Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Main-Pier Redevelopment Area - Improvements to Main St Post
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE'.6-ACH 2000 MAIN 5TRECT CALIFORNIA 92648 log OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 16, 1990 Ms. March Fang Eu Secre;:ary, of State 1230 "b►' Street Sacramento, California 96814 Dear Ms. Eu: Pursuant to Government Code 53051, the City Council , who also serves as the Redevelopment Agency, changed composition as of November 8, 1988 as follows: t Don MacAllister Grace Winchell Peter Green Thomas Mays Wesley Bannister Jim Silva John Erskine If this office may be of further service to you in this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at the number t below. }• Sincerely, d . Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk .l. 1^ II (Uephcne-714438• W) 'f rtiC:"f1Lw^M \t:.y~3�a.. �.i'. '•tA. . Ft. CITY OF HUNTIi' GTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 P.O.Box 190 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT April 140 1982 Ms. March Fong` Eu { Secretary of'State 1230 "J" Street Sacramento, California 95814 i ,r• Dear Ms. Eu: ?� y Pursuant to Government Code 5305'1, the City Council , who also serves as the'Redevelopment Agency, changed composition as of April 13, 1982 as follows: Ron R. Pettinson John A.,"Jhomas Bob Mandic Don MacAllister a Ruth Bailey Jack Kelly Ruth Finley Y,. If this office may be of further service to you in this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at the number below. Sincerely, Thomas D. Tincher, Director Business and Industrial Enterprise TDT:jb Telephone(714)536-5542 i d �J.J Cityof H1L n ti ton ]Bea ell WesBa mister rr' ' F. MAYOR PRO TEMPOgE Tom Mays F.O.gOX 1fG • 2000 MAIN STREE i • CALIFORNIA 92648 I � r COUNCILMEMeERS John Erskine Peter Green Dan MacAllister Jim Silva September 23, 1989 (irate Winchell TO: Council members 9�;J } BE: Monday, September 25, Agenda Item OF ��pcJJ�ti A "Redevelopment Staff Options IV s The-agenda for Monday night was changed so many times that many of us are still probably trying to figure odd what is going onl I apologize for . that! Essentially, the agenda in final form is almost identical to the orignal with the exception of the addition of the item relating to employee evaluations. That item was added at the request or Jim Silva because of the number of employees in the city that are apparantly spot enjoying the benefit of regular evaluations. One item on the agenda that has caused great concern, apparantly, is item titled "redevelopment staff options". It has been open, then closed, then open. Please let me explain the reason it is on the agenda and, in my opinion, should be open. We were told by the City Attorney that it is not legal to discuss possible -or actual contacts with future employees if those employees are on staff at the time. I think we all understand that fact novel On Thursday, I was informed by the City Attorney that "an" employee of the city had secured the services of a negotiator and that that person would be negotiation with the City Attorney for % contract or employment after retirement. My immediate question was, "How can you, or anyonai othar than the council, negotiate with anyone on any type of contact until it is decided by council j what they .,ant?" The City Attorney agreed that it we did not discuss a person, but instead d13ous5ed what direction -le wanted in redevelopment, we could do so legally. Thus the open item above. Sinen staying "on track" seems to be so very important, I have tried to help by preparing the attached packet. I hope that we can use it at the meeting to discuss all of the alternatives and options of redevelopment staff, and then give direction to the City Attorney for the negotiations with the negotiator. I hope you will review and add any items to the packet you think important and shara them with the balarr:e of council on Monday. It is like a Problem solving foresat and the items already written in as advantages or disadvantages may or may not be important. They are "seeds" to get started. 0 Please bring you packet to the meeting. �Y TELEPHONE(7141 334-1353 r REDEVELOPMENT I. Goal and/or objective A. Establish a seperate Redevelopment Agency? B. Establish a seperate Redevelopment Division for specific area? C. Establish a specific work team for speuific project? D. Establish a consultant for redevelopment overnight? E. Make no change in exlstirg structure (redevelopment as department under city administrator) F. Other? t I t -.. .,- ,.«......_..A .+.:. ..:.: ... REDEVELOPMENT A. Establish a separate Redevelopment Agency? 1. Advantages a. Takes the redevelopment process out of "city hall". b. Allows for hiring of specialized personnel. c. Creatos a "direct reporting proceedure" to Agency. d. Concentrates efforts to redevelopment by removing council politics and city concerns. e. Places direct responsibility, and accountability, for redevelopment. f. Allows for better accounting of redevelopment funds. g• h. 2. Disadvantages a. Creates .divisicr of staff. b. Takes City Adc•'Lij1%ator out of redevelopment. o. Establishes pote,nt;ial for conflict within ataff(a). d. Creates potential conflict in council/redevelopment decision making procees. e. f. g• h. r r t } t r r�+".M.�a.'rrlr r+rw....,.a.p.. "•fi.wy...'..s L+� ....N:...•t I4:'.i. REDEVELOPMENT H. Establish a separate Redevelopment Division for specific area? 1. Advantages a. Allows for specific concentration on "problem" areas. b. Allows for the assignment of specific personnel to specific gobs. e. Allows specific tasks to be taken out of "redevelopment" department for more directed handling. d. Allows a closer working relationship with specific projeeta and areas. e. P. g• sl . r 2. Disadvantages f. i a. Divides qualified personnel b. Confuses lines of .authority. a. Creates potential for conflict within staff. d. Creates potential conelie between projects. e. Disrupts some standard prooeedures. f. Creates potential for conflict within department. g. Creates potential for confusing lines or aecountablity. r..� {!r.I ,•i . ;.f'.L^vw` �^t,:; •...n:. .:'YNi-. ..a,' .. � .:..: ..�� ...rr..w++.....:.�ya.:..,-.i.i:.:..J:ran f. :.+:�.%.j.�KtT.�Ti.''f.C?�i7�• ,.� rr• n REDEVELOPMENT C. Establishing a specific work team for specific areas? 1. Advantages. a. Allows coneentation of effort for problem areas. b. Allows for assignment of specific talents to specific needs. c. Cres,M potential for a "task" oriented work team. d. Allis for unusual or creative solutions to problems. e. Helps' to identify and intensify efforts in problem areas. f. Establishes accountability for specific needs. g. Removes the burden of "other tasks" from members of the team and allows for uaaaentration of efforts of nose members. h. i. i 2. Disadvantages. a. Hurts moral of other staff members. o. Could cause resentmei:` or show lack of confidence on part of Agency. c. Could disrupt chain of command. d. "Steals" talent from other needy projects. e. Confuses departmental accounting and assignment of expense in budget. h fo ejuld fail and make the problem worse. g. Could hurt department, and city, teamwork. h. Could ereat "super" force esptre building. i. J. r �1 � i' • 4' { 7 tr r 4 r .•w•.++�+a.+.�aLvt.r..+;w-:..a.i=J'+::i'.`i: ... '�•_ .A.:P�.:•_..t it w.,A .. _ .. . r ..•w.+'+en+►..�_.•....-...�r.+v.s�,:..ww..wm 'saes.!K%i�C/799T�aL�7wI'+...M��j REDEVELOPMENT D. Establish a consultant for redevelopment oversight? 1. Advantages-assuming consultant would be experienced in redevelopment and familiar with area and projects. ; a. Allows for utilization of special experience for the city. b. Provides strong leadership for the projects selected. c. Provides someone with knowledge of the area and redevelopment and without additional duties to dilute effectiveness. d. Gives council direct information on the area - if employed by council and answerable to council direct. e. r. 2. Disadvantages a. Possibl,t competitson with the new administrator. b. Could cause :onflicts between staff and council. c. May not be as knowledgeable or skilled in redevelopment as new administrator,or administrator's choice. d. Possible nonrlicts with atarf redevelopment personnel. e. Could conflict with existing project managers hired previously. f. Could lack adequate authority to complete function. g. No one to supervise new consultant's activites or verify billing activities. h. 1. i i r T' . <...1.-s..Mt.,'.w.C:/<.:rt►��» .wwr�u.•.n'+.r:.:.a'.2.�:.«.[i`+.-..lY.:...Y.<...�-...--"----•-,r�..»..+.,...w+.....,. IV Y. _ N ' y REDEVELOPMENT E. Make no change in existing structure (redevelopment as department under city administrator) 1. Advantage. a. People do not care for change, so would allow for. less disruption. b. Mould allow for better utilization or personnel without division into separate departments* a. Mould justify/ salary range fog• City Administrator. d. Would eliminate some confusion as to duplication of authority and duties. e. ' f. 8• ' f .k 2. Disadvantages a. Would not solve probflem of project management downtown unless redevelopment manager could find alternate solution. b. Does not give council direct line of authority. c. Dces not give special importance to redevelopment. d. May not allow for utilization or experience, ee g• i E C'a:�cawa.:.,i....:.'.a�.... ..... .. w_tir,...,++.�..•+-.. _ A.'._• ...'.3• . .,...,-�-...— -_._ .er.w.........-..n�Kz�."i1[Tl'�Li�'i.;:�T`1,c� ,1 1 REDEVELOPMENT p. Other 1. 2. 3• q. a. Advantages b. Disadvantages to r�. i� l•� 4, t• E, f ...__' i:"rR:�+..�_..,.. ::'r.:... ..:,^.;c.. ,....rz_W.r.:..- -.or � ..� .3�i.:..,..----'-' w.ra::Y.::I�•..--r.w.K.si ice'!""' 1 RUTAN & TUCKER DARVIN/.SMALLCNmewden• DAV10 N,MOCMMER A'r'TORNtYS AT 4AW .�'■u 11 . Ifi[1 JAMCS P.w 1001* MAN,N,IRALICW JAMtf N.TUCPCR.So.IIM{•INl OI •A UL TN[OtNIC MARA- ,ARIA t,RROOfUf A ►ANINLRSMIP INCLUDINO PROFESSIONAL COrIPONATIONS NILTORD r OAMI.an.IIf�R•If{fl WILLIAM N,HILL {,UCL A.LMAPD N.R00t'1LR••ORLLL 110/9•.441 AI RICNARD A.CUPNUTT TMONAS O.PLLCM CENTRAL BANK TOWCR. SUITE IAOO LLONARO A,MAMPtL OU,t F.rAMLOUt{T DAVID J.CANI0A601,III JOMN�,MUNLSUTI JR M,rATMto.Mt JLNSON SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER ��Co..'s MICMACL W.IMMLLL lCOTT R.PI NLOIIL MILI*n I w.DAME.JR. DuG,J.tale Oil ANTON BOULEVARD iM L000Rt I.WALLACC.JN• RICNARD Q..IONTt VIDEO RO NA►D R IRRINOTON• DAVID N.CO{GROVL POST Orr= BOX 1950 PICMARD R{INS MAR,SMITH/LTNM MANMALL M.►CAPLMAII- Lou{ANNER fMITM RO NCRi C SR A UN JA wt{ FINLIITI COSTA MESA, CALIrURN1A D202B•DOfiO TELEPHONE 17141 8I1•5100 . P. POOCR A.GNAOLC' LRNLST W.PLATTC.NI 1813I e!S•7506 CO..4 0 0.STStSAIA.JN.• OUT C.MAILLY TNO".f!,$ALINOLR• PATMLttN IORSATM CSIAMANI TELECOPIER 17141 545•0035 ROfLNT r.ttltNTf AIN D,tNOwISON DAVID C.LAPSLM• JATMC DANOWSA/TA/LOW CLIF/ORB[.IPI t OtN JCIIRt/rtNTMCIMLR MICMACL 0.4011,1411M MANS VAN L/DTLM IRA 0.N'VIN• MATTMtr P,P0lf TCLCe 010 Sle•1f)51 JLIFNLV M.ODINMAN• MICNALL O.11I0I/901 JOf1►M a.CARRUTM AMDRCA R.CALLM CISI[ AOORtS{ NUTAN TUC ClYA STAN WOLCOTT. J.NUSStLL tTltR.JN POS9R1 f.Mow of ROStrT O.ONCN pAV'O J.AIt IN got SARRV L.ADAMS A MANCIA A.►ORSYTN D M AAM M.VOLR Ju ne une 26, 1989 1TILLIAM[I.MARTICO NLMA Jr FIRCY A GOLDFAR{ JAM&/L.MOPRIL SAM►OOD aMATt t ANI/t NLLS 0-1.A•I•NAM PATRICK P.MANLI 1 WILL'AM J.CAM,AN 005[Nt TONGrITt MICMACL It.MOPNAII RONI a.JACK{Oe[M JANICC L.CLLOTTI MAtTMb Ft fS[POLR IN RCPLT PL[A{e ReftR TO YI/ILIP 0.NONN I CMC{TLR A.PUCMALSAI C__ G JOCL 0.MUP[RSLPS Or,PSVIN 8RA11L STLVLN A.MICMOLS NONTM L.MCSMAN x t TMOMAS p.SPOCRIMOTON LAtNL M.M[l1[R ^: OILLIAM V1,YITNOtN PAtR Cr)ICW P.RA"CRTT .[ j LVR{OI,I IVICPq DALLAS CAN&S.TASCI:NIN 'J 7 1{ RA"CA LL M•RA SR U{N L.SA1 MARRI{OM —4 i MART IA,ORttN SCOTT N.SCNOLNWALD •'7 h-m PNII.IIA M,►RIMCL {ARAM J.W/ICCNT /'4ti J:1,,,I• 11 TNONAS J.CRAMt PAN"ATCR �•+� JONN L.FLLLOr1/11 wjJj�� .`d n in •A ARO�[A.OYL EO,.ORAt'141I �J Y AA�y�Y. +W W . Mr. Paul Cootk City Administrator CITY OF HUNTINGTO14 BEi;CH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Cook: I have been retained by James A. Lane, Victoria J. Lane, Dorothy L. Tarzy, Ahmad ("Mike") it. Abdelmuti, Jackss Surf and . Sport, Eldon Bagstad, Frank M. Cracchiolo, Shell Real Estate Co. , George E. Draper, Georgets Surf Center,. Gary Mulligan, Mulligan's Properties, Ann L. Mass, Bare Nothings, and Frank Alfonso (collectively, the "Main Street Property owners") to represent their proposal before the Huntington 1 Beach Redevelopment Agency for the project referred to as Main/Pier Phase II. The Main Street Property owners have retained me to represent their interests as owner- participants under the Redevelopment Plan and to serve as their spokesman with the City and Agency. As you know, I served in this role a few years ago at the time the Agency entered into preliminary agreemens with A&M Equities and my clients. Alt is my understanding that the Main Street Property owners have previously delivered to you a proposal for redevelopment of the block bounded by Main Street, Pacific Coast Highway, Fifth Street, and Walnut. According to the 1 .i1CS11L.�J4.W:'LNi�+Y:�n�.:JlL• til!ni:wxeYt131SSS1.wa.MA7:.::?�^.:�i'.., v•,...".7::b... •...ram-� ... , RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNCYS AT LAW •.unwc"wo..cu+ora Morrss-o..i co..c uro.s Mr. Paul Cook June 26, 1989 Page 2 information that has been provided to me, the ,Agency stafffIs preliminary response to the Owners' proposal has been positive in many aspects, but does not address certain key { issues such as fair 'replacement or compensation . for lost ground floor retail space, adequate provision for comparable temporary business locations during the reconstruction period (or in lieu payments) , the availability of sufficient on-site parking, and consideration for paying architectural and engineering costs. It is not the -intent of this letter to f summarize all of the previous discussions and negotiations. It suffices to say ,that the Cwners: do not feel that they have been given a fair offer by the Agency. Without the Agency's assistance in resolving the remi%Wng issues, and given the 1 financial uncertainty of the office space proposed above street level, the Main Street Property Owners will be unable " to participate in Phase 1T. In the event than the Owners' proposal is rejected or 1` compromised, they have instructed me to inform you that they plan to investigate the possibility of placing several of f their buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, rehabilitating their buildings in place, and reinforcing them as necessary against seismic hazards. If the Agency truly :. wants owner participation in a total redevelopment of the block, now is the time to act. To let this golden oppor- tunity for Huntington Beach slip by would be a shame. The Main Street Property owners have also instructed me to ask that further communications from the Redevelopment Agency be directed through this office rather than to individual property owners. I would be happy to discusa the , project with you or your staff. I look forward to a reply to i ' i ' s �s • I { x`��,"s+Z3•T.'1!- ,...7.a. .t:-.V.t:•-:r r.: ..,.. .,, ..n ... ....r .... .. ... ...,.,_.__....,a....-..«ten-:e...n-w..+..r-�..._... ,_--, _ ...w....,,.,.�,,,�„ , . I . - i E RUTAN 3r TUCKER ATTORNWIS AT LAW •gun■[eh►.,ctua.w tiwxt46."C04.0"+0r. Mr. Paul Cook June 26, 1989 Page 3 my clients' proposal before the July 5, 1989, Redevelopment Agency meeting. , 1 Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER Jeffrey M. Oderman JMO: d CC,. Mayor Bannister and Members of the Huntington Beach City Council and Redevelopment Agency 3 James .h. Lane , Victoria J. Lane Dorothy L. Terry Ahmad H. Abdelnuti Eldon Bagstad Frank M. Cracchiolo George E. Draper Gary Mulligan Ann L. Mass Frank Alfonso Douglas N. LaBelle Thomas P. Clark, Jr. , Esq. 7/112/099999-0112 j i f i '�•.''f'rELk"Tw.�S."�a'#wlSr'-R :•;i'«.".:r:r:.�...'xtti:.-.Hfs+.n.:sr..:<+v=':a'.-•t"y.:i*aa.::...il,;+.=.7.S+tux�..w.R...snr-aec4uvr.esa...e.a- t. AWL r REQAST F013 LAITY C0:.1 IL/ 42 RED7ENCY AuTION =�a,- a, APPROYSD�BJY RH 89-29 E-1�--� Diu April 3, 1989 CIO J Submitted to: I Hon o ble 1L&i...Council/Agency Members Submitted by: Paul Cook, City Administrator/Executive Director rL Prepared by: Douglas La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Developmen Subject: WAIVER OF INSURANCE- PREPARATION OF PROJECT SCHEDULES Consistent with Council Policy? ( 1 Yes DO New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Sours►,Alternative Actions,Attachments: :,'T�TEMFN"OE.ISSUE: To obtain Clty/Agency approval of a waiver of the city's general I'.ability and professional liability requirements. $��Q;(��jVDATIflN: Waive the general and professional liability Insurance requirements for the consultant services as outlined In the attached Letter Proposal. To provide for the preparation of individual detailed project schedules for all of our private projects within the Main-Pier Project Area, staff desires to utilize the expertise of an Individual with extensive experience in redevelopment project coordination and management. This individual will be preparing project summary schedules, using the respective project documents as previously prepared and approved by the Agency. All work will be done by the Individual at his place of business, and no Independent decisions will be made with regard to the preparation of any new documents. In view of the above, staff can identify no general or professional liability risk to the City/Agency that the consultant will perform under the scope of services. Therefore, there Is no need, from a risk management point of view, for either general liability or professional liability insurance. M AC 1'I- N: Do not w2lva the above requirements. EU�N] ING SflURCE• Not applicable as a part of this action. ATTACtM Scope of Services Letter from John Graichen. j PEC/DLB:Ip 4541h 1 PIG 41" { i a E. John Graichen 2021 Barclay Court Santa Ana, California 92701 February 2, 1989 Douglas N. LaBelle Deputy City Adtrinistrator/Redevelopment City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Doug: i As a follow—up to our recent discussions, submitted herewith is a proposal to provide consulting services to the City of Huntington Beach i for the preparation of schedules of performance for each of several redevelopment projects. I previously submitted to you a copy of my resume regarding my qualifications to perform this work. It is my understanding that the City desires to have prepared in a single report for each project a schedule of dates, tasks, and responsibilities for all the performance requirements set forth in the { various documents pertaining to each redevelopment project in the city. j It is my proposal to review each redevelopment plan, staff report, EIP, 1 agreement and any other document pertinent to each project and prepare in final form a comprehensive schedule of performance delineating all ► tasks to be accomplished as well as the dates or time frames and the parties responsible to meet the terms and requirements to implement each ' project. Moreover, I will. provide comments and recommendattuns regarding my apparent inconsistencies or conflicts that I discover in reviewing the reports and preparing the resultant schedules. I am prepared to commence this work upon receipt of an executed copy of this letter and will be able to spend between 15 and 20 hours a week on this assignment. I will do the work in my home and will submit the reports to you upon their completion. I will meet with you and your staff as necessary in !.-.rler to become familiar with the projects and to present my report on a t.h project. The rate for my services will be $50 per hour, and I will submit an invoice to you upon the completion of each assigned project, or m3nthly, whichever occurs first. It is agreed that administration of my work and specific assignments will be made by you. Sincerely yours. ilN GRAICHEN A to a of propose su P � C/ • TFY ut or tz eas gnature ate ' ti A PROVED BY cI , T FOR CITY COUI�"'4011: . r w �r REDEVEL PMENT AGENCY ACTION RH 89-20 r-�1G�. D:tb March 20, 1989 QIy'Y IRK Submitted to: onora a ayor/Chairman and City Council/Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator/Chief Executive Director C Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development d If Subject: IMPROVEMENTS TO THE U. S. POST OFFICE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF MAIN STREET AND OLIVE AVENUE IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Consistent Wth Council Policy? pQ "es ] New?oiicy or Exception Statement of laws, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Atmbrnents: TENT OF ISSUE: In past meetings of City Council staff was directed to work with owners of buildings in the downtown area that were not to be demolished in order to Implement a facade Improvement program. The Federal Post Office building on the northeast corner of Main Street and Olive Is a Historical building as noted in the 1986 Historic Resources Survey and in the Johnson--Heumann resources survey it was found to be eligible for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Staff believes it is very important to Downtown Revitalization and Village Concept that the Post Office remain at the eMsting site. RECOMMEN12ATtON: L Approve the conceptual landscape/landscape design and building rehabilitation Improvements as presented. 2. Au:horize staff to have prepared an Improvement project agreement with the U. S. Postal Service for improvements to the U. S. Post Office, located at the northeast � corner i f Main Street and Olive Avenue. 3. Authors::a Public Works staff to prepare a Request for Proposal to send to appropri;tte professional service firms to prepare plans and specifications for the U. S. Post Office site as per the conceptual drawing and cost estimates as presented. i ' f E PI01/N I RH 89-20 March 20, 1989 Page Two ANALYSIS: Our estimate to accomplish the rehabilitation of the Post Office building, and site and street right of way improvements is $170.738. The Postal Service has indicated they are willing to fund $52,683 to rehab the building, which includes 50% of the wrought Iron/stucco block wzIL The remaining estimated cost of $118,100 will be the City's/Agency's cost to fund the preparation of construction plans and specifications, landscaping (planting and hardscape), and 50% of the three foot wall with wrought iron and gates, Facade improvement grant programs have been an effective method for downtown redevelopment in many cities, and in staff's analysis the above proposal is justified to maintain the post Office as an important element within our downtown area. } t. FUNDING SOURCE: Community Development Block Grant funds have been transfered by City Council to Redevelopment Agency. t` AL ACTION: Do not approve or m.odify the proposal as presented. F�' A j M: ' 1. Letter from U. S. Postal Service dated February 8, I989. 2. City Administrator letter dated January 30, 1989. 3. U. S. Post Office Conceptual Plan. 4. Landscape Coat Estimate. S. Facade Rehabilitation Cost Estimates dated September 12, 1988. ` PEC/DLB/TA:sar 4562r J : {��:i.."yi:-„�'-r t '• f:�,::'f�..�jc. 4. . • t�' 'f; �.,�i:r:rR=,•„� :;�'�}t �-1 _.Mes nosro� i - � w rw ti s f f 4 f i f i UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Santa Ana Field Division Santa Ana,CA 92799.9998 February 8, 1989 Paul E. Cook City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Cook: Reference your letter dated January 30, 1989 regarding the redevelop- ment of the Huntington Beach Center Station. We need the consent by the City of Huntington Beach to proceed. He then can prepare a contractual agreement including Hold Harmless Clause, Davis Bacon Act, Buy American Act and any other procurement standards and specifications the Postal Service is obligated to comply with. Design and Construction will be completed by the City of Huntington Beach. Upon completion of the project, the U.S. Postal Service will reimburse the City of Huntington Beach the agreed upon amount of $52,638 for building facade rehab_'litation and 50% of the three foot wall with wrought iron gates as per your letter dated January 30, 1989. If additional information is required, please contact Bharat Bhatt, Architect Engineer, Support Services at (714) 545»8719. 1 am very pleased to work with the City of Huntington Bach of this community redevelopment project. Sincere y, H or God General Hanager/Post ster Santa Ana Field Division 3101 W. Suni'lower Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92799-9998 cc: Robert C. Gillis, Controller, Santa Ana Division Support Services, Santa Ana Division Tom Andrusky, City of Huntington Beach r _ I • Oe);, City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 9264E ti �' ' .•.cse-! ... OFrICC OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR i January 30, 1989 Mr. Hector Godinez Division Manager/Postmaster Santa Ana Field Division - 3101 W.Sunflower Santa Ana, CA 92799-9998 Dear. Mr. Godinez: Thank you for your letter of November 28, 1988 regarding the redevelopment of the Huntington Beach Center Station and the funding for the project. We would like to proceed with a joint project with the following points of mutual agreement: 1. U.S. Postal Service would fund the building facade rehabilitation and 50% of the three foot wall witli wrought iron and gates, up to a maximum funding level al"$52,638. 2. I will recommend to the City Council that the City of Huntington Redvelopment Agency fund landscape/hardscape and 50% of the three foot wall with wrought iron and gates up to a m:ximum of$110,000. -----..,,� 3. The project is to be expedited so that it can be completed by the summer of 1989. i. The building facade rehabilitation would be the first phase of this project to be completed tt; effectively proceed to the hardscape/landscape and fencing phases. We would like to proceed with this project by preparing'`needed documents to submit to I our City Council In February 1989. Staff coordinator for this project is Tom Andrusky and he can be contacted at (714)536-5583. Please let us know how to proceed. We look forward to working with the U.S. Postal Service on this community enhancement project. Sincerely: i5 u Wt Paul E. Cook Yd C d t,l -e %r Co 5 4- e,,f r...� A au_&,+t-, City Administrator t_ PEC:TA:jar , xa,L,T'om Andrusky Bharat Bhatt Telephone (714) 536-5202 Z—ZJ i I f S Wrought Iran Gates T Wad with T Wrought Ion Fence Abm(Typ.) Concrete Ba wft(Typ.) 1 Concrete Seal VM3 i r Windmill Palen Paving Ir ptovements \ Majesi c Beauty Mawmom ;F... Existing Mail Box(Typ) - 'r' Pedestrian Ug". t' = surf _ Shrubs r • .+r Post Office Metale•,$Flack •:1::, '�' Entry to Post Office t ljii:a^Fa-Pa'r-.eTyp t- Metal Bench(TYPO �;` w•�;•::�' Existed Flag Pole 1 !; - Metal Tree Grate(Typ.) Existing Streett.ght - NerrsracMs Suat in A Concrete Stand Enlarge Plaza M n I W 'S T tr G T ? -�.._: . :-;: .•ter .,. .. � = :� t :r 0 EPTl�A�. PLA1'�1 - ��.: 'POST`:-' OFFICE r =JJAN- T1NGTON. BEACH r. i t February 9, 1989 Mr.Tom Andrusky, Project Manager { Community,Development City of Huntington (leach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Tom: As requested,the Estimate of Probable Construction Costs for the U.S. Post Office ' Landscape Improvments Is outlined below. LANDSCAPE PLANTING ELEMENTS ?41' ; Demolition $ 4,800.00 Wjndmill Palms 12,750:00 Raphiolepis Trees 4,500.00 Shrubs 4,500.00 Sad 1,200.00 Soil Amendment 250.00 irrigation 2,000.00 Subtotal $ 30,000.00 LAND; reONST�311senON.ELEMF,-4T. .,u.., :4kj. Miscellaneous Hardscape Work $ 4,000.00 Benches 3,000.00 Tree Crates 3,000:00 Newsrack 2,000.00 Bike Rack 1,500:00 ,t 5 Kul Wall with Wrought iron 24,000.00 �-------- Bollards 4,500.00 i ��S Cast- t t f t .kc, '* Seatwatl 3,000:00 {- c lM.�a Cos r Enriched Paving 36.QQ.t1,� J t z �u Subtotal $ 80,000.00 TOTAL $110,000.00 10%Contingency $121,000.00 �VAIP4 U a ioa C-11^ Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance. cou o,' Sincerely, Co S r4 U ,B N DESIGN STUDIO t- g t� 'i MaUrban Urban PWMWV r. J. B odeur Principal s°koa � >!i MJB: c +46 tkdh Mw4nd Bak+ d sine M2 N-pan Bwd%Calf m 92663 ?14642t::o FAX:714CA26985 w*.�NO n(I"ti fl once G fOIUP,,pp(� • I • W thirtieth Vri.Street architects ' irice .a ••�-un ity of•Huntingtofi Beach' A - _•;,Planning Department C E I VE D ► `'�"•'}riff.T'f • inY Slw •. .•1: fyf:: . _ .• ... 1111t3ngtL1D RCaCh,'CA'92b48 -SEP t 1988- .,,. _ •'`�Le��. r il, iFy;1w1,,�i,..•�3j'.i,;=:.t�.,'1::;� j�;•� '-,w,- •. _ .• :.'. . •. 1 '1• .. .arn •.ti ? DEPARTMENT, T: !t .Y.',7'ice• }„',St';;•= .,awn:. ..'...;; i�1.. .,. ;. . �s: - COMMUNITY OEYEl:0 41EKi - • ,. �. Y,.� 1tiltltl�tOIIaaeach#0 E*1 �1IYHlNafOiwSluN44. _ :{ -- ,..,,_�."�'"«.ti '`7::')'rr1L�' .:,i:G;ri.:.•.=..1»:1.• r. 1•.•... ' .. r., .. a' ... r-. .... .:K... :••• i.�... ••� y' i Zf 77 '- i'lease find attached descriptions of Work and a gcoage aL.cosl, estimate or rehabilitating the: facade of•the U.S. Post Office located on the corner of Main w•uStrvet:�ucid Olive Avenue.,-We are generally. recommendinglour items of work: ��j.• .Tr..• i r " .fr:. •r':•�}•S"Jv''.at:':fiF•f..�,� . ., ... .... _. :^,• . 441yMclitiesuilding :needs o :be repainted."- .lvar:.3be ars, �s? P Ql r;�p!reParation:of•the surface has caiused+;pp. tipg. otj= a;�e. - ;tffeCtive;:8s-can be seen-by the blistering of the current paint. The- ►;�-r �-• alls'.a'hoiild be water-blasted to remove all previoui*paint,'*iinered, ✓. ,r..t.:, r,i t=r•r ' and painted. 2. -,All.the windows and door similaily need to be repa6ited. The wood frames and sashes are generally in good condition, but work should include paint removal by scraping, paint remover, and/or heat gun, puttying or patching any defects in the wood, primering, and painting. • 1 3. At least five of the existing concrete window sills are deteriorating. This is caused by minor cracking which has allowed water to penetrate the sill. Over the years the water has caused the reinforcing --steel inside to rust. The rust is iron oxide, which expands as it is t' formed, loosens the bond between t;he steel and concrete, and actually architecture historical rehabilitation planning 2821 newport blvd. newport beach,caiifornia 92663 � (714)673-2643 t - - -- - A forces -the concrete away from the steel, causing the spalling. The corrective work is twofold: a) repair the sill aesthetically; and b) repair the sill to prevent further spalling. The fit'st repair should include removal of the rust from the reinforcing steel by lightly sandblasting it (and not the concrete surrounding it),cleariag away all loose debris from the current ' broken area, placing a form at the front and sides of the sill to match the existing form, pouring new concrete and trowelling the top to match the adjacent sill. The second repair is to carefully inspect each sill on the building, and caulking all cracks to prevent further water penetration. This should to a yearly maintenance item. 4. The cover at the rear loading dock is an addition which does not complement the original building. The exposed wood rafter and the screen of horizontal slats at the Main St. should'be changed to,be more harmonious,wish the original building. We recommend creating a new plaster wall at the Main St. side with detailing sunilar to the existing structure (cornice). In addition, we recommend plaster over the exposed rafter-tails at the rear portion, to create a solid horizontal band, which should be detailed to complement the adjacent cornice. Please feel free to call if;you have any questions regarding our recommendations or estimates of c,ist. Sincerely, t rCCW Jar !'Nilson AIA Huntington Beach Post Office•Page 2 i thirtieth street . architects inc. HUNTINGTON BEACH POST OFFICE CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE Prepared September 6, 1988 WORK ITEM QUANTITY COST/U 4IT TOTAL Paint Exterior- 7,000 sq.ft. $1.70 $11,90w Water-blast,preparation, primer,paint. Paint Windows- 21 wind/ $250.00 $5,250 Remove all existing palm, doors primer,paltu 1' Patch Concrete Window Sills- 5 sills MD.00 $2,500 Clean away loose debris, light sandblast reliforcing steel,apply chemical rust retarder,dowel into existing, foam,pour&trowel concre''te patch to match.Caulk existing sills to be water- proof. New Plaster over existing 300 sq.ft. $2.50 $750 concrete block ' at loading area New Plaster wall and cornice. 350 sq.ft. $12.00 $4,200 ar loading area wall facing Main St. Sustotal $24,6W Profit,Overhead,and General Conditions @ 38% $9,348 Contengency @ 15% $3,690 ''!rota Project 7� Note:Fees,Permits not included architecture historical rehabilitation planning 23`31 newport blvd. ° newport beach,california 92663 ° (714)673.2643 BEST PHOTOGRAP H.L%.-., REPRODUCTION POSSIBLE, DUE TO AGE AND CONDITION � OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS 4 1 Prep. and paint exterior typical ' Prep. and paint wood windows typical Repair window sill (see page 3) �7t FRONT ELEVATION (Olive Avenue) 1 New Plaster Wall (seepage 3) � Prep. and paint exterior typical Prep. and paint wood windows typical l - . -A LAW LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (Main Street) Huntington Beach Post Office•Page 1 i ,� Prep. and paint exterior typical s New Plaster Fascia/Cornice Prep. and paint wood windows typical 1 p P yP j I REAR ELEVATION 1 y Prep, and paint exterior Prep. and paint wood Repair window sill New Plaster over existing typical windows typical (see page 3) concrete block with cornice to match adjacent RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION Huntington Beach Post Office•Page New formed plaster cornice to snatch • main building New 2 X 4s wall with plywood and plaster both siu!ts i i LOADING DOCK ,a Patch Concrete Window Sill - Clean away loose debris, light sandblast rebar, apply chemical rust retarder, Bowe! into existing concrete, form, pour and trowel to match existing adjacent, Caulk existing sills to be waterproof. WINDOW SILL DETAIL Huntington Beach Post Office•Page 3 F/� REQUEST FOREDEVELOPMENT ENCY ACTIONS u , RH 89--18 Date February 27, 1989 - Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Agency Members Submitted by: Paul E. Cook Executive Director Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development Subject: DOWNTOWN CORE PUBLIC SPACES PLAN- REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING, PAVING AND LANDSCAPING, PAVING AND STREET FURNITURE Consistent with Council Policy? ( j Yes ( J New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, 'lecommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: SJAJF NT OF ISS F,: At the 3ani.iry 30, 1989 Redevelopment Agency meeting, the Agency approved staff's recommendation on the Downtown Public Spaces implementation plan. The Agency authorized staff to proceed with conceptual plans and construction dravings for Main Street improvements betwe:i, Pacific Coast Highway and Acacia, including plaza areas adjacent to the downtown branch library. cultural center, and post office. The Agency further gave conceptual i approval to the various elements of the streetscape plan subject to further Agency review of the precise products. This report transmits staff and the City's Design Review Board's reZmmendations for the Downtown public Spaces product specifications. RECOMMEND_ ATION: Approve the following streetscape elements. 1. Street Mithts -Western Ligitting.'(Fountain Valley. CAI: Stress/Crete-King No. K-118 - EO Washington, IES Type II. The 14' pole will be Western Lighting Standards No. OT-12; the 25' pole will be Western Light Standard No. DT-23; the cross arm will be A-39440-2 of cast aluminum twin arms. 2. Pavers : j Pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, sunburst colors (red/dark brown/charcoal). ! it 3. ,street Furniture- Quick Crcic Eoducig- Norco. CA): Bench QPS 84 WB Planter(Square) QPSP 16"SQ. X24" H Palm Series Planter(Round) QPSPR 25"X 27" H Palm Series Planter (Rectangle)QPS 84 WB and QPSP 25" X 48" X 29"H Waste Container(Round) QPSR WC 76" X 31" H Bollard (Round) QPSBR 1.2"X 30" H ** Bollards available with Light 4. Landscaping : : Trees Indian Hawthorne (Majestic Beauty) Trachycarpus Fortunil (Windmill Palm) Washingtonla Robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) Cocos Plumosa (Queen Palm) ANALYS1SI In the summer of 1998, the concept of a Downtown Public Spaces project began as a step in implementing the Downtown Village Concept Plan approved by the Agency in the Spring of 1988. The Public Spaces project Is Intended to establish a set of streetscape/plaza design standards which will emphasize'a unique "village" ambiance. The design of the public spaces will tie together all projects along Main Street with a common urban design theme. The City contracted with Urban Design Studio to assist the staff in the preparation of the various Downtown Public Spaces elements. The consultants recommendations were completed in the fall of 1988 and reviewed by staff and i the Design Review.Board. -rne Design Review Board met in October and December 1988 and'made specific recommendations on the map, street lighting, street benches, bollards, tree grates, tresh'receptscles, paving color, ,I and landscaping. The Design Review Board continued their review through the month of January; their final recommendations are incorporated into this report. I Staff recommends approval of the specific recommendations as presented In order to assure Implementation of the Downtown Village Concept in the most timely and cost effective manner. FUNDING SOURCE; E i� Main Pier Redevelopment tax increment and developer improvements appear f to be the main sources of fu-iding. i ALTERNATIVE CTION: t P staff to investigated alternative elements for Inclusion In they I mown Public Spaces Plan. RCA - 2/27/89 -2-- (2094d) ATTACHMI~NTS: 1. Council Minutes 1/30/89 2. Letter from Acker-Stone 3. Letter from Perma Concrtte dated 2/17,189 4. Western Lighting Specification Sheets S. Concept Lighting Pattern 6. Bench Specification Sheet 7. Quick Crete Street Furniture Photo.Album DLB:MA:TA:ss i s f 1 t t� f RCA - 2/27/89 -3- (2094d) .. .. .. I ...-7:. s..•....a�d"id;«F;;i+.i,7 V,r::+ewvw•M ar. - STAjEM NE T O THE ACTIOH HC CITY MUN_CIL Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday, January 30, 1989 Mayor Bannister called the adjourned regular City Council meeting of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:30 p.m. ffilL CALL Present: MacAllister, Green, Hinchell, Bannister, Hays, Silva Absent: Erskine #aAA#aaa#a4AA##A#AAAAA#a#iA#AaaA#A#aAaAaAA1tAA111AAaA4A•aaa#aAAAA1AaAA#aAAA4AAA (RedevploaMent) DOW Mfl-CORF.PUBLIC1 _SPACES PLAN - AF-eROVED The Clerk presented a communication from the Deputy City Adminlstrator/Econ- omic Development transmitting a recommendation for Downtown Core Public Spaces Plan. (Those public spaces on Main Street from Acacia to the seaward end of the Huntington Beach Pier) ! The Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development presented a staff report. Following discussion, a motion was made by Hays, seconded by MacAllister, to approve the following: 1. Selection of streetscape elements and map as approved by the Design Review Board; 2. Staff authorization to proceed with concept plans and construction drawings for Hain Street Public Spaces from Pacific Coast Highway to Acacia including landt:ape/hardscape for the Branch Library/Cultural Center, U.S. Post Office and the Pier Plaza/Beach Access May at the intersection of the Pier, PCH and northside parking facility; 3. Staff authorization to prepare amendment to the Downtown Design Guidelines as needed to implement Vi4 Downtown Public Spaces Plan for City Council consideration; 4. Staff authorization to continue to formulate financing options including assessment districts to construct and maintain public spaces in the Main Pier Redevelopment Project Area for City Council consideration; 5. Direction that materials for iindscapping, paving, and bamhes be brought to Council at a later date for Council's consideration and review. The motion carried by the following roil call vote: AYES; MacAllister, Green. Winchell. Bannister, Mays, Silva HOES: None ABSENT: Erskine a AaAAaf###aaAAAiAaa&aAAa#a4#Aa4lalaAAAAAAAA#alialaA#aAA1AAAAaaAaA AAlaiAll Aaaa•A Mayor Bannister adjourned the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council and the adjourned regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to 5:00 p.m., Mondry, February 6. 1989. to Room 8-8, Civic Center. ATTEST: Connie Brockway City Clark and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Hun0 ngton Beach. California ConI1Le rockw v City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Wes Bannister County of Orange ) Mayor City of Huntington Beach) I. CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected and qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Actlon of the City Council of said City at their adjourned regular meeting hold on the 30th day of January 1989. j WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this I the 31st day of January 1989. Connie Br0ckwAy 4 City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk t of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California } Deputy y ti,r i awl 2-1 ACKERSTONE INDUSTRIES Inc. is one of the worid ' s largest manufac- tures of pre-cast engineered concrete systems with over fifty years a::perience. Recently, AckerStone completed construction of a multimillion dollar, state of the art facility in Corona, specializing in interlocking concrete pavers, retaining walls & pre-cast curb systems. The plant has the capabilities of producing custom colors and shapes at a rate of 80,000 pavers in an eight hour shift and is one of the most modern of it's kind in North America, and one of the most modern in the world. The quality of our system will be unsurpassed by any manufacturer and will be generally less a:spensive than any other decorative paving system. Advantages we offer are little or no maintenance. That being when repairs need to he done on underground utilities, they can j easily be completed by simply ' unzipping' the system, fining the utility, re-compacting the base, and laying the same paver: back down. No scarring, patching, or waiting for the system to cure. also, when you use different color pavers, such as red for fire lanes, or white for crosswalks & parking stripes, you completely cut the cost of having to repaint these areas. However, the most imp.7rtant advantage is that we are a turn key operation assuming cull responsibility for manufacturing, sale3 & installation, �asuring that there will be no confusion or hidden costs due to third party variables. Lastly, we offer free training on the engineering & installation aspects of the pavers to all city employees involved with the use of the system. In conclusion, we at AckerStone Industries are looking forvard to being a part of the Huntington Beach restoration project. Should you have any additional questions, please don' t hesitate to call . LES MORA DISTRICT SALES MANAGER CORPORATE&SALES OFFICE i 1095 KNOTT AVENUE,SUITE L,•CYPRESS,CA 90630 (714)373-1777.(800)535.1665•FAX(714)892-1887 MANUFACTURING 13295 TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD*CORONA,CA 91719.1714)638.3530 i 1 i an .y ERTT-E.A%�._Xl NCRETE 12490 DAY STREET MORENO VALLEY, CA 92388 (714)653-1187 February 17, 1989 �„ Mr. Thomas Andrusky, Project Manager F r� o� 1 City of Huntington Beach vw4�`�t Oct 0\14t5�D Community Development 2000 Main Street ooM Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Andrusky: i Because of your interest in our product,• I'd .like to provide you ' with a little background on our company. - _ � . • . Parma Concrete is a-partnership'of 4:wo'`of the'oluest,• largestly'and most successful concrete masonry unit 'manufacturers in the United ' States. • I - feel confident in'' saying; that the . partners, . Angelus �'. :Block Co. , Inc. and Orco Block•Co., lnc, have provided the majority, ' of masonry units used in your city. These,• partners provide Perma Concrete with vast resources of capital, knowledge, and experience, unmatched by any other paver manufacturer on the west coast. You are'already familiar with -our product and I can assure you our . . quality standards. are - among the highest; in the industry. Furthermore, as you have experienced, we are happy to provide technical assistance. There are companies in this market area that manufacturer, provide engineering, and instal, the product, calling it a turnkey operation. This type of operation appears, on the surface, to be convenient and efficient. However, the utilization of separate manufacturers, engineers, and installers assures the city of Huntington Beach independent and objective advice and eliminates the possibility of -any conflict of interest. We be]ieve that concrete Interlocking pavere provide a paving system that is; by far, the most durable, maintenance free, and aesthetically pleasing. in addition the current cost of the installed product compares favorably with less durable paving f /Dlarur ukr�cr�r nh '' lrr&lr+n(rry pal*s lvw PCERMACONCRETE 12490 DAY STREET MORENO VALLEY, CA 92388 (714)653.1187 1 r I surfaces. I have enjoyed working with the City in the past and anticipate Future opportunities to work tcgether. I. look forward to talking with you after your meeting on February 27, 1989. sincerely, Kirk W. Hauer Architectural Sales Manager _ V • I r i • r I i r' I 1 r • I t II rMASS, FINAL NOTE: TENCII/BUPPLILO TO eEa•Qa s 0' ISPECIFV IF OTHER 4 Tsumss An REvaJ I CAST ALUM.F qX TAKRED SK4" • WIT"1!EVENLY SPACED FLUTES NOTIU ARSE CCI�S SUiIWN MRTNMIELLDE- FINED DCVAILIfID. AND MATH A LAl10E =39�>< A T��PROOF OWTOWN /AJfA �f . .j ' �AWfwN.a.w..�M•n�...w•.,w a.a'1:�1•.o..w.... .. •.\• /I ... .w . A S•.. .. �. .l ! ., .. .'{\t w nra....f .1 \�Y��t i.t!1.. !'.4�f.+a'•�"MaY W..`•+ w�«.r.�... t . l II ` I i PIMMEs A ! P=ILk" l n « I t i I L DOWNTOWN I f �i K� of Uor-L, 35v >--51 1H Lie% J �+ i 0 e l u VA C4 I �p vs�� tnP s 1 i i i 1.1 Mom � . • � .ter WP r" l � ' 1 T 1 r"1 i I I C K C R E T E 1' It tJ 11 G r' T S i j I1 reel Crook I l'r.•tiidcrU i 11.0.Box(139 C 741 W.I'arkridge Ave. 'oio ,CA I)1700 (11A)737•0240 ri r W',,,�,�;:, Ca:ule Lusk 1720 E.Garry Ave.•Suite I I I • Santa Ana,CA 92705 (71 A) 250-7011 �:`� � fryry'rJ n,a�.Y . r G' �1.,'•y' �1��}Y,�{,���" �i;.j t3.,�.; ti•t��,r:'.. ,',r.;,.'1 t":::, :.. '.' *"; r ' ! +�1r%41/MI/W ):.'j%S..t '7;i �-y i • .y, ; �•I��'-,1?:,+�' f �t�}tt•. !t,''�`'�:`f + ' !. ,�i:', i •fit 1«�J;itLL"Lgi ':•yf '�,'„�•'.{,}•�,J ,A� , L��%(f•, f�,��ri�' y i . ��a`t +� r. t �'�! � v •�' M ��yyi '�;:1:�^,°j;i'��• "�1y"`�`..{i:G�l" •� � a•� ��:��� J:yi'' �. r .,7^ �� r" r� t ,�;�.: J+ t i�1y fr < ��j S�• ;��`: `j� ��T,; t': � i:14 ..rfi `', l' TE F'RO �''" ,,i+i �)1:, '�t> ,..•:�l''�; '..M1 �'� ,1i ���k�,.y''��'('n FY1 ., ; 11{,� !?r�'`,�.:_w���'1Ct''�• ��7�yi:11'�.'•' i'i.'_�.t�,1�t B r �„'•' � 4 J'�j��L•`t� rr.�' .t+ ' .1 , �� ' ., • wr �'t»-• "b.'" . �P�,r ��1�;4'�,f�t:'�t�•�;�'11 �,>;aifr) •y1,;)'�.1 � •,r �'i.,�;,;,�` y ►'IV Re VI - v t 111 �y 10 !:�► s�RrEs "you n P . . _' Q Sp�.�ss' 'k9��'Xz " ' t I l. (• • .. -Pl�'� ' NFF �AI�D:� gLAR ' f *, BD '��' Rb8 1v "}l ,,E .►�1©faE,t CONTpI }EF'��'' `1"' �`• � p �z5 ,. � . �Ab x7' `�r`."IG�{T ' ,. ,. r <., 1 In'rEOL ARD;, �( vC y..i �� s RaLTND ,PL E'R i P " `} .YStf;f'.lt,.-'l�;it • w.t v . 11 r) ,1 . RI> ,�B£r' C 4 � g �,25 ?i�.7}:H.� r1;. �sE�t;Ira F�tw�T c�•'�;;>.•'.!>i r�+:.',�f'j �C'.! ,J't.RNDwasTcb .Eti..R Wn. ,; `•�,;,:�, {;� ,,•I '(t h10 fDfsg"0 t }: .�,�t+ I tt ,�,C�PBl�a�6�}� 2•''1,-,'• L.LAR P.BHR 12' „ :, , •f Y H,•,, :...,:.,1 � r � lo1J �!; ` ► 11E �r4; i:,,.. ►.}�.�•.,,,.�.• 1. ` L) YJ�Ste, f , f"j }. '+` fy j .,S• �^.'A, .... 11 ..Y •.�_S(r�!'j• '�'k:`'•{11Lyftr. 7'�:lt i"�t;~f%''�t�f`r1lr,,�1'r '�'t,.tF��1. 1•��'I�j�:t�,1,�.M1 iN't' ',r'• J� 'l f•J, i l+ ��ii .j�.•'.tip (,.('y ' 111444,,�j. +. .i n,�4h,�••ri� '� 1Swli•wM.i / j .,..;.:., �,�� 7 r��r►•r{1{�,#1�;' 'l; 4y�-,'4"{1'r'(�..i��T Y�,;`�::7_!."' �tl�'a�ii+.'��1����t�.1.y5,r�I:�rlj�tr.u+,,•-�;j.�.�.t,,,�.�' �':•�.:'�t.s�:'Y '�`��_ •�'a�t�>Ajlt�t� , r'Q f�j, t(1 /�•. tl:� !'f =+.L aAr�•��,1'i,11_ri.J�li` 1% IL.•^,� 'f; •tr _,•f:1��.. u!Y_'lrT:ir;1,4 �,.r 1•�' i.�/ +Z..�'i .��� r� +,it'��)! ',Ij"'tl:�r-i�•�'K 3 r 't: ...j.^,!• ..(�'` ., .,..� :'�! '' 4�.',�rir��i.+1 J'f�l�!•r i�f'.!'fr•• �'S'i� Y 1 ti y: l jL *,r � �� {4 -. r IF px� VAOF Y y • tsr 1..'rI r 1•y1 +.. .;•. 1 '+���j:.�• 1,••� l� •I* Yam' � ,•1. M/1jJ,F f`.'l )/'`jam_••jA•� • r {h�J�'� . -.�. ' ter•. .w,..' .�,1�. + R �'1 ,',(,:'.+ y01. 'ra + r, ,P at r 4 V'al .C�_• 1 i� I• :•.1rp r -_1t��j.Y��l"• •. I;rl�r' P t .��,•Y- �r.:' .:V�'��t ,X ,�� .� • ., ,tip � _ � f, •��'�S{{yyy{{LLL�{��T��1-`•..J,'( it �.! , xi i-• �•� ;, _ �• CAI�'f •�S 1. �4, `r_, N•. "• 1 �1 r �_ � '•t _ r,+, l•"+�T�. � SIT ' La .. � R. .I ;.►n t' r' :�l, •. +• .� •fir. r ~ K:��s; ' �t�_•lli! fir` 1 �1•*I . t r' fi y�,. ,, 1• 'C,,r,,Sf t •�'* 1 it 4'.�r ti �.`w. - ,ry�l. �s��i'•y..w SIN r ~ � ''"'� �- 1 1'� �•`?;�4a,ram'*.*. •} ' xa1>VO^r+ t J •• + yK ,.��'y,',,�+Ali_ /!�,� �• ��� `'SV �,x�'r.�'.,11_.'�.rl!,•.i4.-0. • ll ri.,7u,� rr, ITI .. '..�. ���'I' f� .it�F }•, �.1•• '�'�:•�+••,r! I �ti.t r�':nyi;� RAM, '•a.. _ - `� ,.��.. u. is •f ;.� � � '��,,r. ;' �• y f 1 T t r .,�'•�,'.�'�..��F t r Irr,x�1�'ir r J �rF+ r,y�� � '1 t'. �°. _ 'r. .'•,tJt � rr'1'�`ll�'fi�1:,:r,� + .��• 1,- + 'figYr:i F`�t K" a IL 4 y r�l� �'':�'�j.t is•r.�.. ` - - 6 ti ,' ���• �':: '° ;fir. � + " ♦.�r1Ss .+ t r ,I ,r M jv "A , co LD Al t Y r M F ' � . . •.f ,'��.%'I:t;f`,,�:r l..'�Y'�-�`��'S�`,'`•i.�^�'"f2'Y:�,f��'�+'J:J�1•.1-!�,'.'t t.' — .,•`..j'� •s'�+►I..�J.�4+�.Sicr'.1'��:i'�.J: '.'.�!/».fGL:.���s.C'_.��� �.��s.�•'... -f N'M.ir1'{`�.1 i rr+i1�•ti'; '1 IA.: tf�' , .%'�1���i;ia{•�i 'T ^i.� ':.',•w.�rr��.tT.r, , ,- �, �. r�t�.'far �, •• ' '• ;,� r {i: � • .. a,. .:.,X... '!.•. i t Y ay �.�4�,•'. �'� J Yr '%h•l::i�i.....`.�tfik=�f�a�'r.!..i'l�fi{��� ... .1 '��;�:t:1�I��i tit�tyfr�`► t''7' ,lZ'��"K`+j} �liY �{�;[� �lAl fitff ���i.S�{+ff�^.•'flf�r�r.1�'l.tl�lv3l '..hh«'! ,.•r:��:l.:wra�:,�,y,�.1.VL«r.:i.. � j QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS CORP. 741 W. PARK R{D4E AYE. P.O. 8OX 639 NORCO, CA 91760 •� �• (114) 737.0240 FAX (714) 137.7032 10 PROVINVANr DESIGN BY: no CRM"Mrs CW- N.O.Box 639 Norco,CA WOO t' (714)737.6240 �• ;: FAX(714)137.7032 ' i . ; r+Y""�" ,. .0 - :�`.lS�C. 1�'•3yfn��i)f(��;:.;�Ilf"; firi.•�� ,.t. . ar i f 1 CA 89-12 ` v CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 410UNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION ►umTMWN 8114cn 140NORABLF MAYOR From PAUL E. COOK � T_ /'.ND CITY COUNCIL hil:MBERS City Administrator Subject FINANCIAL REVIEW Date FEBRUARY 24. 1989 REDEVELOPMENT The City Council/Agency members have asked for a review of financial data related to redevelopment. The following summary and exhibits provide dr'ails that describe the financial data and stimulate questions for the study session of February 27, 1989. ! General Overview - The basic source of funding for redevelopment projects Is tux Increment f revenue. About $1.9 million in tax Increment revenue was received in fiscal year 187/88, result=ng from over $174 million in new or Increased acsessee valuation in the last live years In the redevelopment project areas. This increase in assessed valuation is significant considering the common perception that "significant" redevelopment has not begun In Huntington Beach. The Agency has already begun repaying prior ad,3nces made by the City. $1,700,000 was repaid to the City during 1987/88 and a $1,600.000 payment has been made In 1988/89. Based on the tax Increment revenue, the Agency Issued $26.8 million In bony debt in 187/8a. These funds are the major source of financing projects over the next three to five years In redevelopment project areas. The annual tax increment revenue was pledged for 30 years to pay the annual debt service on the bonds so that the agency would have these funds to finance projects. 1 The major financial obligations of the Agency In the next few years relate to the Waterfront, Pier Colony, Honver/Gothard Connection, anti the Drain Street Parking Garage ' Projects. Those obligations will be Enanced by the above described hcnd Issue, a:iditional debt Issues, sale of Agency land, developer loans and ether !ources. The Agency has also been Involved in the last two years In an aggressive land acquisition program In the downtown area. This effort has been for the purpose of acquiring land for the building of the Main Street Parking Garage, and for a future parking facility In the third block of Main Street. The Agency has also acquired land to hold for the future development of the Phase It Project and the second block (Rehab block). j Detailed project by project summaries have been prepared to shoo. the financial obligations i on major projects. These summaries, In general, show that the projects will provide revenue to the City and Agency In amcunts far more than the Initial outlays by the City and Agency. By4get Projections - (See Exhibit I for Details) Since the next three to five years are the �. most critical in terms of City/Agency financial obligations, the following preliminary summary of projected revenues and expenditures I-as been prepared: • I I - --- t F_,NCIAL REVIEW - REDEVELOPME-� (Dollars in Thousands) enditures: 1988/89 1999/90 1990/91 1991/92 1921. Operating Expenses $1,260 1,010 1,060 1,110 1,160 Capital improvement Expendittires 11,355 27,000 18,000 5,700 4,500 nebt Repayment - City 1,600 600 660 725 900 Debt Service - Bonds 11245 1,548 1,824 2,700 2,700 Total Expenses 15,460 30,158 21,544 !0,235 9,160 Revenues: 1988/99 1999/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 Tax inctement Revenue $I'm 2.430 3,162 k,453 3,000 Use of Bond Proceeds 7,855 23.000 12,200 3,700 3,700 Lane! Sales 1,250 500 500 f)evcloper Advance 500 4,000 5,850 2,000 Other 4,500 1 . Total 16,005 29,930 21,712 10,153 8,700 Land Acauisltlons - (See Exhibit ti for Details) The City and Agency have acquired approxlmately�F, million worth of land in the Main/Pier Redevelopment Project At-ea. Of this amount, approximately $4.4 million has been expended for land for the two parking structures In the second And third blocks of Main Street. The sec^nd block structure (Main Street Parking i Structe:re) Is scheduled to be constructed In the next 16 months, while the structure In the third block would be constructed In the future as parking needs dictate. Surface parking would { continue to be provided In the third block In the interim. Land has been acquired In the "Rehab" block of Main 5:reet to be held by the Agency pending future development plans. The Intent Is to lease the agency owned properties in this block at a �. rate equal to the City/Agency's cost to finance the acquisitions through lenders. In the: Phase It area of the Main/Pier Redevelopment Project Area the Agency has acquired land to facilitate the development of a viable project In that area. A final disposition and development agreement with the; developer for the Phase 11 project will Include disposition of the land currently owned by the Agency so that after Phase 11 is dev"oped It is anticipated that the Agency will no longer maintain ownership of those parcels. The exhibits provide deta!ls on r..quisitlons and anticipated acquisitions. Project Summaries - (See Exhibit III for Details) Each of the projects under current development in the Main/Pier Redevelopment Project Area and subject to a disposition and development agreement have been summarized In the exhibits in a "profit/loss" format. This summar,, shows all identifiable revenues to the. City and Agency as result of the projects, and expenditures related to the project. These summaries show, on a project by project basis, the i type of additional tax Increment, sales tax and other revenues that the City and Agency can be i expected to receive. 1. -2r 43721 i I i F—'ANCIAI. REVIEW - REDEVELOPI F--r Debt Review - (See Exhibit IV for Details) Included in the attachments is an analysis of lon term Indebtedness of the Agency. Redevelopment agencies must have documented debt or else the Agency is not eligible to receive tax increment revenue. Therefore, during the early years Of operation, It is advantageous for the Agency to d.;currient as uc to ensure a continuous flow of tax increment revenue in future earhs. The tdebt a, permitted in order debt as of June 30, 1988 was $39.4 million. $15.2 million of this total is the nowobond tal debtyIssue of J( 1987/88• Yol: will note that the debt of the General Fund (total of $16.3 million) Includes "nort cash" debt such as deferred land sales ($1.6 million), deferred development fees ($.4 million), Interest expense ($2.1 million), and Indirect costs ($4.9 million). The cash advances General Fund to file Redevelopment Agency for all project areas, since the inceptions of the om the projects, totals $7.4 million. In view of the $3.3 million cash repayment to the General Fund during the last two years, the net cash impact on the General Fund, therefore, Is a total of about $4 million since 1981. Tax Increment Trends_- Historical and Projected - (See Ex exhi hibit V for Details) As shown In the bits and graphs, tax Increment revenue has grown dramatically since the beginning; of the � redevelopment activities in project areas. As Indicated earlier in this memorandum, tt�e current tax increment revenue of about $1.9 millicn per year represents an Increased assessed valuation due to new construction and pro;,erty turnover of over $174 million. In fact, the assessed valuation has nearly doubled In the past five years. The projections for the next few years show continued healthy tax Increment revenue growth. The p;ojected revenue for 1989/90 is $2.4 million and $3.1 million is projected ;or 1990/91. Summary - Financing of obligations and needs in the next few ear require careful artentlon. Rlost of the needed resources are available from the hor►d is uel of 1987/88, the ij abfllty to issue additional bond debt, and developer advances. in ao.lition, as the A enc continues to see redevelopment occur In the Alain/Pier Project Area, there will be opportunitiesfi y for disposing, of land currently held by the Agency and generating additional funds forprojects. A; shown by the exhibits, after the next few develoment and financing of these obligations, the revenue flow to both t:c Agencyears oflrly andlntense Generalund should far exceed the expenditures needed now to make those j roects a p reality. i PEC:RJF•:sd LIsting ofx Eh� gbh I Capital Improvement Budget Prclections Ii Land Acquisitions { 1II Project Summaries I IV Agency Debt Analysis V Tax Increment Trends 43721 -3- 3 • ti EXHIBIT I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET PROJECTIONS REDEVELOPMENT This exhibit shows current year (1998/99) approved, and future year's protected redevelopment Capita! Improvement Projects. Potential funding sources are shown. Future ye?*'s projects will be reviewed each year by the Council/A,genry as part of the regular I budget process. This listing consists only of "funded" projects. Unfunded projects will be presented as part of the budget process each year as funding sources are identlikd. I #37kj M''TI.yG'?M B2AC!1 PMarTNT AIGEI6CY. CAPITAL ngPH0V&4EM B[M=',-fOtTECTIONS ' 1988/89 - 1992/93 FISCAL YFARS M.IN-PIER PROTECT` AREA a i.$8/89 Z 89/90 1990/91 I391/9_ 1952/93 SOURCE OF FUNDLUG Pier Parking Structure Orange Parking Stn=txre 0,000 4,000,000 4,0^-0-0-,-0-0-0- --------- ---_---�C_._O�. P.'S (198300,000Main St. Par (`t9 Structure 3,00fl,OQO I0,400,000 C. O. P.'S (198 6) Tadrqiation -_ 4,500,QO0 C. O• P.'S (1986 & 1989) I Walnat Avenue Extension 500,000 1,Q00,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Excess PFC funds & land sales Lifeguard SeadcgsartPrs Developer advance (Waterfront) � PCH Star 400 Stara Drain 500,000 HBPFA bonds ,DO0 Maxkeli's Renovation 500,000HBPFA Bonds HBPFA Bonds } Lake St. Stern Drain 550.000 i''Sain St. Improvements 540,OGO HBPFA Bonds Mobile Horse Park iq=vxts 500,000 41500,000 HBPFA Bonds Mobile K.crae Park Relocation 3,000,000 3,200,000 New bond issue Beach Maintenance Facility 500,000 Developer advance (Waterfront) Gun F�s� Rel:x.ation I50,Ot1C Developer advance (Waterfront) Main St. Rehab. 500,000 Developer advance (Waterfront) p HBPFA Bonds Sub-Total 9,150,000 20,890,000 14,850,000 2,000,000 --- 0 OAWIFN PROJECT AREA Repaymnt Of fit: "Jola 1,200,000 Barton Ur. Extension HBPFA Bonds200,000 600,000 600,000 200,000 200,000 PBPFA Bonds Eim/Keels,in Ln. Extension 1-20,000 %ndrill/Kristen 400,000 200,000 HBPFA Bonds _ HBPFA Bands Sub-1-10tal 1,400,000 1,120,000 800.000 200,000 200,000 HLt WD j=M CFNM PROJECT AREA Edinger Ave. Cndergr wZing 2,000,000 Hoover/Grathard motion HBPFA Bonds Eger Ave. Improvements 500,00C 2,500,000 2,500,000 fMppA Bonds Land Acquisi..ion 500,000 400,000 HfWA Doncla b65,b REPFA Bonds Sub-Total. SSS;DisO 3,000,000 40011000 2,500,000 2,500,000 HMUING M BEMM RE DEVEMp ERr RGEVCX , CAPITAL 71MPLiC?V&4W BEMGET PRWECTIONS i.gs8i69 - 1.992/93 (coatirnied) i TuzERT- .PRwEar AREn: 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 ,992/93 SouRCE OF F(JHDI:UG Sidewalk Ijswoveme-nts 40,000 � HBPFA Bonds !'CPJC1OW/IAKE PRDJBrT ARM Civic Center Dev. ;ding 100,000 Tax In;,:zrcment Civic Center Land Acq. 750,000 Tax Increment HOSING SEr-ASIDE Programed Expendittu-Cv_ 2,000,000 2,000,WO 1,000,000 1,000.000 HBpFA Bonds ) TMAL 11,355,000 27,010,000 18,050,000 5,700,000 4,450,000 i tti�t+ele#,!*�tf*4ft4:r.w**+rttx►4afrfetf**�tw:w�+r**+r:+es*r.*x,r►krfe�*tt*tx�tri**te*xsxs,rx*�*txr,tvr*,►xfrfe*+t►t*t!***+ w*� trk*k*xit+F�ti�ylrtse REMP OF RNMING F=ING SOMCE 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 HBPFA Bonds 2,505,000 8,210,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 C. 0. P.'s (1980 3,750,000 5,300,000 C. 0, P.'s (1989) 9,000,000 4,000,000 New BOnd Ise 500,000 4,500,000' Sub total: Use of bond Proceeds 6,255,000 23,010,000+ 12,200,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 Developer-advance 500,000 4,000,000 5,850,000 2,000,000 Excess PFC/Land sales 4,530,000 Tax Increment 100,000 750,000 TOVr L 11,355,000 27,010,000 18,050,000 5,700,000 4,450,000 f . EXHIBIT II � LAND ACQUISITIONS This exhibit shows the land acquisitions that the Agency has been involved in and the funding source for the acquisitions. � t . i F _ I 4374j MPERTY ACQUISITIOe - DOMMOM REDWEZOP.'�'lM DATE: 2'23,89 OF FINAjCI--%------------ 1 PHASE II ': TATL'S CITY I s LOM �N' SELLTO ------ i --- -- _ MB GRIFFIN BvirHm SELLER ------ - TERRY BUICK 1,500,000 CLOSED700,000 880,000 --------- ---- ----- THARPE 300,006 CLOSED CONLEY 175,000 300,000 G1OSNEY CLOSED 275,000 1,035,000 p ,1r 1,n35-_n00 S'HUPE 327,500 IN NEWMTICX%IS F DE% 327,500 254,000 IN h-DOUMTIONS SARRABE/PAQf 700,000 PART OF TRADE 254,000 CMAHAIEO 1,425,000 AGREEMWr 700,000 427,500 997,5no 5,816,500 ____�' ------ --------- 0 .2,310.000 880,000 1,709,000 0 997,500 REHAB BT= THY BorY SAaP 315,000 CLOSED BURNES 285,000 CLOSED 315,000 Tom' 125,000 2:05,000 TVULLNER/SHANK HSE CUO6ID 1:151 000 450,000 CLOSED SHMMRICK 380,000 450.000 LL%MBDRG 450,000 DROPPED 380,000 SDB-717►I71L 21005,000 ------- --- �__._-- --------- 0 765,000 ------ 0- MIER m UY 325,000CLOSED LOVE/CADS 266,000 CLOSED 26E,000 325,CCC t t 3 M SUB-lam w. 591,000 0 �256,000 ---- --- ---- -? ---- --------- 0 0 325,000 0 j .t PROPERTY ACQJISITIONS - DOitMM4 REDEVEMR-lEx r (continued) HOD OF ----------- cITY TOM LQAN SELL TO KOURY BLOCK COST STATUS COP's AGENCY MM CLAIFFIN WrCHER SE'LUM SH 6NMCK 165,000 CLOSED 155,000 NICOLLE 300,000 IN COURT 300,000 HINE 150,000 CLOSED 1501000 TAHM SIAN 390,000 CLOSED 390,000 SEC PAC BANK 1,000,000 CLOSED 11000,000 CHr[C=/SCWAWZ 350,000 CIOSED 350,000 SUBTOTAL 2,355,600 2,355,000 0 0 0 0 0 PARKING II Ord Block Main st) 58ANDF cK 165,000 CLOSED 165,00 JAMS 335,000 CLOSED 335,OJO KOM 197,500 CLOSED 197,500 SO. CAL. GAS 305,270 OFFER MADE 10/25188 305,270 PACIFIC HERITAGE 372,500 CLOSED 372,500 KOrZ"-303 MAIN 264,400 IN NE]CMATION 264,400 KOURY 290,000 CLOSED 290,000 Pt7B-70TAL 1,929,670 1,929,670 0 0 0 0 0 CRAM TOTAL, 4,284,670 3,366,000 880,000 1,709,000 1,090,000 997,500 AVAILABLE F•UN NG: • OOP's 4,000,000 LAKE S.' PROP SALE 1,570,000 TALBFRTIBEACH SALE 930,000 EXCESS PM FUNDS 21000,000 LOANS 880,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 997,500 alum ': TUML AVAIIABI.E 4,000,000 4,500,000 880,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 997,500 CITY/HUNTINGTON BEACH AGENCY OWNED AGREEMENT REACHED-ESCROW ACACIA OPENED FOR CITY/AGENCY TO +` PURCHASE. PECAN i _ `� �,���°� •� MUSA *mod' M ANitK + a - . .cAklk anus V. _ . 1 � — - ORANGE AVE. aAtltr tONAr A. G rAMAAI/• oUtr.Y ._ •cAa: yOttOM VI .M1GJ. rAMAl1Ar 111t..'-' d17T01tM Y, IIAtIAM Ita TAtta ---- tX11AAq - • �` Aft"NSR CAW, AOtI[r J tIl r� -•.� FIRST Dfuft .,_ .._ WOOD r rM PUTT �� ww;. oArt `•� �1►� Mrltt cI—Al 111 `�- c►Mad -- Q o IAttni �nAnra .c l>a■ fait iDlltt _. . " cMLcu•T (tnM(al yy.. rAtt rolttr H� KKco,t ►ALLA OLIVE LTM i1 fffl(WHIL AVE. a UAL � Ali],IIIII 1rKrATr, .1 WM�NtI ALUM � owac "Olt .911-40— AOVrr MTWA�KDtt rt�arTaAwu waw utiuil ._... ar autlm _.., iar.�ari wlilit T_ Win a uWU '� LJr► V;WTA AILS r GALA= yluyq ! 4 y1K1 TbgLv f' AttrnO AtrtNdl TIK�G 11Ai_l 6 tdJaT wctru4 DOMLtr 1u IMAtd rVANAN urr w .- - LOO ba"An wGuo ». acsie rt lusor MATIM ��ualk CATMa _. tArVlr Tr or r1haw off 0[a M1aMrCLi WALNUT 9 AVE. flJOwAt v Haar tL1oAM 1 � rArlurr --- rottrrr ��st � ---^ - •- •- AINAMAS rAXSALL ±►tt c021A r""1t rWra. lArbALC • r 7ATLbA 1 W. err M[ rpc _ ta rtr►rAr -•.�- —` LW TyrACM nm%c" rrtuar =2 A CHI 3 3 IT a ai P.C.H. fno]t i rO J Lncuu n J•MM•Clf EXHIBIT III PROJECT SUMMARIES Attached are 3-page financial summaries for each current redevelopment project in which the Agency and developer have entered int, a development agreement. Page I of each summary shows total revenue and expense to the City/Agency from the project. Page 2 of each summary shows detailed revenue by categories such as tax increment, sales tax, parking revenue, etc. Page 3 of each summary shows similar expenditure detail. These summaries were prepared b staff and (i P p Y reviewed for accuracy by the City s Economic Consultant's - Keyser ]L'larsten Associates. Project Summ aries: j Main Pier Phase I (Pier Colony) Parking Structure/Commercial Tov.o Square Villas Del Mar -- Huntington Bayshore Waterfront ' 4374j _ _ _ =— - -- - - - - - = - - log 2122I89 MAIN•-PIER REDEVELOPMENT AREA � PROJECT FACT SHEET CITYlAGENCY FINANCIAL SUMMARY- PROJECT: MAIN-PIER PHASE-1 (PIER COLONY) I TOTAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE REVENUE EXPENSE SURPLUS/ SURPLUS/ ---YEAR (See page 2) (See page 3) (DEFICIT) (DEFICIT) 1989 5,100 000 --- ---------- 6 822,500 -1,722,500 --1,722,500 1990 300,000 2,760,000 -2,460,000 -4,182,500 1991 730,000 310,000 420,000 -3,762,500 METHOD OF FINANCING DEFICIT 1992 876,600 310,000 566,600 -3,195,900 ----- ___ 1993 910,332 310,000 600,332 -2,595,568 Land Contribution - $1,512,500 1994 945,549 310,000 635,549 -1,960,019 Relocation (HCDPI) 1,000,000 k 1995 982,320 310,000 672,320 -1,287,699 Water Fund 11000,000 / I 1996 1,020,720 310, 000 710,720 -576,979 Utility Undergrnd Fnd 300, 000 1997 1,060,826 310,000 750,826 173,846 Other 1998 1.102,718 310, 320,000 OOQ 792,718 966,564 1999 1,146,4 82 310,000 835,482 1,803,046 Tot -2, 500 2000 1,192,206 310,000 882,206 2,685,253 al 54, 18500 fl 2001 1 ,239,965 310,000 92 2002 1,289,917 310,000 979, 917 4,595,155 2003 1,342,103 310,000 1 ,032,103 5,627, 258 2004 1,396,653 310,000 1,086,653 6,713,910 2005 1,453,679 310,000 1. 143,679 7,857,589 2006 1,513,300 310,000 1,203,300 9,060,888 2007 1,575,640 310,000 1,265,640 10,326,529 2008 1,640,832 310,000 1,330,832 11,657,361 2009 1,709,011 310,000 1,399,011 13,056, 372 2010 1,780, 322 310,000 1,470,322 14,526,694 SUMMARY OF EXPENSES: AGENCY LANU($1,512,500) , PARKING STRUCTURE($5,100,000) , RELOCATION COSTS($1,000,000) , OFF-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ($1,350,000) AND DEBT SERVICE($310,000` PEW YEAR) SUMMARY OF REVENUE: C.O.F. ISSUE ($5,100,000) , TAX INCREMENT: $330,000 +2% PER YEAR; SALES TAX: $130,000 +5% PER YEAR; PARKING REVENUE:" $410,000 +5% PER YEAR i NOTE: PARKING STRUCTURE COST, REVENUE,. DEBT SERVICE',. AND. C.O.P.ISSIIE: FIGIIR£S ARE .THIS PROJECT PROPORTIONATE SHARE PIEft COLONY: Page 1 '' i MAIN--PIER. REDEVELOPMENT AREA PROJECT FACT SHEET i CITY/AGENCY FINANCIA:; SUMMARY PROJECT- :MAIN-PIER PHASE I (PIER COLONY1 REVENUES YEAR T.I. SALES TAX PARKING OTHER METHOD OF CALCULATION --------- --------- --------- --------- ------- 1989. 51100,000 1990 100, 000 50,000 150,000 SALES TAX: $200 per sq ft X 1991 330,000 100, 000 300,000 65,000 sq ft X 1% = $139,000 1992 336,600 130,000 410:000 in 1992 5% inc/yr 1993 343,332 136,500 430,500 1994 350,199 143,325 451,025 T.I. : S25M constr a $5.2M 1r 1995 357,203 150,491 474,626 land X 1.1% = $330,000 in 1996 364,347 158,016 498,358 1991 + 2% inc/yr 1997 371,634 165, 917 523,275 1998 379,066 174,212 549,439 PARKING: $600/yr/space X 1999 386,648 182,923 576,911 680 spaces = $410,000 in 2000 394,381 192,069 605,757 1992 + 5% inc/yr 2001 402,268 201,673 636,045 2002 410,314 211,756 667,847 OTHER: Debt issue (C.O.P. ) 2003 418,520 222,344 701,239 rev. besed on DDA cost est 2004 426,890 233,461 736,301 of $7,500/space 2005 435,428 245,134 773,116 2006 444,137 257,391 811,772 2007 453,019 270,261 852,361 2008 462,080 283,774 894,979 2009 471, 321 297,962 939,728 2010 480, 748 312,861 986,714 PIER COLONY: Page 2 2/22/89 MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT AREA PROJECT 'FACT SHEET. CITY/AGENCY FINANCIAL SUMMARY PROJECT., MAIN-PIER PHASE I (PIER COLONY) EXPENSES vV.AR LAND IMPRVMNTS RELOCATION• OTHER METHOD OF CALCULATION ------ --------- ---------- --------- --------- 1989 1,512,500 4,000,000 1,000,000 310,000 IMPROVEMENTS: 89 90 1990 2,450,000 310,000 1991 310,000 Water/underground utilities $1M S.35M 1992 310,000 Parking structure $3M S2.1M 1993 310, 000'* 1994 310,000 OTHER: Debt service for this project's 1995 310,000 proportionate share of $12M C.O.P. 1996 310,000 issue of 1986. $5.1M/$12M X $700,000 19►97 310,000 debt service = $310,000/yr 1998 310,000 ` 1999 310,000 2000 310,000 I 2001 310, 000 2002 310,000 2003 310,000 2004 310,000 2005 310,000 2006 110,000 2007 3101000 2008 310,000 2009 310,000 2010 310,000 ' PIER• COLONY: Page 3 2/23/89 MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT. AREA PROJECT FACT .SHEET CITY/AGENCY FINANCIAL SUMMARY PROJECT: PARKING STRUCTURE/COMMERCIAL f TOTAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE REVENUE EXPENSE SURPLUS/ SURPLUS/ YEAR (See page 2) (See page 3) (DEFICIT) (DEFICIT) --------- ----------- ----------- ----------- 1988 7,000,000 2,855,000 4,145,000 4,145,000 1989 51000 * 000 8,505,500 -3,505,500 639,500_ 1990 1,295:000 2,815,000 -1,520,000 ' -880,500- METHOD OF FINANCING DEFICIT 1991 160,000 800,000 -640,000- -1,520,500' -------------------review-- 1992 169,000 800,000 -631,000- -2,151,500 This project shoulri be reviewed 1993 177.450 800,000 -622,550 -2,774,050 in combination with the Pier -3,387,728 Colony project because the 1994 186,323 t's00, 000 -613,678 1995 195,639 8001000 -604,361 -3,992,089 parking revenue from 680 of the b 205,421 800,000- -594,579 -4,586,668 850 total spaces is allocated 199 199 25,421 800,OQ0 -584,3Q8 -5, 170,977 to the Pier Colony project. A 1998 226,476 800,000 -573,524 -5.744,501 review based on combining the 1999 237 ,800 800,000 -562,200 ' -6,306,701 two projects shows that the 0 249,690 800,000 -550, 310 -6,857,011 deficit from this project is 200 200 262,174 800,006 -537,826 -7,394,836 gore than offset by the surplus 2002 275,283 800,000 -524,717 -7,919,553 in the Pier Colony project. 2003 289,047 800.000 -510,953 -8,430,506 2004 303,500 800,000 -496,500 -8,927,006 2005 318,675 800,000. -481,325 -9,408;331 2006 334,608 800,000 -465,392 -9,873,723 2007 351,339 800,000 -4480661 -10, 322.384 2008 368,906 800,000 -431,094 -10,753,478 2009 367 ,351 800,000 -412,649 -11,166,127 i 2010 406,719 800,000 -393,281 -11 ,559,408 SUMMARY OF EXPENSES: LAND($3,700,000) , PARKING STRUCTURE($8,500,000) , li RELOCATIOF COSTS($340,500) , AND DEBT SERVICE($800,000) SUMMARY OF REVENUE: C.O.P: ISSUE ($12,0008000) ; SALES TAXI $64,000 +5% PER YEAR; PARKING REVENUE: $100,000 +51i PER YEAR; SALE CF COMMERCIAL SHELL: $1,235,000 NOTE: PARKING STRUCTURE COST, REVENUE', DEBT SERVICE, AND C.O.P. ISSUE FIGURES ARE TBIS� PROJECT'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE PARKING STRUCTURE: Page OF SECOND BLOCK PARKING STRUCTURE" REVENUE AND EXPENSE. 1 2/23/89 MAIM-PIER. REDEVELOPMENT AREA - ` PROJECT.,;FACT ,SHEET CITY/AGENCY FINANCIAL SUMMARY' PROJECT: PARKING STRUCTURE/COMMERCIAL REVENUES YEAR SALES TAX PARKING PROP. ACQ.- OTHER METHOD OF CALCULhTION --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- 1988 7,0000,000 1989 5,000,000 SALES TAX: $200• per s3 ft X 1990 20,000 40,000 1,235,000 32,000 sq ft X 1% = $64,000 1991 60,000 100,000 in 1992 + 5% inc/yr 1992 64,000 105,000 1993 67,200 110,250 T.I. : None due to properties 1994 70,560 115,763 taken off tax rolls offsetting 1995 74,088 121,551 new tar:.uie value's. 1996 77,792 127,628 1997 81,682 134,010 PARKING: $600/yr/spac'e X 1998 85,766 140,710 850 spaces = $510,008- .Less 1999 90,054 147,746 $410,000 related` to Pier ' 2000 94,557 155,133 Colony = $100,000 in 1991. 2001 99,285 162,889 5% inc/yr 2002 104,249 171,034 2003 109,462 179,586 PROP. ACQ. : $1,235, 000 pmt. 2004 114,935 188,565 from Koury for com. shell 2005 120,682 197,993 2006 126,716 207,893 OTHER: Proceeds of C.O.P. 2007 133,051 210,287 issues: $7M balance from 86 2008 139,704 229,202 issue + $5M new issue 2009 146,689 240,662 1 2010 154,024 252,695 J f I PARKING STRUCTURE: Page 2 2/23/89 MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT AREA _ PROJECT.'FACT SHEET CITY/AGENCY FINANCIAI;.SUMMARY" PROJECT: PARKING STRUCTURE/COMMERCIAL EXPENSES YEAR LAND IMPRVMNTS RELOCATION OTHER METHOD OF CALCULATION -- --- ------ ---------- -- 1988 2,465,040 330,000 LAND: $2,455,400 expended 1989 1,235,00016,500, 000 3,10,500 ' 430,000 $1,235, 000 to Koury Ili 1990 2,000,000 815,000 1991 8001000 1992 800,000 1993 800,000 IMPROVEMENTS: Structure cost $13.6 } 1994 800,000 incl. demo less $5.IM related to ' 1995 800,000:' Pier Colony = $8.5M. Est $6.5M in 1996 800,000 '89 & $2t1 in ' 90 1997 800,006 1998 800,000 OTHER: Debt service for this project's Z999 800,000 proportionate share of S12M C.O.P. 2000 800,000 issue of 1986. S7M/$i2M X S700,000 2001 800,000 debt service = $390,000/yr + debt 2002 800,000. eervice on new C.O.P. of 55M est 2003 800,000 $411,000` = $80C;040 2Q04 800,1000 2005 800,000` 2006 800,000- 2007 800,000 2008 800,1000 2009 800,000 2010 8001000 I PARKING 'STRUCTURE: Page 2 2/23/89 MAM-PIER REDEVELOPMENT AREA' , PROJECT FACT SHEET CITY/AGENCY FINANCI?3L SUMMARY PROJECT: TOWN SQUARE I I TOTAL • TOTALF CUMULATIVE REVENUE EXPENSE SURPLUS/ SURPLUS/ YEAR (See page 2) (See page 3) (DEFICIT) (DEFICIT) 1988 0 0 0 0 1989 1,250,000 450,000 800,000 800,000 1990 500,000 0 500,000` 1,300 ,000' 1991 580,000 0 580,000 1,880,000 1992 175,000 0 175,000 2,055,000 1993 188,300 0 188,300 2,243,300 1994 192,666 0 192,666 2,435,966 1995 197,149 0 197,149 2,633,115 1996 201,754 0 201,754 2,834,869 1997 206,483 0 206,483 3,041,353 1996 211,342 0 211,342 3,252,695 1999 216,335 0 216,335 3 ,469,0:d 2000 221,466 0 221,466 3,690,496 2001 226,739 0 226,739 3,917, 135 j 2002 432,161 0 232,161 4,149,396 2003 237,735 0 237,735 4,387,131 2004 243,467 0 243,467 4,630,597 2005 249,362 0 249,362 4,879,959 2006 255,427 0 255,427 5,135,386 2007 261,667 0 261,667 5,397,053 l 2008 268,088 0 268,088 : 5.665 ,142 J 2009 274,697 0 - 274,697 5,939.11-s9 2010 281,501 0 281,501 6,221,340 'DOWN SQUARE: Page 1 i 2/23/89 MAIN-PIER REDEV£LOPMENT' AREA . PROJECT FACT SHEET CITY/AGENCY FINANCIAL SUMMARY PROJECT: TOWN SQUARE REVENUES YEAR T.I. SALES TAX PROP. ACQ-.OTHER METHOD OF CALCULATION --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- 1988 1989 1,250,0K T.I. : Based on est. value of 1990 500,000 $15M + 2% increase/yr. 1991 80,000 500,0004 1 1992 165,000 10,000 SALES TAX: $200/yr/sq. ft. 1993 168,300 20,000 X 10,000 sq. ft. + 5% inc./yr. 1994 171,666 21,000 1995 175,099 22,050 PROP. ACQ. : Minimum payment 1996 178,601 23,153 to Agency from developer 1997 182,173 24,310 1998 185,817 25,526 1999 189,533 26,802 2000 193,324 28, 142 2001 197,190 29,549 N 2002 201,134 31,027 2003 205,157 32,578 2004 209,260 34, 207 2005 213,445 35,917 2006 217,714 37,713 2007 222,068 39,599 `S 2008 226,510 41,579 l 2009 231,040 43,657 I 2010 235,661 45,840 I E TOWN SQUARE: Page 2 I 2/23/89 MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT AREA PROJECT.; FACT SHEET CITY/AGENCY FINANCIAL SUMMARY PROJECT: TOWN SQUARE EXPENSES YEAR LAND IMPRVMNTS RELOCATIONOTHER METHOD OF CALCULATION --------- --------- --------- --------•- --------- 1988 1969 450,000 IMPROVEMENTS: Est, cost of 1990 Water line and street 1991 improvements funded by 1992 Gas Tax fund and Agency 1993 bond proceeds. 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 li 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 I TOWN SQUARE: Page 3 2/23/89 MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT AREA PROJECT FACT SHEET'.. CITY/AGENCY FINANCIAL SUMMARY I PROJECT: VILLAS DEL MAR TOTAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE REVENUE EXPENSE SURPLUS/ SURPLUS/ YEAR (See page 2) (DEFICIT) (DEFICIT) --------- ---- - -- ----------- --=---------- 1988 1,520,000 0 1 ,520,000 ' 1.520,000 1989 50,000 0 50,000 1,570,000 1990 88,000 0 88,000 1,658,000 1991 89,760 0 89,760 1,747,760 1992 91,555 0 91,555 1,839,315. 1993 93,386 0 93,386 1,932,702 1994 95,254 0 95,254 2,027,956 j 1995 97,159 0 97,159 2,125,115 1996 99,102 0 99,102 2,224,217 1997 101,084 0 101,084 2,325,301 1998 103,106 0 103,106 2,428,407 1999 105,168 0 105,168 2,533,575 (i 2000 107,272 0 107,272 2,640,647 2001 109,417 0 109,417 2,750,264 2002 111,605 0 111,605 2,861.869 2003 113.837 0 113,837 2,.975,707 2004 116,114 0 116,114 3,091,821 2005 116,436 0 118,436 3,210,257 2006 120,805 0 120,805 3,331,062 2007 123,221 0 123,221 3,454,283 2008 125,686 0 125,686 3,579,969 2009 128,199 0 128,199 3,708,169 2010 130,763 0 130,763 3,838,932 SUMMARY OF EXPENSES: None SUMMARY OF REVENUE: Sale of land ($1,:0'20,000) and tax increment ($88,000 2% increase/yr) VILLAS DEL MAR: Page 1 2/23/89 MAIN-PIER':REDEVELOPMENT AREA ' PROJECT-FACT SHEET CITY/AGENCY FINANCIAL 'SUMMARY I PROJECT: VILLAS DEL MAR I REVENUES YEAR T.I . PROP. ACQ.OTHER METHOD OF CALCULATION --------- --------- --------- --------- 1988 1,520,000 T.I. $Based on est. value of 8M 1989 50,000 1990 88,000 PROP. ACQ. : Amount received 1991 89,760 1992 91,555 1993 93,386 1994 95,254 1995 97,159 199G 99,102 1997 101,084 1998 103,106 1999 105,168 2000 107,272 2001 109,417 2002 111,605 2003 113,837 2004 116,114 2005 118,436 2006 120,805 2007 123,221 2008 125.686 2009 128,199 2010 130,763 r VILLAS DEL 14AR: Page 2 2l23/89 MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT AREA _ PROJECT FACT- SHEET CITYIAGENCY FINmCIAL 'SUMMARY PROJECT: HUNTINGTON BAYSW`DRE TOTAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE REVENUF EXPENSE SURPLUS/ SURPLUS/ YEAR (See par- 2) (See page 3) (DEFICIT) (DEFICIT) --------- ------- - --------- ----------- ----------- 1989 0 0 0 0 1990 0 35C,000 -350,OOU -350,000- 1991 75,000 0 75,0130 -275,000 1992 154,000 0 154,000 -121,000 1993 157,080 0 157,080 36,080 1994 160,222 0 160,222 196,302 1995 163,426 0 163.426 359,728 199E 166,695 0 166,695 526,422 19�1 170,028 0 170,028- 696,451 la 173,429 0 173,429 869,880 1r 176,898 0 176,898 1,046,777 00 180,436 0 180.436 1,227,213 JO1 184,044 0 184,044 1,411,257 .,002 187,725 0 187,725 1,598,982 2003 191,480 0 191,480 1,790,462 2004 195,309 0 195,309 1,985 ,771 2005 199,115 0 199,215 2,184,986 2006 203,200 0 203,200 2,368,186 2007 207,264 0 207,264 2,595,450 2008 211,409 0 211,409 2,806,859 2009 215,637 0 215,637 3,022,496 2010 219,950 0 21y,950 3,242,446 HUNTINGTON BAYSHORE: Page 1 t 2/23/89 MAIN-PIER. REDEVELOPMENT-AREA _ PROJECT "FACT, SHEET' CITY/AGENCY FINANCIAL SUMMARY " I PROJECT: HUNTINGTON BAYSHORE REVENUES l YEAR T.I . PROP. ACQ-OTHER :METHOD OF CALCULATION --------- --------- --------- ---------- 1988 1989 T.I. : Based on est. value of $ 1990 iZ),000 + 2% increase/yr 1991 . 154,000 l 1992 157,080 1993 160,222 1994 163,426 1995 166,695 1996 170,028 1997 173,429 1998 176,898 1999 180,436 2000 184,044 2001 167,725 2002 1.91,480 2003 195,309 2004 199.215 2005 203,200 2006 207, 264 2007 211,409 2008 215,637 l 2009 219,950 2010 224 ,349 HUNTINGTON BAY- ;aE: Page 2 2/23/89 MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT AREA PROJECT" FACT SHEET' CITY/AGENCY ' FINANCIW SU?"ARY- r t PROJECT: HUNTINGTON BAYSHORE EXPENSES � I YEAR IMPRVMNTS RELOCATIOIL' OTHER i -----�__- ---------- ----�------ ---- ----- 1988 1989 350,000 IMPROVEMENTS: 1990 �► 1991 Agenc-, cost of off-site St,--n. 1992 Drain (funded from. Agency :-ond 1993 proceeds) and offeite street 1994 improvements (CDBG funds) . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20Ul 2002 - 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 r 2008 2009- 2010 AU?iTivGTOli 3AYSHORE: Page 3 mmmd i 2/23/89 MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT. AREA PROJECT -FACT SHEET CITY/AGENCY FINANCIAL SUMMARY PROJECT: THE WATERFRONT TOTAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE REVENUE EXPENSE SURPLUS/ SURPLUS/ I YEAR (See page 2) {See page 3) (LrFICIT) (DEFICIT) --------- ----------- ----------- --- ---=-- ----------- 1980 136,000 0 136,000- 136,000 1989 13G,000 0 136,300, 272,,000 1990 7,520,000 9,427,O00 -1,907,000; -1,635"000 1991 546,000 9,085P000 -8,539,000 -10,174,000 1992 5,561,000 4,824,000 737,000. -9,437,000 METHOD OF FINANCING DEFICIT 1993 1,818,000 481,000 1,337,000 -8,100,000' ------------------------------- 1994 8,760,266 507,O00: 8,253,266 153,266" New Bond Issue $5,000,000 1995 2,640,700 531,000. 2,109,700' 2,262,966 Park Acq. & Dev. Fnd 4,7G7,000 1996 4,123,100 3,332,000 791,100 3,054,066 Other 470,000 1997 4,373,000 1,514,000 2.859,800 5,913,866 ------------ 1998 7,726,549 1,584.000 6,142,549 12,056,415 TOTAL $10,177,000 1599 5,151,597 3,516,000 i,635,597 13,692,022 2000 7,088,067 5,308,000 1,780,067 15,472,079 2001 7,476,193 3,167.i.J0 4,309,193 19,781,272 2002 10,019,239 2,143,000 7,876,239 27,657,511 2003 8,623,987 3,,C13,000. 5,210,987 32.868,498 2004 10,817,365 7,478,000 3,339,365 36,237,863 2005 11,355,717 4,580.000' 6,775,717 42,983,580 2006 12,206,221 3,386-000 8,8200221 51.803,801 2007 12,688,069 3,492,000. 9,196,069 60,999,870 2008 13,364,859 3,708,000 9,656,859 70.656,729 2009 13,935,804 3,621,000 10,314,804 80,971,533 2010 14.534,131 1,228,000 13,306,131 94,277,664 "- SUMNjARY OF EXPENSES: KEYSER MARSTON'S CALCULATION OF NET PRESENT VALUE OF EXPENSES OVER A 45 YEAR PERIOD: IMPROVEMENTS,$4,820;OOO; LOAN REPAYMENT;$9;420,000; TAX INCREMENT 6 T.O.T. RE9A'TE,$9,550,000. TOTAL, _ $23,790,000 SUMMARY OF REVENUE: KEYSER MAnSTON'S CALCULATION OF NET PRESENT VALUE OF REVENUES ".OVER A 45 YEAR PERIOD: LAND LEASE - $10,060,000; LAND SALE - $6,010,030; TAX INCREMENT $15;460;000,; ..T.O.T.- - $43,990,0001 s SALES TAX - $1,920,000 '. TOTAL = $77,440,000 WATERFRONT: Page I { 2/23/89 MnM-PIER- 'AREA'.. CiTYIAGBCY'FIB-.SIM 4" PRQ7FX : THE MTERRERWr REVENM YEAR T.Z. SALES TAX T.O.T. LEASE: PROP. ACQ. M.H. PARK DEV MANS DETAILS/REL•OMMES: 1988 136,000 T.I.: Keyser Marsten(KM) rrk 1989 . D&'o t: dated 7/29/88 - Table 2 1990 136,000 134,000 7,250,000 1991 136,000u 410,000 - SALES TAX: KM rpt 8/19/88 - 1992 271,000 44,000 709,000 227-000.:_ 435,000=3,875,000'Table 2 1993 277,000 46,000 807,006 227,0W'. 461,000 1994 282,0010 48,000 886,OD0. . 227,000 6,828,366 488,900 T.O.T.: KM rpt 8/19/88 - 1995 877,000 50,D00 957,000 238,403 518,300 Table 2 + 7/29/88 rpt - 1996 1,224,000 103,000 1,896,000„ 350,7D0_ 549,400 Table 2 1997 1,249,000 107,000. 2,067,000 368,100 582,500 1990 1,274.000 111,000 2,217,000 386,703 3,126,399 617,450 LEASE: KM rpt 7/29/88 - 1999. 1,670,000 115,000 2,306,000 406,100 654,497 ' Table B-1 2000 2,104,000 180,000 3,562#000 548,300 693,767 2001 2,146,000 187,000 3,832,000 575,800 735,393 PROP. ACQ.: HM rpt 7/29/88 - 2002 2,189,000, 194,000 4,081,000 604,500 2,171,123 779,516 Table D-1 2003 2,701,000 202,000 4,260,000 634,700 826,287 2004 3,243,000. 281,000 5,603,000 824,500 875,865 M.H. PARK: R4 rpt 7/29/83 - 2005 3,307,000 292,000 5,973,000 855;300 928,417 Table A-i + 6%/yr after 1997 2006 3,374,000 304,000 6,646,000 898,100 984,121 2007 3,441,000 316,f100 6,945,000 942,900 1,043,169' DEV. LOANS: KM rpt 7/29/88 - 2008 3,510,000 129,000 7,430,000 990,100 1,105,759: Table 1. 1992 1awns: $125K - 2009 3,580,00P,, 342,000 7,802,000 1,039,700 1,1726'104 vil wells, $DI-spur st, '- 2010 3,652 G00 356,000 8,192,000 1,091,700 1,242,431 $2.75M-Walnut; all oth.-1990 MTFRkRONT: P--,t3e 2 c i ` 2/23/89 MAIN-PIER .REDEVELOPMEt1T:•AR£A PROJECT- FACT SHEET' CITY/AGENCY FTNANCIAL-SUMMARY PROJECT: THE WATERFRONT " EXPENSES YEAR IMPRVMNTS T.I. T.O.T. DETAILS/REFERENCES: 190E IMPROVEMENTS: 1989 1990: 1990 9,427,000 Mobile florae Park 6,327,000 1991 9,085,000 Walnut extension 2,750,000` 1992 4,475,000 136,000 213,G00 PCH overpass 250'0000 } 1993 100,000 139,000 242,006 1991: 1994 100,000, 141,000 266,00:s;Mobile Hoene Park 81905,000 1995 100';000 144,000 287,000-�1992: 1996 100,000 1,138,000 2,094,000 Walnut extension 2,750,000 1997 100,000. 4G8,000 946.006' spur- street 1,000,000 � 1998 100,000 477,000 1,007;v00'Oil pipeline relocation 500,000 1999 2,465,000' 1,051,00O,'Oil"wall abandonment 1251000 2000 2,026,000 3,282,000, 2001, 1,225,006 1,942,000' also est. $100K/yr X 9 soils testing 2002 918, 000 1,225, 000" Reference: KM rpt 7/29/88 Tables 1&A1 2003 2,135,000 1,278,000, 2004 3,107,000 4,371,000 T.I. : KM rpt 7/29/88 - Table 2005 1,786,000' 2,794,000 2006 1,420,000 1,966,000 T.O.T. : KM rpt 7/29/88 - Table 2 2007 1,448,000 2,044,000. 2008 1,478,000 2,230,000' i 2009 1,281,000 2,340,000 2010 1,228,000 -- i r r f WATERFRONT: Page 3 r ,i EXHIBIT'IV ,p atr:= 'AGEkY DEBT ANALYSIS rX ' M a At ached 1s.the�Jurie'J0,'�1988-AhAysis of Agency debt. Under state lave; reaevelopment' , tit igericies must document debtl:or, else. the Agency Is not eligible:to'rii:. a 'tex Incremerit i 'reveliue. 1n.the early'years of a redevelopment agency!s operation, It Is adva�itageous`td document. as mucfi debt as permitted In order to ensure a continuous ilow ,ot tax s Increment revcnuel I future years. - .•„ ',• .. • . Ili 4 .�:4{ 374�'. I • Roar wlemaMP AGENCY of T11!CTi'Y o!NU1iT11Ki m$E11Cti ANA1.YM Of IAHO-lint t loss (SUMMARY), 1 �. ". .14aw Tt OOV Yorktown umtirilit" hoar We" pwRfptla; life Dumb akvkw Laka , cantor ltwbig TOW ':OtttlE"R EUMD itVp `ySScw11 iA��MrM•' y Nt,1;TA u. 0 {•r0ias7o lOt,lSt 7t,i44,l7i 7,al�,RM C!o.trr+d LaaiWa. �.D�fM7rd DtMlirywnaut riir ,:: ,: -15+, t5o,=0 '' 'r. NI,Am. plaiiit owns .'t. l,>�i,1st '31.>•5 ;Ilt,!!t Tl,ll>< 163,1" lIkoaR Cab '1: ! pl 310 toi 1'28i213 st It7 TW f11 tl T, C.DTH �tn►ItDl-TOTAL ti,1,tld., t,sat,iN' M - -i� It i�6witor 11l�ill� �=:C.ri.�A.''•:.;: : •. -1,olt,iSa �15157,tit ., • ' +.1Ait,5ii�- � pe�i,,�,�. sis,105 71;Ia 35,640' ;•t�l++r■:.r.r�'riw: .. � ao�os 7,1» . . i. . . ' at t. r 1.4lnlf`Aiq,t s,4iRooT !9i1 +,! t it 5 900 a! i Ti 4? "1!!ii i f, :r DUI!TO WrI1011 alART1Ri 'MM Wid""t*t 1,ta1,a11 1,Iil,ala r; 1.MOutriUM Law •t__1_ t t T- ,T"Duo to Ordidr hltl�M. t , `.1'olkt'All QM� �1 , � IiLma . 3 oaf IIr 1-. RIDLr1+ELOPMZ)ff AGUNCY OF THE CITY Of HUNTINGTO14 BEACH ANALYSIS OF CHANCES 19 LONGTERM INDEBTEDNESS(UTAIL) _ S ;i?• July 1, 1917 to•lure 30, tlti j MAW Tab*V Yakt*WIV Hwntboan Low Lw m* ` :Mar seam OAkriew Lake Gntwr lioudni Total., DdPt "w�pvie t SAM116 S,514,712 4334,663 254,112 s,931,033 iT,771 r66 �.._.�:.-�,::aa'; `.;. S•;;:: .�4 ., .s'' :^fir :' 11weMi�>Atw�t 1T/" Ismil 30 All 6s6„IM 31,617 413,146 �, R�'Ml 1�AdvMnei�r 6f/61 '' : .••. -, �. . ,. •. .,, • " .. .•L� "�-�:,•='4 ,' >1 eet;MM1•Carb ;1,151,001 13T,106 $11,110 1462 163,"3 ' DirMt a1rwM I,Iaa,T6! 366,13T 30,426 174,SM 1 t,66o,_.t!S. 'ts'Y'OFA O A hyli+ati' . tls5,R001 �1=i.Ofii)' roots. •lratic'A!n EWM p3l,073) ,�(0sf,�i71' t a'lliirii T�11►�lriner+• 1,000,000 - . 1:a00,0010 HRPEA Adreoew ' 20701,016 973,f13 2,478,810 s,735,622 Z,l13,Itls 24,161,1lS,� ib, b .twW Advames 110,000 1501010: {, ``tr+p«ty Jlagittkw tin __-.:#7 _ -__ IT Debt it N31yp' JAa= I I f a RLOtY91AiFUt T tOLNCY OF TH6 CltY Or HURTINOWN BEACH AHALY911 O!f.ONQ7 ltm 1NOLIYTM"Im(DCTAILI irM 3061lti " Mar. dwril O�kvMr LrW Canter )NwYs TOW gwilrl hwd Air,TNTI 'Ilftf0. f lief 1lfif 101;lif Aeo d Mtwot M fI1fIYT ft li/ KS" 10r124 144,l17 .; Agri 1MO1rq tTlM ^T34 ' . 4,2l4 4,09 IS3�,Mt ,� ia�Ktti:'.y, .� .X•yt""• ri#' .� a t}}i�t'.. .,,��..,. � :7�t . . Gwwd had Ad/ MIN kelMea delis Mi.4f0 iT11lf' isi,al i i11,411 ANrri tnttrart M f/iMtOT igtlT4 IiILTa 1 s,rii >• ai,slo . ANe.rrl�Mr�tf1/li 14114 i,lot tltA/l 1,13f .11840 1 1T1,0M d it thrNi A+fr.`MIR 'ril�llll 214,N1 4l1,1 ! 111 ;3r1 IXTrNi 0 1 Til >1 MiMwrltntrr+r4lrfilfnit "How 11,1M 4,41f :• fiil3 r` 400wo bwroK tT/0i 14,Mi t1,4f0 W!" 11r10g IISA i f 2166m 1 'r••Oiirlrt Pw�'Adv/I/M 3,fi1,T01 10t,tN fif m 11401 Tff,4fi 4,IIf,000 mm"d b wwt One t1l,Sq i,Ilg 44AI 1,114 iT,tti • 14f,44ti -.XWA Aii iTM ` 21141,1110 1T36N3 164116111 0 607316113 161113,13'i 14r011,121 t.> =•A4mmi hogmit grin ASIA 1 tf,141 47,4if 141,116 ifT,iU ',�,:MAtrr llrlit AdY IfJ1T- 110dfM '1�rfM i; Almad k4wrot 1TIN 1464" t4,Ili i i M+Irf hOitAM f11:r i.Ni+11f I.MfA •. •s 1 AernlN oformt IT/10 1M,f11 IM�Mr' t4irw�Mr•17IN . . 1i�,fi�f !i%�tf t., I InwwtntU• t�fN to ond LOW s..:. • `ia�1�;1M _ �iariaN t. '. A*Wwd INNS 1 irllf 111,614 c K:Ae�rwd hW o is 4/1fi/T 13,if4 13,if1 10"Not"I" TrMI 1,u c $6 A/rwir 1,141,N1 i1,i31 l,fi4,4ti iiow"d Lom ft a ear co" 1.111s10 l,t►r ftl ''+' •M+er+M 0rwrrt lt/N_ 111,TS1 _, •111,tiT ': ' 1 Dw:Yir1:r,'•. 4TtrgN 11 f,lif 1N,1i1• .. . . s",:� �'� A+wlrRdlrbfrit ttYl't1 fiif�/f1 .11,fff 1f,1M I4f,1iT '• AMewi 111irt"frill11" ., lT,lff if.7f1 _ M,4N 4i AmvwW bkowt nw ftif/it 1 Agifroi bit" "its s4,iTt Y 4 (WA tulle' 1,4411,041 1,4llfiT AWW"d Irturat an Inv" 111,444 lU,f4� AwrwilOtrratiTitf IOTA"Pf" IIT,f10 , 1i A@Vbkkw Lea • tits ..... ...._..._.... _r..._.` ,.:...�,.. ....�.... SIT T T*W it 111301011 urigm wisom 3d3wn MUM Lj= 3+1CI3d3� j, l r i EXHIBIT V TAX INCREMENT TRENDS This exhibit was prepared last year as part of the Agency's biennial hearing and establishment of a 3-year plan. The first 3 pages are historical summaries and the last 2 pages are future projected tax increment revenues. The charts depict this data graphically. i i i . i 4374j i I • HISTORICAL DATA ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAX INCREMENT REVENUE GRAND TOTAL -- ALL AREAS <---------ASSESSED VALUATION--------> <---TAX INCREMENT REVENUE-- YEAR TOTAL BASE YR, INCREMENT TOTAL HOUSING NET 1983/84 12,095,200 10,677.1380 1,411,820 21,461 4,292 17,169 1984/85 101,287,252 93,381,617 7,905,635 75,129 15,026 60,103 1985/86 226,981,921 174,993,474 51,988,447 505,125 101,025 404,100 1986/87 283,559,129 174,397,832 109,161 ,297 1 ,408,750 281 ,750 - 1 ,127,000 TOTAL $2,010.465 $402,093 $1 ,6089372 1987/88 353,147,365 178,493,440 174,653,925 1 ,921 ,193 384,239 1,536,955 YORKTOWN/LAKE - BASE YEAR 1982 _ <------ASSESSEU VALUATION-------> <-•--TAX INCREMENT.REVENUE---> YEAR TOTAL BASE YR, INCREMENT TOTAL HOUSING NET 1983/84 3;782,989 2*155,1`07 1,627,882 20,563 4,113 16,450 1084/85 2,498,814 29155,107 343,707 3,713 743 21970 1'985/86 2,464,220 2,155,107 309,113 3,273 655 2,618 1986/87 2,513,504 1 ,969,207 544,297 151 ,624 30,325 1210299 Note 3 TOTAL $179,171 $35,834 $143,337 1987/88 2 t143,294 1,969,207 174,087 1 ,915 383 1 ,532 OAKVIEW - BASE YEAR 1982 <--------ASSESSED VALUATION----------> <---TAX INCREMENT R VENUE--> YEAR TOTAL BASE YR. INCREMENT TOTAL HOUSING NET 1984/85 24,399,373 24,278,872 120,501 1,374 275 1,099 '1985/86 28,812,485 74,278,872 4,533,613 58,521 11 ,704 46,817 1986/87 62,505,707 23,926,601 38,579,106 350,000 70,000 280,000 Note 4 TOTAL $409,895 $81 ,979 $327,916 i 1987/88 69,087,651 23,868,655 45,219,006 497,409 99,482 397,927 Note 4 rt i r • HISTORICAL DATA PAGE 2 ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAX INCREMENT REVENUE(CONTINUED) TALBERT/BEACH - BASE YEAR 1982 <--------ASSESSED VALUATION--------> <---TAX INCREMENT REVENUE---> YEAR TOTAL BASE YR. INCREMENT TOTAL HOUSING NET 1983/84 2,156,467 2,672,491 83,976 899 130 719 1984/85 2,481 ,548 1 ,656,018 825,530 8,646 1 ,729 6,917 1985/86 7,638,667 1,710,191 5,928,476 90,495 16,099 64,396 1986/87 13,391 ,121 1 ,753,701 11 ,637,420 178,055 35,611 142,444 TOTAL $268,095 $53,619 $214,476 1987/88 145796,933 1 ,720,331 13,074,602 143,821 28,764 115.056 HUNTINGWN CENTER - BASE YEAR 1984 <--------ASSESSED VALUATION--•-•-----> <---TAX INCREMENT REVENUE---> YEAR TOTAL BASE YR. INCREMENT TOTAL HOUSING NET 1'985/86161,222,284 81,092,845 20,129,439 124,914 24,983 99,931 1986/87 118,922,800 81 ,092,845 37,829,955 505,080 101 ,016 404,064 TOTAL $629,994' $125,999 $503,995 { 1987/88 157,048,386 81,092,845 75,955,541 835,511 16',102 668,409 i MAIN/PIER TOTAL - .BASE YEAR 1982(OR7GINAL), AMENDED AREA EASE YEAR 1983 <- -ASSESSED VALUATION- --> <---TAX INCREMENT REVENUE---> YEAR TOTAL BASE YR. INCREMENT TOTAL HOUSING NET 1983/84 . 6,155,744 6,449,782 -294,038 0 0 0 1984/85 71,907,517 65,291,620 6,615,897 61,396 12,279 49,117 1985/86 86,844 *26; 65,756,459 21 ,087,806 237,923 47,585 1909338 1986/87 86,225,997 65,655,478 20,570,519 223,991 44,798 179,193 TOTAL $523,310 $104,662 $418,648 1987/88 110,073,091 69,842,402 40,230,689 442,538 88,508 354,030 HISTORICAL DATA PAGE 3 ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAX INCREMENT REVENUE(CONTINUED) NOTES: ----------------------------------------------------------------•--------.._..� 1. Assessed Valuation (AV) data from annilal report prepared by County of Orange. 2. Tax Increment data from audited city records except 1987/88 projections Which are updated (as of 9/29/87) estimates based on actual AV data provided by Orange County. 3. Excess increment received from County. 4. Current increment CAP of $350,000 per year assumed to be revised during 1987/88. 4 4 { 3 1 PROJECTIONS - 1987/88 THRU 1990i ,. ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAX INCREMENT REVENUE C.90M TOTAL - ALL AREAS <-------;.-ASSESSCO VALUATION----- > <---TAX INCREMENT REVENUE---> YEAR TOTAL BASE YR. INCREHLAT TOTAL HOUSING NET .1987/88 353,147,365 178,493,440 174,653,925 1,921,193 384,239 1,536,055 1988/89 399,398,391 178,493,440 220,904,951 2,429,954 485,991 1,943:964 1989/90 465,954,447 178,493,440 287,461,007 3,162,071 632,414 2,5290'657 1990/91 583,348,284 178,491,440 404,854,844 4,453,403 890,681 3,562,723 I . . XORKTOWN/LAKE BASE YEAR .1982 .: <-------ASSESSED VALUATION--------> <-TAX INCREMENT REVENUE---> 1YBAR TOTAL BASE YR. INCREMENT TOTAL HOUSING NET 1987/88 2,143,294 1,969,207 174*087 1,915 383 1;532 1988/89 2,186,151 1 ,969,201 216,944 2,386 477 11909 1989/90 3,229,874 1,969,207 19260t667 13,867 21773 11,094 1990/91 13,294,471 1 ,969,207 11 ,325,264 124,578 24,916 94,662 =' OA61EW - BASE YEAR 1982 <-------ASSESSED VALlTA',"ION----> <---TAX INCREMENT. REVENUE--->. YEAR TOTAL BASE YR. INCREMENT TOTAL HOUSING NET 1987/88 69,087,661 239868,655 45,219,006 497,409 99,482 3971,927 1986/89 70,470,573 23,868,655 46,601 ,918 512,621 102,524 410,097 1989/90 71,881,144 23,868,655 48,012,489 528,137 105,627 4221514 1990/91 82,119,925 23;868,655 58,251 ,270 640t764 128,153 512,61-1 TALBERT/BEACH - BASE YEAR 1982 <----------ASSESSED VALUATION--------> <---TAX INUREMENT REVENUE-^--> YEAR TOTAL BASE YR. INCREMENT TOTAL HOUSING NET ` 1987/88 14,794,933 1,720,331 13,074,602 143,821 289764 115,056 1988/89 20,691 ,499 1 ,720,331 18,971 ,168 208,683 41 ,737 166,946 1989/90 26,705,996 1,720,331 24,985,665 274,842 54,968 219,874 1990/91 -31,140,784 1 ,720,331 29,420,453 323,625 64,725 258,900 t PROJECTIONS - 1987/88 THRU 19901,a PAG'i ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAX INCREMENT REVENUE HUNTItiGTON CZNTER BASS YEAR 1984 <-•-------ASSESSED VALUATION---- > <-w TAX INCREMENT REVENUE---> YEAR TOTAL BASF YR. INCREMENT TOTAL, HOUSING NET 1987/88 157,068,386 81,092,845 75,955,541 835,5'11 167,102 668,409 1988/89 187,459,354 81 ,092,845 106,366,509 1 ,170,032 234,006 936,025 1989/90 193,608,541 81,092,845 112,515,696 1,237,673 247,535 990,138 1990/91 203,080,712 81,092,845 121,987*867 1 ,341 ,867 268,373 1 ,073,493 HAIN/PIER IDTAL - BASE YEAR 1982(ORIGINAL), AhENDBD AREA BASE YEAR 1983 <------ASSESSED VALUATION-----> <---TAX INCREMENT REVENUE- > YEAR TOTAL BASE YR. INCREMENT TOTAL HOUSING NET r ` 19048 110,0739091 69,842,402 40,2304689 442 538 88408 354,030 1988189 .118,5909814 69,842,402 48,748,412 536,233 107,247 4280986 1989/90 170;528•,892 69'8842,402 100•,686,490 t ,107,551 221 ,510 8669041 199(T/91 253,712,392 69,8420402 1831869,990 2,022,570 4040514 11618,056 1991192 2840696 108 69,842,401 214,853,706 2,363,391 472,678 1,690,713 1992/93 291,906:291 69,862,402 222,063,889 2,447,703 488,541 1,9541,162 TOTAL 8,914 ,985 1 ,782,997 7,131 ,968 NOTES: .r..r.rawrwrM.w..rwa...�+wrw..rw.�w.rw.s.+w.`w.wr.....w.�r...+►..ww.r...�w�^,+r....—r.rw..�+r..+..r�......r+.rwrw.+.�+.�rr.�`+.ir....rr+ ' 1. 1987/88 Assessed Valuation data from County of Orange. 1988/89 through 1940/91 &re estimates faded on development assumptions in Five Year Plan. , 2. Tax increment revenue estimates based on 1.1% of Assessed Valuation increment. i { i 1 REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT REVENUE By Project Area f REVENUE—SThousorWa 4500 t <---PROJECTED— 4000 3500 3000 2500 <----AC:TUAl-----> 2000 i 1500 1000 500 84/85' 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 } FISCAL.Y EAR h t £= OAKVIEW PROJECT AREA NUAL TAX MCREMENT"REVENUE REVENUE•—$Thousanll= j 2100 F 1800 1500 4 1200 i 900 <----ACTUAL---> EST. <--PROJECTED---> ' 600 300 INCREMENTCAP 0 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88 `i 9 89/90 90/91 91/92 i FISCAL YEAR . - f TALB �RT- � EAC # PR�JT APEA Annual Tax Increment. Revenue RUMUE—Mousanim j 2100 1800 1500 1200 900 600 <----PROJECTED----> 300 <--ACTUAL__> EST. 0 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 - FISCAL YEAR I HUNTINGTON CENTER PROJECT AREA Annual Tax Increment Revenue REVENUE—SThousanp 2100 1800 <--PROJECTED--> 1500 1200 EST. 900 F goo <--ACTUAL--> % j!+ r 4 300 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 RSCAL YEAR w • MI -- PIER PROJECT AREA . a Annual Tax Increment Revenue REVENUE--SThousonisom r 2100 PROJECTED--> 1800 1500 1200 r 900 s s00 EST. j -- • <--ACTUAL---> 1 300 t 0 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/83 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 FISCAL YEAR Aulhon2ed to Publish Adverigamenl3 Of all kinds including public �(i,�✓`;lj (J*^- notices by Dectea 01 the Superior Court of Orange ounly, i California. Number A•6214. dated 29 septembe►. 1961. and A•24831• doted 11 June, 1969 STATE OF CALIFORNIA �.;ounty of Orange •,...,.....e ao•.ea hor•,0► ,M v .• vn - J pon, I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen r years, and not a party to or Interested in the below _ ttwl•taa awgt ttwat and pain E Cnoft,Min entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange s i " 'eatra"r as city ••N011CL t0• .. Nor ootneM to aa. Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the OF °N1t +w,Mre NEWS•PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, ` p ° owl�* ptcq •'tunth t`t arrrwarerr�rrN printed ;.nd published In the City of Costa Mesa, aH,,,,u„Qt,,,de1a1 s+': County of Orange. State of California, and that a ttw on awr4.CaM. t�efoe ` e tMagtdn81ree1 • land •�that•� Iha�orye R e�� fc'.r aatti nF Flsnei� taNeiii+f6 f 1,161001 �MOtM11CAd. Notice of �N .�F�ehn �rl�asasu� olht�tlri` o bleresledApanca.d, � � Oroulla and Peraon��• /eai�.,fdar iM.tlre� On of about Jeeutuy to. apk Otani ho*alim NW' ,IL the Gty of fAY1 wIR�haw�eaualtetl�jita' of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete o oe�ctnM t � W4 �tErwk�t>t `�' tJMMn D1MeFed wtl+ f, IVY Act�N. . copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, to ratreee iederd ppt M- ond«Tft t of an Houav wa a:rw•tt a Newport Beach, Htmtington Beach, Fountain Valley, and community• oe,�laopp-. r of merit Act,of ,W4,1 , �. ;M� Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna f3Ja31 for atloNa.It+pRo• o" ., teat ifw. Beach issues of said newspaper for 2 t:itnes _ +910 KHpii Is . ,. io t:Tf too W46 w be tow consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of to irnprtlw tiro pu6lts rtpM. Now p; '�OpMpe�i• Way W* on Mre cartty artNrpwrapM�elrf+�Maw a Ak � brr"a al a+r � �,,,�,,� Oland:aaolalert%AnrfxK,4t JAl1ua�Y_10, 1]. _ __ 198 9_.. lWaye. w Tf� �evwrwae Ma�p°tble �1°` a:.ut�lt�•,twit,eNtt ,tht► 1a. �itfer.Pr00Mi... pMrlt 1Mr/e1Mt trdllMt M . 198 �+ to the oa An EnW►otrrwntW N at ik wtYN1 ari lviMMa PAW '(IMft). . atte�� IMF."•Stt� 198 �viepaM w C i Won'sseott Now 000. Ofl1cw,•., • 1.'- r;" . 198 (�trttp+eoMrlau iMtly tuth90ceM PrdnsYle f� (PL.9t• ,fCrtohmib ewaat•• r 'mJtrti.This EIIA ie on►Me Id 19 8 'the IOMartit,MWM aedrerF t,; I �• ai �er4e;°cair. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the {lan+ 't .Tore foregoing is true and correct. 0100"letlona, «++a 'gma ttuntllrq ! �+ �� ►. � �My ton Bsau► Mr!ta+a.riak.•the oiat;et baerltted:Mlth f, :►dr6 Executed on — arum► 11 1198 9 �`k><ttoreMkowetrornNuo pryer t+ I*Tttta I of that he H at Costa Mesa, California. =—Of ��tLyyat°i� �FWn1 eeakrp to hteD f nature t I ZIU PROOF OF PUBLICATION . A) Auit+OnteO 10 Pubbltt Adviltnsements of all kin_.ncluding public •�' , �p� notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, i C11110rn14. Number A•6214• dated 29 5rplembst. 1961• and A•2467t dated 11 June, 1963 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange F,.e.c►OMA A~-"94•040 it, Me 1MpMU.N.0 1 ad n r iipM MM to PLC La.~*via I am a Citizen of the United Statos and a resident of the County alerectaid: I am over the age of aighteen , years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. 1 am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast OAILY PILOT. with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange. Slate of California, and that a Notice of Fel.ease of ftmds --.--.— ----.-. IIM.iC iiIDTIC�...^- of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete ; ; �aRatsl[af►. ?.;;+; �h �Ili+cit, copy, was printed and published in the Costa Moser, Newport Beach. Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, �. I:+IWerrtte Irvine, the South Coast communities and Lacuna i►arw air Bescb issues of said newspaper for]�_ g o10f+� k� R�"Maweq°�I consecutive weeks to wit the Issue(s)of tNo.ffip, Mrlr p1 tp.rflim)bart �,F"Wo mow Title 1 of no Ifp�erty am r menr Apt rct��tt)i1." tFL Deaerrbc r 24 . t9t3 tr_ tpaf�larn»rww,wworn. : 1 AI%V,aEI011 198 .1 kno rwf be ' a�eoit�it w+�ie�r or 198 WWMAK and owe in the 198 at.:VU111W" aaer 1114110011011lt "Ion iwl� mrirewftb-pi M:the 199 a IV A)"ft.el e I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the go Item. F nurptt'.wflic4 repo. foregoing Is true and correct. '„,„'�"�'� �. nllrf�l.'tttle 1I1i11�in TM al � aaerese:�;•�� Executed on QaCcukcr lg , 196 at Costa Mesa, IifornIta. anir��'!eaafi: W�p ��olAleutsfNe►;M�•�4,y F 1 p+lAiN w '11ra w gnat a �r z t 14. PROOF OF PUDLICATION