 11t:. 1 I11 :: tlll.':It I toll.
i
1
. . 3.0 QUI-'S'11I0NS ASI,'El1 tor' 11LIS 1 NL:SS 13h(IJERS ONLY
'. 3. 1 DO YOU OWN Of? UEN'I' VOIJI2 BUILDING -- '1 9 L l nd i ca tiod t h-cy owned thu
lnl.11Mncl )t:,Itod , wiL11 17.110 Cuast Highway
.ir :rup rcpor•ti.t►t3 thm higho.;t: v.itio tit ownol":31iip,
J. 3. 2 NATURE OP hu:;2 P!l::::; - '1'he!re: w(:I�(' approx i n,,l L e'l y 50 d i i lor•uj t Lypv_--
oe busineabS%a inclicacu"d from the 72 business yuusLiontlairu responses .
Apartment' renta1 and manaclemvnt was t.ho dominrinu.. bmsint_s!; activity in +
the Coast llidhway area. Main St.rt:t_•L 1,11,;inoJJ owners comprised 71ti of
1 the total business yuesLiunnalru re_!;ponse.s.
2. 3. 3 LEVEL OF SUSIt'1:S:: SALES -- 441 of the ruspondent:s indicated sales
were greater than 19)7G. 17T indicated all incroaso uvvc 1.976 of 10-25Q,.
Comments Nadu Sttltt':I LIML Llic growth was duo 1.(( mlt,r;itlt' lurcos of the
:Junural economy and that. they were IIOL on thc downtown area .
3. 0 CONCLUSIONS
Property owners in Main Street: have• 1%aint'.lil10d 0wn0r-ship in thoir
area 1^•.qer and dosi r e to retain ;rwnurship atld rehabilitate if
economically feasible:.
All ro.-ponclen i ire t.lonor•al ly di:sat. isf.iotl wi t.11 the clownLuwn ' s pre:st:nt
condition and ary anximi:i for pouit ivy• actiuil that will rosult: in
i physical charttlt'.
i Although 4•1 .. (d Lht:' 1)llallll!:itit':i 1"4'11(ll'tl!(1 In.'I't:.l::t!ti rll :ialtt.':i tIVt:L' 197t,
lovols, t.11l'tit! 11! -ro.lsos Wel'o I1t11. tint' Lo ( fit- t•omi t (. !tail:, of dowlll.u%vil
1 .l:i .1 l:lrlillllt!l"�1.1 L .11't!.l, !lilt 111 till%t t• tlI l l .
I
i 1
1
1 .
i
3
i
• i
3.
y
LU
00
CA
ra
f7l f- F_ F_ P
Tom`] F lu
LLJ L_J L____. _J� �r► ...
L 1.1
i rwnu: �.rEu�
1 s_. I._ I ��._r_.1 F I. 77,
L...J L_1 L. ' .� L__J L---.
►4 •
1-1.: 11 r.,....,�r, rn, (= nl�J.1. .J L_J 1.-_J L__J f u N
1.r ...
�.Hur
V 14
�
L__ L _ v p...J >, .w
» w.IlY+I � •� .y ••1
-,_) )) .... �1 r :j 41 V .C.
L __� 1- G� Cl LT 7 /Y
41 C•r+ ►v
31 11
1-t••�r•rr Y•st s=s� .Ei
as rras.7 f -.t."►•ems. m
�r m Q Q
zgzu
II I.MI 3 .�
1C-D F-7-1 E.- - F f I
J
,ram.
We, the undersigned Business Owners and Property Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, agree with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Bazil and want. to get things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Improvement or what have
you.
NAME OF BUSTNE::;ti/OWNER OWNERS NAME. BUSINES ADDRESS
le
. .�..1,
tv
��'•t-!`"J�l-9 .► �1. a.�/ �!'���/���-•...4t.� _��/_..�1_�iU •sr �' + � ' .
rp
%trla.LC _._� as .
1 i
PAGE .
We, the undersigned Business Owners and Property Owners in
DOHTN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACIle agree with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Baziland want
tmto get thingat have
MOVING un Redevelopment, Upgrading,
you.
NAME OF BUSINESS/OWNER OWNERS NAt•1E BUSINESS ADDRESS
toll
of
�t
1 t
1 S
i
/,It etc•. •C
i
GCC z�G
1
PAGE I
.mow.......« - .. .` ...r.. ... ... .. .... ...
. 1 '
Owners in of
Owners and E,xx,l,�►rtY a Iett
Owns t ht: at4aGt,t d things
ned pusines• agr'=xAI and wane. do 9�-t What have
the undeXyINOTON E1��CEE/
We NUN t:n Robert ID;
gaze Ir,E�rc�4 ment or
DOWN T0�"� SmithUpradingt
G on gedevelopment►
Robert L• ApDRN5S
MOV IN E[U S[N[%�
you.
NAM J/I�•
.• '•pWN�'%K cltqNSHS It
NAMN OF
.1 e.,� --- 1�, T= _ _ L- -f • 2 .SILL
Sx
11 /l, '� I-�-!'S LLB J-'• (t J j �. U-��="'�-= .� �'
TO
��J ter,--•r-
�I
ti „_
We, the undersigned Business Owners and Iiroperty Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, agree with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Bazil and want to get things {
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Improvement or what have
you.
j
NAME OF BUSINESS/OWNER OWNERS NAME' BUSINESS ADDRESS
' •�d.cL,l�7.. • _�LC�J2 LyL 4ri1VK � e �� �L f "S� �'7.S7 f— �"% •`J
la.1LC�l-L�+�• 1.'.L..L��i��[� •__ ��tiltif _1..�. ���C t �.'•t s� �/J�d
7
e4�.f ;r fC 'C s4LL`7+1C�iSC.
17
I
waz(
4:27 22"L
--
I --
PAGE
I•
We, the undersigned Business Owners and Property Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTO14 BEACH, agree with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Baxil and want to get things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Improvement or what have
you.
NAME OF BUSINESS/OWNER OWNERS NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS
" ���___.`� -�d._rC� ��:.�St�:-��- .C�V��y-__. '� j�`'1n1cu,••,, ST__. �- i
LA e;4
V 2
is
V f
_.� �. �f
_ _ 1 ��.�
We, the undersigned Business Owners and Property Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, agree with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Baxil and want to get things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Improvement or what have
you.
NAME OF BUS I NE.SS/OWNEH 014NE11.1; NMIK BUS I NE.SS ADDRESS �
Wei J�+L-',.`iy�. _. /l_!. :l.L LjW_I-,� �
i1 .15d LIB r n VeA �I
H S .
L ic J,C-5
/
j Jai
PAGE
i
We, the undersigned Auslness Owners and 1'roperty Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, agree with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D• and
lmprovt�ment get
or whatghave
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading,
you.
NAME OF LillS INE:SS/OWNER uWN1:Kti NAMI «US i NLSS ADDRESS
ti
s I cl E of 7t /k�siric'�
PAGE. (?
1 - 3
We, the undersigned Business Owners and Property Owners in
DOWN TOW14 HUNTINGTON BEACH, ague: with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Baxil and want to get things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Improvement or what have
you.
NAME OF !!US t Nt::;S,'OWNE1i IaIM11.14S NAMI. IMS I NESS ADDRESS
0441t A.
• ,
cil
lei
71
Y.
4'
t -`
PAGE
i
I
We, the undersigned Dustness Owners and Property Owners in
DOWN TOWN NUNTINGTON HEACU, agree with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Hazil and want to yet things
MOVING on Redevelopment , Upgrading, Improvement or what have
you.
NAME OF HLIS INE:Sti/OWNER OWNERS NMI' BUSINESS ADDRESS
. 7�L�%1r?�..G�.►tC1,1 4?.f JGF/' r �e�.•c c'.SKie'.1t. .L 'W�Kf''Cf �''j �1.144;'Lak,r_?7vel. f t 4
_�-G.'��_ --w•
'L'rrt�is . -,�-z j'f �•1�, 7
75
_ /C�_�-y'e''ti...�� .....__.._ L..GG2� �,(/Lr1�t'G�+.� . .►Z�,Yr/� >�L�,-�7`�l �
I
PAGE
I
1,
- I
We, the undersigned Business Owners and Pruperty Owners in
{ DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, agree with the attached letter of
11 Robert L. SmIth to Robert D. Bazil and want to get things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Improvyment or what have
you.
NAME OF BUSINESSIPWNER } UWNURS NAM) HUSINLSS AUDltEES
et
))//��Z�I-fL-4
Ale 1,74
NV
r • '
lI
I
w
F 4- 4e�-
s v 1•.;'-I s
p ti
PAGE -!
�I
I
We, the undersigned Business Owners and Property Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, agree with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Bazil and want to get things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Improvement or what have
you.
NAME OF 11115INESS/OWNER OWNLPS NM11 BUSINESS ADDRESS
eze
r
C/ r n
CL
PAGE. (�
s
{
We, the undersigned Busaness Owners and r • uperty Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, agree witt the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Bazil and want to get things
MOVINg on Redevelopment, Upgidding, Impro%.ement or whet have
you.
NAME OF 1iU51 NI~SS/OWNER ;,WN1:12:i NAM' HUS 1 NCSS ADDRESS
• ,y
44A-
'^�,� •1soc-`t'"�'-�,;[•t' `- .i ',/mil—/�-c--�-t _.. _. . ,
• f
i L
• � s ��•fez.- .�s��.+►�" '-
�A:5
G CuriMa_ txti �,L,�a 3`11 col�r%orb 1
t
IY41\
PAGE
ti
We, tt a :Jers ligned Busi nes, OM hers ant' Property owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH agree wit? t -•- attached letter of
Robert L. Rm+h to Rober t 0. Bazi ! and wa- - to get things
MOVING on dedevelopment, U.gtadr- g, Impre ement or what have
you.
NAME OF HI N I Nt -;/OWNF r 1WN'-N:- NM11 '+US I NF SS ADDRESS !
m tYo'S SHDIt WRVICM
I�
lk
CL-'ni
SU
oil
/19
/ r
�.
We, the undersigned Business Owners ana P-aperty Ownhrs in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH. agree with the attdc•hed letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert U. Baz.il and rant to get things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgtading, Improvement or what h&Ve
you.
NAME OF BVS I N1.aS/OWNEY NAW 11t,.S NESS ADD14I:sS
� r�n.r'�rtr/�.��1i��Ccp�,�C:'C/Zf-.�i-ri:►� tea:f�x��ti.�c�..__. .
),�I� '+ ! .��r' f .% Via.y 1�1!�r,eQ ►�1 '.: -1 OWN �"1 ,��1 �tQ► ��� _.�.
'��`r_.._..� a'�l•':"(, :tf�1�' 'n .._ .. ��'�'! ' 't4�lls�lCL�t�:a' .r"1��� ��'�ll•:�s.n.. �_
e.
ILI
j
MAW. C MOTORS h?
f
1PAr,F _1
We, they undvrs.i.gned Business Uwners and Property Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, atjrce with they attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Haxil and want to get. things
MOVING on Redevelopmcant, Upgradincl, Tmprovomont or what have
you.
NAAtu UI' 11ti;;i Nt::;:;,'(3WNl:ft 01041-:14:; NAME I Nt•:;;ti ADDRESS
reams ca ��-�.�3 .
CaLf
tc
LY
-��r. n�r�.���'.�.i�l4r_1•�! l��rtCv��I.Q_G2 ��./1 .�_�
r �
(0tirkIs VAU(NW .i 01 ie-r � ,QK., L) t�� Z � 2 .��' ►�`t�tr� S�-
PAGE /y
I
I
f
We, the undt-rsitinud 8usim-it; ownvi-.i attd Nri►l►vity Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, atjrvu witch the at t.ached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert U. Hazil and want: to get things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgradinq, Improvement ur what have �
you.
NAtjL O!' [1t1:i IN oW141:11S NA(.11' 1'11: I NESS AUDIT .0.1i
. 1cYn�e•�.. �i)llc,S.. 11*141#�t'n,e,i , K o6 qle ;21 Y 11/,PN
r
wbuA e mmu.e.
. •J sd C tr'�5'
V-
r
i
We, the undersigned Business Owners; -nd Property Owners in
DOWN TOWN' HUNTINGTON BEACH, agree wit,'i the att.ac.hed letter of
Robert: L. Smith to Robert: D. Baxil and want to yet things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Imp„ nuottiont or what have
you.
NMIE OF HUS 1 NESS/014NER OWNERS NAF11: BUS I MISS 11)DIIESS
//jet;
4el
l�
~j.
V
X
t�
t'AGE' ,
1
• We, the undersi%piod• Businc-;s Ow►stirs and Property Owners in
I DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, agrcu with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. 8szil and want to get things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Improvoinent or what have
you.
t NMIC' OP 1�►r;;I Ni::�:�,'Ui�Nhtt oWNVUS NAMP l US I ADDRESS ,
rt 6h c qk 9 AdAesl-S-&4-
_S4
Q 4 s 4 04 1� 4f#LQV
00
/ 6
1
i
1
PAGh J
i •
f
1
We, the undersigned Business Owners and hropt!rty Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, agree with they at.Lached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Bazil and want to got things
MOVING on Redevolopment, Upgradint.1l Improvement or what have
you.
NAM1: OP 11US lNt::►::/014NER OWNER!; NAMi' 1111S 1 Nl.SS ADDRESS
—..M" S7-- AA (4. ,4r� XX-eZ,5 V:t-mc zas �qltoytr
!?1JWi L4�&.L- &iaclk: 0 13 j?h
,tu,�iu t"►,o{��u.fi j7'1 - �;;� _..f�:u tl cr,G ,S`yd , . 'e_-'q-f,
-�,
�P,4
c-,
RrC ��► t n t. _....__ 1''.CC•l��. a. a-,�►„�r • ` s t_ l ,s�"
PAGE'
We, the undersigned Business Owners and Pioperty Owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BCACH, agree: with the attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert 0 Bazil and want to get things
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Improvement or what have
you. _
NAME OF 11US 1 NESS/OWNER jtrNE'US NAMI BUSINESS ADJA SS
,,rr77 ) 1''� •f •
eiL
i
OIL
APAL
�a...,..._:.�.�. j �• � � i:.� '�:!•1.�l:_'.,?,r+.
�r
PAGE —/�--
• i.
.s
1
We, the undersigned Business Owners anc1 P't purt t/ owners in
DOWN TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, agree with tiev attached letter of
Robert L. Smith to Robert D. Bazil and want to get things '
MOVING on Redevelopment, Upgrading, Improvement t)r what have �
you.
NAME OF 1411S 1 Nf'.gS/'OWNE1t NINLRS NAME DUS I NE:SS ADDRESS
t�°��C 1�)Lt.�i // c, �. ;� "/U_';—.11 /1f.•,•�,
4 I 6 ///,� rr_ j L "`�!✓�.;� C {� [lam`[ /'/ ��
L 14,
' � I
' 4
i
I
PAGE .: ,
h
•�+ CITY
OF HUC1TIf1GTOf1 BEACH
li CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT COMMiSS1ON
p, O, eOX 190. HUNI'IC\G70N PEACH, CALIFORNIA 92G48 b1al s3�7»
Council is 5
ell
4
nora
TO: Ho Mayor and City
FROM: Re elopment Commission r
DATE: February 6, 1979 '9961 pat
progress Report and Action Program for the Downtown
SUBJECT: g Effort
Redevelopment
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council` review and authorize staff to
proceed with the following courses of action outlined by the Re-
development Commission:
velopment
1. ofInitiate
Downtownvitles necessary Redevelopment Planraseindicated ind the consideration
attached ,
of
schedule (L'xhibit B) .
2. Areal fora implementationaintthelCity',s long rangeacapitalhimproveot
Ar P
ments plan.
3. solicit development proposals for the municipal pier and Old Civic b
Center Site areas.
4. Proceed with the implementation of the Main Street Improvement
Program as outlined in the attached schedule (Exhibit D) .
ANALYSIS:
At the conclusion of public hearings in January, 1977, the City
Council referred the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to the Redevelopment
Commission for analysis and recommendations. Since that time, the
Redevelopment Commission has convened jointly with the Planning
Commission on several occasions to discuss the probiems and potentials
of Downtown and to arrive at a new course of action for improving
the area. The following items reflect the conclusions of these
meetings and indicate the direction the Redevelopment Commission
is proceeding in revitalizing Downtown.
1. Selectii3n, of Redevelopment Project Area Boundaries and Plan
Development Schedule.
On April 14, 1977, the Redevelopment and Planning Commissions
considered alternative boundaries for the revised redevelopment
area. After considerable discussion which occurred at two
additional joint meetings between the Commissions, the alternative
boundaries indicated for a Minimum Project Area iyere agreed
upon. This boundary is indicated in Exhibit "A" .
t
t
1
Page 2
i
The new bcundary eliminates all predominantly residential
areas and large vacant parcels east of Lake Street. It reduces
the previous Project Area from approximately 600 acres to 200
acres.
it was the consensus of both Commissions that the new Project
Area includes the minimum feasible area for redevelopment,
i that the major problems of Downtown are included within these
boundaries, and that development difficulties outside the
j project area can be resolved by other means.
The attached schedule, marked Exhibit "B", denotes the major
milestones involved in the initiation of a redevelopment plan
for the area, and the tentative time frame within which it is
proposed that the process can be accomplished. The Main Street
Program coordination (item No. 1 on the schedule) "primarily .
entails the integration of information from activities (further
explained below) which can be initiated irrespective of the
adoption of a redevelopment plan. Item No. 3, Planning Commission
re-selection of project area, is an action recommended by legal counsel
in order to officially commence the statutory 60 day period within
which a Project Area Committee must be selected.
? The time frame between the initiation of project area selection
by the Council and the public h(..:*-ing for plan adoption is
flexible, depending upon the sp%eq with which it is desired
to move and the statutory review and comment periods. It is
the desire of the Redevelopment Commission to be able to adhere
to this schedule for plan adoption, if not expedite it.
2. Townlot Improvements
During the formulation of the previous redevelopment plan and
through the public hearings, numerous problems were identified
within the Townlot Area. It was the consensus of the Redevelop-
ment and Planning Commissions that. while these problems are
indeed severe, redevelopment should not be the tool utilized
to solve them. Instead, the Commissions are developing a
capital improvements program .for the Townlot area to be sub-
mitted to the City Administrator for inclusion in the City Is
long-range Capital Improvements Program.
The staff is currently preparing priority recommendations which
will be discussed by the Commissions at a later time. It is
the intent of the Commissions, however, that special attention
be given the Townlot area and that necessary facilities be
provided in an orderly manner over the next few years.
3. Solicitation of Development Proposals
Two key areas, the development of which would serve as a
catalyst for downtown revitalization, are the municipal pier
IV and the old Civic Center Site. Since these areas are under
.-.-+,....�....w....•........... ..�--. ..._... .. _. . .�• ..1` :t .b• .. .a ... . ..ai++(:.i s�..:%M.a'i }�..:w:i�iVilw�+•r�' .
C
i Page 3
City ownership implementation of proposals for these areas could
proceed prior to adoption of a redevelopment plan. Additionally,
these solicitations will help determine the real world market
feasibility for development of these areas as seen through the
eyes of the private developer who will be making the substantial
investment.
A. Pier Area - The existing leases on the municipal pier terminate
as of June 1979. The Commissions concurred that private
development proposals should be solicited for new commercial
uses at the entrance to the pier, in conjunction with
structural rehabilitation of the pier itself.
0. Old Civic Center Site - The value of this site as a catalyst
for spurring activity has frequently been noted. It was
felt tS1at the use of the site for housing could take
advantage' of this potential while fulfilling a well-identified
need for low and moderate income units. As requested by the
Commissions, staff drafted a Request for Proposal (RFP;
attached Exhibit "C") for senior housing on the site that
would incorporate as many appropriate support facilities as
possible.
4. Main Street Improvement Program
Another area for activity prior to redevelopment plan adoption
is illustrated in the attached schedule (Exhibit "D") for
implementation of elements of the Main Street Improvement Program
endorsed by the Commissions and Downtown Merchants Guild, and
approved January 16, 1978 by the Council as part of the coming
HCD Grant Program years.
Main Street, as the heart of the proposed redevelopment project
area, is of paramount concern as to the ultimate development
and use of the six blocks fronting Main Street between Pacific
[bast Highway and Orange Ave. For this reason, the camassions
staff to pursue two alternative strategies. These alte�rna iivves
derive from two differin
g assumptions about the future of the
Downtown. Alternative One presumes that the existing multiple
ownership patterns will prevail and that the goal of revitali-
zation should be maximum utilization of existing structures and
preservation of the area's existing character. Alternative 2
assumes major consolidation of property and new development.
The gdal of this alternative will be to generate major new
construction activities to upgrade and modernize existing com-
munity image.
The initial program depicted in Exhibit "D" will greatly assist
in addressing this concern. Key interrelated elements of tha
program depicted are the Structural Survey, Rehabilitation
Loan Program, and Code Enforcement. Through the structural
survey the feasible level of rehabilitation and the necessary
areas for clearance can more appropriately be determined.
ti%y�.1�.;��!'x.:F:'.�i�:.,:'.. r ............•. • .r•r v .� -. _ . ... .«�:. ............r.......__.-�.. -n...............ra.r. i7sr Ya..atT..`"AZYi'
Page 4
Furthermore it is anticipated that the completi:,n of a detailed
structural stirvey will legally obligate the City to commence
code enforcr.nent procedures on identified deficient buildings.
In order to alleviate the potential hardship that may ensue
from this, it is felt that the following items should be ac-
complished:
A. Amend the Iangerous Building Ordinance. Code enforcement
4 has always been, and will continue to be, a valuable tool
in the revitalization of declining areas. However, because
of the, riumber of pre-1933 buildings in the area and the
concerted efforts for coordinated revitalization, it is .,: _
felt that a revision to the applicability of the Dangerous
Building'Ordinance in specified areas (such as a redevelop-
ment project .area) is warranted. Specifically, this amend-
ment would entail the extension of the period of compliance
to, allow the property owners or businessmen more time to
secure improvement plans that are consistent with a uniform
theme that may be developed and obtain financing and contract-
ual labor to make the improvements, and the revision of the
threshold level requiring compliance with earthquake
sistance standards. From the 3rd year HCD program, .$401000
j is presently available for code enforcement in the downtown
I area. Staff anticipates having an. appropriate amendment to
the ordinance ready for Council consideration and adoption
within the time frame specified in the schedule.
B. Provide==,alternative financing. In cases where the property
owners or businessmen are unable to secure conventional
financing, alternative sources such as low interest loans
and rehabilitation grants could be made available to en-
able the individual to comply with code requirements.
Approximately $350,000 has tentatively been established
for rehabilitation loans through •tha HCD program. Additional
funds may be able to be secured through leveraging of the
HCD funds, coordination of SBA programs, Federal 312 programs,
and any. other sources that can be identified. In the 4th
year HCD program for the Main Street improvements, $196,000
was specified for utility improvements. The basis for
these improvements was a higher intensity of development
than is presently being considered. Consequently, it is
suggested that theses funds be re-prioritized in order to
provide the Rehabilitation Loan Prtjgram one year earlier
than previously anticipated.
The subordinate elements of the Architectural Theme Design (estimated
at $10#000) and the "Do-it-Yourself Rehabilitation Manual" (estimated
at $5,000) will be closely coordinated with and built upon the .data
from the structural survey. Through the Architectural Theme Design,
concept plans for Main Street appearance, interior circulation and
parking nodes could be developed as well as plans and specifications
for the development of public improvements relating to the: aesthetics
for the area (such as a "Main Street Identifier" at Main and Pacific
Coast Highway) .
1
f _ _
�R`slLi+i�. �v.:� •"i i:._..._. .. �..�..-.,_..,.a r_ ,sr.,. .:a=a::=cr7e-rs a
f
Page 5
With completed plans, the required review and approval procedures could be
initiated and completed and construction on improvements commence within
the time frame anticipated for HCD funding availability.
At Commission direction, staff is currently developing RFP's fora compre-
hensive structural survey and for formulation of concept plans for Main
Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward D. Selich
Secretary
EDS,PD:ja
'Attachments: Exhibit A: Downtown Redevelopment Project Area Map
Exhibit B: Illustrative Schedule Downtown Redevelopment Plan
Exhibit C: RFF for Civic Center Development
Exhibit D: Main Street Improvement Program Schedule
Exhibit E: Downtown Action Area Map
i
f�
JI
i"'m,.•''��'Y+.+."�Ll...�'*:,'.�i,t':-,i-+.r •.. «..�ii�:t._...A�....::t..:�. •c.'r.`3.we_..:.� �_ ........�......._...—�......,.�,.,•,.,....o...arwr....rtsaa'�+wnr
t.
c
L
11 [E m m r
uu
f cIle . a r r Ll-'r r r r
r.
L11 LU [JU LLJ Liu
r-d--' Fl IE rlyi LE
I: Mm
LU UU L
M [D [E 00,M
LHU'JU�UIE [DID IE [OM [E,.[D [D MUO [DU01
-i LL-Ljj LL—Li L"'i �H Hd pg [ju
ftcow
..0
DOVMTOMRLMEVEOPh" PROJECT AREA
EXHIBIT A
ILLUSTRATIVE. SCHEDULE DOWNTOWN REDRVELOPMMT PLAN EXHIBIT "B" 2/6/78
.
Jar tb. f�tarr-h nn _June Jttl A Oct.. Nay. Dec. Jan: Feb. M3x+ch xil
P l• Main-Street Prog._.Coon �— j
2. Council dire-:ion to -
Select Area ( DI CTI N GLVEN. 1977)
3. Planning Courn. Selects
-}- I I
Project Area
4. Council Calls for j
P.A.C. ! t
S. Council Selects
' 6. P.C. and Redev. Comm.
Prepare Prelim. Plan •
7. Transmit Prelim. to i
Agency
" 4 i
B. Agency receives and
orders Notices
9. Taxing Agencies fore
Fiscal Review Committee
LO. -FRC Hearing and Report —
I1. County Report
-- "
� 12. Plan Preparation
13. Envir. Docs.Prepared -- 4 _ _ ----j- -- -
:`t 14. Owner Participation
and Preference Rules i +
Prepared a
1
"
p
r, 15. Redev. Comm. receives i
and transmits t12, 13,14)
lb.lP.C. reviews and -' �__._ -i - —_- -- � -.--______i--_ - --�-- ..-•--. ... --�----- -- ,- - !
' comments " - --
17. P.A.C. reviews and
' _ _comments -- -_. .__ ------ ---- ----- ----- � _ .-- � r 4 ; � •. -- - }_—__
13. Env. review period - - i-�-- ----- _ 1
i9.
Report to Council Pre-
pared
.14. Reduv. CumI1. receives rennrt and transmits
to Council I ( }{
• '
21. Redev. Com. hearing ; 9
y on Plan.
22. Council receives does:
se�s�eaX,�,
23. Secretary publishes i !
•Ileariny Notices i
. 24. Bearing
�.. - . -_- - - -._ ---•1
r . ,
r'*TY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS EXHIBIT C
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
This is a request for proposals for conceptual architectural drawings
and financial feasibility statements for the construction and operation
of a senior citizens housing development, full-service senior citizens
center, an exterior improvement and re-landscaping of the existing or pro-
` vision of new branch library, and limited service convercial on the Old Civic Centel
•Site in downtown Huntington Beach. The details of each of these elements
of the proposal are described below, along with a budget for site im-
provements.
The goal of this proposal is to combine the City's Housing and Community
i Development, General Fund, and Section 8 Housing Assistance resources
' with those of private enterprise to provide a comprehensive housing,
! recreation, social and cultural center for senior citizens. To accomplish
this goal the City of Huntington Beach will:
-.1. Demolish existing buildings on site $60,000
(except library)
2. Fully improve the site for construction $40,000
3. Waive the usual development fees
($492/1 Bdrm
a. Parks & Recreation Fee •($759/2 Bdrm
' b. City Water Fee $30/unit
c. City Sewer Fee $60/unit
d. County Sewer Feb $250/unit
I
4. Provide funds for the construction of a
senior citizens center and $305,000
improvements to the library $100,000
or provision of new library
$405,000
S.
Lease the Site to the
selected developer $1.00 per year
*Estimated Value: $906,000*
*eased upon approximately 145,000 sq.ft-.
excluding library site.
In return, the selected developer will be obligated to d. _01lowing: it
1. Design, finance, and construct approximately 200-300 one and two bedroom
senior citizen apartments on the site. '
2. Maintain and manage these unitz.
3. Reserve a percentage of these units (20-50 percent depending on the
total number of units built) for certificate holders in the Section 8
Leased Housing Assistance Program.
4. Design and construct with City funds, a Senior Citizen Center to be
turned over to the City upon completion.
1
5. Design and construct with City funds improvements to the existing t
library which shall continue to be managed and maintained by the
City; or:
The developer's option, a new, comparable library facility may be
provided but in. no case will the City's contribution exceed
$100,000, and the developer will be responsible for the cost of
de:n"ition of the existing library. This option is offered to
provide the developer with the opportunity to mote fully integrate
library facilities in the development and offer greater flexibility
on site design.
6. (0ption) Design, finance, construct, and manage small scale
service commercial area on the site.
I
i
1
i
• q
i '�
THE E SITE
LOCATION: Between Sixth and Main Streets and Acacia and Orange
Streets in downtown liuntington Beach (see map attached) .
USE: The site is occupied by five municipal buildings i
previously used as the City's Civic Center. Part of
the site is the previous right-of-way for Pecan Street !
that is now used for parking. k
SIZE:
Approximately 5.44 gross acres.
ZONING: CF-C (Community Facilities - Civic Center Uses) This
zoning will revert to R3 & C3 upon discontinuance of
civic center use.
� FI
GENERAL PLAN: Planning Reserve.
UTILITIES: All major utilities are available to the site.
The Senior Citizens Recreation Center provides recreational —..,
SERVICES: � •.
and social services for approximately 4000 seniors each �r
month and is currently 2/3 of one mile from the site at �;;
17th & Orange Streets but will be relocated to the site r �
as part of this proposal.
The Senior Citizens Transportation-Lunch-Counseling I
program is currently operated on the site and will
be relocated to the Senior Citizens Center.
The beach and City pier are four blocks- from the site. t�
Bus service by Orange Count Transit District is '+
Y
available at the site.
The City Gym with pool and exercise equipment is j
nine blocks from the site. i
Major medical facilities are 2 miles from the site.
Some shopping facilities and major banking institutions
are available in the downtown area, however, major
i
shopping would require travel of approximately one mile.
it
c
� I
i '
c
I
i
' THE PROJECT
1
Nc building configuration is specified, however, the following design
considerations must be followed.
A. Senior Citizen Housing
Project: The proposal calls for the construction of approximately
200-300 apartments for senior citizens in one or more buildings.
Most of these units should be one bedroom but some two--bedroom units
shall be provided for disabled and handicapped with live-in attendants.
The facility shall also include complete communal facilities (except
eating) and be designed for handicapped persons' use throughout.
In addit;.on:
The project should be oriented to maximize natural
light and ventilation in each unit and to maximize
view potential.
Movement to, from and within tho project should be
conveniei-.J,;.
Each ur. tt should have a private outdoor space.
Indoor and outdoor common areas should be provided.
Provision of common use amenities such as security
systems, medical alarms, exercise facilities,
gardening or outdoor recreation facilities will
enhance a proposal.
Funding: The construction and long-term financing of these units
would be the responsibility of the developer. In return for the t
lease of the property at a minimal co:;t the developer would agree
to reserve a share of these units }(approximately 20-50 percent) !
for certif;sate holders In the Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance '
Program. The Housing Authority would have responsibility for ad- !
ministering the subsidy payments. A provision of the lease agree-- '
ment would require that the units rent: for no more than the federally
• established Fair Market Rents for the Leased Housing Assistance !
Program (1 bedroom $240/mo. ; 2 bedroom $284/mo.) .
B. Senior Citizens Recreation Center :
f
Project: To provide a full service senior citizens center (of
approximately 10,000 sq. ft. ) to house the activities of the
current center at 17th and Orange plus the Transportation-Lunch-
Counseling Program. !
Senior Citizen Center would include meeting rooms, offices, a
kitchen, and outdoor and indoor recreation facilities. +
Funding: To construct this center, NCD Funds programmed for im-
provements '
� to the existing center should be reprogrammed to this
site and a portion of the funds programmed for site acquisition
for senior housing will also be reallocated (see attached Budget) .
1
C. Library Improvements
Project: To provide an exterior "face-lift" for the branch library
and a relandscaping of the building to include reading patios. This
would be desirable to carry a uniform architectural and landscaping
theme throughout the site, or at the developer's option, a new,
comparable library facility may be provided but in no case will the
City's cciitribution exceed $100,000, and the developer will be:
responsible for the cost of demolition of the existing library.
This option is offered to provide the developer with the opportunity
to more fully integrate library facilities in the development and
offer greater flexibility in site design.
Funding: City funds would be required for this project (see Budget) .
D. Commercial Space
Project: At the option of the developer, limited commercial lease
space may also be integrated into the proposal design. The con-
struction of this optional facility would be the responsibility
of the developer and the developer or management agent will have
responsibility for the leasing and management of the commercial
space.
Fuu_nd__inn%: The developer would be responsible for the financing of
! t�iis project and revenues from it may be used to underwrite the
' costs of the Senior Housing Project.
E. 02ticn: The City will also receive proposals for the use of only
a portion of the site and these proposals may contain any or all of
the components described above. The submission of a proposal for
use of only a mare of the site is at the option of the developer
and developers are encouraged to submit more than one proposal. a`
S
I
i
i.
`wMUVtiT14:H'RHYa-7."CFAT µ:Lc:. ..... .... , ..:. w,.. ^r•... •^. .........._....�..�........� ......ro
t
9
PROPOSAL CONTE14TS
All proposals should be "desigoundlandpeconomicallyafeasible each
project�.l
should represent a physically s
Each proposal should contain at minimum:
s
1. Preliminary Design i
a. illustrative plot plan (showing building location, recreational
facilities, landscaping, walkways, parking)
b. elevations (rendering optional)
C. floor plan of typical housing units, senior center and com-
mercial space, if any.
2. Preliminary Financial statement
a. A "Pro Forma" financial statement must accompany each proposal.
This shall include builcing and other improvement costs, projected
revenues; and must document the necessity of the City's financial ,
contribution for the production and rental of the housing units.
+
b. A maintenance and management plan for each element of the proposal
a
r included.
and the attendant cost must be
c. A statement of the credentials of the developer including, previous
ts and a financial status statement
experience with similar projec tt
fr
must also be included.
�i
�+t
F.
t
f,
}
i
,3
�t
1
OLD CIVIC CENTER
REVISED MOUSING PROPOSAL
BUDGET
Cos. Source
A. SITE PREPARATION
1. Demolition & Clearance of $ 60,000 IiCD Senior Iiousing Site
Memorial Nall, Fire Sta-
tion, Administration
` Building, and Community
1 Clinic
2. Water and Sewer Improve-, 20,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
ments
3. Grading and Landscape 20,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
Alterations
j Total Site Improvements $100,000 HCD Senior Housing Site
ti
B. NEW SENIOR CENTER
1. Construction of New $150,000 11CD Senior Housing Site
Facility _ 155,000 HCD Reprogram from
existing center
Total Center Costs 305,000
C. LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Building Alterations & $100,000 City Funds
Landscape Improvements
2. Or Contribution to New (1001000) City Funds
Library
Total Library Costs $100,000 City Funds
i
o-
Subtotal (405,000) HCD Funds
Subtotal (100,000) City Funds
GRAND TOTAL $505,000
I....+av-a..�:b:O:.s':iY.7.:�:,:.—+:4'::`,.t:... .v .:t .. ....,.t.' .... ,»..... r ....,... ... ..�-...... ... .. ... «�.............,.....�....+......_.r.......��.r.....
i
,aw '
i
Sm" ST. ui
- _ Q
q
v
r u
Li1
PARKING PARKING
t
�� It 4
1
1
FIFTH SE
HUNTINGTON SERCH CA FORNIA EXISTING CONRGURAT10N OF
Lf
V4 �7 PLANNING DEF' .IMENT G1LD CiVIc CENTER 5!'fE
�I
' ;..-•+..+..r....w!Rsc$LR!`•.�ff'S`_:.91•". •r•-.rr^s'�.o-..,...,....-•--- •._..-..... .,,n . .., .........
I
(
.•f
ii C7 Z
� 1
� 1
• \ ' I____«__� ..�._..- ACACIA AVE.
2 f6/jg `
EXHIBIT D
MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM _
Feb. !*'.archt April,, May ,:June July{Aug.. i_ Sep..I,, Oct.A Nay. Dec:A.San. ;\ Feb..:; Marc?} April
1. structural Stt_-v
2. Prepare RFP
-- i----_ :--_
3. Solicit Bids ��� , _T._.____
. _Award -
5. Study - --
- fi.. Final Report
ff � ---i � � �- . ---�------�------� - -';
Arch. Theme Design
8. Prepare Rr^P t I � iu-. -S`. :"� -�---_ __.__..._._- •---------- - -'
S P f
9. Solicit Bias
10. Award `-- ---! ��-----;- � --- i -•- -.._; - --- - ----
11. Study .-_-- -------�__ ----- - -�---�- -+----- 4 -.. _
.; 12. Final Report --f---_---------� + ------�---�--- --l- -I__._._...�_ --_ -- ------------�-_-_�._..,
13. Rehab. Manual Prep.
34. Solicit -�._._..__ -- -- --- i-- -- - .! __- ___ --I- - t- __ .- � -.._. _.� -- ------- • --•
15.---Award---- - -_ -------- -------_-_-_-�_-----�---—_} - .�- �-- ------,------�----------- - - --. _-- -- - ----• -
Z6. Preparationi -
.
17- _Rehab. Loan Program '
19. Solicit
20. Award ; -- ---�--— -- +■� 1_ __ ;--
1 21. Available
f i
22. Cade Enforcement
• ;; 23: Amend DBO
24. Hire-Inspector V-- ----• ---}----__------- `_ ---- -----f- _- -- --- ----� - -- - -- -- --- - � - - ---
25.• Implement y i !
LL?ULLJ LLJ L11 1-U uu
J� °
r-Irl
O
f=
. i _ 5
UU w LU = �
LU M FT-,
LuIll-MlIllMwl Lum
uJI
E9 E9 E E9 F9 E9 P9 F9 E9 � pq� cl �
LIM.
W04
4;
c Main Street Improvement Program
<� Pier Area RFP
Civic Center Area RFP
DOWNTOWN ACTION AREA
Exhibit E
fl
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
iru►rmcror�n -'""
To Floyd G. Belsito From Ed 5elich
City Adminis-rator Planning Director
Subject OLD CIVIC CENTER SITE Date December 9, 1977
Since the Redevelopment Plan hearings were concluded in January 1977 the
Planning and Redevelopment Commissions had a series of joint study
sessions on reformulating a plan for the Downtown. A full report with
a series of recommendations from these Commissions will be forthcoming
shortly. However, one of the recommendations has apparently reached
{ the point that the City Council should be made aware of and some
! direction given to the staff and Commissions.
The Planning and Redevelopment Commissions at a joint meeting in August
recommended that the Old Civic Center site be developed for a multiple
use senior citizens housing/community center complex. The Commissions
concluded that senior citizens housing would be the best use for at
least a portion of this property for the following reasons:
1. The City's Housing Assistance Plan indicates this area as a target
-1
for citizens housing.
2. Thi:t is the only readily available site that has been consolidated
and is of sufficient size.
3. The City has allocated $250,000 in HCD funds for senior citizens
housing.
4, The City is the landowner on this site and is thus in a position to
take a pro active role in the development of a Senior Citizens
Housing Project.
The Commissions further concluded that this site could be best used
• by combining other uses with senior citizens housing on the site such
as the existing library or equivalent, a seniors recreation center,
possibly some commercial use and space for community service organizations. t '
The Commissions felt that with the resources the City has to offer .this
would be a very attractive site for potential developers and that the
City should issue requests for proposals to see if the market place
could provide an acceptable proposal for design and construction of
such a multiple use facility. Developer ifterents • expressed to City
staff indicate this is a valid approach.
The City Council in February 1975 gave direction to discontinue efforts to
1 provide a senior citizen housing and ornmuni.ty center on the old Civic Center site.
HaWOver, conditions have changed since that timo, particularly in the hcope of the City's.
redevelopment efforts in the Downtown area. Thus it is requested that
i7S+L
i
Page 2
the City Council reevaluate its previous decision and it it concurs
With the Planning and Redevelopment Commissional recommendations give
direction for the Redevelopment Commission to prepare a request for
,proposals on the site. It should be noted that issuing an RFP does
not bind the City to accept one of the proposals, We should, however,
be ready to accept a reasonable proposal and not merely user; this
approach as a "fishing expedition" as it could hurt the City in future
RFP's for other projects that may come out of a redevelopment program.
EDSsja
j
i
i'
i
3
ff�.r
f
f
I
I
i
f..
1
i "
(t :
4
.waurA+.i XS.�..'.l:rr;LiN1+i::G•<i.., ..j.,'j. .... r . . • a;. .._ . .. .. ._—......-..-«......., ...•. .•.wr...••n«.rmew•. ww..r.+.+..v..+r
• CITY OF HunTmGTon BEACH
CITY OF HllN1'INGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON VEACH, CALIFORNIA 02M 1714) 636.6271
i
'/�/7 r
T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council
ATTN-. Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator
FROM: Redevelopment Commission
DATE: February 6, 1978
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR JOINT STUDY SESSION ON OLD CIVIC CENTER
SITE DEVELOPMENT POLICY
In order to answer questions that may arise concerning their
position on the subject, the Redevelopment Commission respect-
fully requests that at the February 21, 1978 City Council study
session they be permitted to sit in joint session with the
Council for the discussion concerning Senior Citizen Housing
on the Old Civic Center Site. This was brought before the City
Council at its December 1.2, 1977 meeting and was continued to a
future study session. Attached is the December 9, 1977 memo tc
the City Administrator on this subject.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward D. Selich
Secretary f
EDS:PD:gc
Attachment
t
'w...+�•.+++.�a...+.�e...aw ..,•+.r.:.:. .rL...!,•:,':}"""". ......._........+•eriiti:.T' . ....sr....«..war•...r �,
t
•s