HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project - Denied 7/6/ RESOLUTION NO. S�
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, a Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project has been prepared by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach; and
On July 6 , 1987, a duly noticed joint public hearing on the
proposed Redevelopment Plan was conducted by the City Council and
the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach; and
Any and all persons having any objections to the proposed
Redevelopment Plan or who deny the existence of blight in the
Project Area, or the regularity of the prior proceedings, were
given an opportunity to submit written comments prior to the com-
mencement of the joint public hearing, or give oral testimony at
the joint public hearing, and show cause why the proposed
Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted; and
The City Council has heard and considered all evidence, both
written and oral, presented in support and in opposition to the
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach as follows:
1 . The City Council finds on the basis of the substantial
evidence contained within the Report to the City Council submitted
by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and
other substantial evidence in the record that conditions of blight
exist within the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Project, and
that written and oral evidence in opposition received at the. joint
public hearing is not persuasive, to the contrary.
2 . The City Council and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Agency have duly complied with all the provisions, requirements,
and procedures of Articles 4 and 4 .5 (commencing with Section
33330 ) of Chapter 4 of the California Community Redevelopment Law
1.
relating to the preparation and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan
for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project .
3 . The City Council, accordingly, overrules any and all
objections to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project .
PASSED AND ADOPTD by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of , 1987 .
Mayor
ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk Cit tto n y
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INI IATED AND APPROVED:
zx'000//
City Administrator4F eputy Director,
Redevelopment
2273L
2 .
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach-Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project (Project) ; and
A draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and Agency
Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto; and
A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Agency on March
16, 1987 , at which all interested persons were given an opportunity
to be heard; and
A final EIR, relating to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for
the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project and
responding to the concerns raised during the review period and at
the public hearing has been prepared pursuant to said statute and
guidelines; and
The Agency has reviewed and considered the information con-
tained in the final EIR for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, and adopted
Resolution No. 142 certifying the completeness of the final EIR
on May 20 , 1987 .
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach does hereby find and resolve that:
1 . The City Council certifies that the final EIR has been
completed in compliance with CEQA.
2 . The City Council certifies that the information contained
in the final EIR for the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington
Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project has been reviewed and
considered by the members. of the City Council, in accordance with
State Guidelines Section 15090 .
1 .
3 . The City Council hereby finds with respect to the signifi-
cant environmental effects detailed in the final EIR for the
Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project, in accordance with State Guidelines Section
15091 and 15092 :
( a) That the adverse environmental impacts of the
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project set forth in
the final EIR, including those raised in comments on the draft EIR,
have been considered and recognized by the City Council .
(b) That based on information contained in the final EIR,
a public record on file in the offices of the Agency, incorporated
herein by this reference, and information set forth in Attachment
"A" (attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) ,
the City Council finds that determines that measures have been
required in or incorporated into the Huntington Beach-Beach
Boulevard Proposed Redevelopment Plan which mitigate and thereby
eliminate, substantially lessen, or lessen each of the significant
adverse environmental impacts identified in the final EIR relating
to land use (pp. 58-68 ) ; air quality (pp. 25-39 ) ; and transporta-
tion/circulation (pp. °77-99 ) .
( c) That no additional adverse impacts other than those
identified above will have a significant effect or result in a
substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the
environment as a result of the proposed Project .
4 . The City Council hereby finds and determines that all
significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR have
been reduced to an acceptable level in that:
(a) All significant environmental effects that can
feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened
as determined through the findings set forth in paragraph 3 (b) of
this Resolution;
(b) Based upon the final EIR and other documents and
information in the record, all remaining, unavoidable significant
effects of the proposed Project, as set forth in paragraph 3 (b) of
this Resolution, are overridden by the benefits of the Project as
described in Section II of Attachment "A," and the City Council
2 .
hereby approves and adopts said Section II of said Attachment "A"
as a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the proposed
Project; and
( c ) Based upon the final EIR, the documents in the record
and upon Attachment "A, " specific economic, social or other con-
siderations make infeasible other project alternatives identified
in said final EIR.
5 . The City Council hereby authorizes and directs that a
Notice of Determination with respect to the final EIR, and all
other actions taken in furtherance thereof be filed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day
of , 1987 .
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City At or
G $�
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ITIATED AND APPROVED:
! •
City Administrator a ty Director ,
e evelopment
2277L
3 .
ATTACHMENT "A"
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION
MEASURES, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
- BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Introduction
..........................................................
The final Environment Impact Report ("EIR") for the Redevelopment Plan for
the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project identifies
three potentially . significant adverse environmental impacts from the
implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. These impact areas
include: land use; air quality; and transportation/circulation. Also
identified in the final EIR are impacts which are potentially adverse, but
which can be reduced to less than significant levels by mitigation measures
included in the final EIR. Each of these mitigation measures is discussed at
length in the EIR. The significant adverse environmental effects which
cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided are summarized below.
I. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE ENTIRELY
MITIGATED OR AVOIDED
A. Land Use (EIR pp. 58 - 68)
= 1. Environmental Impacts
The proposed Project is expected to encourage the
development of new commercial retail and office uses along with residential
uses on vacant sites and sites now occupied by low intensity and
dilapidated commercial, office and residential uses.
The land use changes as :a result of the proposed Project
are, in general, considered to be beneficial impacts. The Project is expected
to result in more efficient use of available land for more intensive
development, and to result in the elimination of unattractive, poorly
maintained structures and land uses which prevent the further improvement
of the area.
The land use change to a higher and better use is a key
element to the proposed Redevelopment Project. Impacts discussed
throughout the EIR are the direct and indirect environmental impacts of
these changes in land use.
Over the Project lifetime, the Project is expected to result in
the removal or upgrading of a number of visually unattractive land uses.
In addition, new structures will be constructed to higher standards of
construction, energy conservation, and fire projection. The level of
maintenance in the Project Area is expected to be improved as investment in
the area increases.
Development of vacant parcels in the Project Area would
result in the irreversible commitment of these sites to urban uses.
High quality development of land uses and increases in
intensity in the Project Area are expected to result in some secondary
impacts on land uses in other areas of the City. These indirect impacts are
discussed under population effects in Section 3.11 (pp. 70-73) and housing
impacts in Section 3.12 (pp. 74-76) of the final EIR.
2. Mitigation Measures
........... .......................................
Changes in land use to a higher and better use are a key
element of the proposed Project. The entire final EIR deals with the impacts
of this change in land use, and mitigation measures which are intended to
deal with the direct and indirect effects of this change.
The City's zoning ordinance contains development standards
for the development of individual parcels for office and commercial uses.
These development standards are intended to reduce impacts of development
on adjacent parcels to insignificant levels. Compliance with the provisions
of the zoning ordinance and the City's design review of major development
projects are expected to reduce impacts of development on adjacent land
uses. In addition, the Agency may exercise additional control over
development through adoption of a design guide for the proposed Project
Area, parts of the proposed Project Area or specific development parcels.
B. Air Quality (EIR pp. 25-39)
1. Environmental Impacts
(a) Project Emissions:
The proposed Project would result in increased levels of
primary pollutant emissions and concentrations than the no Project case. In
general, any development in the South Coast Air Basin would result in
higher levels of air pollution than would be the case without such
development.
Project air pollution emissions come from three principal
sources: on-site combustion of natural gas for space heating, water heating
and cooking; local and regional emissions from vehicles traveling to and from
the Project site; and combustion of fuels at power plants to produce
electrical power used on the Project site.
(b) Carbon Monoxide Concentrations:
Continued development of more efficient internal
combustion engines and street improvements to improve traffic flow .and
decrease idling time would result in incremental decreases in carbon
monoxide concentrations, in spite of increased volume, compared to existing
conditions. However, these levels are still above State standards and the
impact is considered significant.
Page 2
(c) Construction Emissions:
..........................._..............................__.._._...................
Construction emissions include emissions from motor
vehicles used during construction, and emissions of dust and particulates
resulting from Project construction. Because the Project would be
developed over many years, grading at any given time is not expected to be
sufficient to result in unusually high emissions of dust, and this effect is
not considered significant.
On a regional scale, the proposed Project in conjunction
with other redevelopment Projects in the area would result in increased
primary pollutant emissions and concentrations.
2. Mitig-ation Measures:
Although the Project itself is not expected to contribute
significantly to regional pollution levels, the total of projects constructed in
the South Coast Air Basin in the next 10 to 20 years has the potential to
adversely affect air quality. Measures to reduce air pollution emissions in
the region may be adopted as part of the Air Quality Management Plan.
Some of these measures cannot be assured at this time because they depend
on regional policies and other actions which are outside the jurisdiction of
the City of Huntington Beach. Measures that will reduce the number and
length of single occupancy vehicle trips will reduce air pollution emissions.
The following mitigation measures are .included in the final
EIR:
. Improvement of existing streets and parkways where only
partial improvements exist to the extent redevelopment
funds are available and private development takes place
in the Project Area. This mitigation measure will reduce
dust emissions from unpaved and unimproved streets
and sidewalks in the Project Area.
. Improvement of traffic flow through improvement of existing
streets in the Project Area to higher .standards to the
extent redevelopment funds are made available from the
proposed Project for such improvements.
. Street improvements included in the Super Streets
Demonstration Project approved by Huntington Beach
will be implemented in the Project. Some of these
improvements include restriping, intersection widening,
bus turnouts and signal modification at selected
intersections.
. Transportation System Management (TSM) measures to
reduce tripmaking, including:
Page 3
- Features to encourage walking and the .use of bicycles
which may include marked bicycle lanes, shorter
walking distances from loading and unloading
zones to shops, outdoor eating facilities, and
covered shelters for loading and unloading.
These measures will be implemented by the
developer with design review by the City;
- Transit use incentives;
Continued service by the Orange County Transit
District, although this is beyond the control of
the City. The Transit District currently has 46
stops along Beach Boulevard within the Project
Area.
Initiating employee need surveys for child care
facilities;
- Instigate the alteration of the normal daily truck
delivery routes to avoid congestion at peak hours;
- Other measures which may be possible to in-corporate
on a development-by-development basis.
The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways depicts two regional
Class II (on road, striped lane) bikeways crossing Beach Boulevard in the
Project Area. These bikeways are established along Garfield Avenue and
Slater Avenue. In addition, local Class II bikeways are established along
Yorktown, Talbert, and Heil Avenues at Beach Boulevard. Signing and
striping plans with adequate provisions for bicycle travel through these
intersections should be provided. These measures are aimed at reducing
traffic congestion and air pollution by encouraging the use of bicycles as an
alternative mode of transportation.
Not all of these mitigation measures may be applicable
because the nature of private development that will take place in the
Project Area is not known at this time, and specific mitigation measures
cannot be identified. However, these mitigation measures should be
considered by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
and private developers.
C. Transportation/Circulation:
L Environmental Impacts:
Determining the traffic impact .of the Project on Beach
Boulevard and the contributing arterials included compiling existing Orange
County Transportation Commission (OCTC) data, identifying the number of
trips generated by this Project, distributing these trips on the local street
network, and comparing the resulting traffic volumes with OCTC projections
in the Super Streets EIR. The existing situation within the Project Area
Page 4
includes Level of Service F conditions for some intersections during peak
hours. Mitigation measures included in the "Super Streets" program, and to
a lesser extent the Project, would not completely alleviate this problem.
Therefore, any additional traffic generated in this area is considered to
have a significant impact.
In addition to Project-related trips, continued population
growth in the region, increasing employment opportunities, and increased
development all would result in additional sources of trip production-
attraction and would increase the volume of traffic along Beach Boulevard.
This continued increase in vehicular volume, some of which
would be a result of the proposed Project, would result in continued
degradation in the Level of Service (LOS) at major intersections along the
Project length unless compensating improvements in capacity are made. The
major arterials north of Ellis Avenue, except Talbert Avenue, are currently.
operating at LOS D or worse during the afternoon peak hour. By Year 2005,
it is projected that all of the major intersections, except Atlanta Avenue,
Yorktown Avenue, and Garfield Avenue, would all be operating at LOS E or F
without the improvements identified in the "Super Streets" report. This is
considered a significant impact on the road system.
(a) Trip..Distribution:
The direction drivers come from and go to is a function
of the overall pattern of development in the surrounding urban areas. The
Project Area consists predominantly of commercial areas that create trip
attractions. Trips to and from the retail areas are projected to be primarily
shopping trips by the residents of the surrounding area within
approximately three miles. Office trips include a substantially larger
proportion of employee trips from.greater distances.
For purposes of developing a trip distribution. model,
the Project Area •was divided into three distinct, separate .zones. . Zone 1
includes Edinger south to . the. mid-block of Talbert and Ellis between
Gothard Street and Newland; Zone 2 includes mid-block of Yorktown and
Adams between Gothard and Newland; and Zone 3 includes Yorktown and
Adams south to mid-block of Atlanta and Hamilton between Main and Newland.
The distribution model assumes that trips occurring
within each zone along the arterial network have three options. First, trips
would occur internally without using Beach Boulevard and would remain
within that zone. Second, trips would occur internally, remain within the
zone and use Beach Boulevard (assumed to be 15% of trips generated in that
block). And third, trips would extend beyond the zone in all directions
utilizing Beach. Boulevard or the major arterials, or both.
Page 5
(b) Trip Generation:
The proposed Project is expected to generate
approximately 73% more trips within the Project Area compared to existing
conditions. This would result in increased volumes along 'Beach Boulevard
and major arterials over existing conditions and would contribute a
significant portion of OCTC future projections. Impacts of the proposed
Project on the circulation network are expected to be fewer than the GPA
alternative. The proposed Project is estimated to generate 14,654 fewer
trips per day compared to the GPA alternative.
Not all of the trips generated within each zone are
expected to use Beach Boulevard as the primary north-south corridor. Some
vehicles are expected. to use Gothard Street on the west and Newland on the
east, along with other minor collector streets to avoid the congestion along
Beach Boulevard during the peak hours. Zone generated traffic, based. on
current General Plan buildout, falls within the high range of current OCTC
projections for Zone 1 and Zone 2. However, estimated volumes in Zone 3
exceed current OCTC projections for that segment of Beach Boulevard.
In Zones 1 and 2, Project traffic volumes are within
OCTC projections, and the assumptions of the Super Streets Project EIR may
be approximately used for these intersections. In Zone 3, with the exception
of Adams Avenue, which is projected to have a V/C ratio of 0.94 in year
2005 with Project improvements, the remaining intersections have relatively
low V/C ratio (0.61-0.72) projections. The estimated increase in traffic
volumes would result in the further lowering of the levels of service at
those intersections, even with the proposed improvements.
The Project Area accounts for approximately 12% of the
total area of all three zones and approximately 26% of, total trip generation.
This higher trip generation is due to the predominance of non-residential
uses with higher- trip generation rates compared to residential uses.
Projected volume/capacity ratios with and without
Project improvements for existing and Year 2005 conditions, including both
short and long term staging, were compared in the final EIR. Degradation
in the level of service is expected along all intersections, even with the
implementation of Project related improvements. However, Project
improvements would significantly .lower volume/capacity ratios at some
intersections and would help alleviate some congestion.
(c) Parking and Access:
"Super Streets" improvements include on-street parking
restrictions on Beach Boulevard north of the Ellis/Main intersection. These
parking restrictions will reduce available on-street parking for businesses
fronting on Beach Boulevard and may result in loss of business for older
areas which were not designed to current standards of off-street parking.
Driveway elimination or consolidation .may also create problems in such areas..
Page 6
Redevelopment action can mitigate such impacts by
aiding businesses in responding to these needed transportation
improvements with programs for shared off-street parking and alternate site
access.
(d) Seasonal Traffic Variation:
.................................................._...................................._............................._...
Beach Boulevard provides direct access from the
freeway to Huntington Beach State Park. Traffic volumes along some
portions of Beach Boulevard are expected to increase during the summer
months compared to the rest of the year. The most recent traffic counts
available during the month of July were taken by Caltrans in 1980 and 1983.
Higher seasonal variation in traffic volumes is more
evident along the southern portion of Beach Boulevard and would have a
greater impact in the area compared to the northern portion where daily
traffic volumes are already at high levels. The degree of impact as a result
of seasonal fluctuations is expected to diminish as a function of distance
from the Beach.
(e) Accidents:
The Statewide average for total accidents on a six-lane
arterial in an urban area is 4.1 accidents per million vehicle miles. The
Statewide average for fatal plus injury accidents for the same roadway
configuration in an urban area . is 1.6 accidents per million vehicle miles.
.. The rates reported along Beach Boulevard are significantly higher than the
Statewide averages.
(f) Maintenance:
Increased traffic volumes, especially truck-related
traffic from increased commercial development, would be expected to
contribute additional wear on the road surface. However; mitigation
measures aimed at improving traffic flow, including intersection widening,
would result in a general improvement of the existing road surface and this
impact is not considered significant.
2. Mitigation_.Measures:
The Orange County Transportation Commission's Super Streets
report (March, 1986), identifies a wide range of improvement options for
intersections and mid-block sections along Beach Boulevard. The options
range from low cost improvements such as signal coordination, restriping to
provide additional lanes and signal modifications to selected capital intensive
improvements such as intersection grade separations.
Mitigation measures discussed in the final EIR will be limited
to those identified as being a part of the proposed Project and identified by
the Redevelopment Agency for Project funding.
. -Page 7
The primary objective of these mitigation measures is to
identify specific improvements needed to provide reasonable capacity for the
existing and projected (Year 2005) traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard.
Following is a brief summary of each proposed intersection and mid-block
modifications for the Project Area.
Signal Coordination: Improved traffic signal coordination
for traffic along Beach Boulevard at each intersection in
the Project Area.
Signal Modification: Where the existing or projected
intersection level of service analysis indicated that
additional signal phasing might be required to
accommodate turning volumes, the necessary signal
modifications would be installed.
. Bus Turnouts: Where OCTD bus routes presently stop at an
arterial street intersection with existing or projected
heavy traffic volumes, bus turnouts on Beach Boulevard
are included if no such turnouts already exist.
Access Control: Several locations indicate that turning
movement restrictions or median closures might improve
intersection operation.
Intersection .Widening With New Right-of-Way: Where the
.. intersection level of service analyses indicate that
intersection widening would improve the level of service,
but the existing right-of-way does not appear to be
sufficient to accommodate such widening, additional
right-of-way would be required.
Restriping With Parking Restrictions: This measure is
included in areas of existing or projected heavy peak
period traffic volumes, where additional travel lanes
could be provided by imposing peak period parking
restrictions.
Tables. 23 and 24 contained in the final EIR identify the
specific mitigation measures included in the proposed Project and their
locations. These measures would help reduce impacts on traffic caused by
the proposed Project. However, these mitigation measures .alone are not
expected to relieve the existing congestion problems and the impact on
traffic would still be considered significant. Funding for these
improvements would' be paid, in part, by the Redevelopment Agency.
The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has identified
an additional mitigation measure outside of the Project Area aimed at
relieving traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. This would include the
extension of Gothard Street to connect with Hoover to the north of the I-405
Freeway. This would provide additional north-south travel opportunities.
Page 8
This information is included in the City of Huntington Beach, Gothard Street
.......................................................................
Extension Draft Report, August, 1986.
Onsite parking requirements for individual projects will be
determined by the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance and Development Code
to reduce the potential impact along side streets and Beach Boulevard. All
new construction will be required to provide sufficient parking on-site. For
those established businesses with insufficient on-site parking, a program of
shared parking with neighboring businesses could be established that
utilized available parking spaces during off business hours.
Potential mitigation for summer traffic volume increases
include the installation of signs along the freeway at major arterials other
than Beach Boulevard -indicating beach access. This measure may reduce
beach generated traffic on Beach Boulevard. However, transferring
additional traffic to other nearby arterials may result in additional impacts
on these areas.
The Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue Grade Separation project
was studied in the Super Streets report as a potential mitigation measure.
This measure was not included by the City of Huntington Beach in the
addopted Super -Streets Program. This mitigation measure is not included in
the proposed Project because of its high cost (estimated at $3.8 million in
the Super Streets draft EIR) and the description. of the local area with
increased right-of-way required. However, this mitigation measure remains
available for the future if development projections are realized and traffic
impacts cannot be distributed to other arterials in the network.
II. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington. Beach - Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project may have significant effects on the
environment as discussed hereinabove. Thus, the Agency has balanced the
benefits of the proposed Redevelopment Plan against the unavoidable
° significant effects identified in the final EIR and set forth in the preceding
sections of this document and makes the following findings about the
beneficial impacts which will result from implementation of the Project. The
Agency has adopted mitigation measures proposed in the final EIR, but to
some extent unavoidable significant effects will occur.
It is important to highlight the following points: (a) The Project is
consistent with the current General Plan, except in two areas where General
Plan amendments have been requested, and is expected to result in more
efficient use of available land and to result in the elemination of
unattractive, dilapidated,. and poorly maintained structures and land uses
which prevent further improvement of the area; (b) The . Project is
specifically intended to provide for orderly growth in Huntington Beach
insofar as mitigation measures are included in the City's development
Ordinances to insure that development occurs in the method and at the
proper time that it can be accommodated; (c) Huntington Beach is part of a
large urbanized region, thus, the project's role in promoting growth in this
region is relatively small in a regional context; (d) . additional jobs are
Page 9
,
anticipated to be provided in Huntington Beach as a result of the Project
thereby improving the economic base to the- benefit of the entire City.
Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the City's and
Agency's objectives of controlling the continued deterioration of the existing
business environment, encouraging the elimination and prevention of blight,
and ensuring the economic ,viability of commercial businesses' in the Project
Area. The proposed Project will upgrade and stabilize the physical and
economic environment while providing construction jobs, creating new
employment opportunities, attracting employers and promoting community
participation of owners, tenants and consumers in the revitalization of their
property holdings and community. The proposed Project will improve the
utilization of property within the Project Area and public safety. The
proposed Project will contribute to an aesthetic environment and a greater
sense of pride. Impacts identified as significant from Redevelopment Plan
implementation are generally associated with normal growth, progress and
prosperity.
The proposed Project will provide to the City annual increased
revenues from sources such as, but not limited to, property taxes;
commercial property rental taxes; telephone taxes; telephone equipment rental
taxes; electric franchise taxes; natural gas franchise taxes; sales taxes; retail
business taxes; retail property rental taxes; and liquor and cigarette taxes.
The Agency finds that the beneficial social and economic effects of the
proposed actions, as described above and as described in the final EIR and
in the Agency's Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment
Plan,.override the unavoidable significant effects of the Project and justify
approval of the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project as proposed.
Page`10
RESOLUTION N0.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES
ALLOCATED FROM THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH
BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE
OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY 'S
SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO
THE PROJECT
c
WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has pre-
pared a proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project which would result in the alloca-
tion of taxes from the Project Area to the Huntington Beach Rede-
velopment Agency for purposes of redevelopment; and
Section 33334 .2 of the California Community Redevelopment Law
(Health and Safety Code Section 33000 , et seq. ) requires that not
less than twenty percent (20%) of all taxes so allocated be used
by the Agency for the purpose of improving and increasing the
community ' s supply of low and moderate income housing available at
affordable housing cost, unless certain findings are made; and
Section 33334 .2 (g) of the Health and Safety Code provides that
the Agency may use such funds outside the Project Area if a
finding is made by resolution of the Agency and City Council that
such use will be of benefit to the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach does hereby find and resolve that the use of taxes allocated
from the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
for the purpose , of improving and increasing the community's supply
of low and moderate income housing available at affordable cost
outside the Project Area and within the City of Huntington Beach
will be of benefit to the Project.
1. �
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of , 1987 .
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City A torney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ITIATED AND APPROVED:
.V
City Ad i istrator Deputy Director, -
Redevelopment
2274L
2 .
/yS
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING A SUPPLEMENT
TO THE AGENCY 'S REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO
THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach has prepared a Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project; and
Pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Community Rede-
velopment law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 , et seq. ) the
Agency has prepared, and by Resolution No. 144 , adopted June 1 ,
1987, has approved, a Report to the City Council on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan; and
The Agency has prepared a supplement to the previously
approved Report to City Council, incorporating those portions of
the previously approved report that were incomplete or partially
complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach does hereby find and resolve that:
1 . The Agency hereby approves the Supplement to its Report
to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project.
2 . Said supplement is hereby submitted -to the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach.
1 .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day
of , 1987 .
Chairman
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Clerk of the Redevelopment A g e n b y C o u n s e
Agency
S ecial Agency Counsel
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I TIATED AND APPROVED:
. e
L/V '
City Administrator Dea y Dir ,ctor ,
Re elopment
2272L
2 .
• •
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE USE OF
TAXES ALLOCATED FROM- THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH
BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY 'S SUPPLY OF
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT
AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has pre-
pared a proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project which would result in the alloca-
tion of taxes from the Project Area to the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Huntington Beach for purposes of redevelopment; and
Section 33334 .2 of the California Community Redevelopment Law
(Health and Safety Code Section 33000 , et seq. ) requires that not
less than twenty percent (20% ) of all taxes so allocated be used
by the Agency for the purpose of improving and increasing the
community ' s supply of low and moderate income housing available at
affordable housing cost, unless certain findings are made; and
Section 33334 .2 (g) of the Health and Safety Code provides that
the Agency may use such funds outside the Project Area if a
finding is made by resolution of the Agency and the City Council
that such use will be of benefit to the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach does hereby find and resolve that the use of
taxes allocated from the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Rede-
velopment Project for the purpose of improving and increasing the
community' s supply of low and moderate income housing available at
affordable cost outside the Project Area and within the City of
Huntington Beach will be of benefit to the Project .
1 .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day
of , 1987 .
Chairman
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Clerk of the Redevelopment Age cy Coun
Agency
Special Agency Counsel
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Dep/jqy Director ,
Re elopment
2270L
2 .
.r
ORDINANCE NO. ----�=�-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has
received from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach ( the "Agency" ) the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, a copy of
which is on file at the office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California, and at the office of the Agency at
the same address, together with the Report of the Agency including
the reasons for the selection of the Project Area, a description of
the physical, social and economic conditions existing in the Pro-
ject Area, the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of
the Project Area, a plan for the relocation of families and persons
who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing
facilities in the Project Area, an analysis of the Preliminary
Plan, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission of
the City of Huntington Beach, a Project Area Committee record, an
environmental impact report on the Redevelopment Plan, the report
of the county fiscal officer and the Agency' s analysis thereof, a
summary of consultations with taxing agencies, and a neighborhood
impact report; and
The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach has
submitted to the City Council its report and recommendations con-
cerning the Redevelopment Plan and its certification that the
Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City of
Huntington Beach; and
The Agency, on March 16 , 1987 , held a duly noticed public
hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR" ) , pre-
pared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 , et seq. ) , the Guidelines for
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( 14
Cal .Adm. Code Section 15000 , et seq. ) and environmental procedures
adopted by the Agency pursuant thereto; and the Draft EIR was
1 .
thereafter revised and supplemented to incorporate comments
received and responses thereto, and as so revised and supplemented,
a Final EIR was prepared by the Agency; and
The Agency has certified the adequacy of the Final Environ-
mental Impact Report, submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21151 and Health and Safety Code Section 33352 , and has
determined that the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to
the Redevelopment plan will have significant effects on the
environment based upon the impacts identified in Resolution
No. 142 adopted by the Agency on May 20 , 1987 , making
certain findings regarding the environmental impacts of the
proposed actions with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan
for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project .
The Agency has adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations
indicating the positive aspects in support of implementing the
Redevelopment Project as. adopted by Agency Resolution No. 142
on May 20 , 1987; and
The City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on
July 6 , 1987, on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in the City
Council Chambers, City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,
California; and
A notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in
the . Daily Pilot , a newspaper of general circulation in
the City of Huntington Beach, once a week for five successive weeks
prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notices and
affidavits of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the
Agency; and
Copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by
certified mail with return receipt requested to the last known
address of each assessee as shown on the last equalized assessment
roll of the County of Orange for each parcel of land in the Project
Area; and
Each assessee in the Project Area was sent a separate state-
ment, attached to the notice of the joint public hearing, that his
or her property may be subject to acquisition by purchase or con-
demnation under the provisisions of the Redevelopment Plan; and
2 .
i-
Copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by
certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body
of each taxing agency which receives taxes from property in the
Project Area; and
The City Council has considered the report and recommendation
of the Planning Commission, the report and recommendation of the
Project Area Committee, the report of the Agency, the Redevelopment
Plan and its economic feasibility, and the Environmental Impact
Report, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard,
and has received and considered all evidence and testimony pre-
sented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 . That the purpose and intent of the City Council
with respect to the Project Area is to accomplish the following:
1 . The elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and
deterioration and the conservation, rehabilitation and
redevelopment of the Project Area in accord with the
General Plan, specific plans, the Redevelopment Plan and
local codes and ordinances .
2 . The elimination or amelioration of certain environmental
deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation
systems and other similar public improvements, facilities
and utilities deficiencies adversely affecting the Project
Area.
3 . The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level
of concern for architectural, landscape and urban design
and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the
objectives of this Redevelopment Plan.
4 . The enhancement of a major, region-serving thoroughfare to
provide a quality design identity and smooth, safe circu-
lation.
5 . The replanning, redesign, assembly and reparcelization and
development of undeveloped/vacant areas which are stagnant
or improperly utilized.
6 . The encouragement of investment by the private sector in
the development and redevelopment of the Project Area by
eliminating impediments to such development and redevelop-
ment.
3 .
1 . The provision for increased sales, business license, hotel
occupancy and other fees, taxes and revenues to the city.
8 . The expansion of the community' s supply of housing,
including opportunities for low- and moderate-income
households.
9 . The establishment and implementation of performance
criteria to assure high standards for site design,
environmental quality and other design elements which
provide unity and integrity to the entire Project .
10 . The promotion and creation of new local employment
opportunities.
11 . The encouragement of uniform and consistent land use
patterns.
12 . The provision of a ,pedestrian and vehicular circulation
system which is coordinated with land uses and densities
and adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes.
13 . To encourage the cooperation and participation of resi-
dents, business owners, public agencies and community
organizations in the development and redevelopment of the
area.
14 . The encouragement of the development of a commercial
environment which positively relates to adjacent land uses
and to upgrade and stabilize existing commercial uses.
15 . The facilitation of the undergrounding of unsightly over-
head utility lines .
16 . The provision of adequate off-street parking to serve
current and future uses within the Project Area.
SECTION 2 . The City Council hereby finds and determines, based
on substantial evidence in the record, including, but not limited
to, the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed Rede-
velopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelop-
ment Project, and all documents referenced therein, and evidence
and testimony received at the joint public hearing on adoption of
the Redevelopment Plan held on July 6, 1987 , that:
(a) The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of
which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in
the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code
Section 33000, et seq. ) . This finding is based on the following
conditions which characterize the Project Area:
4 .
( 1 ) The existence of buildings and structures used or
intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other
purposes which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purposes due
to deterioration and dilapidation, age and obsolescence, mixed
character of buildings, and defective design and character or
physical construction; and
( 2 ) The existence of properties which suffer from
deterioration and disuse because of: inadequate public improve-
ments, facilities and utilities, which cannot be remedied by
private or governmental action without redevelopment, particularly
deficiencies in the transportation circulation system and in
infrastructure utilities, and the existence of parcels that are of
irregular form, shape or size for proper development; and
( 3 ) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired invest-
ments, and economic maladjustment .
It is further found and determined that such conditions are
causing and will increasingly cause a reduction and lack of proper
utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a
serious physical, social and economic burden on the city which
cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by
private enterprise acting alone, requiring redevelopment in the
interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of
the city and the state. This finding is based on the fact that
governmental action available to the city without redevelopment
would be insufficient to cause any significant correction of the
blighting conditions, and that the nature and costs of the public
improvements and facilities and other actions required to correct
the blighting conditions are beyond the capacity of the city and
cannot be undertaken .or borne by private enterprise, acting alone
or in concert with available governmental action.
(b) The Project Area is an urbanized area. This finding is
based upon the fact that not less than eighty percent (80%) of the
privately owned property in the Project Area has been or is
developed for urban uses, as demonstrated by the Agency' s Report to
City Council . In addition, as demonstrated by the Agency's Report
to City Council, the Project Area is part of an area developed for
urban uses, such as residential and quasi-public.
5 .
( c) The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in
conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the inter-
ests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding
is based upon the fact that the purposes of the Community Redeve-
lopment Law would be attained by the Project: by the elimination of
areas suffering from economic dislocation or disuse; by the re-
planning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are stagnant
or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by pri-
vate enterprise acting alone without public participation and
assistance; by protecting and promoting sound development and
redevelopment of blighted areas and general welfare of the citizens
of the city by remedying such injurious conditions through the
employment of appropriate means; and through the installation of
new or replacement of existing public improvements, facilities and
utilities in areas which are currently inadequately served with
regard to such improvements, facilities, and utilities.
(d) The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is
economically sound and feasible . This finding is based on the fact
that under the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency will be authorized to
seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources,
including tax increments; that the nature and timing of public
redevelopment assistance will depend on the amount and availability
of such financing resources, including tax increments, generated by
new investment in the Project Area; that under the Redevelopment
Plan no public redevelopment activity can be undertaken unless the
Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the
activity; and that the financing plan included within the Agency' s
Report to the City Council demonstrates that sufficient financial
resources will be available to carry out 'the Project.
(e) The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the
City of Huntington Beach. This finding is based on the finding of
the Planning Commission that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the
General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach.
( f) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will promote
the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of
Huntington Beach and will effectuate the purposes and policy of the
6 .
Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the fact
that redevelopment will benefit the Project Area by correcting
conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions
to stimulate development and improve the economic, social and
physical conditions of the Project Area, and by increasing
employment opportunities within the city.
(g) The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the
Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelop-
ment Plan, and adequate provisions have been made for the payment
for property to be acquired as provided by law. This finding is
based upon the need to ensure that the provisions of the Redevelop-
ment Plan will be carried out and to prevent the recurrence of
blight, and the fact that no property will be acquired until
adequate funds are available to pay full compensation therefor .
(h) The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the reloca-
tion of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or
permanently, from housing facilities in the Project Area. This
finding is based upon the fact that the Redevelopment Plan pro-
vides for relocation assistance according to law and the fact that
such assistance, including relocation payments, constitutes a
feasible method for relocation.
( i ) There are, or are being provided, within the Project Area
or within other areas not generally less desirable with regard to
public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents
or prices within the financial means of the families and persons
who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and
sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number available to such
displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their
places of employment . This finding is based upon the fact that no
person or family will be required to move from any dwelling unit
until suitable replacement housing is available for occupancy, and
that such housing must meet the standards established in state law
and regulations.
( j ) Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which
are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is
necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area of
7 .
which they are a part, and any such area is not included solely for
the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues
from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redeve-
lopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclu-
sion. This finding is based upon the fact that the boundaries of
the Project Area were chosen as a unified and consistent whole to
include lands that were underutilized because of blighting
influences, or that were affected by the existence of blighting
influences, and those land uses which significantly contribute to
the conditions of blight, and whose inclusion is necessary to
either accomplish the objectives and benefits of the Redevelopment
Plan or because of the need to impose uniform requirements over a
contiguous geographically defined area. Such properties will share
in the benefits of the project.
( k) The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the
Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by
private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of
the Agency . This finding is based upon the existence of blighting
influences, including the lack of adequate public improvements and
facilities, and the inability of individual developers to
economically remove these blighting influences without substantial
public assistance.
( 1 ) The effect of tax increment financing will not cause a
significant financial burden or detriment to any taxing agency
deriving revenues from the Project Area. This finding is based
upon the fact that all that were affected taxing agencies were
consulted with or had the opportunity to be consulted regarding the
fiscal effects of the Redevelopment Plan, either through the fiscal
review committee established for the project, or through separate
consultations . Five such agencies identified adverse fiscal
effects. These effects will be alleviated by provisions contained
within agreements with such agencies entered into pursuant to
Section 33401 of the Community Redevelopment Law.
SECTION 3 . The City Council is satisfied that permanent
housing facilities will be available within three (3 ) years from
the time residential occupants of the Project Area, if any, are
8 .
displaced, and that pending the development of such facilities,
there will be available to any such displaced residential occupants
temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the
City of Huntington Beach at the time of their displacement. No
persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced
from residences unless and until there is a suitable housing unit
available and ready for occupancy by such displaced persons or
families at rents comparable to those at the time of their dis-
placement . Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of
such displaced persons or families and must be decent, safe,
sanitary and otherwise standard dwellings . The Agency shall not
displace any such persons or families until such housing units are
available and ready for occupancy.
SECTION 4 . Written objections to the Redevelopment Plan filed
with the City Clerk before the hour set for hearing and all written
and oral objections presented to the City Council at the hearing,
having been considered, are hereby overruled.
SECTION 5 . That certain document entitled "Final Environmental
Impact Report for Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Project, " a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency
and in the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and
considered, is hereby incorporated into this ordinance by reference
and made a part hereof. All activities undertaken by the Agency
and/or the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to or in implementa-
tion of the Redevelopment Plan shall be undertaken in accordance
with the mitigation measures set forth in the said Final Environ-
mental Impact Report, and the Agency shall undertake such addi-
tional environmental reviews as necessary at the time of imple-
mentation of such activities.
SECTION 6 . That certain document entitled "Redevelopment Plan
for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, "
the map contained therein, and such other reports as are incor-
porated therein by reference, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the Agency and the office of the City Clerk, having been
duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated in this
ordinance by reference and made a part hereof, and as so
9 .
incorporated is hereby designated, approved, and adopted as the
official "Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project ."
SECTION 7 . In order to implement and facilitate the effectua-
tion of the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, the City Council
hereby ( a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the
Redevelopment Plan; (b) requests the various officials , depart-
ments, boards, and agencies of the city having administrative
responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such
end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a
manner consistent with redevelopment of the Project Area; ( c)
stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals
and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan; and (d)
declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding
necessary to be carried out by the city under the provisions of the
Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 8 . The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certi-
fied copy of this ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is
vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment
Plan.
SECTION 9 . The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with
the County Recorder of Orange County a description of the land
within the Project Area and a statement that proceedings for the
redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the
Community Development Law.
SECTION 10 . The Development Services Department of the City of
Huntington Beach is hereby directed for a period of two (2 ) years
after the effective date of this ordinance to advise all applicants
for building permits within the Project Area that the site for
which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings
or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area.
SECTION 11. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a
copy of the description and statement recorded by the City Clerk
pursuant to Section 9 of this ordinance, a copy of this ordinance,
and a map indicating the boundaries of the Project Area, to the
Auditor/Controller and Assessor of the County of Orange, to the
10 .
governing body of each of the taxing agencies which receives taxes
from property in the Project Area, and to the State Board of
Equalization, within thirty ( 30 ) days following the adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 12 . If any part of this ordinance or the Redevelopment
Plan which it approves is held to be invalid for any reason, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of
this ordinance or of the Redevelopment Plan, and the City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the
ordinance or approved the remainder of the Redevelopment Plan if
such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.
SECTION 13 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30 ) days
after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day
of , 1987 .
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1
City Clerk City A t ney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ITIATED AND APPROVED:
Al
City &A
Administrat D p ty Director ,
R velopment
2278L
11 .
eo ril M 0 IV /a *+1oNS —
JOCA 'VI
7131 ? 7
�e (�rb�+ o� L•� P2CSFnIT#1t1��
rile: BEACH.REDEV 1EARI #%JCv . Page 1
:port: slides 7/6/87
TRAY NO. ADDRESS LOOKING NOTES
---- --- -------------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------------
1 01 17090 BEACH .BLVD. L/NW Lack of improvements.
1 02 17212 BEACH BLVD. L/S Lack of improvements.
1 03 E/BEACH AT THE OCFCC L/N Lack of improvements.
1 04 16940 "B" ST. L/NE Lack of improvements.
1 05 08031 BEACH BLVD. L/NW Lack of improvements.
1 06 17214 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack of improvements.
1 07 W/SPEER & BEACH L/S Lack of improvements.
1 08 19480 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack of improvements.
1 09 00815 KNOXVILLE L/S Lack of improvements.
1 10 17631 CAMERON .BEACH BLVD. L/S Lack of improvements.
1 11 16862 "A" ST. L/SE Lack of improvements.
1 12 07:42 SPEER L/S Lack of improvements.
1 13 17212 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack of improvements.
1 14 18748 BEACH BLVD. L/S Lack of improvements.
1 15 08031 ELLIS L/E Lack of improvements.
1 16 18090 BEACH BLVD. L/S Lack of improvements.
1 17 19400 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack of improvements.
1 18 18771 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack of improvements.
1 19 20191 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack of improvements.
1 20 18748 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack of improvements.
1 21 18360 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack .of improvements.
1 22 19160 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack of improvements.
1 23 17242 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack of improvements.
24 19601 BEACH BLVD. L/N Lack of improvements.
1 25 S/WARNER ALLEY BETW/"A"&"B"STS. L/S Alleys lacking improvements.
i
File: BEACH.REDEV Page 2
'eport: slides 7/6/81
TRAY NO. ADDRESS LOOKING`NOTES
---- --- -------------------------------- ------- --------------------------------------------
1 26 N/WARNER ALLEY BETW/"A"&"B"STS. L/S Alleys lacking improvements.
1 27 S/WARNER ,ALLEY BETW/"A"&"B"STS, L/N Alleys lacking improvements.
1 28 N/WARNER ALLEY BETW/"A"&"B"STS. L/N Alleys lacking improvements.
1 29 S/WARNER ALLEY BETW/"A"&"B"STS. L/N Alleys lacking improvements.
1 30 S/WARNER ALLEY BETW/"A"&"B"STS. L/N Alleys lacking improvements.
1 31 N/WARNER ALLEY BETW/"A"&"B"STS. L/N Alleys lacking improvements.
1 32 N/WARNER ALLEY BETW/"A"&"B"STS. L/N Alleys lacking improvements.
1 33 S/WARNER ALLEY BETW/"A"&"B"STS. L/N Alleys lacking improvements.
1 34 N/WARNER ALLEY BETW/"A"&"B"STS. L/N Alleys lacking improvements.
1 35 16862 "A" ST. L/W Lack of improvements
1 36 17022 "A" ST. L/S Lack of improvements
1 37 Project Map
1 38 17022 "A" ST. L/S Nonconforming/1--ki ?
1 39 16612 BEACH BLVD. L/E Nonconforming/1
1 40 17456 BEACH BLVD. L/NE Nonconforming/
1 41 17472 BEACH BLVD. L/NE Nonconforming kingJ
1 42 16612 BEACH BLVD. L/SE Nonconforming o. e ents
1 43 18760 BEACH BLVD. L/NE Nonconforming/la king 4mprrev ents
1 44 18760 BEACH BLVD. L/N Nonconforming/la king improv ents
f
1 45 17434 BEACH BLVD. L/E Nonconforming/la king improv meets
f
z
1 46 17456 BEACH BLVD. L/N Nonconforming/lac ing improv meets
1 47 17456 BEACH BLVD. L/N Nonconforming/lac ing mprov meets
1 48 17436 BEACH BLVD. L/SE Nonconforming/lac ing improvements
1 49 17404 BEACH BLVD. L/S Nonconforming/lack ng improv ents
1 50 17216 BEACH BLVD. L/S Nonconforming/lack improve ents
File: BEACH.REDEV Page
eport: slides 7/6/81
TRAY NO. ADDRESS LOOKING NOTES
---- --- -------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------ ---------------
1 51 17211 BEACH BLVD. L/W Nonconforming/lacking im rovem nts
1 52 17211 BEACH BLVD. L/SW Nonconforming/lacking mp ovem nts
1 53 17191 BEACH BLVD. L/NW Nonconforming/l cking imp vem nts
1 54 17216 BEACH BLVD. L/N Nonconforming/1 cking imp vem nts
1 55 17731 BEACH BLVD. L/S Nonconforming/l ckin imp oveme is
1 56 17231 BEACH BLVD. L/N Nonconforming/l kinc imp oveme . s
1 57 17811 BEACH BLVD. L/NE Nonconforming/l kin imp ovemen s
1 58 17216 BEACH BLVD. L/E Nonconforming/1 i cking{{ im rovement's
1
1 59 17216 BEACH BLVD.. L/NE Nonconforming/1 i cking im rovement
s
1 60 19301 BEACH BLVD. L/SW Nonconforming/1 i cking i rovementls
1 61 17062 BEACH BLVD. L/SE Nonconforming/1 i cking i provements
1 62 17052 BEACH BLVD. L Nonconforming/1 i cking H provements
1 63 19476 BEACH BLVD. L/SE Nonconforming/1 i cking 1 provements
1 64 20800 BEACH BLVD. L/NE Nonconforming/l. cking mprovements
1 65 17648 BEACH BLVD. L/SE Nonconforming/l cking mprovements
1 66 17106 "A" ST. L/W Nonconforming/l cking mprovements
1 67 19582 BEACH BLVD. L/SE Nonconforming/l cking ; mprovements
1 68 18062 BEACH BLVD. L/NE Nonconforming/l ckingi provements
I
1 69 17221 BEACH BLVD. L/S Nonconforming/1 cking( i provements
1 70 18748 BEACH BLVD. L/SE Nonconforming/l'ackin� i provements
r
1 71 17362 BEACH BLVD. L/E Nonconforming/llackiryq im rovements
1 72 '19322 BEACH BLVD. L/W Nonconforming/l--acking imp ovement s
1 73 18711 BEACH BLVD. L/W Nonconforming/l�ack'�ng impr vements
1 74 18771 BEACH BLVD. L/W Nonconforming/l c ng impro mmeents
1 75 18423 BEACH BLVD. L/W Nonconforming/lacking improvements
File: BEACH.REOEV Page
deport: slides 7/6/E
TRAY NO. ADDRESS LOOKING NOTES
---- --- -------------------------------- ------- ---------------------------------------------
1 76 18423 BEACH BLVD. L/NW Inappropriate mix.
1 77 18361 BEACH BLVD. L/W Inapproppiate mix.
1 78 00724 OWEN AVE. L/E Nonconforming/ ' ipY'ovem
1 79 07942 SPEER L/NW Nonconforming/l kioa improve nts
1 80 17212 BEACH BLVD L/SE Nonconforming/l c ing improv ents
2 01 08101 ELLIS L/N Nonconforming/l cki g impr ements
2 02 08151 ELLIS L/NW Nonconforming/ ackin imp ovements
2 03 08151 ELLIS L/NW Nonconforming/ asking i rovements �
2 04 17210 BEACH BLVD. L/SW Nonconforming/ asking provementst
c
2 05 08071 BEACH BLVD. L/N Nonconforming/ ackin im rovementsf
t
2 06 19152 BEACH BLVD. L/E Nonconforming acki imp vements;
i
2 07 19152 BEACH BLVD. LINE Nonc -forming lack' g impro ements�
2 08 19152 BEACH BLVD. LINE Nonconforming lac ing improve nts�
2 09 19400 BEACH BLVD. L/S Nonconforming la king improveme s
2 10 19411 BEACH BLVD. L/S Nonconforihning rovements
2 11 VIEW POINT L/S Lack of off street parking
2 12 TAYLOR & BEACH L/SW Lack of off street parking
2 13 TAYLOR & BEACH L/E Lack of off street parking
2 14 CHRYSLER & BEACH LINE Lack of off street parking
2 15 TAYLOR & BEACH L/SE Lack of off street parking
2 16 17062 "A" ST. L/S Lack of off street parking
2 17 TERRY AVE. L/E Lack of off street parking
2 18 17331 BEACH L/N Lack of off street parking
> 19 17331 BEACH L/N Lack of off street parking
2 20 17281 BEACH L/S Lack of off street parking
File: BEACH.REDEV Page
deport: slides 1/6/8i
FRAY NO. ADDRESS LOOKING NOTES
---- --- -------------------------------- ------- ---------------------- -----------------------
2 21 HEIL & BEACH L/S Traffic
2 22 BEACH & WARNER L/S Traffic
2 23 BEACH _& WARNER L/N Traffic
2 24 BEACH & WARNER FROM CHARTER CTR. L/N Traffic
1 25 BLANK
2 26 CAPITAL IMPROVMENTS Graphics
2 21 ADOPTED BUDGETS Graphics
}
Roll of Cou and ncy
.. .. . ._. . . ,ate
MAYOR: For the record of t - a joint sea ion of the Huntington
Beach Redevelopm nt Agency a • he City :u�nc ,' o'' f the
City of Hu ington Beach lease call throll of the
member -of the City ncil and the Redevelopment
Ag cy.
CITY CLERK: Call of Co nc' Mem a g]
AGRNCY SECRETARY: [Roll of� Agency Members)
I'd like t ask the Attorney (Mrs. Hutton) to explain the
MAYOR:
administ tion of the Oat .
S. HUTTON: (Explains Oath) .
Wit the Clerk pl ase administer the Oath.
CLERK:
Opening_of• Joint Public Hearing
i
MAYOR I now declare the public hearing on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan open.
As Mayor, it is my responsibility to preside over the
joint -public hearing for both the Council and the
Redevelopment agency.
2. STATEMENT OF PROCEDURES
MAYOR: ' The state law under which we are acting is the
Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California.
That law requires that we follow certain procedures,
some of them formal, in the conduct of tonight's joint
public hearing.
Notice of this joint public hearing has been published
and mailed as required by law.
A transcript will be made of the hearing. ' Persons
making statements and giving testimony will be sworn in
and subject to questions through the Chair. All
persons desiring to speak will be given an opportunity
to do so.
On your way in tonight, you should have picked up a
speakers' sign-up slip for this joint public hearing.
Please fill in your name, address and any organization
you are representing, and indicate whether you wish to
speak or have a question concerning the Redevelopment
Plan. If you plan to speak tonight, would you please fill
out that form and give it to the City Clerk
representative now, if you have not done so already.
Page 3,:: , .
MAYOR: _ _ �•k=�.`.�
:_...
Everyone who wishes to speak will be given the
(Cont'd)
opportunity to do so. When you speak, _please confirm
Whether you have been sworn in, give your name, address
and the organization, if any, you represent and whether
you own or rent property in the Project Area. Please
refer to the Redevelopment Plan Map to determine
whether your property is inside the Project Area.
Please see the City staff representative if you have any
questions as . to whether you are inside the Project,
boundary or not.
The presentation tonight will be made by the following
staff and consultants:
Charles Thompson, City Administrator and Executive
Director of the Agency;
Douglas La Belle, Deputy City, Administrator/Director of
Community Development;
Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist;
and several other members of the City Staff that
' will be introduced at the time of their testimony.
And the Avencv's Consultants:
Thomas Clark, special legal counsel to the Redevelopment
Agency;
Page 4
�- MAYOR:
Celeste Brady, special legal counsel to the
(Gont'd)
Redevelopment Agency;
Allan Robertson, Katz, Hollis, Goren do Associates, Inc.,
redevelopment consultants to the Redevelopment
Airency: -
Calvin Hollis, Katz, Hollis, Coren be Associates, I
Inc, redevelopment consultants to the Redevelopment
Agency; and
P. Patrick Mann, Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. EIR
consultants to the Redevelopment Agency
MAYOR Our order of procedure tonight will be as follows:
�- 1 1. Agency consultants and staff will present:
1) the Agency's Report to City Council on the
Redevelopment Plan;
2) the Redevelopment Plan itself; and
3) other evidence and testimony in support of
the Redevelopment Plan.
2. Next we will receive any written comments.
3. We will then receive any evidence or oral testimony
from those present concerning -.the Redevelopment
Plan.
4. Following the introduction of all evidence and
testimony tonight, and upon the conclusion of the
hearing, we will consider and act upon all
` objections and then act on the Redevelopment Plan
and related motions; and resolutions..
page 5
MAYOR: Does the Agency's Attorney or_special legal counsel have
(Cont'd) any. comments they desire to make at' this time?
- Statement of Findings for Adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan
AGENCY ATTORNEY: Yes; Mr. Mayor. Mr. . Clark will ake .our coriiments
[Mrs. Hutton] regarding findings for adoption the Redevelopment
Plan.
OUNSEL: Thank you, Mrs. Hutton. A the Mayor has indicated,
[Mr. Clark] the: purpose of this hearing is to consider evidence and
testimony for and ag inst the adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project Evidence will be introduced for
consideration by th City Council and . the Agency in
connection with the following findings and
:determinations thh t will be made in the adoption of. an
ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. These
findings and determinations are contained in Section
33367 of the Health and Safety Code and are . generally
as follows:
Page 6 - _-
Mr. Clark:
1. The Project Area meets the legal qualifications set
forth by the Legislature for a blighted/area, the
redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate
the public purposes described in the
Community
Redevelopment Law.
2. The Redevelopment Plan wou d redevelop the
Project Area in conformity wit the law and"in the
interests of the public peace, health, safety and
welfare.
3. The adoption and arrying out of the
Redevelopment Plan i economically sound and
feasible.
C. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General
Plan of the comma • ity.
5. The carrying o t the .Redevelopment Plan would
' promote the ublic peace, health, safety and
welfare of th community and would effectuate the
purposes nd Policies of the Community
Redevelopm t Law.
Page
Mr. Clark:
6. The condemnation of real property, as p vided for
(Cont'd)
in the Redevelopment Plan, is neces dry to the
execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate
provisions have been made for payment for
properties to be acquired as provi ed by law.
7. The Agency has a feasible meth d or plan for the
relocation of families or person displaced from the
Project Area if the Redevelop ent Plan may result
in the temporary or permanent displacement of any
occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area.
8. There are or are being provided within the Project
Area or . within other areas not generally less
desirable with regard public utilities and public
and commercial facilities, at rents or prices within
the financial means of the families and person who
may be displaced from the project Area, decent,
safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the
number of andId
vailable to such displaced families
and persons reasonably accessible to their
places of empl ment.
Page 8
Mr. Clark:
9. Inclusion of any lands, buildings or i rovements
(Cont'd) .
which are not detrimental to the p blic health,
safety or welfare is necessary for the effective
redevelopment of the whole area of which they are
a part, and any such area incl ed is necessary
for effective redevelopment and s not included for
the purpose of obtaining t e allocation of tax
increment revenues from su area without other
substantial justification for is inclusion.
10. The elimination of bligh and the redevelopment of
the Project Area could not reasonably be expected
to be accomplished by private enterprise acting
alone without the aidJ and assistance of the Agency.
There-are other statements and determinations set forth
in the proposed ord'hance adopting the Redevelopment
Plan, but the for going are the major evidentiary
findings.
Page 9
21
3. STAFF PRESENTATION "
MAYOR: I wi 1 now call upon Mr. LaBelle to introduce each staff
membe or Agency consultant as they make their
._presenta •ons this evening..
Summar_�of nc7's Report to_City _Council on Proposed
Redevelopment _P "
MR. LA BELLE: (Introduces each span r and identifies the topic they {
• will address. Speaker/top'ca introduced in the following
order: i
1. History of Project Ad ption [Redevelopment v
Division]
2. Description_.of _Project c nditions [Planning
I
With Public Works] S\
I I
3. Public�n improvements needs [P oorks] ,�,0
UJ
y' p ,�g5 1 d gv`�n or b
4. Cit a� ita im ov un in s or
[A ministrative Services]
;
5. Fig ca R view Committee [Agency Special
Counsel
6. Project F 'ng/Financial Feasibility (Katz
Hol sj
7. Planning Commiss n and PAC reports ( g
[Redevelopment Divisi n] C "
i
Page 10
8. Summary of Redevelopment Plan Provisions
MR. L' LLB [Introduces Special Legal Counsel who summarizes
provisions of proposed Redevelopment Plan, and explains
requirements of using eminent domain.)
9. [Introdu s Re evelopment Staff to review Owner Participation.
Preference Rules]
i
MR. LA BELLE: Aentered
ocuments at this time, I would like to
to the record the Rules Governing
Preferences by Property Owners and
an s in the Beach Boulevard .
Redevelopment Project, as said Rules have been adopted
by the Redevelopment Agency. These rules have
previously been made available 'to the City Council and
have been available for public inspection.
[Indicates that Agency _presentations are concluded.]
Page 11
MAYOR: Persons desiring to question the staff, consultants or
legal counsel on any of their evidence will have an
opportunity to do so, through the Chair, when we ask
for public comments. At this time, are there any
questions by members of the Council or the Agency?
i
[Questions by Members of Council and Agency]
[Responses by Staff and/or Consultants] ~
MAYOR: If there are no objections, the proposed Redevelopment
Plan, the Owner Participation and Preferences Rules, the
Report of the Agency, including the report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission and PAC,
will be made a part of the record, along with the
testimony and documents we have just received.
4. PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS
Written Comments
MAYOR: If there are any written comments received on the
Redevelopment Plan, they will be placed into the record
at this time.
Page 12
MAYOR:- = After the written comments have been entered into the
(cont'd) record, we will begin taking oral comments and
testimony. All those who wish to speak, either in favor
or in opposition to the Redevelopment Plan, or just to
ask questions, should fill out and submit to the City
Clerk.the Speakers' form. If you wish to speak and you
have not yet submitted this form, you may do so at this
time.
Will the City Clerk proceed to. enter the written
. . testimony
6CITYmony concerning the Redevelopment Plan?
Enters into record zany wrrtten comments received.]
Coo")c,L R-A U0 h,C-h a►"e- a
Oral Testimony, Statements, and Questions
t
MAYOR: We will now hear any statements,.testimony, or questions
from the audience. Please begin you statement by
J giving your name, address, and the organization, if any,
you represent; whether you own or rent property within
the project Area; and whether you have previously been
sworn in. You may ask questions, if you desire. Staff,
MAYOR: consultants' and legal counsel will respond to all
(Cont'd) questions, comments and testimony at the end of this
hearing.
Will the City Clerk please call the names of the persons
who" have submitted, forms to speak? '
CITY CLERIK: [Calls names of persons who have submitted forms.]
[Oral testimony, statements, and questions. Prior to
speaking, each speaker confirms that he or she was
previously sworn in, or if, not, is sworn in, or the
record shows that testimony is not under oath.]
Any_Further Oral Testimony
MAYOR: Does anyone else desire to make a statement :or present
testimony concerning the Redevelopment Plan?
[Additional Oral Testimony]
MAYOR: I will now entertain a motion for a 15-minute recess of
this joint public hearing.
Page...14.
[Motion to recess bearing for. 15 minute] -.
MAYOR: This hearing is recessed for 15 minutes.
[15 MINUTE RECESS]
Call to Order
MAYOR: This joint public hearing of the Redevelopment Agency
and the City Council is now back in session..
Responses to Public Testimony, Comments, and Questions
MAYOR: Prior to recess, we have heard written and oral public
testimony, comments and questions on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan. We will now receive staff and/or
consultant responses to such public testimony
comments, and questions. Please proceed Mr. La Belle.
MR. LA BELLS: [Introduces staff and consultants who will respond to
testimony and comments.]
[Indicates when all responses have been completed.]
Close of Hearing
MAYOR: Are- they any final questions by members of the 'Council
or the Agency?
[questions by Members of Council and Agency]
[Responses by staff, consultants or legal counsel.]
MAYOR: If there is no further testimony or evidence to be
received, the Chair will entertain a motion to close this
hearing.
[Motion to Close Hearing on Redevelopment Plan]
MAYOR: This joint public hearing of the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency is closed.
5. AGENCY AND COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS
Redevelopment Agency Actions
Page 16
�._ AGENCY _
_ S _
The Agency will now consider approval of the following
CHAIRMAN:
motions or resolutions in the following order:
1. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE SUPPLEMENT
TO THE .AGENCY'S REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOP-
- MENT -PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF
THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE CITY- COUNCIL."
}
�-- [Action in Resolution by Agency]
2. Resolution . No._ - "A RESOLUTION OF* THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE USE OF
� TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE
COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE
INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL
BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT.
`- [Action on Resolution by Agency]
}
-t';
City Council in Session
MAYOR: Now, acting as the City Council, we will now consider
and act on the matters before us.
1. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO-THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOP-
MENT PROJECT."
[Action on Resolution by Council]
2. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS."
I
i
[Action on Resolution by Council]
Page 18 =_ -
MAYOR:
3. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE
(Cont'd)
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .
FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM f
THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S
SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
OUTSIDP THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT
TO THE PROJECT.
[Action on Resolution by Council]
MAYOR: The Chair will now entertain a motion to approve
introduction of Ordinance No.
CITY CLERK: [City Clerk gives the first reading of Ordinance No.
by title.] .
Ordinance No. - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY-
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT."
Page 19
0
[Ac:tion on Ordinance by Council]
MAYOR: We will now turn to our. regular agenda
or
--The Chair " will entertain a motion to adjourn the
meeting. City Council nd Agency to _ _ , 1987.
Page 20
t ••
Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and Members
of the Redevelopment Agency. My name is Barry A. Ross. I am
an attorney and I. represent George A. Pearson. My address is
17291 Irvine Blvd. , Suite`' 159, Tustin, California 92680.
I. INTRODUCTION
Before I begin discussing the redevelopment -plan, I wish
to explain why .my client and I are here. My client' is the
owner and operator of the Beach and Warner Arcade at 16922
Beach Blvd. , the G & M Market at 8031 Warner Avenue and the
Texaco gasoline station at 16990 Beach Blvd. In addition,
my client is the owner and lessor of the J & J House of Subs
at 16924 Beach Blvd. , the Orange County T-Shirt Shop at
16940 Beach Blvd. , the One-Hour Photo at 16944 Beach Blvd. ,
,4 1
the Nail and Hair USA at 1.6946 Beach Blvd. , the Huntington
Beach Vacuum and Sewing Center at 16948 Beach Blvd. and the
Pizzaman/Chicken Delight at :16950 Beach Blvd. My client owns
the vacant property at 16951 "A" Street and the house at
16862 "A" Street. In addition, my client is the lessee of the
Texaco station at 17501 Beach Blvd. All of the properties and
businesses I have described are within the proposed redevelop-
ment project area. Finally, my client is a member of the
Project Area Committee.
As for my background, I have served as a Deputy City
Attorney in charge of redevelopment for the City of Long Beach
during the past seven years. My responsibilities included
1
redevelopment transactions and redevelopment litigation. I
am currently engaged in private practice.. Many of my clients
are property and business owners in redevelopment projects..
In some cases, redevelopment may serve a beneficial purpose.
A good example is the redevelopment . project for downtown Long
Beach. In downtown Long Beach, there was irreversible urban
decay. Buildings were structurally unsound; a moderate
earthquake could have levelled the entire area. Crime in the
streets was rampant; it .was an unsafe place to live or work.
Private enterprise was not . interested in investing any money
. in the downtown area. However, in the case of the Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project, the Community Redevelopment Law
is being abused. The Community Redevelopment Law was never
designed or intended to be used for the reasons that you
propose. Your adoption of the redevelopment plan would be
illegal for any one of the following . 3 reasons:
1. There is: not substantial evidence of blight;
2. The 33352 report is incomplete; or
3. The supplement to the 33352 report was not available
to the public 30 days prior to this hearing.
I will now explore each of these issues in more detail.
II. ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THERE
IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF BLIGHT.
Blight is defined in .the Community Redevelopment Law to
. consist of three factors: ( 1) there must be serious physical,
social• or economic burden on the community; ( 2 ) this burden
2
cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by
private enterprise acting alone (Section 33030) and ( 3 ) there
must be economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse of
property - (Section 33032.) All three factors must be present
in order for there to be blight. Furthermore, such blight
must predominate and injuriously affect the entire area
(Section 13321) . The written information that was presented
to you at the beginning of this hearing indicates that the
burden on the community is not "serious" and the evidence of
blight does not predominate and injuriously affect the entire
area. Furthermore, this burden, to the extent that it exists,
can be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise. Information has been presented to you regarding
new building .permits, new developments and remodeling, all at
private expense. There is no reason why this process will
not continue. Information has been presented to you regarding
alternate funding sources to accomplish the objectives you
are seeking. These funding sources include federal, state
and local sources. Information has -been presented to you
suggesting alternate methods to accomplish your objectives
without the need for redevelopment or eminent domain. If you
walk along Beach Blvd.. in the proposed project area, you will
not find an area characterized by "economic dislocation,
deterioration or disuse" , as is required under the Community
Redevelopment law. There has been no evidence presented by
your staff or your consultants to support this finding. Quite
3
to the contrary, the . wr.itten information that you received at
the beginning of this hearing indicates that there is evidence
that the area is economically vital and growing.
Recent case law supports~this position. In a case decided
June 8, 1987 by the California Court of Appeal entitled
Margaret 1�mmington vs. . Solano County Redevelopment Agency, the
alleged blight consisted of a lack of adequate public improve-
ments, public facilities and utilities to serve existing and
planned development and properties. The Court held that there
was not substantial evidence of blight and the redevelopment
plan adopted by Solano County was declared to be invalid.
The Court stated:
"There is no evidence the land is dropping in value
or that the property has become a serious economic
burden to the taxpayers of the county. The
redevelopment report states that no specific social
problems exist in the project area. . . There is no
showing that the lack of such improvements has
unduly burdened the existing agricultural use of
the area.. In the words of Sweetwater, there was
no showing the blighting conditions had "ended (the
land' s) present economic use. "
The Court also stated:
"In conclusion, although the project area exhibited
some of the conditions of blight enumerated in the
Community Redevelopment law, there was no showing
4
these conditions had substantially interfered with
the land' s present agricultural use or that the
conditions had rendered the project area a serious
social or economic liability to the community. . .
In other words, the record reveals the redevelopment
process was being utilized not to overcome blight,
but to overcome problems attracting industry to the
area. Such .a purpose is insufficient to justify
unleashing the "extraordinary powers" of redevelopment. "
In footnote 14 the Court stated:
" . . .redevelopment is an extraordinary remedy that
allows private property to be taken from one person
through the power of eminent domain and transferred
through the redevelopment agency to a private
developer, all at public expense. "
The present case is similar. The alleged blight is
similar. The evidence presented to substantiate the blight is
similar. The predominant purpose of attracting industry to the
area. is similar. I believe that a court would reach a similar
result -in the present case.
The 33352 report is very weak on empirical data. Two
examples are illustrative. On page II-3, the 33352 report
admits: "Certain properties within the Project Area are not
blighted properties. " However, the 33352 report fails to
indicate what number or percentage of these properties are
not blighted. There is not even a rough estimation. Thus,
5
it is unknown whether the 33352 report reveals that 10% of
the area is blighted or 90% of the area is blighted. Further-
more, there 'is no indication where these non-blighted properties
are located. Thus, they"cannot be identified. The law permits
non-blighted properties to be included only when "necessary
for the effective redevelopment of the area" (Section 33321 ) .
The 33352 'report (page II-3 ) lists four general reasons for
including the non-blighted properties. All of these reasons
amount to convenience rather than necessity. Another
example is found on page II-11. The 33352 report recites:
"Precise statistics are not available but there have been .a
number of small business failures in the Project Area." The
33352 report fails to indicate how many small business failures
there have been in the Project Area. The 33352 report fails
to indicate the period of time covered by this unsupported
generalization. The 33352 report fails to provide a rough
estimation to support the generalization. It is one thing
not to have "precise" statistics. It is quite another to have
no statistics at all.
When empirical data is used in the 33352 report, the
data does not support the conclusion. For example, Table II-4
in the 33352 report provides "structural conditions rating. "
Table II-4. indicates that 83. 9% of the structures are sound,
13. 1% of the structures require moderate to minor upgrading
and only 3% are dilapidated. Table II-4 also shows that 76. 2%
of the. structures are well maintained, 16.2% require moderate
6
maintenance and only 7.6% are described as poor maintenance.
This is not evidence of blight. Quite to the contrary, this
is evidence' of an area with buildings tha.t .are predominately
structurally sound and well maintained.
As evidence of blight, the 33352 report describes my
client' s residence at 16951 "A" Street to be a dilapidated,
deteriorated and obsolete structure (Plate 2 ) . My client
demolished this residence last week. It no longer exists.
My client had been negotiating with several businesses . to
rent space in his shopping center. My client had also
been negotiating with a gasoline service station supplier
regarding my client' s service station. All of these
negotiations terminated when it was disclosed that a
redevelopment plan is contemplated. This is placing a cloud
on my client' s property. As another example, consider
street improvements. If Beach Boulevard is under construction
for the proposed street improvements, how is my client going
to conduct his business; :. and earn a living, when my client' s
business depends on vehicular access from Beach Boulevard?
Other businesses are similarly affected.
III. ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE
THE SECTION 33352 REPORT IS INCOMPLETE.
The 33352 report is required to have contained within it
the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the
report of the Fiscal Review Committee and the summary of
consultations with the affected taxing agencies. These are
7
mandatory requirements under the statute. Yet these documents
were not contained in the 33352 report that was distributed to
the public. '
The supplement to the 33352 report was delivered to the
Chairman of the Project Area Committee July 2 , 1987. This is
four .•days, before this hearing and the four day period included
a holiday `weekend. This is one day after the last scheduled
PAC meeting prior to this hearing.
There is a 17 page document entitled Report of the Fiscal
Review Committee regarding the Huntington Beach, Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project Hearing held May 1, 1987 .
However, an examination of this document indicates that this
is not a report at all. Rather, this document is a transcript
of a hearing that is required to occur prior to the preparation
of the report. The comment of Chairman Richard Keith of the
County of Orange on page 17 of this document is clear:
"It is required for this committee to draft a report.
So we will have to reconvene for the members of the
fiscal review committee to review and approve the
report and so regardless of whether we reach
agreements or not at this point in time we are
going to have to proceed with the process. So if
it is agreeable with everyone, two weeks sounds fine
to me. That should provide sufficient enough time.
Same time and place. May 15th. "
TThis concluding comment by the Chairman of the Fiscal
8
Review Committee illustrates that this meeting on May 1st was
not .intended to be the report. There has not been a report
prepared. My information is that a second meeting occurred on
May 15, 1987 and the minutes of the May 1, 1987 meeting were
approved. Your staff is now attempting to use the May 1, 1987
minutes as the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee under the
Community 'Redevelopment Law. This is incorrect. Health and
Safety Code section 33353. 5 requires that the Fiscal Review
Committee analyze and report to the agency on the fiscal impact
of the redevelopment plan on each of the members of the Fiscal
Review Committee including a determination whether the
redevelopment plan will have either a beneficial effect or
a financial burden or detriment on one or more of the members
of the Fiscal Review Committee. The report must be based on
specific information described in the statute. If the report
concludes that the redevelopment plan will cause a financial
burden or detriment upon one or more members of the Fiscal
Review Committee, the report shall specifically describe the
fiscal burden or detriment and shall contain evidence
supporting that conclusion and may include certain recommended
action. The transcript of the hearing held on May 1, 1987 is
woefully inadequate in meeting the requirements of the Report
of the Fiscal Review Committee required by the Community
Redevelopment Law.
The section 33352 report is required to have .a neighbor-
hood ,impact plan. However, the proposed neighborhood impact
9
plan is based on 1980 census data of the City of Huntington
Beach. This data is inaccurate in 1987. Studies have shown
that Californians move from their residences more frequently
than once every 7 years. Thus, any neighborhood impact plan
l based on such unreliable data cannot be used. In addition,
the data ,is based on statistics for the City of Huntington
Beach. The data is not based on population figures for the
Project Area. This further distorts the data that is
provided because there is no evidence that the population in
the City of Huntington Beach is representative of the
population in the Project Area.
The 33352 report is required to have a method or plan
for the relocation of families and persons to be temporarily
or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the
Project Area ( subsection d) . The 33352 report recites that
the Redevelopment Agency has adopted rules and regulations to
implement this requirement ( IV-2, paragrapah C) . However,
my information is that no such rules and regulations have
been adopted for the Project Area.. No such rules and
regulations have been presented to the Project Area Committee
for review and consultation. If people are going to be
displaced from their residences due to the adoption of the
redevelopment plan, these people are entitled to be informed
of the rules and regulations governing such displacement
prior to the adoption of the redevelopment plan.
10
section 33352 requires that data be provided relating to
ad valorem tax revenues [ section 33328(d) ] . The data provided
by the County of Orange consists. of assessed value information
rather than tax revenue information. There is a significant
difference between tax revenues and assessed values. The
County indicated that it would be burdensome for it to produce
the requested tax revenue information. The City of Huntington
Beach has accepted the data provided by the County even though
it is not the data required by the statute. The City is not
permitted to do this. The City. must either obtain the data
from its staff and consultants or compel the County to produce
the requested data. This data is necessary in order for the
public, the Project Area Committee and the Fiscal Review
Committee to determine the fiscal impact of the redevelopment
project.
The 33352 report is required to"contain data regarding the
assessed valuation of the Project Area for the preceding year,
and if requested by .the Redevelopment Agency, for the preceding
five years [section 33328(f ) ] . However, the data provided by
the County of Orange consists of the assessed valuation for the
entire City of Huntington Beach. There is a significant
difference between valuation data for the City and valuation
data for the Project Area. The County indicates that it would
be burdensome to produce the requested information. The City
of Huntington Beach has accepted the data provided by the
County. even though this. is not the data required by the
11
statute. The City cannot do this. The City must either
obtain the data from its staff and consultants or compel the
County to provide this data. This data is necessary in order
for the public, the Project Area Committee and the Fiscal
Review Committee to determine the fiscal impact of the
redevelopment project and whether or not blight exists.
IV. ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE
THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE 33352 REPORT WAS NOT AVAILABLE
TO THE PUBLIC 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
The 33352 report that was made available to the public
approximately 30 days . prior to the hearing did not contain the
following sections:
A. Report and recommendation of Planning Commission.
B. Report of Fiscal Review Committee.
C. Summary of consultations with the affected taxing
agencies..
This information should have been made available to the
public 30 days prior to the hearing. There is no statutory
authorization for a "supplement" to the 33352 report. The
Community Redevelopment Law contemplates a process whereby all
relevant information is made available to the public a
sufficient time prior to the hearing so that the public can
provide meaningful input to the Redevelopment Agency at the
hearing. Three examples illustrate this point. The Community
Redevelopment Law requires that a notice of hearing on the
Redevelopment Plan be published once a week for 4 consecutive
12
weeks prior to the hearing. In addition, the Community
Redevelopment Law requires that a notice of hearing to amend
a redevelopment plan must be mailed to the Project Area
Committee at -least 30 days prior to the hearing. Finally, the
Community Redevelopment Law provides that the Redevelopment
Agency shall consult with and obtain the advice of the Project
Area Committee on all policy matters which affect the residents
of the Project Area. It would be impossible for the Project
Area Committee and the public to provide meaningful input when
the agency fails to provide them with its report concerning the
Redevelopment Plan in sufficient time prior to the hearing.
As stated previously, delivery of the supplement to the
Chairman of the PAC four days prior to this hearing, which
four day period includes a three day holiday weekend, does not
provide adequate advance notice. Among other things, the
supplement refers, for the first time., to several "pass-
through" agreements with several taxing agencies. The
status and the fiscal impact of these "pass-through" agree-
ments have not been considered by .the Project Area Committee,
the Fiscal Review Committee or the public.
V. IF A COURT DECLARES THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE INVALID,
_. ... ... .. .... .. .. .... .... .. .... .... ....
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAY HAVE TO PAY THE PLAINTIFF' S
ATTORNEYS FEES.
Card vs. Community Redevelopment Agencv ( 1976 ) 61 Cal. App.
13
3rd 570; 131 Cal. Rptr. 153.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you.
Signed:
BARRY A. ROSS
Dated: July 6, 1987
14
COMMENTS "REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
July 6 , 1987
I want to comment on the method the agency staff has used to promote
the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project.
First, I want to call your attention to the flyer used at the public
meetings at the Newland House recently. It speaks mostly about the
public improvements, and omits any mention of land aquisition. It
states that millions will be used for traffic mitigation when only
1. 3 million is propbsed. It creates the llusion- _thttat there are no
problems with redevelopement. This flyer is misleading::
Secondly, the letters . of support sent to the City C6uncil ( which
are matter of public record at this time) .have a common theme. They
mostly mention their support to improve traffic on Beach Boulevard.
It -appears that these letters were in response to Redevelopment Staff
Member Tom •Andrusky' s information given to them. This is exemplified
by Humana Hospital 's comment (-Quote)_ It is our understanding that the
Beach- Boulevard Project will provide significant funding for Public
Improvements which will include traffic, parking, and circulation.
j.�End Quote) _. .
The fact of the matter is that ONLY 1. 3 MILLION DOLLARS OUT OF THE
PROPOSED 208 MILLION DOLLAR PROJECT IS DEDICATED TO THE "SUPERSTREET"
IMPROVEMENTS. That is only 6/10ths of a percent, and even this amount
is only HALF of the amount needed to make the 'improvements. Did Mr. .
Andrusky tell them about this?--Has the Redevelopment Agency- Painted
a complete picture?
Many letters of support came from car dealers. Car dealers were also
the predominately mentioned industry in the plan. Most of the dealers
mentioned the traffic problems also. However, there is one dealer who
mentioned the other aspect of the redevelopment plan. The letter is
from Terry Buick to the Mayor and City Council.
COMMENTS REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
(Continued)
In his letter, Mr. Terry states in part "He plans to move to Beach
Boulevard; that land values have doubled in the last several years;
the cost makes it difficult to profitable develop a new car dealer-
ship; that this is occuring throughout southern California and cannot
survive without the help of cities. " later on in the letter he states
"The redevelopment plan is essential to the relocating of Terry Buick;
without redevelopment and the assistance it provides, ° plans become
economically unfeasable. " In the next paragraph he continues. . . . .
"I appreciate all the help you and your fellow Council members have
been to me in the past and I 'm Sure you all recognize how critical
Beach Boulevard is to the City and to me personally. "
In short, I believe this letter emphsizes that Beach Boulevard is a
thriving place to move a business; the land costs are high;. and the
redevelopment agency could make his move feasable by using the. redevop
ment project to aquire the land and resell it to him at a lower price
72% of the redevelopment funds are designated for land aquistion such
as this.
I feel that traffic on Beach cannot be reduced by the project. I think
the "Superstreet" issue is a facade for the real goal of land aquistion
for private development.
I cannot believe that the City Council would support this misleading
method of promoting the project. . . . . . . .And I cannot believe that the
City Council will enact this cruel hoax upon the citizens of Huntington
Beach.
Kimo Jarrett
17472 Beach Boulevard
Huntington Beach; CA, 92647
July 6, 1987
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area
In response to questions from the community, the Redevelopment Agency would like to provide
the following facts about the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area.
The Project Area will
1. Provide millions of dollars in traffic improvements such as:a new travel lane in each direction(without
widening the street); syncronized signals, bus turnouts and additional turn lanes.
2. Provide missing curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
3. Provide missing water, sewer and drainage improvements.
4. Provide funds to underground the utilities throughout the corridor.
5. Provide additional landscape improvements to beautify the area.
6. Provide design guidelines for new development to create uniform appearance in the corridor.
7. Provide local funds to address local problems.
The Project Area will not
1. Increase property taxes nor create any new taxes.
2. Place a lien on anyone's property.
3. Build a bridge at Warner Avenue.
4. Affect your ability to maintain or improve your property.
For further information cfintact:
The Redevelopment Office
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street
(714) 536-5542
3 -Terry fulock i "co
0 y-
"SALES AND SERVICE"
s
TELEPHONE 122 FIFTH STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648
(714) 536-688E
June 24 , 1987
The Honorable Jack Kelly
Mayor of Huntington Beach
and
Members of the City Council
2000 Main Street C17Y U
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
:i
Dear Jack : )
t
As you know, Terry Buick is now located in the Downtown, Main
Pier Phase II . We are planning to relocate to Beach Boulevard
where the empty Shakey's Pizza facility now stands. Land values 1.
on Beach Boulevard have nearly doubled over the last several
years, to a cost that makes it extremely difficult to profitably �'
develop a new car dealership. The same situation is occurring
'J throughout Southern California and the new car dealers ability to i
"4" survive without some assistance by the cities seems doomed. As
you know, auto dealerships are the number 1 sales tax producers
i !
in most cities and a revenue we can ill afford to lose. ; !
i ,
The proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment is of major
importance to this City and in the long run will turn out to be
as important as the Downtown Project. Beach Boulevard has
developed as the new Main Street of Huntington Beach and it needs j
to be properly controlled and directed so that we might all be
proud of our Main Street. The Redevelopment Plan is an essential
part of the relocation of Terry Buick and it's potential future
expansion to include other makes of cars not presently sold in $
Huntington Beach. We are looking to an annual sales tax revenue �{
to the City of nearly $500,000. Without Redevelopment and the
assistance that it provides, our plans become economically
unfeasible.
I appreciate all the help you and your fellow Council members 1
have been to me in the past and I 'm sure you all recognize how .
critical Beach Boulevard Redevelopment is to the City and to me
personally. I encourage you to give it your full support.
Sincerely, f`;
E
Robert C. Terry
President
S.
•�, Don MacAllister
Low1121 Park St., Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 (7.14) 960-2892
�nrcra+wcH .
BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. JULY 6,1987
Honorable Mayor. and City Council.
The city took years. to develop a final plan for downtown,
many public hearings, several project area committees, and the
owners were involved. There were drawings, proposed uses, and
something people could understand. Now you have before you a
more controversial issue than the whole downtown project, in
comparison this. BBR project is over 500 acres compared to a 6
block area.
Your staff is pushing a makeshift ill-founded, unresearched
project before you, saying trust us. I ask why is there a need to
rush into a 500 acre redevelopment before all of the residents
of this area are properly informed. Your staff has in fact turned
the residents against the project, because of their lack of
knowledge of what's going on. Where are the plans and ideas for
Beach Blvd. ? in some administrators head ?
There are senior citzens who have lived on Beach Blvd. for
more than 60, yes, sixty years. These citizens are scared to
death that you are going to throw them literally out of their
homes, why?
I believe that city administration is forcing something upon
you, the City Council, without proper research and determination
of a need.
Last year while. I was a Councilman the city reviewed the
Super. Street concept with the County. Remember the
controversy on the fly-overs at. Beach and Warner. The City
Council approved tie Super Street without the fly-over. This
included-no parki , restriping, turn-outs, and hopefully
signalization.
page 2 BBR (cont)
I believe that there was also upwards of $1 .5 mil. available from
various sources to do this project. What has happened, why has
this project not moved ahead 7 This original project would go a
long way towards improving traffic flow without making people
move.
There is a move to have a slow growth issue on the June
1988 ballot. Projects like the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment, if.
passed, create the reasons for issues like this. This slow growth
measure will pass, and rightfully so, if you approve this project!...
City Council please take charge again of our city do not let
the administration run our City with you as a rubber stamp. You
wereelected to represent us 111
Let's not make our whole city one big redevelopment
project, we can not afford it.
Defeat this action of Beach Blvd. tonight. Get out and.
personally talk with the public and find out their feelings.
Thank you,
Don MacAllister
�- Environmental Board
V�klc CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648
June 20, 1987
Doug LaBelle, Director
Redevelopment Agency
City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mr. LaBelle:
The Huntington Beach Environmental Board Adhoc Committee on the
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project met on May 27, 1987 to
review the Final E.I.R.
As stated in our letters of December 5, 1986, February 27, 1987
and March 11, 1987, there were a significant number of comments
to which no response was given.
After reviewing the Final E. I.R. , there are still many questions
which have not been answered. Please see attached.
Therefore, it is the consensus of the Adhoc Committee and the
Huntington Beach Environmental Board that this project is
inadequate and should not be ce ' fied.
incerely,
Dean Albright
Chairperson
Adhoc Committee
Corinne Welch, member
Barbara Chun, member
Kay Seraphine, member
Lee Weider, Chairman
Huntington Beach Environmental Board
cc: Mayor Jack Kelly/City Council
Kent Pearce/ Planning Commissioners
Ruth Finley, liaison
Tom Mays, liaison
Peter Green, liaison
Huntington Beach Environmental Board.
Adhoc Committee
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
1. Page 158 - We would like clarification of the procedure for
NOP's Environmental Checklist Form. What-. is its purpose if
the Environmental Board' s responses and, subsequently, staff
responses, are not included in the draft EIR for Planning
Commission consideration?
2 . AIR
Page 160 - F1: Theoretically street and signal improvements
will speed traffic flow on Beach Boulevard, in reality,
cross street traffic will undermine this improvement without
flyways for through traffic.
Page 161 - F2 : Our original question on the accuracy- of the
figures in Table 12, Page 35, were not addressed.
2 . TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
Page 161 - F4: Do the traffic figures in Table 32, page
143 , include the Mayer Waterfront project?
Page 161 - F5: 1980 to 1983 traffic figures are too old to
be relied on for future predictions. For example, proposed
Meadowlark, Graham Street, and Bolsa Chica developments will
throw more cross traffic onto Beach.
3 EARTH
Page 162 - F6: Our concern about land spillage in high
areas at the Southwest corner of Beach and Indianapolis were
not addressed.
4. SURFACE and GROUND WATER
Page 163 - F7: We would like further expansion of the
statement on Page 43 of the EIR: "If. onsite detention is
infeasible, then offsite detention or. contribution to the.
cost of onsite detention may be approved. . . " where would
offsite detention be located? What benefit would a
contribution in lieu of onsite retention have?
5. WATER
Page 163 - F10: A city staff member has reported that an
OCSD representative attending a city study session stated
that the Slater Avenue pumping station in District 11 ' is
operating at capacity and cannot handle -any more volume.
This presents a conflict of statements that needs to be
investigated.
Page 164 - F11: It still appears that in order to proceed
with the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, it will be,
necessary to upgrade the Orange County Flood Control
Channels so that they will be capable of receiving the run-
off from new storm drains.
6. HOUSING
Page 165 - F13: Care must be taken to relocate residents
into housing they will be able to afford after payment of
supplemental costs are discontinued.
7 . FIRE PROTECTION
Page 166 - F16: Fire suppression and sprinkler systems in
new construction do not answer the fire hazard problem for
residents living in existing housing in the area surrounding
Beach Boulevard.
SUMMARY
Flood
In order to proceed with the Beach Boulevard . Redevelopment
Project it will be necessary to upgrade the Orange County Flood
Control Channels in order to receive the run-off from the storm
drains, which also need to be upgraded.
Sewacte
In order to proceed with the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Project it will be necessary to upgrade Sanitation Plant #2 in
order to receive the additional affluent which will occur.
CONCLUSION
It is the consensus of the Huntington Beach Environmental Board
and. the Adhoc Committee, that the Final E.I.R. insufficiently
mitigates the above issues, and therefore recommends denial of.
certification of this. project.
HAROLO I. EWELL
914 10TH ST4 • l
HUNTINCTN BCH, CA 92648
.c.
Go
lo: /he City CUUnci-I
llunt.inr�t-on Beaclz, Ca.l-irfoluzia Ju.Ltt. 6,�'9c�
co <^ p
Sub,iect: PAopoAed BecZcA Bou.levund ;�edeve.lpmei
,9 w.c..JA to on iz e coed a.� o>rv.�ed to ;lz i.� needle le. � Land it ab`r' ,i ew
l/ o f ,
of my aeajo" a/Le heAew.i.',-A -jubm.i tted. A, ,
FiAAt, nwit of the .Lei elw jt.r)po/tt.ing the p1toject fAom buAi.nezj� vn
Beach. Blvd. aze f om .late ejtab)idA.ed f-i-,urh whoje tax a.4Ae.4.iment .iA fixed
and .imprLovemeniA done wi.VL tedeveb/2145eni. r,'urul j wou-ld bene,la- .them wi ocut
lucv,Lncg tv pay. and /Pone of the je, juch. aA Atman.a llv jp.i ta,l,
Crunpbil,l Automotive, Beach Lincoln-MeacUAM and .jeveaal B(rnhd ate to no
dangea of having thea piz.ope2t to en by eminent domain. One filun, l elAy Id
Bu.ich, not now on Beach, eruloIL4ej the paoject, but .the text of h.e.4 lettea
.Leads me to believe that a deal Aaj been made to have the City tahe .Land by
emi.nen.-. doma.i.n and je.!l to Aim ai baagain p,,z.ice j to male 12,L4 pito jec t
f.inanc i.a,Uy. f ea4 i_b.Le. l rdue jt,iort. hiA e d t' mate of �500,000. Sa,Lej Tax
Revenue to the Cztyl would mean he .j an.ic.ipaiing $50,000,000. Aruzua. Sale j.
Cert'a.i.n)y that- volume of b"ined.4 .iltou.ld not it.equiAe any a,,Aidtance 40M
the taxpaLye/u.
Re: OndirLance 2909 %aqe 4, .Sec;Uon 2 Vhe City Coucrz U heaebey f ndA
and dete.,m.in.ej, ** * *** %a/LagAaph. (a)"Le_�2ao' ect A/Lea .z4 a bCi lzted
g�r.ea. It %age 5, pr<aaoizaph (I) 'llze ex.ijtence oj� bu.i.ldinp and d;(Auctuae.j
u jed orc .inttended to be uAed f-oa. .l iv.cng, commea.c.ia,l, indttA;tA.ia.l, oa oth.ea
pu,.po,deal W&.ch. awe urL f i t va. un,4rz f e ;v occupy lo/t .juclt priiz.pojej due Jo the
detereivtivn and di lapida Lion, age arul ob jo.le jcence, mixed c/LaAacten, o f-
build.Lncp, aru! dejec:t.ive dej.ion aru! cluuLcC;;en orz plLy.4.ica,l conitauc;..ion; and"
Q 9 jugge jt each Council Aembea. czAlz Ainwe.L�rwvu,ld he be willing to
Awe(2A undea oath in a Cvurzti of Law Vzat' the Aaea .Lj b.Lio-;t-ed.
. .9 al,4o .jugge jt each Council- Membea que4ti,?n the C.i tcy Staff cw to how
manly of the je unda�e and unfit paemi je j have been condemned. .9 f- not, WAY
not?
Relative paaaaAaph (5) "/1 pteva,lence of depaec.iated va.Lue4, .impa.i.iLed
tAvedtment . anal economic ma.lad/udtmentA. l)v you have ring jtatijz'ic-4 to
vel4y ;C i j statement? [Vit . .jeve/Lal new mote.l.4, the Kai je/L %eiunctnen to
Pledica.l Cent,,Le, .jeveaal new auto agenc.iej and at .leaAt ;vo multi-.itozry
office bu.i.lc np built w t/tia the pa4t wo qeatA a id ai.diculouj to claim
any dep/Lec.ia..'ed value. ( am not aefe,7A ncy to ChatiterL CerU.ea anal t-Ae banh
arul two zejtaulzan,�-4, 4,Aea4Ae j and Pea.ltlz Club WAiclz welze bu.i_U by. .ze-
developmen,t' and cLeated the ma j j.ive ;fAa_fi_c .-vt.ob.lem rzt Peach. (� ! `rorzea)
r i
Fzom: Il. Ove)l Con tVcl) •
r. [/ --, � t � 1 11,t!r Ir t�. h ,!
,?eoaaclinr�. �:e.�o.lt�Cion :Jr�rS�, Lt rcc!uretZt ,pane l�,.c U,,oO__J_on ! len.Acozej
MOaoveia�n of existing d;bzeeJA ana ��cuz�t!,�z .� w.i�_ /zer.ltcce
eme'J.Jionw Aom wzpavecI ibzee.�A cvu! caul .j detivalh.,j .in p�oniee;i alzea". I(/?-e.,ze
cue VLO unpaved j,4Aee;tj
%age S �a) l zip AL4,iri6ul_.i..on. : ThiA pcutaa r,,nh .ji_a;�ej -�_ha_i_ x10 and ?Atom
a e.�a.i..l cured cute pzo j"ected io be. paimalLil.y. iliApp.ing, ;t..ip j by ze-6iflent4
w.i th n appzox. ma;te.ly ;ti ee m.i leA. .ql' Ao wlteae .tom ; hAe oveita U iar-,Leaje .in
Aa;leA i-ax zevenueA coming, fAom?11
%aae 8 Sio ta,l CooAdina,4_.ion: ,rlmpitoved ;tAaf is jigna.l coo/ d.i.nation loa.
eta '4c a.lona Beach Bou,levaAtl aAd czt each .in telLAec;6ion .in ;Me pno ject Aaea. "
.9� 3 itemebea coAAecily,Ca,(tta L4 .jpemt deveaa,l mil.l.ion do.(.la&tj about, .J.ix oa
4eyea cyealLA acgo ze.iaiping, new .jignatj, new j;6teei_ ,lig) tA and iAa`"�i..co
.Li.c cooirdtnat.ion v.,iVtoc�t anyilnpaovement. .� am not a ;tAa4c eng.cneeA.
butt have had oven 60 cyealw of Ai.ving, expeR.i.etzce inc udiv 17 in Bojt,on,
7 in New YoAh C.itc� and 12 .in St,. Loui.4 and dome ;time in U`a61z region, U.C.
My ob.4e.,zvat,.c.on: Aj .long aj .le(-t, :tug t4 cue pelwti;_ted on Beach Bou.levaad .it
wi,a be .cmpo.m ib.le ;to cooAd ina t e Me .j ign.a,14 oiz t,o irw;t,�ut,e a b)o ch .(.o ,;6
.jcAt,em. can .jee on ty. one •do.lu;6ion to Vie t,2a/7-ic o, Beach B,l vd.�' zemove
the median and mane .i t one-way South (.,.om 6d. ., ez t,o J 7 )V then make A)acgno-l.ia
1 wary /Vo/zt (4 ,lanej) ;to Vze San D.ieao Fiteeway. Leave got,halul, /)6in
Newland aA .local ;two wary 4;tAeet,A.
lUhy aze we concez ned wi;M the zebuilding- and change-4 on Beach. Bou,leva ul
when we ate aepeat,edly, t,o ld by .jta f�_ t,lzat, we cannot, do t,h cA o2 t,hat, becauje
.i t .i j urule2 St,at,e Con taol? Can't, even enf once oust l�eucl2 Pa/thing, Ozd i.nance
w.i_hout, t,he.clt. appmova 1, lwt,) can tue change the pat,t,e2n of .t'tai('f.ic Li glz 1.
i
6tue Ll
RECEIVED
I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CLERKCITY
June 1987 CITY r
,JNTINGTON %,'qH., ;;k(i
JUL 6 41" 29
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
ILI
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
r t • •
I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CR yCft�Ec
June 1987 C CLEftx
.
HU3dTlt{Gi0!d t3ko CH, C„L!r•
JUL
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency.
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEW
CSTY.CLERK
NUNTIkG CITY OF
JUL
TGFt6c,:Cy, C,•t.fF.
49
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other .t6-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not. be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, . I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
CITY; �0
HuVru;Crok OF
ti
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT JUL
0 „
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency..
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
HUNrlid Clry�FhK
�rQ{�
June 1987
I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT JUL
tl �;
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency..
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED
CITY CLErJK
NUtJTIf,. CITY OF
GTON OCrC CAur•.
JUL 293 ; 7
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT �r
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other.-tb-the Redevelop-
ment Agency.-
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they.not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
1 1 • •
RECEt� K
cirr c CLERK
HcrNrttr0Tom Be�N
JVL
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ,.• ��?
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
l
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
CITY OF
HUNTIt{GT0U BEACH, %:"..(.•IF.
Jul6 4 .. �,
29 f
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD'REDEVEL.,OPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to:_the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment.Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECE.IV,
CITY CLERK
fiu5tr CITY Cr
llt
CTm 0E4cq CALIF.
1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
;. 7
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the. owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
.is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
CITY U
HUNTINGTOK FEACH,CAi_PF.
June 1987
I OPPOSE THE -REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT JUL 6 42 f i e2
7
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency.-
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
e
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
-0-
HUNTIfl CITY T Y> AC14 CAi_IF.
I OPPOSE THE -REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT JUL' c
June 1987 U c.,
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency..
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
� c
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
HUNTIRCTCITY OF J
i RCAC, .C;,
I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT JUL �
U
June 1987 "r r'"= D
4 <<� i i; 7
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency.-
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
'to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED
CITY CL=RK
HUNT!) CITY 4c
GTOh'.tst;CH, W;:i.fi F.
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT JULf y',' ^�?7
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency.
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the -Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED'
CITY CLERK
CITY OF
NUNTINgTOM 8CAC fj,, CAL
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT JUL 4 [v s+ !
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA . 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency..
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED
I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY CLERK
June 1987 NUNTII1DT�I Y OF
S' CP,CIF.
AL � 4 2
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
r
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
t 1 • •
CITYCCE
NUi1Ttta�6EACL,C";.rF,
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT JUL 4
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
CITY HUNTIf#GTQi�$EACr;, C�t.rr•.
June 1987
I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 428 07
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members, from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose "th Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED
CITY CLE;?t(
HU'`'TRi CITY OF
CTON EIUCH,r
Jul
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other to:-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the. owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
J
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
HUNT1idGT CITY OF
OK RCC I'-,C„i_1F.
JUL 428 1 � E 7
June 1987
I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ` 113
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency..
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIIIEI)
CITY CLERK
HUNT11'r, i Y or
I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT {UH s'u;m CAt IF
June 1987
JUL S4 28 7
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency -discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
c/
7(7T
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RECEIyFp
CITY CLEi?K
HUNTwc7 CITy OF
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT oa1 8cAe>>:
JUL 2 j M v n
r ,;
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
RCCElVE0
CITY cLia,K
HLINTJI _CITY ?F
June 1987 I OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT JUL 6 ,. ;•,;?
t
City of Huntington Beach
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMBER
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint themselves, or each other -to-the Redevelop-
ment Agency:
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely, I oppose the Redevelopment Project.
V
MEETINGS:
First Meetung: July 1, 7:00 pm, City Hall, Room B-7
Second Meeting: July 6, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
"i TERRY LEASING
hnr.Ewsra 16601 GOTHARD STREET•SUITE M • HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA• 92647 . 714/842'-580.0
C`/ fG�� ��9F• j
The Honorable. Jack Kelly -w' ,
Mayor of Huntington Beach ;:•
Member of the City Council
2000 Main Street `f
Huntington Beach, CA. 9.2648
Dear May.or Kelly :
As a new property owner on Beach Boulevard , I want to let you
know that lam in total agreement with the proposed Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Plan.
It is painfully obvious that this main artery in our city
cannot be allowed to become even more unsightly than it
already is . The problems currently encountered there will only
be compounded by ignoring them and allowing a disorganized and
disjointed growth pattern to continue.
Therefore , a plan is necessary to deal with current conditions
as well as to project and control growth in the future . I
believe the proposed Redevelopment Plan is just what is needed .
If I can give any assistance in putting this plan in:t:o effect ,
please do not hesitate to call upon me.
Sincerely ,
Fred 4. pgeaker
Automobile•Truck•Equipment•Machinery Leasing and Sales
HUNTINGTON SAVINGS
AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
POST OFFICE BOX 1669
6901 WARNER AVENUE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647
Executive Offices (714) 842-8600
r�
June 24, 1987
The Honorable Jack Kelly
Mayor of Huntington Beach
and
Members of the City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Jack:
Huntington Savings and Loan Association has one branch located on
Beach Boulevard in the Newland Center, so we have been paying
close attention to the progress of the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Plan. We have reviewed the documents, as well as
attended some of the meetings where it has been discussed and we
feel that Redevelopment is as essential on Beach Boulevard as it
is Downtown.
Therefore we strongly urge you and the Council to give the plan
your full support and pass it on July 6th.
Sincerely,
c_ s
�Q C C
r— ;=
Dale L. Dunn � �
Vice President W C, rn
t rr x 1 rrn
ICJ r-
1 7
MAIN BRANCH NEWLAND CENTER BRANCH
6967 Warner Avenue 19756 Beach Boulevard
Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
(714)842-8600 (714)964-7332
1
BEFORE THE .CITY COUNCIL OF THE
2
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
3
4
In the matter of the adoption ) Declaration of Alan
5 of a Redevelopment -Project ). R. Burns in Support
Area for the Beach Boulevard ) of a Finding of
.6 Redevelopment Project ) Significant Burden or
Detriment to the School
7 Districts Affected
8
I, Alan R. Burns, do hereby declare:
9
1. That I am an. attorney at law and have been retained by
10
the Ocean View School District, the Huntington Beach City
11
School District, and the Huntington Beach Union High School
12
District (hereinafter "Districts" ) .
13
2. That . in the course of my representation of those
14
school districts, the Assistant Superintendents from each of
15
those Districts and I met with representatives of the
16
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to identify financial
17
burden or detriment to the districts, as affected taxing
18
entities.
19
3. That together we have identified a •correlation between
20
commercial growth and housing demands as demonstrated in the
21
attached study entitled "Summary of the Economic Basis for an
22
Office-Housing Production Program" (Exhibit "A" ) , and further
23
extrapolated from that Study an increased demand on school
24
facilities as a result thereof.
25
.26 4. That the same conclusion regarding school impact was
reached with respect to the requirement that 20% of
27
redevelopment money must be expended for low and moderate
28
00 0 •
1 -income housing. -,
12 5. That based on the above conclusions it should be
3 determined that the Districts will suffer financial burden or
4 detriment• because (a) there will be both a net increase in the
5 quality and quantity of service to the affected taxing entity
6 caused by the project, and (b) there will be a loss of property
7 tax revenues by the affected taxing entity produced by change
8 of ownership or new - construction which would have been
9 received, or was reasonably expected to have been received, by
10 the Districts if the project was not established, all as
11 provided in Health and Safety Code Section 33012.
12
13 6. That based on the foregoing a pass through or
14 cooperation agreement in the amount of 9% of tax increment is
15 necessary to provide mitigation from the above effects.
16
17 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
18 true and correct
19
20
21 Executed this 3rd day of July, 1987 at Orange, California
22
23
24
25
26
27 2•
28 ALAN R. BURNS
2 -
SUMMARY OF THE ECONOMIC BASIS FOR AN
OFFICE-HOUSING PRODUCTION PROGRAM
Prepared For:
San Francisco Department of City Planning
Prepared By:
RECHT HAUSRATH & ASSOCIATES
Urban Economists
1212 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, California 94612
July 19, 1984
EX I 90 I
SUMMARY OF THE ECONOMIC BASIS FOR AN
OFFICE - HOUSING PRODUCTION PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
This paper focuses on the relationship between office growth in San
Francisco and the City's housing market. It summarizes the basis for
and the derivation of housing mitigation for future office building
projects. The specific purpose of the analysis summarized herein is to
provide the basis for the adoption of an office-housing production
program (OHPP).
This paper is divided into four sections. They include the following:
• a summary description of the relationship between
employment growth and housing markets,
• a summary of how office employment growth is likely to
affect San Francisco's housing market,
• the basic strategy for mitigating housing market impacts,
and
• the derivation of housing mitigation for office development
in San Francisco's C-3 District.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT GROWTH AND HOUSING
MARKETS
Stated very simply and generally, there is a relationship between
employment growth and housing markets. The basis for this relationship .
lies in economic and housing market theory. Similarly, there is a
-relationship between office employment growth in San Francisco and the
City's housing market. The theoretical basis for the generalized
relationship applies in this specific case as well.
The following points summarize the generalized relationship.
• Building development and changes in space use
accommodate employment growth.
The growth of business activity and employment creates
demand for additional space. New buildings are
constructed and there are changes in the use of space in
existing buildings to accommodate this demand.
1
• Employment growth means growth of employed labor.
The number of workers newly employed equals the number
of additional jobs (except in cases of part-time positions
or workers, holding two jobs). The individuals newly
employed do not necessarily work at the new jobs
because there is constant turnover whereby existing
workers change jobs.
• Growth of employed labor means population growth to
provide that labor.
The amount of population growth could be less than
needed to accommodate the growth of employment to the
extent that there is increased labor force participation or
a reduction in unemployment.
• Population growth means growth of households which
means increased demand for housing.
The amount of housing demanded depends on how the
increment of population growth divides into households
( workers per household and persons per household).
The type, price/rent, and location of housing demanded
depends on the.demogrzphic and income characteristics of
the new households, as well as on other factors affecting
financial resources available for housing and housing pre-
ferences.
• Housing market adaptations to accommodate greater
demand result in expansion of the housing supply and in
changes in the use of the existing housing stock.
Additional worker households seeking housing initially add
Jo the demand for the existing stock. There will he in-
creased competition for existing housing. This increased
competition will mean overall increased housing prices
and rents.
The supply of housing will be exp,-nded to the extent
that the increased prices/rents cover the costs of
producing new housing. This will occur when
prices/rents rise enough to justify infill horsing
replacing lower density. development , to justify infill
housing on sites previously passed over as less desirable
for residential development, to justify the upgrading or
conversion of .structures that were not being used for
housing, and to justify the development of housing just
beyond the periphery which heretofore had -not been
feasible because of its distance from the center and the
resultant relatively high transportation costs.
i
i 2
V
Households with higher incomes will be able to secure
their preferred housing. Either they will move into the
new units or into the existing housing vacated by
residents who move into the new housing.
The housing expenditures of the majority of households
are inadequate to pay for new housing. The squeeze that
develops as these households compete for the now
inadequate supply of low and moderately priced units
continues until the escalating prices and rents result in a
number of households choosing new units, albeit at a
greater cost, to relieve some of the pressure for units at
lower prices and rents. This resolution limits the price
escalation, but leaves the prices and rents at a higher
level than prior to the accommodation of the growth.
The higher prices also have the effect of creating
pressures to inerPase the occupancy of existing housing
(thereby also reducing the demand for additional units).
This can occur by increasing the number of persons per
household or by increasing the number of households per
unit. While these adaptations can occur across many
market segments, the pressures to make these changes
will be greatest for those subgroups substantially below
the threshold prices/rents.
0 Market adaptations pose more problems for those with
fewer housing resources.
If new housing is provided only at prices and rents at or
above those needed for new construction, the majority of`
housing consumers must depend on linkages between their
submarket (price and location) and the mn rket for new
housing. The further below this threshold, the more
potential there is that large increases in prices/rents
will be required before the market linkages finally make
more housing available. Households with lower financial
resources (1) usually have less potential for increasing
their housing expenditures and (2) typically ilso have
less locational flexibility. As a result, lower income
households are more likely to be faced with a choice
between lower quality housing or increased persons per
household as the only feasible adaptation to the market
"squeeze".
In summary, the effects of higher prices/rents or of
reduced housing services (less acceptable housing
conditions at the same, or higher, price) are generally
greatest for subgroups of consumers furthest from the
price/rent level at which new housing is provided. The
addition of housing units at lower price levels is thus a
key consideration in mitigating the impacts of the
increased housing demand resulting from the growth of
employment.
3
IMPLICATIONS OF OFFICE EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ON SAN FRANCISCO'S
HOUSING MARKET
Even without office employment growth in San Francisco there is strong
market demand for San Francisco housing and it will increase over time.
Many households currently living elsewhere in the Bay Area have
preferences for San Francisco housing. Those who will move into the
region in the future will also include many households with preferences
for City housing, such as immigrants from foreign countries. In other
words, San Francisco housing is expected to maintain its desirability
relative to other housing throughout the region.
The supply of housing is expected to be expanded in San Francisco.
However, the private market will be unable to supply new housing for a
large segment of the population. Although the difficulties in producing
affordable housing arise from many factors and exist throughout the
region, it is relatively more costly to produce housing in San Francisco
than in many other parts of the region. The high land costs and the
lack of vacant land in San Francisco (as well as the resultant need to
build at a higher density with associated higher construction costs) are
responsible for the relatively high threshold level of prices and rents
needed to attract residential development.
For a variety of reasons, the prices and rents for housing throughout
the region are expected to remain more costly relative to incomes and to
other goods and services than they were in the 1960's and 19701s. In"
San Francisco, prices and rents will remtiin relatively higher than those
for housing in many other parts of the region. These conditions will
likely prevail even without growth in office employment.
Prices and rents for housing in San Francisco will be higher with of ice
or.iployment growth than without it. Although not all of the additional
office workers will live in San Francisco some of them will choose to do
so. Many of the additional office workers will be willing to pay
higher prices for City housing to save on the time and cost of commuting
from a more outlying location. Many of the additional office workers
preferring to live in San Francisco will be able to pay more for housing
than some current residents.
Those office workers who do choose to live in the City will compete for
the existing supply of housing. Those with greater financial resources
will support the production of housing by the private market. Those
with lesser financial resources will add to the competition for the stock
of housing available at prices and rents below those needed for new
construction. To the extent that prices/rents remain below this
threshold, the supply of these types of units will not be expanded.
Instead, prices/rents of existing units will be higher, occupancies will
increase, and there will be pressures to upgrade the existing stock.
The higher prices and rents, particularly for the relatively lower cost
housing in older neighborhoods, will have various implications over time.
There will be people who decide not to move into the City and existing
residents who will move out of the City for more acceptable housing
elsewhere. There will be many individuals who continue to live in San
4
Francisco and pay higher prices/rents for the same City housing. Still
others, who are unable or unwilling to pay more, will accept City
housing which does not fully meet their preferences or needs. And
finally, there will be owners of existing units who will benefit to the
extent that their housing appreciates.
Generally, those households with fewer financial resources available to
pay for housing will make the most sacrifices in adapting to more
competitive market conditions. They will have less ability to compete for
housing and fewer options available to them. San Francisco currently
has and will continue to attract a large number of persons that will be
faced with these difficulties in securing housing. These include many
renters, many younger persons, many of those hoping entry level jobs,
the elderly and others on fined incomes, many immigrants just beginning
a new life here, as well as other poor and unemployed persons.
BASIC STRATEGY FOR MITIGATION
As outlined above, office employment growth will have impacts on the
housing market in San Francisco. The recommended strategy for
mitigation is to produce housing for the additional office worker house-
holds to reside in the City (or for households with similar character-
istics). The intent is that the development of these units will absorb
the increased demand thereby precluding its impact on market prices and
rents.
The private market will supply some of these units, namely those at
prices and rents which cover the .cost of new construction. Therefore,
the focus of this strategy should be on producing housing that the
market will not otherwise build: housing at prices and rents below those
needed to cover the costs of new construction.
The :.arpose of expanding the supply in these lower ranges of prices
and rents is to provide housing to accommodate the additional office
r;orkers who will otherwise compete with other residents for a limited
supply of housing that will riot otherwise be expanded. The provision of
such housing will lin-dt the up�rard pressures on prices and rents of most
hardship to those with lesser financial resources and fewer housing
options.
The next section explains the derivation of lioucing mitigation using the
strategy recommmided here. It highlights the basic cumulative approach
and provides a step-by-step summary of the methodology for deriving
housing mitigation ,. in terms of the required number of units and the
cost of providing those units.
DERIVATION OF HOUSING MITIGATION FOR OFFICE BL'ILDI:dG DE%'ELOFME:;T
To satisfy the objectives described above, various analyses and data
collection efforts were undertaken to determine the amount and type of
housing required to mitigate the housing market impacts of office
building development. This section summarizes the derivation of the
recommended housing mitigation. It also identities the main sources of
data and information upon which the calculations are based.
5
Before describing the steps involved in developing estimates, there are
a few important points to be explained regarding the overall approach.
Approach Takes Cumulative Perspective Of Growth Over Time
The approach to deriving the housing mitigation for future office
building projects recognizes the importance of viewing office growth
within the context of future employment, labor force, and housing in San
Francisco and in the rest of the region. It takes the cumulative
perspective of a large arrount of growth over time.
There are several i;rplications of taking this perspective. One is that,
although housing mitigation is applied to individual office building
projects, the specifics of a particular project or of the businesses to
occupy that space are not relevant from a cumulative perspective.
Instead, the net addition of office space contributed by a project is
treated as an incremental part of total office growth over a longer time
period.
The main reason is that the additional economic activity accommodated by
the growth of office space is not necessarily located in the new building
(a firm already located in the City may move into the new building while
its old space is occupied by new firms) . Even if it was, tenancies
change over time so that the characteristics of initial occupants are not
necessarily relevant.
Further, the persons newly employed in office jobs because of office
employment growth do not necessarily hold the additional jobs and are
not necessarily located in the new office building. Thus, the character-
istics of the individuals working in the new building are also not
relevant.
Another implication of the cumulative perspective of growth over time is
that it focuses on changes in space, in employment, and in workers
living in San Franc_i_ •o. ecause there have been and will continue to
be changes occurring over time (such as in the percentrige of office
workers living in San Francisco) , the specifics for the OHPP
requirement must be based on forecasts of future conditions. These
forecasts reflect office growth within the future context of employment,
labor force, and housing in San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area.
The OHPP requirement is developed to cover changes over a reasonalbe
period of time, from 1981 2000. Given the time required between
project approval and full c•.. 'upancy, projects approved in the mid to late
1980's will be occupied in tte late 1980's and early 1990's. These }rears
fall near the middle of the 19-year forecast period. Further, this time
period was chosen because of the availability of 1990 Census data and
1981 survey data to describe baseline conditions, as well as the
availability of past trends from Census data for prior decades (1960-1970
and 1970-1980). Although the new buildings will continue to be occupied
beyond 2000, it is more difficult to forecast future conditions beyond a
20-year horizon.
6
Step-By-Step Derivation of Housing Mitigation
The derivation of housing mitigation for additional office development
involves two major tasks. The purpose of the first task is to determine
the number of additional San Francisco households with office workers.
The second task is to determine the price/rent characteristics of the
additional San Francisco housing required to mitigate the impact of
additional households and to determine the cost of producing that
housing.
Several steps were considered in deriving figures under each major task.
These are identified in Figure 1. The subsections which follow describe
the step-by-step process, the important variables, and the basis for
their values in the calculations.
The process and key factors apply to all.-office space throughout the
City. The specific numerical values presented are those for office space
and office activities in San Francisco's C-3 District. Further information
is needed before similar numbers can be,provided for City office
activities outside the C-3 District. The same approach and same
variables would apply to these other areas.
Task 1: To Determine the Number Of Additional San Francisco
Households With Office Workers
Step 1: Net Addition Of Office Space
In the following, housing mitigation is derived for the net addition of
1 million gross sq. ft. of office space in the C-3 District. When
considering an office building project; the net addition of office space
represents the difference between the office space in the new building
and the office space demolished in an older building to allow for new
construction. Since the OHPP applies only to office space, space in
retail uses (stores, shops, bars, and restaurants) is excluded.
Step 2: Determine Net Addition of Office Fmployment
F
Net Addition Employment Net addition of
Of Office Space i density factor = office employment
1,000,000 263 gross sq. 3,731 additional
gross sq. ft. - ft. per C-3 = office %.,orkers
of additional District office in C-3 District
C-3 District employee
office space
7
FIGURE 1: DERIVATION OF HOUSING MITIGATION FOR OFFICE
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT
Steps Followed To Determine Additional San Francisco Households With
Office Workers
• Net Addition Of Office Space
• Net Addition Of Office Employment
• Net Increase In Office Workers Residing In San Francisco
• Additional San Francisco Households 11.1th Office Workers
Steps Followed To Determine The Additional San Francisco Housing
Required to Mitigate the .Impact of Additional Households And To
Determine The Cost of Producing That Housing
• Additional 'San Francisco Housing Weeded To Accommodate '
Additional Households
• Subsidy Required To Produce Housing In San Francisco That Is
Affordable To The Additional Households
SOURCE: Recht Hausrath Associates
8
The employment density factor applies to future C-3 District office
activities and reflects the mix of management/technical and
trade/customer service office activities expected by 2000. Its application
to an individual project assumes that the density of employment in the
building will reflect the average future density for all similar office
buildings in the C-3 District. The density of 268 gross sq, ft. per
office employee incorporates an average vacancy factor of 5 percent. By
accounting for vacancy, it is assumed that a small amount of space is
always unoccupied to allow for mobility of tenants. The C-3 District
density factor is derived based on analysis of future C-3 District
employment and space under the Downtown Plan and on data from the
Downtown EIR Employer Survey and Land Use Inventory.
Step 3: Determine Net Increase In Office Workers Residing In San
r�isco
Ratio of net addition Net increase
Net addition of x of office ~corkers in office
office employment residing in San = workers re-
Francisco to net siding in
addition of office San Francisco
employment
3,731 additional 1,157 additional C-3
C-3 District x 31 percent = District office workers
office workers residing in San Francisco
The ratio above identifies the charge in office workers residing in San
Frane sco as a function of the change .in office employment. The ratio is
derived from the cumulative analysis of C-3 District office growth from
1981 to 2000 prepared for the Downtown Plan EIR.
.Over time, the number of C-3 District office <%orkers who live in San
Francisco MR increase. The percentage of C-3 District office workers
residing in San Francisco, however, is forecast to decline, from an
average of 51.6 percent in 1981 to 45 percent in 2000. This is due to a
combination of two factors. First, future labor force and housing
growth in San Francisco are not expected to increase in proportion to
office employment growth. Second, labor force :and housing elsewhere in
the Bay Area will increase by larger amounts than in San Francisco.
Therefore, it is likely that an increasing proportion of office jobs will be
held by persons living outside of San Francisco. The net change in
office workers residing in San. Francisco compared to the net change in
C-3 District office jobs indicates that the former is likely to represent
about 31 percent of the latter from 1981 to 2000.
9
Step 4: Determine Additional San Francisco Households With Office
Vor ers
A. Net increase in Percentage of Additional office
additional workers
office workers workers in addi-
residing in x in households which = tional households
San Francisco are additional house- in San Francisco
holds in San Francisco
1,157 additional 521 additional C-3 District
C-3 District office office workers in
workers residing in x 45 percent = additional San Francisco
San Francisco households
The net increase in office workers residing in San Francisco does not
represent corresponding net increases in households and housing units.
The primary reason. is that an increase is forecast in the average number
of workers per household across all of the City's households (including
both the households occupying the existing housing stock and those in
the City because of additional housing units). Thus, many of the
additional office workers living in the City will be associated with
greater numbers of workers per household, overall, because of changes
in the employment status (more residents work and more workers hold
office jobs) of ongoing residents (in which case existing households
remain) and because of turnover in the occupancy of the existing
housing stock (in which case households. new to the City replace those
who move out). The impact on the housing market, however, arises
primarily from additional households competing for housing units. Thus,
for mitigation purposes, it is the additional office workers in additional
households that must be identified.
From the forecasts for the Downtown Plan EIR, it can be estimated that
about 55 percent of the increase in employed residents citywide from
1980 to 2000 could occur because of an increase in labor force partici-
pation in San Francisco assuming the existing number of households and
the e�dsting housing stock. The remaining 45 percent could occur
because of housing growth and the net addition of households in the
City. If these same percentages applied to the increase in office
workers residing in San Francisco, then 45 percent of the increase could
be considered to represent additional households in the City. This is
the assumption for the use of 45 percent in the calculation above,
B.
Additional office Average number Additional San
workers in addi- of San Francisco Francisco house-
tional households i workers in San = holds with addi-
in San Francisco Francisco house- tional office
holds with office workers
workers
10
•
521 additional C-3 1.35 San Francisco
District office workers per C-3 386 additional
workers in addi- + District office = San Francisco
tional San Francisco' worker household households
households residing in San
Francisco
The future average number of San Francisco workers per household with
C-3 District office workers is used to determine the additional number of
households for purposes of the OHPP requirement. The 1.35 figure
reflects expected future conditions in 2000 as derived from the Downtown
EIR Employee Survey, U.S. Census data, and analyses of employment,
population, and demographic trends for San Francisco.
Result: Through the steps of Task 1 it is determined that
tt re will be 386 additional San Francisco households associated
%,Ath the addition of 1 million sq. ft. of C-3 District office
space from 1981-2000. In other words, there will be 0.386
additional San Francisco households per each 1,000 additional
sq. ft. of C-3 District office space.
Task 2: To Determine The Additional San Francisco Housing Required
o Mitigite The Impact Of Ad itional Households, And To Determine The
Cost Of Producing That Housing
Step 5: Determine The Additional (lousing Needed To Accommodate
Ad itional Fouseholds
A. Additional housing units
Additional San Francisco needed in San
households with = Francisco to mitigate
office workers housing market impacts
that will otherwise
occur
386 additional 386 additional housing
San Francisco households - units needed in San
Francisco
B. Percentages needed Additional housing
in various HUD units needed in San
Additional income categories Francisco by HUD
housing x so as to be affordable = income categories so
units to the additional as to be affordable
office worker households to additional
in San Francisco 'households
11
x 20 percent = 77 units affordable to households with
incomes averaging 50% of HUD median income
x 21 perceni = 81 units affordable to households with
incomes averaging 80% of HUD median income
386 additional
housing units x 8 percent = 31 units affordable to households with
needed in San incomes averaging 120% of HUD median income
Francisco
x 7 percent = 27 units affordable to households with
incomes averaging 150% of HUD median income
x 44 percent = 170 units affordable to households with
incomes above 165% of HUD median income
The percentages above are derived from two substeps. First, the
forecast increases from 1981 to 2000 in C-3 District office worker house-
holds in various household income categories were developed. The 1981
household income distributions are for C-3 District office workers
residing in San Francisco from the Downtown EIR Employee Survey. The
change in the distribution from 1981 to 2000 was developed from the
Downtown Plan EIR employment analyses and forecasts. The forecast
increases in households in various income categories reflects the growth
of office business activities and changes over time in the mix of office
activities, each with somewhat different household income distributions
for their workers. The charges in household income distribution do not
assume any change in the relationship between household incomes and
housing costs.
The second step was to compare the increases in C-3 District office.
worker households in the various household income categories with HUD
data identifying median incomes for households in the San Francisco
S1;SA. The comparisons were done for households averaging 2.1 persons
per household since that is the average size of C-3 District office worker
households residing in San Francisco (per Downtown EIR Employee
Survey) . The result was a translation of the household income distribu-
tion into a distribution according to the various HUD income categories.
These categories are often used for evaluating housing affordability.
Step 6: Determine Extent To Which Subsidies Would Be Required To
rl'ro-Juce Housing In San Francisco That Is Affordable To Additional San
Francisco Households
Subsidy (if Cost of producing
Additional housing any) required housing in San
units to accommodate because the Francisco that is
additional San prices/rents affordable to the
Francisco households x that households = additional San
in various HUD can afford are Francisco house-
income categories not high enough holds
to cover the
costs of housing
production
12
If produce for-sale housing:
(77 units x $69,440 subsidy per unit) +
(81 units x $45,600 subsidy per unit) +
(31 units x $13,800 subsidy per unit) ,+
(197 units x 0 subsidy per unit)
_ $9,468,280
If produce rental housing:
(77 units x $69 ,240 subsidy per unit) +
(81 units x $50,790 subsidy per unit) +
(31 units x $26,180 subsidy per unit) +
(27 units x $7 ,730 subsidy per unit) +
(110 units x 0 subsidy per unit)
_ $10,465,760
Calculation of the cost of producing housing that is affordable to the
additional San Francisco households was done in three substeps. The
first involved the identification of the prices and rents that households
in the various HUD income categories could afford to pay for housing.
For rental housing, it was assumed that households could pay 30 percent
of their gross income for rent. A gross rent multiplier of 7.5 was then
used to identify the unit value that could be supported by those rents.
This multiplier was verified by-data on 1983 and 1984 sales of apartment
buildings in San Francisco. For ownership housing, it was assumed that
38 percent of gross income could be allocated for mortgage principal and
interest, property taxes , fire insurance, and homeowner association
dues. To calculate the house price to be supported by this share of
income, the following were assumed: 30-year mortgage at 13 percent
interest, 10 percent downpayment , proper it taxes at 1.25 percent of
price, and fire insurance and homeowner association dues at $1,200 per
year.
The affordable rental housing values and the affordable purchase prices
were next compared to the cost of producing housing. Standard wood
frame construction was assumed for units built for households with
incomes averaging 50, 80 , 120, and 150 percent of the HUD median
income. According to the experience of the Mayor's Office of Housing
and Community Development, such units can be produced in San
Francisco at an average cost of $100,000 per unit (1984 dollars)
including land and all other costs of construction. (Costs per sq. ft.
range from $100 to $125 for units of 800 to 1,000 sq. ft.) The
differences between the affordable rental values and sales prices and the
$100,000 per unit cost provided an estimate of the subsidy (if any)
required to produce affordable housing.
The subsidies per unit derived from these calculations for households in
each of the HUD income categories are those identified above. For
rental housing, some subsidy is required for units built for those
households with incomes averaging 50-, 80., 120, and 150 percent of .
median income. These are the groups usually referred to as very low,
13
low/moderate, moderate, and middle income, respectively. For ownership
housing, subsidies are identified for the very low , low/moderate, and
moderate income groups.
Third, the amount of subsidy per unit was multiplied by the number of
units in each group to identify the total cost of supplying the housing.
If no subsidy is required, there is no net cost since the price/value of
the unit would fully cover development cost. These calculations are
shown above.
Result: Through the steps of Task 2 it is determined that the
cost of supplying affordable housing in San Francisco to
accommodate the additional San Francisco households is
$9.5-10.5 million (1984 dollars) for the addition of 1 million sq.
ft. of office space in the C-3 District from 1981 to 2000. This
amount translates into $9.47-10.47 per sq. ft. of additional
office space in the C-3 District.
Summary Of Mitigation Requirements
Applying the strategy to provide housing for the additional San
Francisco households with office workers and the approach of the
cumulative perspective of growth over time results in the
requirements for an OHPP that are applicable to office development
in the C-3 District. The OHPP could require the provision of
housing or the payment of a fee to the City for purposes of
producing housing. The analysis summarized herein supports either
of the following requirements:
• That 0.386 housing units be built in San Francisco for
every 1,000 sq. ft. of additional office space in the C-3
District and that these units be affordable to the
additional households with office workers according to the
following distribution:
- 20 percent affordable to households with incomes
averaging 50% of HUD median income,
- 21 percent affordable to households with incomes
P averaging 80% of HUD median income,
- 8 percent affordable to households with incomes
averaging 1.20% of HUD median income,
- 7 percent affordable to households with incomes
averaging 150% of HUD median income, and
- 44 percent affordable to households with incomes
averaging 165 a of HUD median income; or
• That a fee of $9.47-10.47 per sq. ft. of additional office
space in the C-3 District be paid to the City specifically
for purposes of producing housing. _
14
as.
Comparison To The City's Current OHPP
There are differences between the housing mitigation derived herein and
the mitigation derived from the City's current OHPP guidelines. In
addition to differences in the variables and numbers, there is a more
basic difference of approach. That recommended herein takes the cumula-
tive perspective of growth over time. The current guidelines focus on
an individual project and assume that current conditions continue to
apply.
The results of each approach are different. In this analysis it is
determined that there will be 0.386 additional San Francisco households
for each 1,000 additional sq. ft. of C-3 District office space from 1981 -to
2000. Further, it is determined that it will cost $9.47-10.47 per sq. ft.
of additional C-3 District office space to supply affordable housing in
San Francisco to accommodate the additional San Francisco households.
Using the current OHPP formula, each 1,000 additional sq. ft. of office
space would generate 0.389 San Francisco households and housing units.
Based on the option to pay a fee of $6,000 per unit instead of building
housing, the mitigation would cost $5.34 per sq. ft. of additional office
space.
r
- 15 - -
t�� &AA
M L
Ila S . Files �O1
16892 A. Street '
Huntington Beach C . A. 92647 /0A,
0 O
C'G�
Mayor Kelly C� �94,
Members of City Council 0'C'
Planning Commission
2800 Main St .
Huntington Beach, C .A. 92647
``L l V-
My name is Ila S . Files and I own and occupy a residence
at 16892 A. Street , on the north side of Warner . I have
lived at this location since 1962 . I was President of the
area water (now defunct) , for the last six years . I am
active in church work, Senior Citizens Center and also A . A.R . P .
I love Huntington Beach, and want to continue to live here .
I do not see the need for redevelopment on Beach Blvd . ,
as stated in section 33030--33032 .
1) I do not consider this a blighted area. Our lots
are 50x100 . Most homes and businesses have been
improved . We have good roofs , keep our homes painted,
our yards well maintained and our fences repaired
_. and painted and we are able to continue to do so .
2) For the past several years our neighborhood has
been quiet and safe with no predominate amount
of crime .
3) This is not a crowded area as most of the homes
are occupied by one or two people .
4) There has been a continual rise in assessed property
value irregardless of Prop . 13 . This does not
comprise a blighted area . e r
5) Regarding traffic congestion on Beach Blvd: if r+
the City of Huntington Beach has a specific plan
of action, they have failed to inform the public . CD
n,-cr
an y�n
Ln r�
n
w :sue
6) Some of the plates in the report to the City Council
are misrepresented .
For example :
A . Plate- 5 : The South East corner of Beach
Blvd . and Rubidoux has not been used for
off street parking for at least two years .
B . Plate 20 : Showing need for resurfacing the
.alley between A and B. Street on the North
side of Warner . It has been my .understanding
from a former neighbor that the city made
that alley by appropriated land from the
property owners on A and B Streets . Therefore ,
it is maintenance is no longer the responsibility
. of the home owners on said streets .
Sincerely
y
Ila S . Files
Project Area Committee
Enc . : 2
ISF/1st
+ 11111�.
r �
3Ji
� f Y S f
♦ y 1
v ,.
tx�
1�.'r+r� Tf �h .xl ��'�. ��... t t ..r 4 i r,i}�a .�,�✓!, s NF�,r,'`� ��x""..�7'._s'"tn�..F u,r�
,y.{r
�:. 1,. C � '.r � � r �f`'r �y ti n,.+, h f $ i� 1'.�' r Ir 7•`0'ti
s .`ja, � :_�� • �. *..�� 6 tr > t �`$4- . { { .ly t r< s f� i� t��
:jw T'� _ ,,r,k f� =a' {�11.a�r�"`'1�: �s#y�r�'�' M tr.t t� �-� f'� +?`•'E T+✓,"rc.' r r,
�, jn • , ►� s �t J ?`'yt >r,u 4 z .:4 �.r.� y Y ,� ;yr; Y r a t,ra:`
p 'W
41`��—�llbll
1 Y. { � 'S' S .yJ f K �2� 1 �� Vk � fI�U� �• .
•
3' ►
. 7s ? .l t °y" r yh t.lKyGb cc cj :�,• �.y, s.
a- +'a � � 3 •+�sr a 6-ti +'+'! 1 � �Z b� r'+L. J n �A y �
{ , {+f y1 F�� h�'i � K.�,���Sr N'•�i��d'�if �'33��..s��t/"t'��{��,J.. d�'tj�+'lt 7'�'{�y.
!r �.•+. { �. .pi � �.;�'t t ��,eC i''���" a_{,r�+c!•'k .d �� Mi+f 53t��',�J3
• �srK} 3 r rN a Y � vt" ��. r 4t'��$r {T�� r N r�"j'r` `{rt,�^,ti?�'� a. -�dy�0.
-0 7c rt r n }�at a •t ti d �} `sa
t4� �t�,�,+.y .T� L_ Y s��� {��, 7.yr• ".r1 ��' p - �t ir'��1.
� t, l�.,y T,s�i �� � •^i •yJ S,
.1'' �r,' � .fi yei�3� t�� � � 4 'Y."i+i�'R1.�3• {I�r"h � a4r M Sw. A,�rat Irky� ){M}: h� 1-,�wgrl•k•� 1 r Z iiiCCC rye 4J Y6 t 1r �t � � ��+f•n'
t RY }{ray 'talfJ- �'y. Ty�'� �r,I(1y,�+,, ,.,'!} " 'h7' �t'fi�t �'ci r*���`i5 l{♦�h 'y,.
tiJ 5 1 ' l 4 r5 A `r,+ 51'4iN
J".7+ .��' r• J c1^,l�'�,�'r"a'f`�'�1 Nr;, ter�i�Mt}�"''jt"a°i}{ t�i}''ta �
f t .r / iirtr > ht° r E rf ie T° a�f ' d
,� • • 1-4
,, 1;`'�'���.�7 r+��. x, ,{,*'c{'�,J�,�,ui i�,i"�ry1J'�JY` {��"+► ��'"�''flJ+�)) ':
�, ,y S s A`•' k Y;'ir �af`Xi r1�'>).'�-lr�'alrr Cl- r•"�, �—.
: , I• �9 ,y��>Li `f�. F t-t, r r..+ y:'};. gj:
L �r
i. �fsi f ya Im •tG �, •S•.. of♦.5\i u1
2
hw
�• frlttA L�SrG�gtk���s4 c,
• r) tlt {�h�+� �j t
..Z µrly.W SttJ� :('t 7���11r'K'�bi r +•�� � } h .
„O��w� ��shpy*�� 'p{iT; 1t°iirt!
" � r► r �}t+ R.,i'�T"+ '4's'.+,sF` N a 'x�� �'hu''^�t� � ��+�{ 9{�!
,�s"fz�F�7Y��i,J4�t, s�rr.+"?'.t•F°`9'i:3'r'�.��"'1y+,t��.�+��L'� h�J+' ��'"
� + ♦.V �f{ry � h`4L�ttgt.�+s'�sY Ys ���`�2 e )kA"}�ty,.>f,4�rl ��7'a'E+��`p� �s1�"",
t�� t 4 R�•"w��$��p�4��Y 1-i1}.�+�ta�'c rl r.r{�+`cs.1 s.i�,+` r4ty��d���4,�K.. :�
y�� !f •1 ZYtt „1{r i�,,}l �.t, t 1��.4� �r r,iJ d c,�, Y �T"p i
714 t 411 J t 4 •y'.r J F .G
��' � r"SS�V rF x.�'"`���✓4!#t�y�klf�`�i�9.+�s?} ri}.��s}��^S' .+..
g
r�` t#•�t it a r. 'x { '"t(t WWI; r �`
tr>t"gt O+Et;rd:'•St�' ,»�
t iP"i U♦ 7'�'+''�"
� �` �iJ 1# rr•�'r�i�b-'�h��ir �' r�r 'Tsrta�sEt{,""�,k^ �r • �.�
� t .a,r'-�� k x.J, 'V'�tr� a y, '� e7td'wt s r �c a�"`r Td`�� C .� y►
� .,��r� 4`k1•S, }�,2•t��t,r� °F£t re i�1 .�Il1�.r, �r�.Jr?.�� [.4� �s°� rfe •�\Tl�,
``\} yt` �y-vc,�rt!s•( s fe'�c.Y..M1 D�. .tti rMtw r+�.,�3y�a 31�c���'� '. a
`• t 11 k k.�7 �q ?t^ any � `s4r>�,f ..!r s s +rah-� �-,� i. '[?�'{314 ,~ y'
R , \ }� t ili7r( j� � C� h"flf}iy � "�{tyyyy �nl e r y Z
1 r1�K ;}�'C �.d ��,�r•ir .orb k T7�ztp� ♦�v}1�k"i� +�
�1 T';y1 r� {i✓ f��[t i'?ril k, � '..r�y,1 v'nt v L.y{ re.f a o- T � A '
\♦ � •'�+iw S5� ..i{k5�[fit^ ��},:ft"i��rtr�llo-��I1�fiG� �u'�*x yt[r. •.�, �{{��i 1 ��i
\, ` rr � �cts } r� ..{,4 swK l�f.S�'�. `?�' {,r4.'. �`1!+ � r i• • w 4t'r 4
` �1r ��1ti�1/r��'`J Hl1 1�'1�.3II A Ask�'+J'1y9� �rr�i�[f V1�r P�`i1 (C. S J� •S,y .
[,.I.1 �i tit! � {4� �^rt�'F,",�y� Ny�U Ursa 14'!�1 a �.t,�'✓�'r'r' ,�• A
w+h .ii ft'fr r 11{:-�'C• {H'� V b�iS� ir ,f�L` u! uT C• tJ 1 �fii
y { Self' •r,���a 1 J, r>d i C�p[�y�r ti k�/1'^,�. �a� •s�1t � � ��� ,,,�
♦ b"-r,,` r� :. 7; ' J •N ia•�..r'\' � .' t'?(1T,H ���M',!L '.l '•^•t}}y 4 is
• •
�S J-L �.i�� �u I� I 1.1� /l \I 1 �1\1 I_ �l L`.
1'' =A
2050 South Bundy Drive • Suite 225 Los Angeles California • 90025 213- ..f�• ie j
MA 11
1987
COMM UNOTY p VANO
E
Nr
May 8 , 1987 f—LOL
City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Proposed Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Spiegel Enterprises is the owner of the property located at
19582 Beach Boulevard , which has been used as the bowling center
known as Huntington Lanes . Huntington Lanes is ceasing
operations this month so that we can recycle the property into a
higher and better use , but no decision has yet been made as to
specific directions for achieving that higher and better use .
We understand that you will be considering the
environmental impact statement for the proposed Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project . The purpose of this letter is to express
the views of one land owner in support of the Redevelopment
Project .
Because we have been before you in the recent past , we
assume you know that any attempt to upgrade our property or
similar properties along Beach Boulevard must overcome a number
of obstacles which are the result of inadequate coordination and
the tremendous change along Beach Boulevard over the 5 to 10
years . Some actions taken 10, 15 , or 20 years ago now act to
inhibit growth and development along Beach Boulevard as it now
is or will be in the coming years and decades . The necessity
for additional public improvements to upgrade Beach Boulevard
and reconciliation of conflicts among land users must be
addressed if the progress already made is to continue .
While growth might continue without the proposed
Redevelopment Plan, that growth would take appreciably longer
and involve great deal more pain than is necessary. Public
improvements needed to support future growth must be properly
funded , and the ability of the Redevelopment Agency to keep and
�v
City COuncil -2- May 8 , 1987
use the incremental tax revenues resulting from redevelopment
will certainly accelerate the completion of public and private
infrastructures necessary for the upgrading of Beach Boulevard .
Furthermore, the Redevelopment Plan would permit flexible
reponses needed to overcome a number of private problems--for _
example, the unsafe ingress and egress at the southerly end of
our property which has been addressed by you previously; without
the City ' s being able to assist the redevelopment of the Beach
Boulevard corridor in many ways not now available , private
development can be held hostage to prior actions or unreasonable
private interests .
I have heard certain complaints about the proposed
Redevelopment Plan. They appear to fall into three categories :
( 1) complaints about how the City now acts without focus on
Redevelopment ( the same problems exist concerning zoning,
general plan, or granting of conditional use permits ) , ( 2 ) fear
of the possibility of eminent domain (which, I understand , is an
extremely remote possibility, and one which must be accompanied
by adequate compensation) , or ( 3 ) miscomprehension of the
Redevelopment Plan as a master plan which the City has already
adopted providing a very specific concept of what it
specifically wants to accomplish through private " land grabs" ,
whereas , in reality, the Plan only provides a mechanism for
facilitating development over the next 30 years or so . The
opposition to the concept of Redevelopment should be considered
in light of whether it is based on facts or fears . While there
are probably legitimate fears , all those which I have heard can
be overcome by proper administration; none go to the merits of
the Plan itself .
This letter is being written to express the views of one
landowner who has made a tentative commitment to upgrade and
recycle its property along Beach Boulevard . We believe that
much can be accomplished more quickly and with much more the
benefit to everyone if the Redevelopment Plan is implemented .
Therefore, we urge the City Council to act favorably upon the
plan.
i n c eI r,e l y y o c.a,-----,
7,%_
Mark A. Spibgel \.
General Partner
MAS : nbc
cc : Tom Andrusky, Redevelopment Agency
0152-65
Thelma Ackerman • Fnj.'�.
" Street
Huntington •;Beach, CA 92647
NJw';Verna--25, 1987 -
Mayor Jack Kelly;
City Council CITY GF
Planning Commission CITY
Huntington Beach, CA
Your Honor Mayor Kelly, City Council Members and Members of the
Planning Commission :
My name is Thelma Ackerman ; I live at 16911 "A" Street , Hun-
tington Beach . I have lived there since 1957. My disabled
sister has lived there on the property since 1945 . Our roots go
very deep in Huntington Beach: church , medical , banking , food
and clothing shopping . I was Secretary/Treasurer of our mutual
community water company for ten ( 10) years until we were forced
to go to City water service . I take much interest. in City and
school elections and projects in our city . I am a resident mem-
ber of Project Area Committee known as PAC .
I .wish to refer to Health and Safety . Code numbers 33012, 33032
and 33030 regarding blight and redevelopment .
We are not a physical , social , or economic liability requiring
redevelopment in the interest of the health , safety and general
welfare of the people of this community or state.
1 ) Since our parents ' death after 1975 , our property taxes were
doubled ; therefore , we are not paying the original Prop 13
rate.
2) Our lots are not irregular forms or shapes . All lots in the
subdivision were surveyed by the late James Sewell for his
late family Baylock . All are 50 x 100 feet .
3) All our publicfacilities are adequate and because of improve-
ments of business , have been updated.
4) Our residences have been improved with new roofs and paint ,
both interior and exterior .
5 . - Th.ere have been more private enterprises and buildings
remodeled recently.
6 . I am enclosing pictures taken June 25 , 1987 showing that there
. have been improvements since plate number 8 and number 5 were
taken (copies of plates also attached) .
I trust with the above facts as well as photographs you will
agree with my neighbors and me: this is not a blighted area .
Sinc$rely,
Thelma Ackerman
TA:jlm
Presented before the P1anning. Commission Meeting of Tuesday,
June 9 , 1987
My name is Thelma Ackerman , I reside at 16911 "A" Street , Beach
Boulevard and Warner Avenue. I am a resident of Huntington Beach
since 1957. My roots go very deep in this city. My parents were
residents here from 1943 until their deaths . I have a disabled
sister whose whole life is rooted in Huntington Beach. I have
always been involved in my community . I was Secretary/Treasurer
of our community mutual water company until we were forced to go
on City water service . I am a resident member of the project
area committee known as PAC . I always take much interest in City
and school elections .
We hear much about blight . Blight to me means unsightly. If one
would drive Beach Blvd . and notice new buildings and some old
buildings being demolished or repaired , that is improvement to me
and not blight . In the past 3 years our homes have been re-
roofed , painted and generally repaired . Our lawns are mowed and
green . The city street sweeper comes regularly so our streets
are clean . The potholes in our streets are the city' s respon-
sibility . We have kept up our places without city or Government
help . When we were county , before incorporation of the City of
Huntington Beach , we didn ' t have these problems .
Land developers are not permanent residents . They demolish and
build and leave. The individual business person is left to pay
taxes and the expense of the project or complex . In my study of
reports about shopping centers , there alleged to be too many
vacant stores . I wish to see these refurbished and rented before
we start displacing more residents .
Senior citizens pay taxes and many are involved in projects for
the good of the community . They do not cause traffic problems .
Our life' s work - blood , sweat and tears are in these places . We
feel we should have fair market price, not someone else who comes
for a short period of time, makes a profit on our property and
leaves us homeless .
Than1:7kiyou .
11
Thelma Ackerman ��-
• � ' �-. �•���'`t tip:• �,.
•; ..;.
,� ►
-,k1i R�ili►
� pry a i� :� �; + � p'+~rf• .� t ., '�„rrr_+ � + k' ' �••_
`+ '�t a 1 ', *.y. q�i !k'/,tic r., �'••r ��� n � � �.��• r�t�'
�,,s.>^•••' Z'h} �1'�+i � of 1 ��;,r �r* � +� .. E','.' '�ti art r ` k.t SMr�r!,.
/ern r ". :- a ,•4.
':��Le'��.r'• Y
41
APO
! %>+�.)�r�;..►e�p ti'�"}w1�..' r> '`,' :fir-'Y.`':� �
OL
nt
HUNTIK.,T )N BEACH CHAMBEPPf COMMERCE
SEACLIFF VILLAGE, 2213 MAIN, # 32 HUNTING' TON BEACH, CA 92648 -
TE�,UH E (714) 536-8888 Z
July 1 , 198T RIVED
` R L 0 7 1987
HQUSING AND
Mayor Jaok .Belly and c'AMMUNITY DZVELOPMENT
Members of City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mayor Kelly:
The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
has carefully reviewed the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Beach
Boulevard . As a result of this study the Directors have taken
a position to support the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
area with the following understanding:
1 . The redevelopment project will help facilitate the
flow of traffic along Beach Blvd . which will benefit
the businesses located on the boulevard as well as
the general public . Such improvements will include
synchronized signals , bus turnouts , additional turn
lanes and driveway consolidation . It is our understanding
that the redevelopment project does not include flyover
intersections .
2 . The project will upgrade other public improvements
such as water , sewer and drainage .
3 . The project will provide for the improvement of aesthetics
along Beach Blvd . , the major artery of . our community ,
by increasing landscaping , undergrounding utilities
and adopting guidelines for new developments .
4 . The creation of a redevelopment area will provide the
necessary vehicle to fund these proposed improvements.
Our primary concern involves the use of eminent domain . The
fact that the Agency has indicated that as much as 10T acres
could be subject to eminent domain and the apparent lack of
. a definite plan and criteria is of grave concern to us . Specifi-
cally , we believe that 10T acres is significantly greater than
is necessary 'to carry out an adequate plan . This issue has
been discussed with various Chamber committees by the Agency
staff and it is still unclear to us as to the extent eminent
domain would be utilized. This same concern has been voiced
by property, owners , residents and business persons along Beach
Blvd . We believe that the communication process with these
.concerned citizens has not been adequate and must be addressed
and improved if any such redevelopment effort is to succeed. C/
Beach Blvd . Redevelopment Plan
July 1 , 1987
Page Two
In closing, we urge you to :
1 . Support the proposed Beach .Blvd . Redevelopment Project .
2 . Significantly reduce the amount of acreage to be. subject
to eminent domain and - establish criteria for its usage .
3 . Establish a well publicized telephone "hotline " direct to
knowledgeable city staff . The purpose of the hotline is
to answer project questions in a direct and forthright manner .
On behalf of the Board of Directors , I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to comment on the Beach Blvd . Redevelopment
Project and offer our support .
Sin erely ,
Steve Hol en
President
SH:kb
cc : Charles Thompson , City Administrator
Doug LaBelle , Director of Community Development/Deputy
City Administrator
• C �iF7
C3
i -
SimL
FE` i_
lJ �• � J
�O
CA . Q 2 49
Bye C4
tv� Tuun
in I,
Ck
IA rel4-i
l
; - r
Huntington Beach
Fountain Valley
Board of REALTORS® In :
R E A LTO R• 8101 Slater Avenue • Huntington Beach, CA 92647 • (714) 847-6093 f
July 2, 1987
The Honorable Jack Kelly, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
RE: Agenda Item E-3C: Adoption of Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project
Honorable Councilmembers:
As president of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of REALTORS, I would like to
inform you that our Board of Directors, at their meetings of June 3, 1987 and again on July 1,
1987, voted to support in concept the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project.
Let me assure you that this action is not one we take lightly. Our Local Governmental Relations
Committee studied this issue most carefully and had presentations from representatives of
both the Project Area Committee and the Redevelopment Agency staff on two occasions. The
first meeting was on March 19, 1987 prior to the completion of the PAC report. The PAC raised
a number of serious questions regarding the project, and so we pursued the matter still further.
On May 21, the Committee had a 2 1/2 hour presentation by the following representatives on
BOTH sides of this issue: James Lane, chairman of the Project Area Committee, Chuck
Osterlund, vice chairman, George Pearson, committee member. The Redevelopment Agency
was represented by Doug LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment, Tom Clark,
Attorney for the Redevelopment Agency, Stephen Kohler, Project Manager, and Mike Adams,
Redevelopment Planner.
While the PAC had many questions about the project, most of their concerns were totally
unsubstantiated and were adequately addressed or complete lX refuted by the redevelopment
agency representatives. The Committee recommended that we support the project, and we
agreed at our meeting of June 3.
Subsequently, the PAC sent a letter to each of our Directors, and raised additional issues and
made still more allegations. Again, we asked for a direct response from the City and again, the
answers indicated that the allegations had no basis in fact.
There is no question in our minds that our entire community will benefit from the public
improvements which can be provided through the redevelopment process. We are convinced
that funds are not otherwise available--they are not available from the state or local
transportation authorities and should not be exacted from current or potential property
owners. We believe that this transportation corridor is so critical to the economic vitality of
our business community--both along Beach Boulevard as well as those to be developed in our
downtown area that we should proceed with this plan immediately to retain our tax dollars for
the benefit of our own economic health.
OFFICERS
LILA NOWELL, President• FRANK C. HORZEWSKI, First Vice President
JAN SHOMAKER, Second Vice President/MLS Chairman • JAMES RIGHEIMER, Secretary/Treasurer
DIRECTORS
R.L. "KIRK" KIRKLAND• BETH DUNCOMBE• PHYLLIS RHYAN• LOU STAN • TOM VAN TUYL
WILL WOODS, Executive Vice President• JUDITH SEVERY, Vice President/Public Affairs
' Huntington Beach City Council
July 2, 1987
Page 2
There have been many allegations of misinformation or lack of information provided by the
redevelopment agency staff, and I would like to state that this has not been our experience with
regard to this project. In every instance where we have requested information, agency staff has
been responsive and prompt.
A final note: As REALTORS, we are committed to the defense of private property rights. We
would be the first to object if we felt those rights were being violated. We may have an
advantage over the PAC in that we are also very familiar with the redevelopment process in
Huntington Beach, having years of experience with this issue which has made us
comfortable...with the language of redevelopment, with the implementation of redevelopment,
and with the legal process that protects property rights in a redevelopment area. That is not to
say that there will never be some inconvenience or someone who won't be entirely happy with a
decision which might be made sometime over the 35 year life of the project, but we are
confident that our elected officials will make their decisions with regard to due process and
that the laws will protect the citizenry.
We urge you to look 35 years into the future and recognize the opportunity that awaits our
community through the redevelopment process and vote in favor of the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project. Huntington Beach needs it.
Sincerely,
Pifllaowell
Board President
LN/JAS/km
Mr. and Mrs . G3ry Meier
2521 So . Diamond D
Santa Ana, CA 92704
City of Huntington Beach J U N 2 5 198
Office of the City Administrator 2000 Main Street CITY OF fiUNTINGtiON BEACH
.Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Re: Lots 107-100-29 & 107-100-30
To City Administrator, City Council Members & Redevelopment Agency,
We are property owners on "A" Street at Beach and Warner in the re-
development area.
We received your notification by certified mail of your intentions
of the July 6 meeting. We have also been hearing news of this by.
way of our Pac committee. '
We are shocked and distressed by the coarse of events that the city
is taking.
Our property has been in our family for three generations. It is our
parents and our intentions to develop or pass this opportunity on to-
our children. We have been looking forward to the day when the
Beach Blvd. properties would develop into business or new residential
rentals .
We have seen these properties rezoned several times and -.are
perfectly willing to work with the city "in redevelopment,and 'build
ourselves, according to a planned community.
It seems vnconceivable that in America that hard working - tax pay—.
ing people can be sold out so easily, and that someone -else reap the
harvest of our -hard work. We have worked hard for many years with
out the help of the city to keep our properties (four houses) in a
kept up clean condition. When requested by the city we put in new
sewers, water mains, etc. The city has never helped us with pav-
ing of the alley, keeping up the street (pot holes) , curbs, lights,
etc . When we were considered county these improvements seemed to be
done on a regular basis. If this area is considered a blight area it
has been so because by purposeful neglect by the City of Huntington
Beach.-
Due to family deaths change in property tax have considerab1sr -risen
with no benefit what-so ever to our properties.
In conclusion we plead with you the City Council of Huntington- Beach;
and as fellow Americans to be included in the re-development, or if
forced to sell we would not have to except low market value . Allowing
someone else -(land developers or City) to benefit from our many_ years
. of hard work and waiting.
1
It is our. understanding that property owners in the Costa Mesa and
Newport Beach area that have faced this issue have successfully won
suits with the help of such lawyers as Paul Garbor, Attorney of
Property
We hope that we and the City of Huntington Beach will not be put
into this situation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mr. and Mrs. Gary Meier
rm
cc
ALLEN KLI-NGENSMITM
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. BOX 431 '�.
- HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9264E
TELEPHONE (714).842-5829
TO: The City of Huntington Beach 'and the. Hunt-ington Beach
Redevelopment Agency.
RE: The Huntington Beach = Beach Boulevard Redevelopment i
Project i
My name is Allen Klingensmith and I _ have owned. and
presently_own property- at 17791 and 17.811 Beach Blvd.
. .: within the proposed project zone. I have .cwned 'the property-:
and have, been in :b.usine'ss. in Huntington Beach 'ag. an attorney
-since '-the early' 1960s . .-L was President of the Chamber of. Coin
merce of Huntington Beach . in 1970.
I am strongly opposed to this project and will; address
the 16 objectives as set forth: in the NOTICE -OF JOINT PUBLIC
HEARING published in the Daily Pilot on June 8, .1987.
i
1 . The area snot blighted. Gleam- and convincing
evidence is .the number and size of . new.1de.velopment — such
as Charter• .Centre and the many auto "agencies and' shopping
centers . - '
2. The underground;ing.of utilities is being addressed ,
as set forth in .the.' letter dated September 5 , 1986:
Underground Utility. District Number :86=1 - ( I am in favor..
The vehicular .circulation - system is .being handled in the '
Super Streets Demonstration Project ..
3. ;These obj;ect.ives can• be' achieved without' the civic
. dissention .that -.wi-11" most- ce.r.tai:niy- be caused by this
is
proposed- project`.
4. This is a '`re—worthng of paragraph 2 abov'e .andw
additionally; the development of the Boulevard* is under. the
jurisdiction of the State . of -Californi.a.
5 . This seems to- mean the condemnation and. res'ale of
properties' at various ' locations that will , if results of
the resale• follow the patterns in other cities ;= =-result in
the disposal of the condemned 'property" to large , well—
financed developers.. Thi's will be to the detriment of the .
existing owners , .many of whom have owned their property
for many years and do not .presentl.y wish to move from their
homes or to sell their property. .This paragraph seems -to be
a rephrasing of paragraph 1 , above , also.
6. The rroject will encourage the condemnation .and resale
to 1 arge deve 1 opens A. review of :your .records 'w.i 11 show . that '
a large number • of- n"ew :,busi.nesses .have appeared in.- the- many',
n,ew. developments . on the- Boulevard :in the last -few years This
fact shows that the '.proposed redevelopment -project', is unnec-
` e.ssary and will ever_ 'be:. detr.i.mental '_to- the future -of. Beach
B] v d `�
7. The development mentioned in paragraph 6, above ,
indicates substantial increases in City revenue by -reason of j
increased sales, etc. Only the "INCREMENTAL" taxes deriving
from the project is not. included; however, such income should
not be the reason to justify the condemnation of five miles
o.f privately-owned property. 1;
i
8. Redevelopment of 'the Boulevard that is zoned for
commercial use for low and moder-ate-cost housing would be I
a tremendous mis-use of the ro ert i'p p y; especially if, more
income revenue to the City is an important reason for this I
project. j
9. This . paragraph 9 is simply a rephrasing of paragraphs
1 and 5, above, and subject to the same criticisms. I.
is
is
10. The development of new businesses on the Boulevard
over the past few years indicates that private enterprise
is more than adequate to increase employment .
11 . The General Plan and controls through Zoning Regu-
lations insure the achievement of. this item; therefore
I�
Redevelopment is unnecessary. i
I;
12. This *parag.raph .is a repeat of paragraphs 2 and 4,
above, and subject to the same criticisms .
I.
13. The threat. of condemnation provided in the project I:
will -almost certainly result in dissention and a divided
populace - just the opposite of the desires- of the Council .
I
14 . Redevelopment -is unnecessary to achieve the encourage- .
I
ment mentioned in this paragraph. It will stifle individual
use of property.
15 . This paragraph is covered under paragraph 2 , above ,
and redevelopment is unnecessary to achieve this.
16. The. end mentioned in this paragraph can be achieved
through other regulatory means as the need arises - proof
being the numerous new developments build over the last few ;.
years .
i
In conclusion, I do not believe that Beach Boulevard is
blighted within the intent or meaning of our laws , nor is
the threat of condemnation of our property either morally ;
or legally justified-'or, in fact, necessary. There is an
old proverb - If it' s not broken, don't fix it .
Sincerely
i
Al Klingen ith j
P.U. Box 431
Huntington Beach
1. The elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration and the
conservation, rehab iIitatioA-:and redevelopment of the Project Area in accord with the
General Plan,specific plans, the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordinances.
2...The.elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, including
substandard vehfctitar``circeiiatlo'=system,and other similar public improvements,
facilities and utilities deficiencies'adversely affecting the Project Area
3. The achievement of an environment. reflecting a high level of concern for
acchhectutak-tisndstape=an,d-imban. - Ign and land use principles appropriate for.
attainmeiff dI the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.
4. The enhancement of a major, �egion-serving thoroughfare-tor:provide a quality
design identity and smooth, safe circulation.
5. The replanning, redesign, assembly. and reparcetlzation and. development-of-
1 cant areas which are stagnant or improperly.utilized.�+�r _
* A.- Th& Mvestment by private-sector.In the devetoprrtent and::=,.
redevelop =area,.by.eftinatfng,Impedi is to sucks=devefcpmett#;i s
' and red"opmenf.
?-T�hs.pr4v3sfvi�for >s �I ie�.�0en�-hotel-oaf�o
feast taixes:and-revenues
$.The,expansion of-the community's'supPh►of"f7` woch d oopcwtun�tor
low,and moderate Income.households:
The.establ -and'implementation of pefftmome-cMeft.:to assuse h r
standards for. ' e.- t 4Waflty anQ`ottte�:: elemestta;:whicta
provide:unity and 7iitegrity t;Z th8 entire Projects:
10 Thwpromotlop andY tlw:of new locals °
} 14 The encouragement:of E d
IZ' The- provWdn �of- a- pedestrian-- and.`vehic ularn.,cir6Attarr systea4° wlNch
coordinated*With land,uses and densities,and adequate to acccmmodaft praj�ected ,:`.
tt _: i16$ax V
13 -Ttte at +st' aitSh and of residents; business
ownera . pulpit agertcies acid community organd flons lrr the- dev�opntertt and: ..-
redevefopment_of,the.area,
t =`Phe entot�ragmttenx' the _ _ _ 'whicA,
positively'.relate�. to ad}acen# Land uses`: and to upcgmde ate:st existing
cerrarterclal-uses
15. The facilitation of the: i ttig unsightly overheatf utility lines.
16. The provision of adequate,,W!4stb t`OWN to serve current and future uses
within the Project Area.
The boundary of the area. include within the Huntington Beach--Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project is shown on the Exhibit"A" Map and is described in the Exhibit
"B" Legal Description, both of which accompany this notice and are a part hereof.
'wick. im*
"SALES AND SERVICE"
4 �
TELEPHONE 122 FIFTH STREET
(714) 886-6888 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648
June 24, 1987
The Honorable Jack Kelly D ��
Mayor of Huntington Beach
and JUL 11987
Members of the City Council "-`-
Can-Gn
2000 Main Street CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
l
Dear Jack:
. A
As you know, Terry Buick is now located in the Downtown, Main -`
Pier Phase II. We are planning to relocate to Beach Boulevard
where the empty Shakey's Pizza facility now stands. Land values
.on Beach Boulevard have nearly doubled over the last several
years, to a cost that makes it extremely difficult to profitably
develop a new car dealership. The same situation is occurring
throughout Southern California and the new car dealers ability to
survive without some assistance by the cities seems doomed. As
you know, auto dealerships are the number 1 sales tax producers
in most cities and a revenue we can ill afford to lose.
The proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment is of major
importance to this City and in the long run will turn out to be
as important as the Downtown Project. Beach Boulevard has
developed as the new. Main Street of Huntington Beach and it needs
to be properly controlled and directed so that we might all be
proud of our Main Street. The Redevelopment Plan is an essential
part of the relocation of Terry Buick and it's potential future
expansion to include other makes of cars not presently sold in
Huntington Beach. We are looking to an annual sales tax revenue
to the City of nearly $500,000. Without Redevelopment and the
assistance that it provides, our plans become economically
unfeasible.
I appreciate all the help you and your fellow Council members
have been to me in the past and I 'm sure you all recognize how
critical Beach Boulevard Redevelopment is to the City and to me
. personally. I encourage you to give it your full support.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Terry
President ^�v
V/
11IL//OF 1<AISER PERMANENTE
111f
1'l1� Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. , I A4a7A
I Southern California Regions
D EVEQ YE
r
<4'�z
June 24 , 19` `, J D
UN 2 ,9
1987
C/7
C/7y COL//V (3roN SE,q
CEO OFFIC CH
City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen:
Re: Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
We have been advised by the Office of Redevelopment , City of
Huntington Beach, that the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Project will provide funding for:
Traffic circulation and parking improvements
Storm drain and sanitary services
Water utility improvements
Open space and park improvements and historic
preservation - Bartlett Park
Landscaping and streetscape
Accordingly, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. supports the
proposed project .
Very truly yours ,
L. G. Baldwin
Regional Property Manager
LGB:BB: ja
r^
GGG ,7
NS-634'i;2-851
Walnut Center Pasadena California 91188
C17),
oU 0
n/
June 1987
l lLy (JL f1Uti-2'1 r 11
ATTENTION: COUNCIL CHAMGER
2000 Main Street
Huntington -Beach, CS 92648
Gentlemen:
Regarding the HIJNTI?TGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REFEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This expresses my OPPOSITION.
In my reading I find in these reports by KatzHollis a definite lac]c of
CURRENT information.
I find the request for AUTHORITY unnecessary and OVERWHELMING - we are
not quite as: gullible as the Council members think.
It seems our city is great for creating problems, and then in attempting
to find solutions, only create NEW PROBLEMS. This .is exactly what I see
happening if the Redevelopment Project is undertaken as it-is proposed!
Sincerely,
. 1
727 Williams
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
June 1987
cic°Fy D 1-0
B)
City of Huntington Beach �yCOUGT
ATTENTION: COUNCILHAMBER N014 O
. C i'v
2000 Main Stroot OFF/C� Q/Y
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gentlemen:
Re: HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
This letter is to express my opposition to this Redevelopment Project.
My reason being: I feel there is a conflict of interest when the
Council Members appoint thprrselves, or each other to the Redevelop-
ment Agency.
In their writings the Agency discusses giving the owners a opportunity
. to participate. If this is a real concern - why did they not appoint
the Redevelopment Agency members from the general populace? The answer
is the power would not be in the Council Members hands!
Sincerely,
1026 - 13th St.
Huntington Beach, CA
I ECE § WE
_ oilT t r AG
June 29, 1987 �{�c�f U G �987
CDUNCFL OF�1CF
TINGTON tAC,y
Mayor Jack Kelly and City Council -
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mayor Kelly and Council Members:
My name is Steve DuBow. My wife and I own commercial
property located at 7911 Warner, near -the corner of Beach
Boulevard in Huntington Beach. The building is leased to
Huntington Honda.
I am writing to you regarding the Beach Boulevard redevelop-
ment project. After careful review of the proposals, I am
very concerned about the future of business and property `
owners located in the project area.
The project is very vague as to what will happen. Eminent
domain is mentioned, but the project goes on to say "can
hopefully be avoided". In my meeting with the redevelopment
people no one could say exactly what is planned for my
property area.
I am concerned for the tenant who occupies the property I
own as to how this will affect his business.
I ask you to carefully review the plan and to, hopefully,
decide against it.
Please feel free to contact me if I can answer any of your
questions.
Sin erel
I
Steve DuBow
(714) 641-8194
SD/jj
�v
• Interstate Bank of C • f^-1/� /��V//of California
California
Edinger& Beach Office
First Box 1190
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
F.1' Interstate 714 847-2581 4 p
Bank
r
June 26, 1987
Mr. Jack Kelly, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear. Mayor Kelly:
I have met with Tom Andrusky, a representative of your Redevelopment
Department for the City of Huntington Beach, on several occasions.
He is fully aware of my concerns regarding the increase of the
flow of traffic at the intersection of Edinger & Beach.
In reviewing the Redevelopment Plan, I am in full agreement of
using tax increment financing to provide adequate traffic flow
and public improvements on Beach Boulevard.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project. I would like to commend the City Council's
active participation in ensuring quality community development.
Sincerely—,
AMaanne Stro bitski
Vice Pres% nt & Manager D
JUN 2 b 1987
cc: Tom Andrusky CITY OF HUNTINCTON REACH
Huntington Beach Redevelopment ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
,�v
DECE �
South Coupty WE
Volkswagen/Isuzu JUN 2 3 V
1987
June 19, 1987 CITY2FHUNT/NGTpNBEAC � IS�
ITY CCUNC�L OFFICE H
Mr. Jack Kelly, Mayor and
Members of City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mayor Kelly:
We have made a cursory review of the proposed Redevelopment
Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Project and are generally pleased with provisions included
for the improvement of Beach Boulevard.
We share the concerns of the Huntington Beach Chamber of
Commerce and other forward thinking persons in the community
who recognize the importance of promoting quality major
commercial areas in the city. We believe the Beach Avenue
corridor covered by this project is such an area.
The general provisions of the Redevelopment Project have our
support and we look forward to cooperating with public
officials, business representatives and residents of the
community in developing the more specific plans for
improvement.
Since y,
Danny cKenna
Vice Pr 'd nt
DJM:dgs
18711 Beach Boulevard
Huntington Beach,California 92648
(714) 842-2000 (213) 592-1383 v
i�
Xor co�
BEACH LINCOLN MERCURY
16800 Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 2540
Huntington Beach, Calif. 92647
(714) 848-7739
June 17, 1987 D
J�N2 2
can,of
ClT y CD��C�TCN BEACH
Mr. Jack Kelly, Mayor �FFjCE
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
Dear Mayor Kelly:
I had the chance to attend the meeting a couple of months
ago regarding Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington
Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, and also
had a chance to go over the details of the project with
the staff of the Redevelopment Project.
I think it is a very well planned project regarding the
land use, air quality & traffic control around the Beach
Boulevard area in order to cope with the growing population
in the City of Huntington Beach.
Every business-man and resident in this city should all
throw their support to this project.
We, at Beach Lincoln Mercury, will certainly do our part
to see the project materialized in the near future.
Sincerely,
Peter Chang
President
PC/njs
v
Mayor Kelly & City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 June 18, 1987
Dear Mayor Kelly & City Council:
I am a property owner (PN 157-451-09) within the proposed Beach
Blvd. Redevelopment Project boundary.
I wish to express my support for the proposed project.
Thank you and best wishes.
Sincerely,
Homer H. Tang
Property Owner �� D
P. Box 1217
Huntington Beach
California 92647 na
NB_NC
CJ
OF
c�-Nc�-�c cov
i
•
T� Y`
CIS
- ------------- --- UNTINTQN BEACH ^--- --- ---- -- - ----- - -
- ---- - ---- -- -- CIIY_COUNCIL-OFFICE -------- ---- - - -- -----
� I
WELLS FARGO BANK
Newland Center Office
19840 Beach Boulevard
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
C
May 27, 1987 ry
Z C-> i
NJ
-L" -n rn
�v
Mr. Jack Kelly, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 .:lain Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mayor Kelly:
The purpose of this letter is to express support for the proposed Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project that will be voted on by the City Council at your meeting of
July 6, 1987. I work out of the Wells Fargo Bank branch located at 19840 Beach
Boulevard, which is within the boundaries of the project.
I have received and reviewed the Redevelopment Plan and the Preliminary Report on the
Plan. I agree with the objective of using tax increment financing to provide traffic and
other public improvements on Beach Boulevard. These improvements will enhance the
economic well being and the aesthetics of this major commercial corridor.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project. The City Council's progressive approach to ensuring quality
gity development is greatly appreciated.
,
Combs
ce Vice President
JMC:sr
xc: Tom Andrusky, H. B. Redevelopment
XC:
hoV-
GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS j o tm L
16141 Beach Boulevard•P.O. Box 1680•Huntington Beach•California 92647•(714)847-1281 (� D
June 4, 1987
Mr. Jack Kelly, , Mayor and
Members of the City Counsil
City of Huntington Beach GN
2000. Main Street �pNB�'
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 pF NV�IC�NG pFF�CE
Dear Mayor Kelly:
The purpose of this letter is to express support!--for the proposed
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project that will be voted on
by the City Council at your meeting of July 6,. 1987. I
work out of the Great Western Bank branch located at 16141
Beach Boulevard, which is within the boundaries of the
project.
I have received and reviewed the Redevelopment Plan and the
Preliminary Report on the Plan. I agree with the objective
of using tax increment financing to provide traffic and
other public improvements on Beach Boulevard. These
improvements will enhance the economic well being and
the aesthetics of this major commercial corridor.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The City Council's
progressive approach to ensuring quality community development
is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Laura Phillips
Branch Vice President
y®
A SAVINGS ASSOCIATION OF GREAT WESTERN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AV IV
I
Huntington
_
capital $A. L
Corpoicition
June 15 , 1987
Mr. Jack Kelly, Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Honorable Mayor Kelly:
Huntington Capital Corporation is the General Partner for
and manager of Huntington Executive Park, which a quality
office park consisting of three restaurants and approximately
110 ,000 square feet of office space. Huntington Executive Park
is located at the southeast corner of Beach and Edinger and is
within the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. .
Mr. Tom Andrusky has reviewed the Redevelopment Plan with
me and has explained the tax increment financing. The proposed
public improvements, which include traffic signals, parking and
street improvements, will assist in improving the traffic
circulation on Beach Boulevard. We agree with the plan to use
tax 'increment financing to fund the needed public improvements
which will benefit all property owners and businesses along Beach
Boulevard.
Huntington Capital Corporation supports the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project and would like the City Council/Redevelopment
Agency to approve the Plan at your July 6 , 1987 meeting. We thank
the Council for taking positive action to improve traffic circulation
on Beach Boulevard.
Si erely,
ep en o ge
Vice Pre i ent
SJD/sv
cc: Thomas Andrusky
H.B. Development
• �v
16168 Beach Boulevard • Suite 200 • Huntington Beach, California 92647 ' • (714) 847-2531 �
17772 Beach Boulevard
Huntington Beach,California
92647
Telephone 714 842-1473
Aumana Hospital (
Huntington Bea F E
g � n0
D
June 11, 1987 JUN 1 y98�
CITY OF
crTy C()UNCX OF BEACH
City Council OFFICE
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to express our support for the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project. Humana Hospital-Huntington Beach formerly known as
Huntington Interoommunity Hospital is located at 17772 Beach Boulevard and
has been serving patients of Huntington Beach for over 20 years.
Humana Hospital-Huntington Beach is represented by a Board of Trustees
including:
Robert Beck, Division Vice President, Southern California Edison Corporation
Marie Otto, Superintendent, Huntington Beach Union High School District
Robert Mandic, past Mayor of Huntington Beach
Arthur Calick, MD, past Chief of Staff
James Bohanon, Vice President, Humana, Inc. (Regional Office)
John Mandrell, President, RMG Engineering, Inc.
W. Raymond Menzies, MD, Chief of Staff
Ed M=pscn, Manager, Employee Insurance and Benefits, City Huntington Beach
Alexander Halperin, MD, Chief of Surgery
Siegfred Surber, MD, General Practice
Dale Dunn, Vice President, Huntington Savings and Loan Association
Mark Aaronson, Executive Director, Humana Hospital Huntington Beach
In addition to Humana Hospital-Huntington Beach, the medical campus located
at the corner of Beach and Newman Avenues includes three large medical office
buildings. The campus generates a tremendous amount of traffic due to the
consistantly high occupancy of the medical office buildings and the use of
the hospital, particularly the Emergency Department. We are particularly
concerned with the traffic flow to and from the medical campus on
Beach Boulevard. Our concerns stem from several accidents and near accidents
at the Beach and Newman Avenue entrance points to the medical campus. These
accidents have been, for the most part, caused by the high volume of traffic,
poor circulation, and inappropriate parking on Beach Boulevard.
�v
1961 - 25 years of Humana Caring • 1986
t • •
It is our understanding that the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Project will provide significant funding for public improvements which will
include traffic, parking, and circulation. It is also our understanding that
the Beach Boulevard "super street" improvements including the elimination of
parking, spot street winding, bus turnouts, consolidation of drive
approaches, deceleration lanes, and traffic signal interconnects are all
improvements that stand a better chance of being accomplished if the
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project is adopted. Experience over the last
20 years has shown that these types of improvements are non-existent, or, at
best, slaw to develop.
Public improvements must be properly funded to become a reality. It is our
belief that the ability of the Redevelopment Agency to use incremental tax
revenues resulting from redevelopment will help accelerate the ccmpletion of
these needed public improvements on Beach Boulevard. We believe the
improvements can be accomplished more expeditiously if the redevelopment plan
is implemented. Therefore, we urge the City Council to act favorably upon
the plan.
Sincerely,
Mark Aanonson
Executive Director
MA:jh
cc:Tbm Andrusky, Redevelopment Agency
IIAMC I Jeep. 1 RENAULTQ a„
� M
�( ,FI L
✓�N 1 S D
June 11 , 1987 CITY 1g8]
OFtiU
CToN
k OFF�eEgCN
Mr . Jack Kelly , Mayor and
Members of City COLnciI
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 9264E
Gear Mayor Kelly :
Huntington AMC Jeep Renault firmly supports the
Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Blvd. Redevelop-
ment Prcject .
We endorse the comments made by the Huntington
Beach Chamber of Commierce and feel their state-
ments on Land Use, Air Quality, and Transpbrta-
tion/Circulation are accurate.
We look forward to the proposed redevelopment
becoming a reality . .
Sincerely,
iG
ry C . ay,
reside
GCG/wb
16751 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92647 (213) 592-5647 (714) 841-3999
I �
Qo �n �.
C/�MPBELL 6950 Manchester B
Suite 200
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP Buena Park, California 90621
(714) 739-8844
(213) 868-0808
D
May 27, 1987 JUN 1 1987
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Mr. Jack Kelly, Mayor and CITY COUNCEL OFFICE
Members of City Council
City of Huntington Beach
200 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mayor Kelly:
Campbell Nissan of Huntington Beach has recently completed a remodel of our
facility located at 18835 Beach Boulevard. We are looking forward to any
future planned improvements in our community.
The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project will make trafficr� parking and
street improvements that provide easier access into store and shopping centers
along Beach Boulevard, this should be beneficial to all concerned.
Campbell Nissan of Huntington Beach strongly supports the Huntington Beach-
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project.
Sincer - y,
Al Paraj ckas
Executive Vice President
CC: Steve Parajeckas
V
BUENA PARK: CAMPBELL MAZDA • CAMPBELL NISSAN • CAMPBELL PORSCHE+AUDI • CAMPBELL VOLKSWAGEN • CAMPBELL PAINT & BODY •
PRUDENTIAL ACCEPTANCE LEASING COSTA MESA: CAMPBELL MAZDA GARDEN GROVE:CAMPBELL FORD HUNTINGTON BEACH:CAMPBELL NISSAN
•
HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER of COMMERCE
• SEACLIFF VILLAGE, 2213 MAIN, # 32 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
TELEPHONE (714) 536-8888
March 30 , 1987 �
1987-1988
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
President
Eiei+oLOEN Mr . Jack Kelly, Mayor and fr i
South Shores Insurance Agency e m b e r s of City Council
Vice President City of Huntington Beach
ART AVILES
Art Aviles A Associates 2000 Main Street
Vice President Huntington Beach , CA 92648
CHRIS N.CLAWSON
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics
Vice President Dear Mayor Kelly :
KLAUS GOEDECKE
Automobile Club of Southern Calitorria
Vice President On March 26 , the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce voted
ROGER WORK to support the Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard
Huntington Reach Company
Huntingtoncial
Redevelopment Project as presented in the Draft Environmental
cer
HOWARD SHUPE Impact Report .
Weiser Lock
Execulive Vice President
JOYCERIDDELL The Board recognizes the importance of the Beach Blvd . corridor
Past President both as the city ' s major commercial core and as a vital link
LARTheRvadway to the proposed redevelopment projects in the downtown area . We
The Broadway p p �
BOARD OFD!RECTORS feel that the objective of securing tax increment financing
JEROMEM.BAME to provide traffic improvements within the corridor is vital
Attorney At Law to the economic well-being as well as the aesthetic enhancement
CORRIEBROUSSARD of the City ' s major arterial highway . This financing will
President-Sand Dollars
BARRYBUSSIERE provide the city with the necessary tool to accelerate the
ERA Star Rea:Estate Canter provisions of traffic , parking and access improvements .
ELIZABETH COPLEY
Attorney '
PAT ney In regards to the three most significant impacts , Land Use ,
Nautilus Imports Air Quality , and Transportation/Circulation , the Board feels
DALE L.DUNN that appropriate mitigation is in place :
Huntington Savings 3 Loan
JOHN FARIS
Southern California Gas Compagirst , in referance to Land Use , there are no sweeping land
DICK HARLOW use changes and are consistent with the City ' s current General
Richard Hanow&Associates plan . It is our understanding that any further development ,
FHILIPberty National Bank S.INGLEE
Liberty selective wideningat intersections , financial assistance ,
ART LETTS lot consolidation , eminent domain proceedings etc . would be
Security Consultant subject to procedures set up in redevelopment law . This would
MIKE MARTIN require approval by the appropriate agencies , boards and commis-
Southern California Edison Gompa Mons sons as well as the public hearing process .
Fabric Protection Inc.
DON PANKHARD.CLU Second , the Air Quality will be affected but may be partially
The.PankhardAgency mitigated by instituting a Transportation System Management
BROOKE PLUNKETT
Plunkett Insurance (TSM ) program and reducing consumption of natural gas and
FRANK RICHMOND electricity . The proposed TSM measures In addition to street
Francois' improvements included in the Super Street Demonstration Project
BILL
oci*sDli&Ba as approved b the Citywill significantly helpin this area .
LuCCi S Deli d Bakery y g y
SPENCER SHELDON
Omnibus Environmental SeM:;efbird , the Transportation/Circulation concerns are being addressed
FRED SPEAKER through the improvements proposed in the Super Streets project .
Terry Leasing t_
HAVDEETILLOTSON o reiterate the Chamber ' s position on this issue , we sent
Beach Front Properties a letter to the City Council dated January 27 , 1986 , supporting
STANTKACZYK the Beach Blvd . Super Street Demonstration Project concept
Rainbow Disposal Company with access control and parking receiving heavy consideration .
At the time , the Board also expressed support for the TSM �v
Mayor Jack Kelly and
Member of City Council
March 20 , 1987
Page 2
alternatives and 24 hour parking restrictions on Beach Blvd .
The Chamber further suggested that City redevelopment funds
and Orange County Transportation Commission Super Street project
funds be used to help with driveway accessibility and increased
onsight parking wherever possible . The Board encouraged further
review and study on the proposed grade separation on Beach
Boulevard at Warner Avenue .
In conclusion , the Board of Directors appreciates the opportunity
to comment on the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Project as proposed
and to offer our support . We look forward to commenting on
the final draft when it comes before the Redevelopment Agency .
Please keep us advised as plans progress .
Sincerely , J�
� � 7/ice `�•
Steve Holden
President
SH:kb
cc : Charles Thompson , City Administrator
Doug LaBelle , Director of Redevelopment
Pei 2 �E�,""` rEi/ ,Z�.v � _ 7
t MM�I ��,
� , o
yam, ,�. ,�:
Ji HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER of COMMERCE
• SEACLIFF VILLAGE, 2213 MAIN, # 32 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
TELEPHONE (714) 536-8888I M L
July 1 , 1987
oEpDUE
Mayor Jack Kelly and
Members of City Council rn
City of Huntington Beach JUL 2 1987
2000 Main Street
C1J Q,
Huntington Beach , CA 92648 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
Dear Mayor Kelly:
The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
has carefully reviewed the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Beach
Boulevard . As a result of this study the Directors have taken
a position to support the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
area with the following understanding:
1 . The redevelopment project will help facilitate the
flow of traffic along Beach Blvd . which will benefit
the businesses located on the boulevard as well as
the general public . Such improvements will include
r-- synchronized signals , bus turnouts , additional turn
�= lanes and driveway consolidation . It is our understanding
- that the redevelopment project does not include flyover
intersections .
l u 4'1
2 . The project will upgrade other public improvements
W F•„VO
U such as water , sewer and drainage .
z Co
3 . The project will provide for the improvement of aesthetics
along Beach Blvd . , the major artery of our community ,
by increasing landscaping , underg•rounding utilities
and adopting guidelines for new developments .
4 . The creation of a redevelopment area will provide the
necessary vehicle to fund these proposed improvements .
Our primary concern involves the use of eminent domain . The
fact that the Agency has indicated that as much as 107 acres
could be subject to eminent domain and the apparent lack of
a definite plan and criteria is of grave concern to us . Specifi-
cally , we believe that 107 acres is significantly greater than
is necessary to carry out an adequate plan . This issue has
been discussed with various Chamber committees by the Agency
staff and it is still unclear to us as to the- extent eminent
domain would be utilized . This same concern has been voiced
by property owners , residents and business persons along Beach
Blvd . We believe that the communication process with these
concerned citizens has not been adequate and must be addressed
and improved if any such redevelopment effort is to succeed .
Beach Blvd . Redevelopment Plan
July 1 , 1987
Page Two
In closing , we urge you to:
1 . Support the proposed Beach .Blvd . Redevelopment Project .
2 . Significantly reduce the amount of acreage to be subject
to eminent domain and establish criteria for its usage .
3 . Establish a well publicized telephone "hotline " direct to
knowledgeable city staff . The purpose of the hotline is
to answer project questions in a direct and forthright manner .
On behalf of the Board of Directors , I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to comment on the Beach Blvd . Redevelopment
Project and offer our support .
;Sin relyken
eve Hol
President
SH:kb
cc : Charles Thompson , City Administrator
Doug LaBelle , Director of Community Development/Deputy
City Administrator
®II Huntington Beach
®JAt
Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee
637 FRANKFORT AVENUE CALIFORNIA 92648
June 25, 1987
The Honorable Mayor Jack Kelly
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mayor- Kelly:
On behalf of Chairman James Lane and the entire Project Area
Committee (PAC) for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, it
is with sincere gratitude that we express our most gracious
thanks to you and the City Council for approving our budget
request for the upcoming July 6, 1987 Public Hearing. This
approval of funds is very much needed in which to support the
PAC 's final preparation.
It is our desire to work amicably with all agencies pertaining to
this Project, because we do think that redevelopment has a very
important roll in the prosperous and continued growth of our
City. However, we believe that those persons within the proposed
project area must have all information available to them, giving
them every opportunity possible to understand what it means to
them, how it may affect their lives and what their options are.
Redevelopment can be a tool for any city, and we anticipate a
more positive working relationship with the Redevelopment Agency
and its staff. We appreciate the assistance they have provided
us with, and sincerely thank them for all future assistance.
Again Mayor Kelly, our thanks to you and the City Council for
approval of our- budget request.
Very truly yours, . O ,�
J /V
Elnorina I . $rackens
Secretary — l71jZl ��i R�/view C.i R. �P'F A Cg Q i
COF NU;��T-
cc. Chairman James Lane - 1TYCOJ���G?-ONS
PAC Members r/ FAc iy
OF
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ^C,
c�
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
20451 Cralmer Lane • P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964,8888
BOARD OF TRUSTEES C
Gary Nelson,D.D.S. C/ok"
President July 2, 1987 17 N 8 �i0
c0&,4,,
Karen O'Bric
Clerk A,
'Y
Pat Cohen
The Honorable Jack Kelly OR�VeZ 0y
Member Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Sherry Barlow Huntington Beach, California 92648
Member
Dear Mayor Kelly:
It is clear to me the concept of redevelopment
has the potential to improve the environment of a
community. A school district is an integral part
ADMINISTRATION of the community and can be impacted by a rede-
velopment project. Therefore, it is important
Diane Peters,Ed.D. the plan for any redevelopment project examine
District Superintendent the impact on the schools and plan to mitigate
that impact As with so many projects that affect
Ronald Brown our community, it is beneficial if the City and
Assistant
Superintendent School District work cooperatively.
Personnel
The City of Huntington Beach consulted with the
Gary Burgner,Ed.D. Huntington Beach City School District regarding
Assistant
Superintendent the potential impact on the schools from the
Business Services proposed redevelopment project. The agreement
reached between the City and the school districts
Rebecca J.Turrentine mitigate the impact of the project on our dis-
Assistant
Superintendent trict. I am confident the City and the District
Educational Services will continue to work cooperatively on other
issues of mutual benefit to our respective
communities.
Sincerely, (
�y @ r-- c
GARY A. URGNER, Ed. - .
Assistant Superintendent
Business Services L, or_rn
_[ O
n
n.
GAB: fl " �'
J U 1. 6 1%7
July 2, 1987 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH "IN QUEST OF EXCELLENCE"
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE �� �
Mr. Tom Clark
Consulting Attorney
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
2000 Main Street '
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -
Dear Mr. Clark:
This letter is in response to your comment to me after the July 1,
1987 Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee meeting in which you
stated that the Redevelopment Agency would not honor the verbal pass-
through agreement with our District unless the Ocean View School
District sent a letter of support for the project.
Please be advised that as a School Board Member I cannot direct our
attorney or staff to generate such a letter before the project hearing
on July 6,, 1987. Our Board will support, oppose, or take no position
only upon due deliberation of a request. Our present position is to
file a declaration of detriment along with the other districts before
the public hearing for adoption of the project.
If your comment is the position of the Redevelopment Agency it would .
have been better directed to our attorney, Alan R. Burns, who also
represents the Huntington Beach elementary and high school districts. _
Sincerely,
Charles Osterlund
Member, Board of Trustees
i
CO:j d
c: Dale Coogan, Superintendent o r
Members, Board of Trustees
Douglas Labelle, Deputy City Administrators
Council"Members, City _of. Huntington'Beach
-.
W V
C EA
IE .c SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Dale Coogan Ddbbi Leinweber,President
Carolyn Hunt,Clerk
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS Sheila Marcus,Member
Monte McMurray Charles Osterlund,Member
Paul Mercier Janet Garrick.Member
Joseph Condon
16940 B STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 We An An Epw/Opponiwrty Emp/oper
7141847-2551 this District does not discdminete on the bests of age,gender or handicap
GION eF9°ti Huntington Beach Union High School District
10251 Yorktown Avenue, Huntington Beach, California 92646 (714) 964.3339
z
Marie Otto Board of Trustees
yi 0 03
cy scH°° Superintendent of Schools Bonnie Castrey S
President �r
or
David Warfield �+�J
Vice President
D Jerry Sullivan
July 6, 1987 a Clerk
D Brian Lake
JUL 6 1987 Linda Moulton
CITY OF HUNTINGTON
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE CH
The Honorable Jack Kelly
Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mayor Kelly:
Attached is the Huntington Beach Union High School District Board of Trustees'
response to your June 23 letter requesting the district's stance regarding the
proposed Redevelopment Project Area for Beach Boulevard. We appreciate your
recognizing that the Redevelopment Agency and our school district has reached
agreement on terms for sharing the 9 percent tax increment from the proposed
project area.
Alan Burns, the attorney representing the school districts, will be present at
the Huntington Beach City Council and Redevelopment Agency public hearing on
July 6 to place in the record a declaration of detriment to the schools in
order to substantiate the need for the 9 percent portion of the redevelopment
fees.
Thank you for your communication and we hope the letter of support from the
Huntington Beach Board of Trustees will assist the City.
Sincerely,
rn
Maria Otto rn
c�>
Superintendent of Schools I r-rn
Ln "Xa
x
j ym
Attachment
Huntington Beach E Westminster-Marina 71 fountain Valley E Edison C Ocean View 0 Evening High School 71 Adult School E Guidance Center 7 Wfntershurg Education Center
�h
Gio" aFq°y Huntington Beach Union High School District
10251 Yorktown Avenue, Huntington Beach, California 92646 (714) 964 3339
c U
i ° °''°��t dy Marie Otto Board of Trustees
,G 03
ck scHo° Superintendent of Schools Bonnie Castrey
President
David Warfield
Vice President
July 6, 1987 Jerry Sullivan
Clerk
Brian Lake
Linda Moulton
The Honorable Jack Kelly
Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
Dear Mayor Kelly:
In response to your letter of June 23, 1987, the Huntington Beach Union
High School District Board of Trustees discussed the topic of redevelopment
at its June 30, 1987 meeting. It was the consensus of the Board that I
communicate its support for the concept of redevelopment as stipulated in
the California Community Redevelopment Law. The provisions of the statute
provide an important tool to the City which can improve the physical
environment, business, transportation and public facilities of the
community and consequently benefit the schools in Huntington Beach.
We have always considered the City and schools close partners in providing
opportunities and quality programs to the community. We recognize the
careful planning, community input and difficult decisions the City must
address in the process of redevelopment and support its efforts to explore
all possibilities. The City's quest to improve streets, bike routes,
public facilities and housing is encouraged by the Huntington Beach Union
High School District Board of Trustees.
Sincerely,
wa,11� &IV- _
Marie Otto JECE #. YED
Superintendent of Schools Mo:jym
JOL 61987
'Cit7.Y OF HUNTINGTON B
COUNCU. OFFICE CH
Huntington Beach C Westminster C Marina C Fountain Valley 0 Edison 0 Ocean View 0 Evening High School 0 Adult School 0 Guidance Center 0 Wintershurg C Education Center
2050 South Bundy'Drive'. Suite. 225 Los Angeles California`_•'90025' 2 11
. = •- _ _ _ . _ gip; �
.. �.• • _ - pry ,6 � O:
{ _ c�TycoNriN
ro/V
June 15, 1.987 O,cF�CF Cy
The Honora6l.e Mayor `and City Counc-il
} _ City: of. Huntinq.ton,:Beach
2000 Main. S.t'reet
;Huntington Beach, CA 192648
:fit• - `• -. - -
RE ;r :Pr�opo ed =Beach Bouleva`r.d
Redevelopment` Phan:
Ladies an .Gentlemen
Encl°osed_herewith is _the-oriq:inaL 'and "s'even 'copies of a
report submitted by _ce'rtain members.-::of the 'Beach :Boulevard
,. .:. - _
Redevelopment •Pro-jec.t-_Area ;Committee
disagrees;,with.'the• :approach taken by the majority of`:.the PAC
("as .oiitTined .in-.the •.doc'ument .entitle'd °Optio;n 3 „Deny the Beach
=Blvd: 'Redevelopment. Plan- as: Proposed," a. copy `of •,wh.i:ch;.
' attached ;to=,the .:minori_ty repor:t;) , the', report r:ecommen'ds''that '
he, Redevelopment• P1an:.be approved,:by the City-:Counc .l;:
altho"ugh certain concerns'-are noted:
While.;_we, believe, that'. the' report is. self explanatory_, one.
or more of.: its• signatoes . i'ntend to;.-be present at •the `.hearing:'
on__July.: 6:_to�- �answer. any_geust' ons ,you .:may 'have'. •In- the',"'
meant- me, :please feel: =free`. to co.ntac:t�_any of
th e• signatories .
. S c rely yo
a'rkegel
;;.
MAS nbc
Enc lo.sur.es
cc "Ronald A Berry who enclosure
William G: Rasmuss:en' w/o enclo-sure J
Thomas And'rusky _w/ enclosure
James: A :' Lane; Ctimn , :Pro_ject• ,Area Comm: w/ enclosure -
0152-92.
i
HUNTINGTON BEACH/BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
MINORITY REPORT
We understand the report of the Beach Boulevard Project Area
Committee (PAC) opposes the concept of redevelopment and, thus,
recommends that the City Council deny the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Plan as proposed;no attempt was made to suggest
modifications to the Plan. This report is being submitted by
the members of the PAC who believe that the concepts
incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan should be implemented
by the City Council with some reservations, cautions, and/or
modifications .
We believe that the report is based on an emotional
hostility to the concept of redevelopment or a misunderstanding
of the purpose of the Redevelopment Plan. The City of
Huntington Beach has already instituted a number of
redevelopment plans covering other areas and has implemented a
number of projects pursuant to those plans . The concept of '
redevelopment, therefore, should be judged by the City Council
based upon that specific, objective experience rather than fears
of what might theoretically happen. The benefits of
redevelopment--facilitating improved land uses and development
through being able to afford better infrastructure and providing
increased coordination within a project area--overcomes any
fears of redevelopment, assuming such redevelopment is
implemented in a responsible, cautious manner .
The actions taken by the majority of the PAC--including _the.--
retention of a "consultant" who demonstrated a hostility to the
concept of redevelopment, as such is instituted under the
existing California law, and a failure even to attempt to review
the details of the Plan--result from either a general problem
with other actions taken by the administrative bodies of the
City, an improper understanding of the concept of redevelopment
and/or the specific Redevelopment Plan, or fears of certain
actions which may or may not be taken. Some of these objections
are outlined in the document entitled "Option 3--Deny the Beach
Blvd. Redevelopment Plan as Proposed" and are summarized and
discussed as follows :
1. There appears to be a fear that the City has already
decided that it intends to use the redevelopment
process to effect certain specific projects over the
objections of, or without soliciting the views of , the
public. (see item (h) of "Option 311 ) This appears to
be a misinterpretation of the Plan. The Plan, as we
understand it, merely sets forth a procedure for
accomplishing planning and the facilitation of
development in the future and does not constitute a
specific set of land use patterns and developments . \
v
2 . Actions which may have been taken by the various bodies
within the City--the Planning Commission, City Council,
etc.--may or may not be pleasing to the citizens of
Huntington Beach but are not relevant to the
consideration of whether the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Plan should be implemented. Whether the
administration of the City is in trustworthy hands
appears to be a political question which is not germane
to the topic under consideration.
3 . The majority believes that development along Beach
Boulevard within the project area will continue to
occur even without the assistance offered by a
Redevelopment Plan. Some construction is under way
along the Beach Boulevard corridor . However, we
believe that further projects which would be beneficial
to the City as a whole may not occur in the future
without the assistance of a Redevelopment Plan. . It is
the belief of the undersigned that a number of problems
exist along Beach Boulevard which inhibit the highest
and best development; traffic problems, incompatible
land uses, lack of infrastructure (sewers, etc. ) are
some obvious problems . The Redevelopment Plan--and the
retention of tax increment funds which would be
available through the implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan--offer an opportunity to accelerate
redevelopment by reducing those inhibitions and to
ensure that the development occurs in a way which has
the maximum positive impact upon the City of Huntington
Beach and its residential and commercial population.
4 . There is a fear that either the City will incur
additional debt which cannot be serviced by tax
increment financing or that it has not assessed the
consequences of the actions taken if the Redevelopment
Plan is implemented . (see item (d) of "Option 311 )
Again, this prejudges the actions of the City in
implementing the Plan and does not go to the merits of
whether the Plan, however implemented, is meritorious .
Apparently, the majority misconstrue the Plan as a
blueprint for specific land uses, developments,
financing, etc. . There is nothing in the Plan that
mandates any particular action. We believe that the
City, over the life of the Plan, is capable of
competently administering its provisions to avoid the
assumption of debt beyond the City' s capacity to
service it or the approval of and assistance to
projects which are economically or socially undesirable
or infeasable.
0174-2
5 . There appears to be a tremendous fear of eminent
domain. Many PAC members have expressed an expectation
that their land and/or businesses will immediately be
taken for large developments . This fear appears to be
genuinely felt. However, it appears to be a relatively
infrequent occurence that eminent domain would actually
be required; we have been informed that no action is
currently contemplated or immediately foreseen by the
Redevelopment Agency staff which would result in
eminent domain being applied to any existing
landowner . The fear of eminent domain is
understandable and inevitable. However, three points
should be made:
a. Eminent domain is already available to the City for
other public uses and is not a new concept which
would be incorporated into the City for the first
time through a redevelopment plan;
b. Eminent domain requires a payment of full
compensation for the property taken, together with
relocation allowances, etc. to make the affected
landowner/resident/business as economically whole
as possible (although, obviously, compensation may
not be available for emotional or sentimental loss
or may not comply with unreasonable expectations of
value) ;
c . Eminent domain may be the only way to remove
impediments to development which might result from
excessive greed or malicious intent by an existing
landowner who wishes to blackmail adjoining
landowners or otherwise thwart development which
would be very much to the public good by every
objective standard.
In short, eminent domain is a necessary evil which we
would recommend be used only in the most extreme
circumstances for public good and only rarely for
private projects .
The problems which members of the PAC have with the
Administration of the City already should not go unnoticed. If
the City is not doing its job, all aspects of the City
administration should be reviewed. However, we do not believe
that this is a reason to deny existing or future administrations
of the City an opportunity to assist development and correct
problems through the Redevelopment Plan.
The Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan provides a set of
0174.-3
tools for the City to facilitate the upgrading of Beach
Boulevard in a relatively expeditious and coordinated manner .
The ability to retain tax increment funds to be used for street
and other public improvements and other infrastructure is
particularly attractive.
Unquestionably, Beach Boulevard has developed over a long
period of time into an uncoordinated street which has many
traffic, utility, and other public works crying to be improved.
Private uses along the boulevard are in some instances
incompatible and in other instances constitute "economic or
physical blight" within the meaning of the California law. We
leave to the best judgement of the City Council the extent of
such improvements or blight.
The goals of the Redevelopment Plan--to improve the
infrastructure and encourage public and private development
through cooperation, improve the supply of low-income housing,
etc . --are meritorious; while other avenues might be available to
address some of these goals, those avenues are not otherwise
fully available or available in a coherent pattern. The
opportunity of the City to facilitate private development by
offering financial and other assistance would also serve to
continue development which is socially desirable but
economically marginal in times of high interest rates or other
inhibitions to development.
Even though the Plan, as drafted, appears to address all of
the major problems, we believe that certain. areas require
specific attention in either its original adoption or in its
eventual implementation:
1. We believe that to the extent possible the money raised
by the Redevelopment Agency--from tax increment
financing or otherwise--be kept within the project area
itself and not be dissipated through other parts of the
City. There was a fear raised by some members of the
Majority that the tax increment created along Beach
Boulevard through the implementation of the Plan might
be siphoned off to support projects elsewhere in the
City. While we have been advised that this would not
be lawful, we believe special attention should be paid
to ensure that this does not in fact occur .
2 . The power of eminent domain should be used only when
absolutely necessary to accomplish clear public
purposes . Eminent domain for the assistance of private
projects should be used only when absolutely necessary
for public purposes or to remove a bad faith impediment
to a development which is clearly directed at the
0174-4
public interest, and not merely to facilitate private
gain. Specific rules should be adopted as soon as
possible for the payment of fair compensation and
appropriate relocation allowances . Consideration
should also be given to a commitment by the City to pay
for attorneys ' fees to people affected by eminent
domain who, in good faith, believe that the price being
offered for their property is inadequate (particularly
if a court ultimately determines such a position is
correct) . This would provide a "level playing field"
in the event that the private parties wish to challenge
the amount of compensation the City offers but feel
they cannot afford the cost of such a challenge.
3 . Specific procedures should be adopted for independent
evaluation--economic, social, environmental, etc. --of
each proposed project. Specifically, independent
review should be made of any debts to be incurred by
the City or Redevelopment Agency to make sure that such
debts can, in fact, be repaid expeditiously.
We believe that the City Council by now has sufficient
experience with the concept of redevelopment and redevelopment
plans to assess whether general objections to the concept of
redevelopment are meritorious . We do not believe that anything
has been raised in the consideration of the Plan by the PAC
which is unique to this particular Beach Boulevard project. If
the City Council feels that the objections raised by the
Majority report are valid, they should re-examine the validity
of other redevelopment plans within the City of Huntington
Beach. If, however, the City Council believes that the other
redevelopment areas are being administered competently and
achieving a public benefit. we believe that the Plan put forward
for the Beach Boulevard area should be implemented as well, with
the specific concerns raised above kept mind.
Z,4,f A,(tZaA4
Ronald A. Berry Iii liam C. Rasm ssen �Ma k A. S iege
0174-5
OPTION 3
DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED
The Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) recommends
denial of the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons:
(a) The Beach Blvd. PAC cannot support the Redevelopment Agency's land use
goals.
- In Land -Use Element 87-1, the Agency submitted four proposed land use
changes that- clearly- outline future action and goals of the Agency.
1) The CRA staff recommended 51.3 acres be redesignated from residen-
tial to commercial. (Note* The Department of Developmental Services
recommended 9.5 acres be redesignated and an additional 20.4
(area 2.7) be designated as mixed-use/commercial, medium density/resi-
dential and public park).
2) The CRA. staff did not seek owner participation in the General Plan
Amendment for land use changes.
3) In public statements the Ocean View School Board indicated that they
had not been consulted in the proposed change in the use of their
property. (2.5 and 2.7). In fact, the school district clearly stated
that they had no intention of closing their school at Talbert and
Beach Blvd. (2.5). Their desire to continue to operate the Bus Barns
on 7 acres on their school site on Beach and Warner was not included
in the Agency's Land Use Proposal (2.7).
4) Chevron submitted a letter (see attached Exhibit "A") with their
concerns regarding proposed" land use changes 2.4 Beach and Memphis.
They also indicated that they had not been consulted.
5) Throughout the public hearing process, residential and businesses
impacted by the proposed land use changes complained about a lack
of communication in the notification process.
(b) That the project area defined by the Redevelopment Plan is neither charac
terized or predominated by any of the elements of "blight" as set forth
in Health and Safety Code Sections 33030-33032. Nor is any--substantial
portion of such area so characterized or predominated._ The Project Area,
in fact, does not exhibit a preponderance of deteriorating structures
wherein the inhabitants of the area are subjected to physical dangers
or health hazards. Nor is there a preponderance of high crime in the
area.
-(c) The Orange County Assessor's records demonstrate that the taxable valuation
of property within the Project Area has experienced continued appreciation
in value during the last ten years in spite of a significant change in
assessment valuation procedures caused by Article XIIIA, California
Constitution which causes total assessment valuations to reflect a total
value of the area in question significantly less than true market values.
The assessed value of the property within the Project Area has continued
to rise through private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance
of the Redevelopment Agency.
(d) That there is presently inadequate information to determine the economic
OPTION 3 - Continued •
DENY THE EACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED
feasibility of the Redevelopment Plan, and the Plan could cause unreason-
able amounts of public debt.
(e) That most of the goals included in the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan
are merely infrastructure improvements or other public improvements
that can be alleviated through other financing mechanisms or processes
of government. The City should explore other methods of raising the financ-
ing necessary to implement the public improvements and goals contained
within the plan. These improvements can be financed from a combination
of sources such as State Highway Funds, Gas Tax Revenues, 1915 assessments
and other city revenues qualifying for public improvement projects. Park-
ing districts could be created if there is a parking shortage. Code
enforcement of the Sign Ordinance could alleviate any signage problems.
Planned Use Development zoning could control haphazard criteria so as
to assure high standards for site design. Uniform land use patterns can
be controlled through proper zoning. (See Exhibit "B").
(f) The plan would have a significant economic detrimental effect on the
Project Area residents and businesses as it embraces eminent domain for
private reuse of property. The ability of one to borrow for repairs or
improvements is greatly affected when the property has the cloud of eminent
domain. There can be a loss of tenants and difficulties in selling the
property along with depreciation of the market value when there is an
odious project proposed.
(g) The Plan included areas solely for the purpose of obtaining tax-increment
financing and bond issuance capabilities.
(h) The Redevelopment Plan fails to adequately describe the specific redevel-
opment projects that are contemplated.
(i) There is insufficient time between the completion of the downtown CRA
project to measure the secondary effects such as traffic patterns and
the economic factors that might spill over onto other areas deleting
the need to create another CRA project.
(j) That there was inadequate time and insufficient information provided for
a proper analysis of the EIR Report as to the detrimental effects of this
proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan. (See Exhibits "C" and "D").
.(k) The PAC has not received any evidence that there would not be adverse
detrimental effects on other taxing agencies that serve the Project Area.
(1) The PAC has received negative comments regarding the adoption of this
CRA project. Area residents and businesses as well as other Huntington
Beach. citizens,_have,,complained. .
- . _ (m) The-PAC.has.received a report of the CRA doing preliminary negotiations
with project property owners. Doing this in fact will make the public
hearing process a complete sham since this project is not even adopted.
To be cutting deals before the fact is not acceptable to the PAC.
- 2 -
-v"' • OPTION 3 - Continued •
DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED
(n) This Project will result in unfair competition between existing businesses
who have already improved their own property and other owners or future
owners who will receive special CRA benefits and incentives to improve
their business or property.
- 3 -
o �
ciTy yc,NT 98� .
CC�ry 0 N eF
FF,CFgCh,
l
Comments received on telephone 7/6/87 re: Beach Redevelopment
Harriet Nichols - 536-8712 - lives near Goldenwest .
Against redevelopment of Beach. NO HIGH RISES. OK for new curbs
and street improvement , but no .large buildings .
Virginia Terry - 536-4295 . Lives near Main & Adams
Wants Council to listen to the committee who has studied
this project . Don ' t be motivated by developers . Don ' t
increase density. Curbs and sidewalks should be fixed
right away, but . no big development. Don' t be concerned
over impression Beach Blvd. makes on visitors . . .make an
impression first on the people who live here.
Mr. and Mrs . Tyler Brinker: Lives near Beach at Garfield .
and Wadebridge St . 962-9793.
Against high rise development on Beach Blvd . Asks- that
Council listen to committee they appointed. She wants
things to look beautiful , gutters and sidewalks installed
but no high rise . Feels there is a definite earthquake
hazard here.
Warren Biscaluiz 964-4839 Opposes Beach Blvd. Redevelopmemt
plan, since his mother is 83 yrs . old and lives at 17142
Ash St . (owns 2p lots) and couldn ' t handle the move. This
is near Beach Blvd. He is against any high rise buildings .
REQUEST FOSREDEVELOPIVIENT 4ENCY ACTION
RH 88-03
February 1, 1988
Date
Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members
Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, Chief Executive OfficerQ�-
APPR"Gfinrf� elo'
VED E ITY CUu�N'III.
Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Comment
BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE19Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS
CITY ERK
Consistent with Council Policy? D4 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exceptio
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Redevelopment Agency previously 'authorized the expenditure of $1900 on behalf of
the Project Area Committee for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
Area. Attached is a request from the PAC for additional reimbursement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and authorize the expenditure of an additional $3,850.07, to reimburse the
Project Area Committee for the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
Area for legal and other expenses incurred by the Committee in conjunction with the
proposed Plan.
ANALYSIS:
In conformance with the California Health and Safety Code, a Project Area Committee
was formed at the outset of the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan effort.
This group provided advice and recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency through
the preparation of the documents necessary to. present the Proposed Plan to the
Redevelopment Agency at a joint public hearing.
Prior to the public hearing, the PAC requested that the Council provide funds for its
operation consistent with the requirements of the Health and Safety Code. In response
to this request, the Redevelopment Agency authorized funds for the PAC in an amount
not-to-exceed $1900. After the completion of the Plan, and the denial of its adoption
on July 6, 1987, the PAC requested reimbursement of expenses in excess of the
originally authorized amount. In September 1987, the Redevelopment Agency
determined to sustain the original appropriation.
Attached is a letter of December 20, 1987, from the then Chairman of the Beach
Boulevard PAC, itemizing the expenses incurred above the original authorization and
requesting additional payment in an amount of $3,850.07. These expenses are
principally for legal services retained by the PAC and for computer services obtained in
connection with a flyer in advance of the joint public hearing.
PI O/1/85
RH 88-03
February 1, 1988
Page Two
ANALYSIS: (Continued)
The pertinent section of the Health and Safety Code states that the local legislative
body will provide for "reasonable expenses" of a project area committee. While the
expenses for which reimbursement is now sought exceeds the original appropriation,
they may not be considered beyond the bounds of the reasonableness test of the Code.
Therefore, payment of the additionally requested amount is recommended.
FUNDING SOURCE:
These expenses would be a Redevelopment Agency administrative expense.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not approve the PAC request.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter of request from the PAC.
2. Letter of December 20, 1987 from Chairman of Beach Boulevard PAC.
PEC/DLB/SVK:sar
2390r
December 20, 1987 I�
Mr. Paul Cook
City Adminstrator
City of- Huntington Beach
CITY OF HU111TiNGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street f:DlUNISTRATIVE OFFICE
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
Dear Paul:
I am writing to attempt to solve a problem that could be time
consuming and expensive for the City of Huntington Beach and the
former Project Area Committee for the proposed redevelopment of
Beach Blvd.
As you know, I chaired the PAC committee and we rejected the proposal
as did the City's Redevelopment Agency. The Project Area Committee
ncured a number of expenses including attorney fees during their
research and deliberations.
The Agency had previously authorized $1900. for the PAC to meet
expenses. At the time of the authorization I had written a letter
of protest to then Mayor Kelly stating that the figure was to low
and unrealistic for the PAC to operate.
Our attorney fee 's alone came to over $3000. To make a long story
short, the attorneys, Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta, are interested
and willing to make this a precedent case over non-support as
required by Community Redevelopment Law.
This will be, in my opinion, a lose-lose situation for the City,
PAC and citizens of Huntington Beach.The Attorney fees on both
sides could amount to tens of thousand of dollars. The PAC owes
less than $4000. in debts.
Is there any way to make this a win-win situation? I don 't have
a solution, other than to recall to PAC and pursue litigation,
which I am reluctant to do.
Thank you and please advise if we can settle.
kns ' eerelly,14� �l es A. Lane, former Chairman
PAC for Beach Blvd. 536-0449
CC ; Chris Sutton, Attorney for PAC
Chuck Osterlund, Vice-Chairman, PAC
Enclosure: Nov. 30, 1987 statement from Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta
Nov. 30, 1987 statement of other current PAC debts.
Nov. 30, 1987
Statement of Current debts
Project Area Committee for
the Proposed Redevelopment
of Beach Blvd.
637 Frankfort Ave.
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
The following 3 items represent unpaid expense debts incured
by the former Project Area Committee for the proposed redevelop-
ment of Beach Blvd. as of Nov. 30, 1987. . These three items
had been previously submitted to Mr. Douglas LaBelle, Deputy
City Adminstrator, in a memorandum date August 18, 1987.
A total of $700. was deducted from the original billing, leaveing
these three items still to be paid.
AMS Response- Keypunch. . . . 1500.
Ron Bayhan- Photographer. . 210.
Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta,
Cash retainer for Chris
Sutton, PAC Attorney. . . . 100.
Total 1 ,810.00
overpayment adj -8.73
grand total $ 19801 .27
Copies of the above three items (invoices) were submitted
August 18, 1987.
I verify that these debts are true and accurate.
Sincerely,
ames A. Ldne; PAC Chairman
Proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment
Home 536-0449; Office ,582-4502
GRONEMEIER, BARKER & HUERTA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
199 S. LOS ROBLES AVENUE-SUITE 810
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101
818/796-4086 OR 213/681-0702
November 30, 1987
BEACH BLVD. PAC
C/O JIM LANE, CHAIRMAN
637 FRANKFORT AVE.
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
Statement # CS0076-0008
STATEMENT
Re: RE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Unpaid Balance over 30 days $2 , 019. 60
Finance Charge of 1. 0000% on This Balance 20.20
Payments:
November 9, 1987
PAYMENT -1, 200. 00
--------------
Subtotal: -1, 200. 00
Previous Balances:
------------------
Costs 30. 98
Fees 3 , 197 . 62
--------------
Subtotal: 3,228 . 60
--------------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $2, 048 .80
--------------
--------------
Statement Summary:
------------------
Previous Balance, Costs 30. 98
Costs this Period 20.20
--------------
Total Costs 51. 18
Previous Balance, Fees 3, 197 . 62
--------------
Total Costs and Fees 3,248.80
Credits this Period -1, 200. 00
--------------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $2, 048 .80
--------------
--------------
Year to Date Finance Charges are $51. 18
:Ft L.F v
$- 13- T7
RfCEIVI'C
CI I Y cl_£.i"K
C!i Y ,
HU ITil.'C,T 'I;
JUL
ovL,
13
-r'*tsf- Do cw M�
o
-
�661
RECFI I-0
I
I
CO ylj A4,7T c- �-
i
131- vD-
S vS fv) TT C -%?y
i
C1q14lRyCA. s0A
0-&L rA °
I
Fs f 3 — & 7
RE:EI';�J
CITY _ ?:Y
C;TY
PPF—rrOT-q 771 O�J
/vR � ��"�� � Y
Cj -ram
SE. --t*-�
e
e
REQUEDT FOR CITY COUN49L/ _
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION RH 87-53
Date June 26, 1987
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor/Chairman and City Council/Agency Members
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator/Chief Executive Officer
Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Community Developmen
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVAR REDF�V
Subject: PROJECT AREA [.J
Consistent with Council Policy? Yes ( ] New Policy or Excepti n BY COUNCIL
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternativ Actions,A f d1hffiilen7 --•---•-
........................ ..
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
All of the necessary documents have been prepared to bring forward the Proposed
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Public Hearing scheduled for
July 6, 1987 has been duly noticed and advertised pursuant to State Law.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and authorize the.City/Agency Clerk to execute the following:
Agency Action: Resolution No. lqq - "A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Supplement to the
Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project, and Authorizing Submittal of the
Supplement to the City Council."
Agency Action: Resolution No.&!� - "A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach Finding that the Use of Taxes
Allocated from the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project for the Purpose of Improving and
Increasing.the Community's Supply -of Low and _Moderate Income
Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project."
City Action: Resolution Nolff5- "A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach Ruling on Written and Oral Objections to the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project."
City Action: Resolution No.Sp- "A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach Making Certain Findings Regarding the
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Actions with Respect to the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project, and Adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations."
City Action: Resolution No;.Peach- "A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of HuntingtonFinding That the Use of Taxes Allocated From
the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project for r
V
e
PIO 4/84
RH 87-53
June 26, 1987
Page Two
the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of
Low and Moderate Income Housing Outside the Project Area Will be
of Benefit to the Project."
City Action: Ordinance No.a ` - "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach
Approving and Adopting the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project."
ANALYSIS:
In preparation for the Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Redevelopment
Agency on the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area, each City
Council Member has received a binder. These binders contain the major documents
necessary to create a redevelopment project area; the Redevelopment Plan, the Report
to the City Council, the Owner Participation Rules, and the Final EIR. In addition, the
binders will also include the Resolutions and Ordinance to be the subject of the
Council/Agency's consideration at the conclusion of the Public Hearing and as listed in
the Recommendation section above.
Each binder also contains a script for the conduct of the Joint Public Hearing on July 6,
1987. Staff will provide written and oral testimony at the Public Hearing regarding the
recommended approval of the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area.
In addition to the contents of the binders; attached are the following:
- Summary of Beach Boulevard PAC Activities,
- Beach Boulevard PAC Minority Report,
- Summary of PAC Questions & Answers on the Proposed Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project,
- Sample Replacement Housing Plan
FUNDING SOURCE:
Adoption of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area (according to tax
increment projections prepared for the proposed project area) could result in an annual
tax increment flow to the Redevelopment Agency ranging from $208,000 to $42 million
per year over the 35-year life of the project.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not approve the attached Resolutions and Ordinance. This will pre-empt adoption of
the redevelopment project area.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No's. P/4 , /ys , S��J, P0, .9M(in binders).
2. Ordinance No. �(in Tinders. —
CW T/DLB/SVK:sar
1701r
SUMMARY OF BEACH BOULEVARD PAC ACTIVITIES
....y.. .. _. - _ "!
_10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
i INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION e"
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Stephen V. Kohler From Thomas Andrusky)W
Principal Redevelopment Specialist Project Manager
Subject BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT Date June 24, 1987
PROJECT SUMMARY OF PROJECT AREA
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of the regular meetings and other
informal meetings with members of the Project Area Committee. Regular .meetings
were held as follows:
Wednesday, December 3, 1986
Wednesday, December 10, 1986
Wednesday, January 7, 1987
Wednesday, January 28, 1987
Wednesday, February 25, 1987
Wednesday, March 11, 1987
Wednesday, March 25, 1987
Wednesday, April 22, 1987
Wednesday, June 3, 1987
Wednesday, June 17, 1987
Wednesday, June 24, 1987 - Staff is scheduled to attend and
participate.
Staff has met with Chairman, Vice Chairman, and other Members of PAC to respond to
questions regarding the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Also each member of
the PAC has been invited to the information meetings scheduled for June 18, June 23,
and July 1, 1987.
Below is a summary of PAC meetings showing date of meeting, staff present and topics
discussed.
PAC Meetings
1. Wednesday, December 3, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.
Staff Present: Stephen Kohler
Tom Andrusky
Florence Webb
Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel
Presentation (1) Slides showing existing conditions, public improvement, and
land use conditions.
(2) Tom Clark reviewed process for adopting a new
redevelopment project area and role and responsibility of
Project Area Committee.
�SI ..:1..r ~ �11 YM1-•.P ek''yf ltyi''tl, T F�,'.Y~
7T-2: y yr+ fi,P "/ .khF. ..ki• r _T, ::J ' "' esJ '=r�,- - ,r''°.,1 i�y„h`.a7 -.�'r 53 „•a;.S. •" .A. ta.. { 'r S Imp.:" �,L-a. •«.,;1:'.r';:
�i
u. rj�� i' � _ x>, �: �. � r12 -�^ 4 v�r n'x��•� � t «, aF ,, ,, , s '
_��e;}�a.. { r '�rk ��� �� + �.� ti Y�r�e+t' � r�rE >' �^x � � •e,"- •"r;s d _i' �t-"5'S� t4r�; r i *� ,�s,.<
t ypa y"'' w4 � ---._� .� �-K 4p�,-- ��y�i+5a� � _.Y � '''�.i's _.,. � _ -S t G � u Y Y•�-+w•^gar- xa-, - t _..'•'".7�'S�
:f"' ".�q�} � h}'a.-_ 74��` �k _S,f.-; ¢"t,-'fi, E' d.s'fa\ "wc.'�` SL'.a t i �•-..- a a� tF.n i _-li i +-.c t " S 't - �,f S
1 y x
,..__.,..:. .�......... .._.;.....t .ate.-:.!-.. .._.... _- _._:............�..:_..,__......,..--,a -r.._.,.w., ,..........,. .-.
..ate_. ,x 3:1 �....u.•T:...,+..,.ssrc.ar...s.+. - •F ,�. � . - ., ._..,
m- rrl,;^�s+�!�$`.. '�Rp'�'aty-"�^•:r ra+^.^s..:xae�rfP'�::!,"9.Ss^c i"^^n.:a,,.ir'm^^:�^,.�r,�... .,'^, ': _.. _ ,....
_d ..�x,v-._i.-ti5s- .ri -
'' Douglas N. La Belle 5 vi. rfi - c
t dune 24 'l 987
t
r Page TwoF.,
Wdnesda ; December 17, 1986 - m 9.002 : o
-Stephen Kohler
' Staff Present:- -
Tom Andrusky
Tom:Clark, Special Agency Counsel
Main Activity PAC.or anized.
_ g ,:_.. ,
3 Wednesday-, January 7' •1997 7:10 p:m. to/10:10 P.M.
o Tm Andrusky - -
r::. _
Al Robertson- Katz, Hollis
Jennifer Coile Katz, Hollis . .
:.,.,..,.._:;...Presentation'_.;;:,.__._,Stephen : .Kohler. . .-_-_.History.._. of....-.Beach. Boulevard ..,:..Project.._. _....:._
" Al Robertson reviewed : ma or - documents-' ' 'involved ' in. _ '-
redevelopment project
4 Wednesday,- January" 18,1987 - 7:15 p.m. to 9:40 p.m =
t
- Staff,Present: Tom Andrusky
..._.Stephen-:Kohler _ . .. s . _ _,. .. . .. .. . . . <. ._..... .._. _: ,. _ ...
Margaret Ward
Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel,
Celeste Brady - Special Agency Counsel
Presentations: (1) Tom Clark ':-.and Celeste Brady reviewed acquisition
_. procedures as used..-by Huntington Beach, eminent domain
procedures, and owner participation procedures.
(2) Bob Shober, Pacific Relocation Consultants reviewed
Federal and State laws regarding relocation an various
benefits available to persons that may be relocated.
Documents Distributed:
(1) Staff passed out copies of the Redevelopment Plan and requested that PAC
review prior to the next meeting which would be on February 25, 1987.
5. Wednesday, February 25, 1987
Staff Present: Tom Andrusky
Stephen Kohler
Presentations (1) Stephen Kohler passed out owner participation rules and
answered questions on the rules and on eminent domain.
krl
K�?;,JA ar.V'72?afl,
2'j�IE
-,�.. ..... .....
.......
M, 'r. . . .. .D 6dig"la* N. La Belle
............
1987
Page Th
ree e
NEWh"
6 Marc I 1 1987 = 7:15 0.m. to 9:30 p.m
Staff-Present: --Tom Andrusky
Pat Mann Cott6h/Beland.EIR Consultant
o r
IR�C
Presentation Mann', E -.Presented f EIR
Pat' ` , I
onsu tantT.�.
schedule
-'receiV. -d and answered, t' driftElR.7,__.,.
a n C
prepar..ti-o e� questions on
A
'
PAC-votedto request*
.QO 0 for:L'-special consultant.
7 rc h 25 1987--7:15 0:10
Staff Present: Doug,LaBelle
: Stephen Kohler
..............
Tom Andrusky
Tom Cla'rk-.--Special'Agenc y-Counsel .................
...........
............
Presentation. Doug-La Belle discussed information meetings:with. PAC.
(2)
Sherry Passmore,g've:a presentation..on`redevelopment
8. Attached is a -letter 'date&April- 16,'--.1987-from`-D6uglasN;.,:La Beile/Deouty..Cit
-Administrator/Redevelopment Chai r'm An.-i-This- cilteKjef lects
si,aff's continued willingness to provide needed information to all"'Project, Area
Committee Members during scheduled evening.meetings or.at other times that L PACL':��
Members would like to meet."-
9. Wednesday, April 22, 1987 (Report on the Plan approved) ;
Staff Present: Doug La Belle
Stephen:Kohler_
TomClark Special Agency Counsel
Tom Andrusky
Art Folger
PAC approved a report which recommended that..... the Beach..'...Boulevard
Redevelopment Plan be denied.
10. Wednesday, June 3, 1987
Staff Present: Stephen Kohler
Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel
Others: Attorney Chris Sutton
11. Wednesday, June 17, 1987
Staff Present: Stephen Kohler
Tom Andrusky
Tom Clark- Special Agency Counsel
Art Folger
-Minutes --------------
not available ,writing --memo
e this S,
45
AT t p�h'� ! rt -lx.. r~•d'-• #:'CtK'r.,.. -,v-: r:
J - ,X./t t, x ry,lx ¢.( ext+ A •.x •x.-t �1r}.. i A' S
..`J.-...�.::`r,.y�,g!n a •n.a�_ f��„..t+ti x :7'S'!f�tS�r��i��R,�9'�. � lr -�<u �i.�.. , 'ex'W.7"Yik�n,�` c^• 'r *z-e K3.s,� 4.7t4!}'f y
..� • `�x� ��.iNel., .b'r-i..r,a'6'1�. n t�t1 4a-..'...r�N:-p � ] Y� _'.'
• 3" rkf
'�. �'t't`rx&'�`"yry�rw,�•,ys�. ,�1{,�k>"„ivitx,,�r�+�bfr��+,4`�, ' ' �, .�, � * �% -*�L. ,N'.' k* `•.,. _r�"-�u b�3t�^ d �'
:.L,ehl.�i}i4 a§--_su:� 1 u' �\ rY'Jr �rr3 'IY�� :.n� j� '��ix"1�� We ��'.. ! ��`+ S�.)T'".�.' �.a`i. rA• � Y aR..".]" ! F t,at ..L.,v;
_<. r _}- - ti�• •,.W y+e `�.n w m.. - rG•a•a St..� +w �:. s..- I -- nr a.'....s-\
-5'' Yr�kh.:tifinw..wt'.-. 1c.4�••.,i��F a "� "�'p�f'::; Yfi�9S I°`•,'M��it3•���t '"dF�ii.Y+S- ro�'.�•�i -...'�M_-�'."•7 ftt r--k.- �..- r�-i'`+- � ,1 5
.M =Douglas N. .LaBelle �b `
c
_ �,. �±�x.w +w..-�. ; ..i„tom^_-, •,�:^-:;
" s - -H'•s+.xww.-+.ac.-rre...ua.tm^•<s .-a.aaw rereK- s ..ts• - -` -a. ]T
s Pa'^ ^_.ge`Four
Y T ,r _ t l .. y �. -." t� r- t pe-•a. �-e-a" r f _'�' r _r^pJ Y 'S -r -. F t` x-
... , «.w w'c - k r a •ar _ -.i y r „ -•^ ,�,,.,< - v -s< e o-::;;' .r- -
r
:-10' -:(Continued) - -
Y
l y } t t
r
Staff reviewed letter-.pro by PAC to send, out;_-to project area businesses,
property owners, :.and residents. Parts of the letter;:requested by PAC was not
acceptable. Staff did inform -PAC that since words were not acceptable that City,
could not pay for the mailing: _
Summary:
Staff continues to meet with PAC;Members to-respond to questions relative to the Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project: "
TA:sar
___Attachments's PAC Minutes,
PAC Report on.Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan...
Deputy City. Administrator/Redevelopment letter dated April 16, 1987
xc: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Community Development
1694r.._ ....... .
SUMMARY OF PAC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON PROPOSED
BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF THE PROPOSED
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
June 24, 1987
(1) Q How will eminent domain in the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan?
A The Plan authorizes the use of Eminent Domain within the project area. It does
not authorize as the PAC has alleged the "Agency to condemn private property
and re-sell it (usually at a lower price) to private developers." The Eminent
Domain Law of the State of California authorizes a redevelopment agency
which has enabled itself to exercise the power of Eminent Domain through a
Redevelopment Plan to condemn property for redevelopment purposes. It
should be noted that Redevelopment has been declared a public purpose by the
State of California and the Constitution of the State provides substantial
protections for owners whose property is acquired. It is emphasized that we
view the use of eminent domain ONLY as a last resort - after exhausting all
possibilities for a negotiated settlement. Any use of eminent domain requires a
public hearing on a parcel-by-parcel basis and a super majority vote of the
Agency on a resolution stating the public necessity for and declaring the public
benefits of its use. Beyond these regulatory controls, of course, any property
owner has the recourse of the courts.
(2) Q What is the potential for displacement of dwellings?
A Possible Displacement of Dwellings
The Report to the City Council provides the following information on possible
residential displacement:
There are an estimated 74 single family residential dwelling units and 101
dwelling units in multi-family structures within the Project Area. The Project
Area's resident population is estimated at between 385 and 483 persons. Most
of the existing dwelling units are non-conforming uses, thus over the 35-year
life of the Project some may be phased out. Some displacement may occur as a
direct result of Agency activities. Most will occur through the efforts of the
private sector as new uses are developed. Any displacement which occurs as a
result of Agency redevelopment activities will be mitigated by the relocation
assistance including financial payments, advisory assistance, and replacement
housing requirements of state law. These provisions are further described in
Part IV of the Report to City Council.
The Redevelopment Plan also provides for funding of low and moderate income
housing through the required 20% of tax increment which must be set-a-side of
such purposes. Projections indicate that in the proposed plan this could amount
to $41 million.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF THE PROPOSED
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
June 24, 1987
Page Two
(3) Q Is the County required to stamp each deed for each property transferred in the
area with a warning that the property is in the project area?
A The County is not required to stamp each deed.
(4) Q Is the City Building Department required to notify building permit applicants
regarding redevelopment status?
A Health and Safety Code Section 33374 provides that for a period of two years
after adoption of a redevelopment plan all applicants for building permits
within a project area must be advised by the building department that the
property for which a building permit is sought is within a redevelopment project
area. This is simply a disclosure requirement to keep property owners
informed. It has the coincidental benefit to property owners of providing them
the opportunity to learn how they may participate and benefit from the
redevelopment program.
(5) Q Does the Plan divert millions from our school districts?
A The Plan does not divert funding from schools. The State of California is
required to reimburse the school districts for any tax losses as a result of the
adoption of redevelopment plan. Moreover, we have reached agreement with
the staff of each of the three school districts whose district boundaries are
within the project area pursuant to which we have agreed to provide them with
nine percent (9%) of the total tax increment collected within the project area.
The bottom line is that the school district will receive more after the adoption
of the Redevelopment Plan than before the Plan is adopted.
(6) Q Does the Plan divert general funds from public works projects, police and fire?
A The main purpose of this Redevelopment Plan is to provide a financing
mechanism which would eliminate the conditions of blight on Beach Boulevard
through the construction of major public improvements which, but for
redevelopment, the City would not have the financial capability to construct.
With respect to the burden on the City's general fund based on the current tax
increment projections the City would forego approximately 80-85 Million Dollar
($80,000,000) of general fund revenue in return for which the projections
indicate over Ninety Million Dollars ($90,000,000) in additional sales tax over
the life of the project. A net gain of $5 Million ($5,000,000).
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF THE PROPOSED
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
June 24, 1987
Page Three
(7) Q Was the Project Area Committee elected by the 1,100 business owners, 380
property owners or approximately 400 residents?
A No. The Project Area Committee was not elected by all the business owners,
property owners or residents in the proposed development area. The Project
Area Committee was formed by requesting volunteers from residents, property
owners, business owners, and community organizations within the proposed
Beach Boulevard Project Area. From those that volunteered (approximately 30)
the current 21 Members were elected by a majority of those present at the time
of election in December, 1986. Therefore, the Project Area Committee was
not elected by all the property owners and business owners in the Project Area.
(8) Q What public improvement projects are proposed to be financed by the plan?
A Traffic circulation improvement items, including traffic signals, selected
intersection widening, bus turnouts and parking improvements. Also involved
are storm drains, sewer projects, water line improvements, undergrounding of
utilities, street scape and landscaping.
(9) Q Will the Plan create excessive debt by obligating the Redevelopment Agency to
sell tax increment bonds?
A A bond issue is simply a mechanism by which certain improvements may be
financed if the tax increment generation is sufficient to support them.
However, there has been no bond issue proposed at all. A plan for a
redevelopment area must contain specific statements indicating what
improvements will be done as a matter of the project implementation. In this
sense, we must try to look ahead 35 years, which is the maximum extent of the
life of the project area, to try to determine what could and might happen and
how to address these matters. Further, the Report to the City Council includes
an analysis of how a bond issue to finance improvements could work. However,
the Plan does not constitute any commitment to sell bonds. Any such bond sale
would be subject to subsequent City Council/Agency approval.
(10) Q How does the Plan address improvement of traffic circulation?
A One major goal of the Plan is to improve traffic circulation by proper planning
and funding for needed improvements. This project follows the studies made on
the Beach Boulevard Corridor and Super Streets Program and envisions
improving traffic via restrictions on parking, development of bus turnouts,
rechannelization, and the development of a modern computerized signal
system. It also envisions improvements of turning radii at various intersections
and the consolidation of driveways. It also includes the underground of utilities
for aesthetic improvements and the improvement of signage and other matters
which all could greatly improve traffic conditions on Beach Boulevard. Also,
we are attempting to develop other relief such as the Gothard/Hoover
connection, and in addition we are studying possibilities for improvements to
Newland Street.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF THE PROPOSED
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
June 24, 1987
Page Four
(11) Q What are the land use policies for the Plan?
A The land use policies of the Plan are the goals as set forth by the City's General
Plan, zoning and building codes, and as they may be amended over the life of
the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan does not
propose changes to the General Plan, zoning or building codes.
(12) Q Does the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project comply with
existing State Laws regarding blight?
A. Yes, the Plan does comply with State Laws regarding blight. The facts to back
up the findings of blight can be found in Report to the City Council on the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project, May 1987.
�(13) Q Is there adequate information regarding the financial and economic feasibility
of the project?
A The financial and economic feasibility of the Plan has been determined to be
sound. Details of the Plan can be found in the Report to the Council on the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard and
Redevelopment Project, May 1987 and the Supplement to the Report.
(14) Q Are there property owners, business owners, and residents that have expressed
support for the Plan?
A Yes, supportive written and oral comments have been received. Letters are on
record from the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce and others in support
of the proposed project.
1709r
BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MINORITY REPORT
� EG DENT ER. HS1ES
2050 South Bundy Drive • Suite 225 Los. Angeles California • 90025 11
c,Ty OP
c°6�c<�ro�eF
June_ 15, 1987 OFF14.q1i
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Huntington. Beach
2000 Main Street .
Huntington Beach., CA 92648
RE: Proposed Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Plan.
Ladies- and Gentlemen:
Enclosed herewith Ls -the original and seven copies . of a
report submitted by. certain members. of the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project Area -Committee ("PAC":) The report
disagrees :with the .approach taken by- ,the majority' of the PAC
(as -outlined . in the document .entitled- ."'Optio.n. 3--Deny the Beach
Blvd.--.Redevelopment Plan•:as Proposed" , a copy of which is
attached to the minority -report) ; . the report recommends that
the Redevelopment. Plan be approved by the _City .Council,
although certain concerns are noted.
While_ we believe that- 'the report is self-explanatory, one
or more of its signatories intend to be present at the hearing
on. July.. 6 to answer any geust'ions - you may have. In the
meantime, please feel free to contact any of the signatories .
S c rely yo ,
ark A. Sp' egel
MAS: nbc
Enclosures
cc: Ronald A. Berry w/o enclosure
William C. Rasmussen w/o enclosure
Thomas Andrusky w/ enclosure
James A. Lane, Chmn. , Project Area Comm. , w/ enclosure
0152-92
HUNTINGTON BEACH/BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
MINORITY REPORT
We understand the report of the Beach Boulevard Project Area
Committee (PAC) opposes the concept of redevelopment and, thus,
recommends that the City Council deny the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Plan as proposed;no attempt. was made to suggest
modifications to the Plan. This report is being submitted by
the members of the PAC who believe that the concepts
incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan should be implemented
by the City Council with some reservations, cautions, and/or
modifications .
We believe that the report is based on an emotional
hostility to the concept of redevelopment or a misunderstanding
of the purpose of the Redevelopment Plan. The City of
Huntington Beach has already instituted a number of
redevelopment plans covering other areas and has implemented a
number of projects pursuant to those plans . The concept of
redevelopment, therefore, should be judged by the City Council
based upon that specific, objective experience rather than fears
of what might theoretically happen. The benefits of
redevelopment--facilitating improved land uses and development
through being able to afford better infrastructure and providing
increased coordination within a project area--overcomes any
fears of redevelopment, assuming such redevelopment is
implemented in a responsible, cautious manner .
The actions taken by the majority of the PAC--including the
retention of a "consultant" who demonstrated a hostility to the
concept of redevelopment, as such is instituted under the
existing California law, and a failure even to attempt to review
the details of the Plan--result from either a general problem
with other actions taken by the administrative bodies of the
City, an improper understanding of the concept of redevelopment
and/or the specific Redevelopment Plan, or fears of certain
actions which may or may not be taken. Some of these objections
are outlined in the document entitled "Option 3--Deny the Beach
Blvd. Redevelopment Plan as Proposed" and are summarized and
discussed as follows :
1. There appears to be a fear that the City has already
decided that it intends to use the redevelopment
process to effect certain specific projects over the
objections of, or without soliciting the views of , the
public . (see item (h) of "Option 3" ) - This appears to
be a misinterpretation of the Plan. The Plan, as we
understand it, merely sets forth a procedure for
accomplishing planning and the facilitation of
development in the future and does not constitute a
specific set of land use patterns and developments. ��
2 . Actions which may have been taken by .the various bodies
within the City--the Planning Commission, City Council,
etc. --may or may not be pleasing to the citizens of
Huntington Beach but are not relevant to the
consideration of whether the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Plan should be implemented . Whether the
administration of the City is in trustworthy hands
appears to be a political question which is not germane
to the topic under consideration.
3 . The majority believes that development along Beach
Boulevard within the project area will continue to
occur even without the assistance offered by a
Redevelopment Plan. Some construction is under way
along the Beach Boulevard corridor . However, we
believe that further projects which would be beneficial
to the City as a whole may not occur in the future
without the assistance of a Redevelopment Plan. It is
the belief of the undersigned that a number of problems
exist along Beach Boulevard which inhibit the highest
and best development; traffic problems, incompatible
land uses, lack of infrastructure (sewers, etc. ) are
some obvious problems. The Redevelopment Plan--and the
retention of tax increment funds which would be
available through the implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan--offer an opportunity to accelerate
redevelopment by reducing those inhibitions and to
ensure that the development occurs in a way which has
the maximum positive impact upon the City of Huntington
Beach and its residential and commercial population.
4 . There is a fear that either the City will incur
additional debt which cannot be serviced by tax
increment financing or that it has not assessed the
consequences of the actions taken if the Redevelopment
Plan is implemented . (see item (d) of "Option 311 )
Again, this prejudges the actions of the City in
implementing the Plan and does not go to the merits of
whether the Plan, however implemented, is meritorious .
Apparently, the majority misconstrue the Plan as a
blueprint for specific land uses, developments,
financing, etc. . There is nothing in the Plan that
mandates any particular action. We believe that the
City, over the life of the Plan, is capable of
competently administering its provisions to avoid the
assumption of debt beyond the City' s capacity to
service it or the approval of and assistance to
projects which are economically or socially undesirable
or infeasable.
0174-2
5. There appears to be a tremendous fear of eminent
domain. Many PAC members have expressed an expectation
that their land and/or businesses will immediately be
taken for large developments . This fear appears to be
genuinely felt. However, it appears to be a relatively
infrequent occurence that eminent domain would actually
be required; we have been informed that no action is
currently contemplated or immediately foreseen by the
Redevelopment Agency staff which would result in
eminent domain being applied to any existing
landowner . The fear of eminent domain is
understandable and inevitable. However , three points
should be made:
a. Eminent domain is already available to the City for
other public uses and is not a new concept which
would be incorporated into the City for the first
time through a redevelopment plan;
b. Eminent domain requires a payment of full
compensation for the property taken, together with
relocation allowances, etc. to make the affected
landowner/resident/business as economically whole
as possible (although, obviously, compensation may
not be available for emotional or sentimental loss
or may not comply with unreasonable expectations of
value ;
c. Eminent domain may be the only way to remove
impediments to development which might result from
excessive greed or malicious intent by an existing
landowner who wishes to blackmail adjoining
landowners or otherwise thwart development which
would be very much to the public good by every
objective standard.
In short, eminent domain is a necessary evil which we
would recommend be used only in the most extreme
circumstances for public good and only rarely for
private projects .
The problems which members of the PAC have with the
Administration of the City already should not go unnoticed. If
the City is not doing its job, all aspects of the City
administration should be reviewed. However, we do not believe
that this is a reason to deny existing or future administrations
of the City an opportunity to assist development and correct
problems through the Redevelopment Plan. .
The Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan provides a set of
0174-3
tools for the City to facilitate the upgrading of Beach
Boulevard in a relatively expeditious and coordinated manner .
The ability to retain tax increment funds to be used for street
and other public improvements and other infrastructure is
particularly attractive.
Unquestionably, Beach Boulevard has developed over a long
period of time into an uncoordinated street which has many
traffic, utility, and other public works crying to be improved.
Private uses along the boulevard are in some instances
incompatible and in other instances constitute "economic or
physical blight" within the meaning of the California law. We
,leave to the best judgement of the City Council the extent of
such improvements or blight.
The goals of the Redevelopment Plan--to improve the
infrastructure and encourage public and private development
through cooperation, improve the supply of low-income housing,
etc.--are meritorious; while other avenues might be available to
address some of these goals, those avenues are not otherwise
fully available or available in a coherent pattern. The
opportunity of the City to facilitate private development by
offering financial and other assistance would also serve to
continue development which is socially desirable but
economically marginal in times of high interest rates or other
inhibitions to development.
Even though the Plan, as 'drafted, appears to address all of
the major problems, we believe that certain areas require
specific attention in either its original adoption or in its
eventual implementation:
1. We believe that to the extent possible the money raised
by the Redevelopment Agency--from tax increment
financing or otherwise--be kept within the project area
itself and not be dissipated through other parts of the
City. There was a fear raised by some members of the
Majority that the tax increment created along Beach
Boulevard through the implementation of the Plan might
be siphoned off to support projects elsewhere in the
City. While we have been advised that this would not
be lawful. we believe special attention should be paid
to ensure that this does not in fact occur .
2 . The power of eminent domain should be used only when
absolutely necessary to accomplish clear public
purposes . Eminent domain for the assistance of private
projects should be used only when absolutely necessary
for public purposes or to remove a bad faith impediment
to a development which is clearly directed at the
0174-4
public interest, and not merely to facilitate private
gain. Specific rules should be adopted as soon as
possible for the payment of fair compensation and
appropriate relocation allowances. Consideration
should also be given to a commitment by the City to pay
for attorneys ' fees to people affected by eminent
domain who, in good faith, believe that the price being
offered for their property is inadequate (particularly
if a court ultimately determines such a position is
correct) . This would provide a "level playing field"
in the event that the private parties wish to challenge
the amount of compensation the City offers but feel
they cannot afford the cost of such a challenge.
3 . Specific procedures should be adopted for independent
evaluation--economic, social, environmental, etc.--of
each proposed project. Specifically, independent
review should be made of any debts to be incurred by
the City or Redevelopment Agency to make sure that such
debts can, in fact, be repaid expeditiously.
We believe that the City Council by now has sufficient
experience with the concept of redevelopment and redevelopment
plans to assess whether general objections to the concept of
redevelopment are meritorious . We do not believe that anything
has been raised in the consideration of the Plan by the PAC
which is unique to this particular Beach Boulevard project. If
the City Council feels that the objections raised by the
Majority report are valid, they should re-examine the validity
of other redevelopment plans within the City of Huntington
Beach. If, however, the City Council believes that the other
redevelopment areas are being administered competently and
achieving a public benefit, we believe that the Plan put forward
for the Beach Boulevard area should be implemented as well, with
the specific concerns raised above kept mind.
AhZy
Ronald A. Berry i liam C. Rasm ssen Mafk A. S iege
U
0174-5
OPTION 3
DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED
The Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) recommends
denial of the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons:
(a) The Beach Blvd. PAC cannot support the Redevelopment Agency's land use
goals.
In Land Use Element 87-1, the Agency submitted four proposed land use
changes that clearly outline future action and goals of the Agency.
1) The CRA staff recommended 51.3 acres be redesignated from residen-
tial to commercial. (Note* The Department of Developmental Services
recommended 9.5 acres be redesignated and an additional 20.4
(area 2.7) be designated as mixed-use/commercial, medium density/resi-
dential and public park).
2) The CRA staff did not seek owner participation in the General Plan
Amendment for land use changes.
3) In public statements the Ocean View School Board indicated that they
had not been consulted in the proposed change in the use of their
property. (2.5 and 2.7). In fact, the school district clearly stated
that they had no intention of closing their school at Talbert and
Beach Blvd. (2.5). Their desire to continue to operate the Bus Barns
on 7 acres on their school site on Beach and Warner was not included
in the Agency's Land Use Proposal (2.7).
4) Chevron submitted a letter (see attached Exhibit "A") with their
concerns regarding proposed land use changes 2.4 Beach and Memphis.
They also indicated that they had not been consulted.
5) Throughout the public hearing process, residential and businesses
impacted by the proposed land use changes complained about a lack
of communication in the notification process.
(b) That the project area defined by the Redevelopment Plan is neither charac-
terized or predominated by any of the elements of "blight" as set forth
in Health and Safety Code Sections 33030-33032. Nor is any substantial
portion of such area so characterized or predominated. The Project Area,
in fact, does not exhibit a preponderance of deteriorating structures
wherein the inhabitants of the area are subjected to physical dangers
or health hazards. Nor is there a preponderance of high crime in the
area.
(c) The Orange County Assessor's records demonstrate that the taxable valuation
of property within the Project Area has experienced continued appreciation
in value during the last ten years in spite of a significant change in
assessment valuation procedures caused by Article XIIIA, California
Constitution which causes total assessment valuations to reflect a total
value of the area in question significantly less than true market values.
The assessed value of the property within the Project Area has continued
to rise through private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance
of the Redevelopment Agency.
(d) That there is presently inadequate information to determine the economic
• OPTION 3 - Continued •
DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED
feasibility of the Redevelopment Plan, and the Plan could cause unreason-
able amounts of public debt.
(e) That most of the goals included in the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan
are merely infrastructure improvements or other public improvements
that can be alleviated through other financing mechanisms or processes
of government. The City should explore other methods of raising the financ-
ing necessary to implement the public improvements and goals contained
within the plan. These improvements can be financed from a combination
of sources such as State Highway Funds, Gas Tax Revenues, 1915 assessments
and other city revenues qualifying for public improvement projects. Park-
ing districts could be created if there is a parking shortage. Code
enforcement of the Sign Ordinance could alleviate any signage problems.
Planned Use Development zoning could control haphazard criteria so as
to assure high standards for site design. Uniform land use patterns can
be controlled through proper zoning. (See Exhibit "B").
(f) The plan would have a significant economic detrimental effect on the
Project Area residents and businesses as it embraces eminent domain for
private reuse of property. The ability of one to borrow for repairs or
improvements is greatly affected when the property has the cloud of eminent
domain. There can be a loss of-tenants and difficulties in selling the
property along with depreciation of the market value when there is an
odious project proposed.
(g) The Plan included areas solely for the purpose of obtaining tax-increment
financing and bond issuance capabilities.
(h) The Redevelopment Plan fails to adequately describe the specific redevel-
opment projects that are contemplated.
(i) There is insufficient time between the completion of the downtown CRA
project to measure the secondary effects such as traffic patterns and
the economic factors that might spill over onto other areas deleting
the need to create another CRA project.
(j) That there was inadequate time and insufficient information provided for
a proper analysis of the EIR Report as to the detrimental effects of this
proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan. (See Exhibits "C" and "D").
(k) The PAC has not received any evidence that there would not be adverse
detrimental effects on other taxing agencies that serve the Project Area.
(1) The PAC has received negative comments regarding the adoption of this
CRA project. Area residents and businesses as well as other Huntington
Beach citizens have complained.
(m) The PAC has received a report of the CRA doing preliminary negotiations
with project property owners. Doing this in fact will make the public
hearing process a complete sham since this project is not even adopted.
To be cutting deals before the fact is not acceptable to the PAC.
- 2 -
OPTION 3 - Continued •
DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED
(n) This Project will result in unfair competition between existing businesses
who have already improved their own property and other owners or future
owners who will receive special CRA benefits and incentives to improve
their business or property.
- 3 -
SAMPLE REPLACEMENT HOUSING PLAN
ATTACHMENT TO BEACH BOULEVARD REQUEST FOR
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION (RH-87-53)
Pursuant to a request to City Council, attached is a sample Replacement Housing Plan
for the Main Pier Redevelopment Project Area. It is important to note that this is a
draft of a Replacement Housing Plan which has yet to undergo complete administrative
review or City Council approval. However, it does illustrate the basic content required
in a replacement housing plan (i.e. an estimate of the number of lower or moderate
income housing units which .may be lost and a determination of how these will be
replaced by the Redevelopment Agency).
If the Project Area for the Beach Boulevard Corridor is adopted, State Law requires that
before any low or moderate income housing unit is removed from the city's housing
stock, that a replacement housing plan for the project area be prepared. Staff will com-
mence on this effort should the project area be adopted.
REPLACEMENT HOUSING PLAN
FOR THE
MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
The City of Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Agency
May, 1987
CONTENTS
SUBJECT PAGE
I . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II . Project Area Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III . Replacement Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I . INTRODUCTION
The California Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code
Section 33413 .5 , requires that an Agency adopt , by
resolution, a Replacement Housing Plan. The Plan must be
adopted at least thirty ( 30 ) days prior to any agreement
resulting in the destruction or removal of dwelling units
from the low and moderate-income housing market.
This Replacement Housing Plan addresses the removal of
147 dwelling units from the City of Huntington Beach
Agency's Main-Pier Project Area.
The Plan includes :
1. The general location of displacement housing;
2. The number of units with the price limitations of low
and moderate income persons;
3. The means of financing;
4. The funding.
II . PROJECT AREA HOUSING
The proposed redevelopment of the Main-Pier Redevelopment
Project Area, as described in this Plan, conforms to the
General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach adopted by
the City Council and as thereafter amended. The
Main-Pier Project will remove the following dwelling
units from the low and moderate income housing market:
Number Unit Size
11 Parcels
-2 Residential-Owner Occupants
82 Residential Tenants
52 Business Tenants
TOTAL 147 Units
III . REPLACEMENT HOUSING
The Agency shall assist all families, individuals, or
other entities displaced by the project in finding other
locations and facilities . In order to carry out the
project with a minimum of hardship to persons displaced
from their homes, the Agency shall assist individuals and
families in finding housing that is decent, safe,
sanitary, within their financial means , in reasonably
convenient locations , and otherwise suitable to their
needs . The Agency may provide by acquisition,
construction leasing, rehabilitation, loans and grants ,
or other means , housing inside or outside the Project
Area for displaced persons, and to meet housing
replacement requirements of State law.
The Agency shall make relocation payments to persons
( including families , business concerns , and others )
displaced by the project, for moving expenses and direct
loans of personal property (business only) for which
reimbursement or compensation is not otherwise made. In
addition, the Agency will reimburse owners for certain
settlement costs incurred in the sale of their property
to the Agency, and make additional relocation payments to
those eligible therefore. Such relocation payments shall
be made pursuant to Agency Rules and Regulations and the
Relocation Provisions of the Government Code of the State
of California. The Agency may make such other payments
as may be appropriate and for which funds are available.
The Agency shall make an extensive effort to relocate
existing residential tenants within the City of
Huntington Beach .
Duration of the .Plan
Except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegregation
provisions which shall run perpetuity, the provisions of
this Plan shall .be effective and the provisions of other
documents formulated pursuant to this Plan may be made
effective for 35 years from the date of adoption of this
Plan by the City Council or until all outstanding
indebtedness of the Agency shall be retired , whichever is
later .
Summary
The Main-Pier Project will remove units from the
low and moderate-income housing market .
The Redevelopment Agency shall assist all families ,
individuals or other entities displaced by the project in
finding other locations and facilities . The
Redevelopment Agency will assume an active role to ensure
the completion of all such projects .
1489r
Draft-5/6/87
ACTIVITIES, ETC.
1 . Approval and monitoring of consultant contracts .
2 . Assigning account numbers and authorizing purchase orders .
3. Redevelopment Semi-Annual Reports
4 . Annual Redevelopment Report to the State.
5 . Subgrantee contracts, payments , monitoring.
6 . Fair Housing Council contract, payments monitoring.
7 . Liaison to HCD CAB.
8. Oversee Operation LOGOS Youth Employment.
9 . Redevelopment and CDBG budgets : prepare and monitor .
(computer , etc . )
10 . Prepare Grantee Performance Report .
11 . Prepare Housing Assistance Plan .
12. Environmental Analysis for CDBG.
13 . Redevelopment documents e .g. 5-Year-Plan.
14. Huntington Beach 2000 Committee.
15 . Liaison to Community Youth Shelter Project .
16 . Orange County Housing Authority Advisory Committee
member-alternate.
17 . Arts in Public Places - .reviewing policy with Mike Mudd and
Ann Thorn.
18 . Monitoring Master Calender for various reports .
1489r
i "WALNUT-MAIN PORTION" -
WAlwT A VE EEI•E�E�E1• E1• `E1r E� E�EE1t E1•E�r ^r
i,.
r•
- t
"
mm
NORTH
T AS T
. . ........:.:
:::::..::::
................
.. ...............
AS
PO
RTION"ON
" •
c
S
:>.;< :.:.:.: . . :.... :.. ...:: "REMAINING PORTION
FUTURE HOTEL R RETAIL/ '.�' 4 1 '-0
O
} •. ......
ME G ss�
i
R AL
. I
I
i
I
"CITY
I
r
HOTEL
Y
_
I
PARCEL" .
i
rt
44
J
rt :..
Ire
"' o "ADJACENT AREA" -
�..::
( J = i ,•
part of the Site) {9 ""�'
is not a
11 I I I
"PIER SIDE PORTION"
Amu
E4KE 0:s0'4•
'ER •
MAIN410 EDEVELOPMENT PLAN
~l
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALFOFNA `"ft ``
K14TWTON PACFICA DEVELOPV*NT GROUP
HUNTINGTON BEACH
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
MINUTES OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
The regular meeting of the PAC was held on Wednesday,
June 3, 1987, at 7:15 p.m. at the Civic Center building, the
Chairperson being in the chair and the Secretary being present.
The meeting began with an open discussion of the upcoming
July 6 Public Hearing . Some of the things discussed were 1 ) that
we form various committees; 2 ) that we still have not received
the final E.I .R. ; 3 ) the PAC was denied a two week extension of
time because the City felt that it would cause the City to loose
a full year.
Chairman Lane passed out a draft of a memorandum addressed
to the City asking for approval of funds for the PAC in support
thereof. He asked that we take a few minutes to review the draft
memorandum.
At this point, the minutes were approved with the following
correction. That the comment made by Chuck Osterlund in the
meeting of June 3, 1987 was out of order according. to the course
of the meeting. That Mr . Osterlund 's comment was not made until
after voting of the Options had taken place. There was some
controversy to this affect, but with approval that the minutes be
amended to show that Mr . Osterlund 's comment was made after
voting of the Options.
The question was asked as to "why we do not have local
legal representation?" Chairman Lane responded by saying that
most legal firms in this area. are already representing the City's
concerns . The Chair then asked special guest, Attorney Chris
Sutton of the law firm of Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta to give his
presentation. Mr . Sutton began by concurring with Chairman Lane
that most of the law firms in this area are reporting to the city
agency concerns . But he made an offer to supply the PAC with
names of other fimrs that we could look into pertaining to our
legal representation.
Attorney Sutton gave a brief synopsis of their firm and
continued to explain what a PAC is, highlighting that the PAC has
the right to its own counsel, staff and supplies. The PAC is to
be a bargaining agent for property owners and businesses between
the City and these owners . That blight is a Constitutional
• r �
Minutes of PAC
June 3, 1987
Page 2
finding to filing of eminent domain. Mr. Sutton supplied those
in attendance with a copy of Article 6.5 of the Health and Safety
Code section 33385 through 33388 regarding the PAC, how it is to
be formed, that it is an important part of the redevelopment
plan.
Attorney Sutton said that we are better off doing the work
ourselves, but with a lawyer advising us . That we will need to
do most of the leg work . That redevelopment can be a process
that contributes in a positive way and can be a good
strengthening agent. That it may not always be necessary to vote
against a redevelopment plan.
At the conclusion of Attorney Sutton's presentation,
Chairman Lane ask that we continue with the draft memorandum.
Each request was discussed as follows:
1 . Chairman Lane asked those from the City if there was
any space available at City Hall in which the PAC
could use .to conduct its business. The answer was no.
But, that they would check into it.
2 . Establish a committee to study how much of a budget is
needed and what office space would be available.
Chuck Osterlund suggested that we write a notification
to Council to put them on notice of a permanent
funding base. Agency counsel, Tom Clark suggested
that we allow Chris Sutton to establish a budget for
the committee to be submitted to the City.
3. Attorney Sutton interjected (due to the request in the
draft memorandum requesting $5,000. 00 for legal representation) ,
that due to the length of time left that there is no way he can
generate $5,000. 00 worth of time, but said that we should
designate someone to deal with the attorney and that it would
probably (due to the length of time left) be $1,000 . 00 for
attorneys fees. That he will be providing us with guidance
necessary for the Public Hearing presentation.
Attorney Sutton suggested that we should submit our
comments in writing to the July 6 Public Hearing. That this
would be more effective, and receive direct responses as opposed
to oral comments and/or questions .
4 . Delete item.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the following was
proposed:
Minutes of PAC
June 3, 1987
Page 3
That request number 2 be adopted .
That request number 3, budget for attorneys fees not to
exceed $2,500.00, and that we are to retain the law firm of
Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta as legal representation for the PAC.
That request number 4 be deleted .
Chuck Adkins made the motion that the proposal be sent to
the City Council for approval . Discussion on the motion was; is
there a time limit? It was clarified that it would be for the
July 6 Public Hearing as far as any time limit . Also that we do
request office space as in accordance to item number 1 of the
draft memorandum.
The motion was seconded that the proposal be sent to City
Council for approval; with a vote of 15 in favor of; with 0
opposed.
Tom Clark stated that according to the FPPC, we are public
officials . That we will have to sign disclosure statements
showing whether or not we own property which might constitute one
to conflict oneself out. He sited Rotman as a case in point.
And that we are treated as an industry council .
Mr . Paul Sarvis with Downey C.A.R.E.S. said that we have a
sixty (60 ) day window in which to promulgate conflict of interest
code, and suggested that someone be designated to write a
conflict of interest code draft.
The Chair called for a 5 minute break . The meeting
reconvened at 8 : 20 p.m. with comments from Tom Livengood of the
Planning Commission regarding their recent meeting.
The Planning Commission stated that the Redevelopment Plan
is not in conformity to the City's plan. That the Planning
Commission took no stand because there was not enough information
provided in which to do so.
Mr . Livengood further stated that the Planning Commission
listed several items of things lacking that 1 ) the PAC report was
not included in the package; 2 ) proper notice of the Public
Hearing was not set; 3) not enough sufficient amount of time
given to the PAC to let the City Council know how we feel; and 4 )
that we need to form and organize some committee 's.
A list of sign-up sheets were handed out listing various
subcommittee's that could be served on. The Chair asked Dean
Albright if he would head up a final E.I .R. Review Committee .
Minutes of PAC
June 31 1987
Page 4
Mr . Paul Sarvis gave an overview of the Downey C.A.R.E.S.
project. He said that Los Angeles County takes a very aggressive
stand on redevelopment agencies. That the thing to remember
about the Public Hearing is that we get the appropriate evidence
to the City Council before the meeting. To come up with a well
reasoned, heavily researched report for the Council to present
before the Public Hearing, because the record at the close of the
Hearing is what is going to be significant at any later date.
What good is a PAC? The PAC has a very important role.
Public relations and research. That we should concentrate full
steam ahead on the Hearing.
He stated that there are two ways to fight a Redevelopment
Plan.
1 . Political fight . Such as, referendum and recall .
a. Recall is difficult to pull off as it does not
work unless you have found a "guy with his hand caught in
the till" . Anything else is extremely chancy, unless
political. However, he did recommend a recall .
2 . Referendum.
This is a very viable strategy. A petition can be
circulated for votes to force the City to put an issue on
the ballot . Can have a no side vote. Not knowing which
way to vote the City is prohibited from contributing to a
yes campaign.
Also, a lawsuit can be a very expensive project.
Of the two easier routes, the political one is what
Mr. Sarvis would recommend as the strategy we use.
The Chair then reviewed the subcommittee list, and the
following subcommittee ' s were formed:
Legal Liason
Council Contact Committee
E.I .R. Review Committee
Flyer Committee
Council Presentation Committee
Research Committee
Notification Committee
Kimo Jarrett highlighted the fact, that specific questions
regarding the E.I .R. were not answered. That documents material
Minutes of PAC
June 31 1987
Page 5
was not received in a timely manner . That this committee was not
well represented. And that nothing was mentioned as to what our
thoughts are, what we are doing, and that we were done a great
disservice.
Chairman Lane asked that we meet for a General Meeting next
Tuesday the 9th at 7 :00 p.m. to better organize and discuss the
various subcommittees.
With no further business being discuss, the meeting was
adjourned at 10: 20 p.m.
The General Meeting called for Tuesday, the 9th did not
take place due to the time criteria. Not enough time for proper
notice.
The next Regular Meeting of the PAC is scheduled for
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1987 AT 7:00 P.M.
IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CQ'
Elnorina I . Brackens, Secretary
UNTINGTON . �
EACH :
' J
��ttaG A�4 gb1ENt
" - BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT
t�� :., ' •.'°�`•:' `, , . . PROJECT AREA.. COMMITTFE (PAC)
MEMORANDUM
wpA b.Y�I wy.v..•r.
TO: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach City Council
FROM: Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee
DATE: April 23, 1987
SUBJECT: Current Status of the Proposed Huntington Beach
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
COPIES: See Distribution List
On April 22, 1987, the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) o tnd
to deny the approval of the proposed Redevelopment Project for Beach Boulevard.
According to the information received from Gail Hutton, City Attorney, the PAC considered
the following three opitions:
Option 1: Approve the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Plan as proposed.
Option 2: Approve the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Plan with modifications and/or revisions.
Option 3: Deny the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Plan as proposed.
A copy of these Options -is attached. The detail, points, facts and information were compiled
from the many meetings, community input and. information supplied to the PAC from various
entities. They reflect the thinking of the entire PAC. .
After extensive review and discussion of the Options, the PAC voted overwhelmingly to deny
the project. The results were:
Option 1: 1 - vote
Option 2: 2 - votes
Option 3: 18 - votes
The PAC believes that this project is unnecessary and that there are other ways to do the
required infrastructures that will be necessary in the future.
The PAC recommends that the City Council deny approval of the Huntington Beach Beach Boule-
vard Redevelopment Plan.
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
PAC
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach City Council
April 23, 1987
Page Two
I
The PAC wishes to thank the Redevelopment Agency for providing the CRA staff, legal counsel,
consultant, and information which was necessary for our study of the proposed Huntington Beach
Beach Boulevard CRA Plan. Their attendance at our meetings was most helpful in answering
any of our questions and concerns .regarding the proposed project. Thank you for your. coop-
eration and response to our needs.
The next meeting of the Beach Boulevard PAC will be on June 3, 1987. We encourage you to
send a representative.
Sincerely,
!• lilif/LQ Q 11- 14
amen A. Lane
Chairperson
JAL/eb
Attachments (4)
I
t OPTION 1
APPROVE THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED
BENEFIT
1) The EIR.-Report has described portions of the project area •as exhibiting
signs of .blight and blighting influences including deterioration and
dilapidation of structures and poorly maintained lots. This condition
creates an undesirable environment for continued growth and development
in the area. The project area also contains irregular or substandard
lot sizes that further hamper development. Implementation of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan would allow the Redevelopment Agency to provide
improvements, consolidate parcels and incorporate thematic signage
and landscaping that would create a more suitable environment to encourage
private development.
2) The Plan as proposed would allow a greater flexibility in choosing
financing mechanisms to fund the project improvements. Therefore,
more revenues could be made available at a faster rate to complete the
goals of the Plan.
3) The Plan would promote joint partnerships between the public and
private sectors thus encouraging an environment for greater improvements
and development projects.
4) This Plan could increase the community's supply of housing to include
opportunities for low-and moderate-income households.
5) The Plan would eliminate certain environmental deficiencies, i.e. , water
run off, as outlined in the Draft EIR Report.
6) The Plan would eliminate substandard vehicular circulation systems and
other deficient public improvements, facilities and utilities adversely
affecting the Project Area.
7) The facilitation of the undergrounding of unsightly overhead utility lines.
8) The Plan would also encourage the provision of adequate off-street parking
to serve current and future uses within the Project Area.
9) With the adoption of this Plan, faster changes in the projects land uses
could be realized; creating the encouragement of uniform and consistent
land use patterns.
10) The benefit of provisions for increased fees, taxes and revenues to the
City and Redevelopment Agency.
11) Without approval of this Plan, the projects goals could be realized at
a much slower rate and borrowing costs could go up to finance the proposed
improvements.
Negative impacts to this OPTION i will be discussed in OPTION 3 in more detail.
OPTION 2
APPROVE THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH MODIFICATIONS
The Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee approves the proposed Redevelopment
Plan with the following specific modifications.
(a).r.,That. the. use of eminent domain (Section 308 of:_.:the..Plan) be.eliminated
for residential and commercial/business properties when the reuse
of the property would be for a private purpose. Any use of eminent
domain for public uses such as streets, parks, public improvements
would remain in the Plan.
EFFECTS
1) This revision is proposed because blight can be caused by unreason-
able delays between the announcement of the project and subsequent
eminent domain actions. The delays may result in loss of tenants,
restrictions on private financing of property sales and construction
of improvements located. within the proposed take area and depreciation
of the market value.
2) The PAC believes that when eminent domain is used for another's private
purpose that the public interest and necessity do not require the
project. Eminent domain should only be used when the project is planned
or .located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest
public good and the least private injury_ If a project area is develop-
ing on its own, the private property sought to be acquired is not
really necessary for the project.
3) This modification would result in the protection and retainment of
private property and its related investment value for both residential
and commercial owners.
(b) All increased levels of property taxes shall be spent inside the Pro-
ject Area until all the projects debts are paid off.
EFFECTS
1) This revision is proposed to help the project area to pay off its
debts at a much faster rate than is normally the practice of redevelop-
ment project areas. When the debts of a project are paid off, the
property tax increments are returned to all taxing agencies who have
been waiting to realize the benefits of the redevelopment project.
2) The PAC wants to assure that all future city councils will act in
an expeditious manner to retire project debts.
(c) The Relocation Plan shall be submitted to the PAC 30 days before the
legislative body holds the public hearing adopting or rejecting the
proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan.
(d) The relocation committee shall include members of the PAC AND SHALL
BE DRAWN-UP AND PASSED FROM THE SAME CRITERIA AS THE PAC.
(e) That a report be made of the evaluation of previous relocations of
previous redevelopment projects as to the satisfaction of the relo-
OPTION 2 - Continued
APPROVE THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH MODIFICATIONS
catees be made, (Section 6060) and given to the Beach Blvd. PAC 30
days before the legislative body's public hearing on the proposed
Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan.
EFFECTS
1) In the event that future councils or the present council fails to
adopt the deletion of eminent domain for residential and business
properties, this change would help to protect those who have to go
through the relocation process. A relocation appeals board should
be established under Section 33417.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(f) That the completed EIR be given to the PAC for review 30 days before
the legislative body's public hearing on the Beach Blvd. Redevelop '
ment Plan.
- 2 -
OPTION 3
DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED
The Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) recommends
denial of the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons:
(a) The Beach Blvd. PAC cannot support the Redevelopment Agency's land use
goals.
In Land Use Element 87-1, the Agency submitted four proposed land use
changes that clearly outline future action and goals of the Agency.
1) The CRA staff recommended 51.3 acres be redesignated from residen-
tial to commercial. (Note* The Department of Developmental Services
recommended 9.5 acres be redesignated and an additional 20.4
(area 2.7) be designated as mixed-use/commercial, medium density/resi-
dential and public park).
2) The CRA staff did not seek owner participation in the General Plan
Amendment for land use changes.
3) In public statements the Ocean View School Board indicated that they
had not been consulted in the proposed change in the use of their
property. ' (2.5 and 2.7). In fact, the school district clearly stated
that they had no intention of closing their school at Talbert and
Beach Blvd. (2.5). Their desire to continue to operate the Bus Barns
on 7 acres on their school site on Beach and Warner was not included
in the Agency's Land Use Proposal (2.7).
4) Chevron submitted a letter '(see attached Exhibit "A") with their -
concerns regarding proposed land use changes 2.4 Beach and Memphis.
They also indicated that they had not been consulted.
5) Throughout the public hearing process, residential and businesses
impacted by the proposed land use changes complained about a lack
of communication in the notification process.
(b) That the project area defined by the Redevelopment Plan is neither charac-
terized or predominated by any of the elements of "blight" as set forth
in Health and Safety Code Sections 33030-33032. Nor is any substantial
portion of such area so characterized or predominated. The Project Area,
in fact, does not exhibit a preponderance of deteriorating structures
wherein the inhabitants of the area are subjected to physical dangers
or health hazards. Nor is there a preponderance of high crime in the
area.
(c) The Orange County Assessor's records demonstrate that the taxable valuation
of property within the Project Area has experienced continued appreciation
in value during the last ten years in spite of a significant change in
assessment valuation procedures caused by Article XIIIA, California
Constitution which causes total assessment valuations to reflect a total
value of the area in question significantly less than true market values.
The assessed value of the property within the Project Area has continued
to rise through private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance
of the Redevelopment Agency.
(d) That there is presently inadequate information to determine the economic
• OPTION 3 - Continued
DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED
feasibility of the Redevelopment Plan, and the Plan could cause unreason-
able amounts of public debt.
(e) That most of the goals included in the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan
are merely infrastructure improvements or other public improvements
that can be alleviated through other financing mechanisms or processes
of government. The City should explore other methods of raising the financ-
ing necessary to implement the public improvements and goals contained
within the plan. These improvements can be financed from a combination
of sources such as State Highway Funds, Gas Tax Revenues, 1915 assessments
and other city revenues qualifying for public improvement projects. Park-
ing districts could be created if there is a parking shortage. Code
enforcement of the Sign Ordinance could alleviate any signage problems.
Planned Use Development zoning could control haphazard criteria so as
to assure high standards for site design. Uniform land use patterns can
be controlled through proper zoning. (See Exhibit "B").
(f) The plan would have a significant economic detrimental effect on the
Project Area residents and businesses as it embraces eminent domain for
private reuse of property. The ability of one to borrow for repairs or
improvements is greatly affected when the property has the cloud of eminent
domain. There can be a loss of tenants and difficulties in selling the
property along with depreciation of the market value when there is an
odious project proposed.
(g) The Plan included areas solely for the purpose of obtaining tax-increment
financing and bond issuance capabilities.
(h) The Redevelopment Plan fails to adequately describe the specific redevel-
opment projects that are contemplated.
(i) There is insufficient time between the completion of the downtown CRA
project to measure the secondary effects such as traffic patterns and
the economic factors that might spill over onto other areas deleting
the need to create another CRA project.
(j) That there was inadequate time and insufficient information provided for
a proper analysis of the EIR Report as to the detrimental effects of this
proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan. (See Exhibits "C" and "D").
(k) The PAC has not received any. evidence that there would not be adverse
detrimental effects on other taxing agencies that serve the Project Area.
(1) The PAC has received negative comments regarding the adoption of this
CRA project. Area residents and businesses as.well as other Huntington
Beach citizens have complained.
(m) The PAC has received a report of the CRA doing preliminary negotiations
with project property owners. Doing this in fact will make the public
hearing process a complete sham since this project is not even adopted.
To be cutting deals before the fact is not acceptable to the PAC.
- 2 -
OPTION 3 - Continued •
DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED
(n) This Project will result in unfair competition between existing businesses
who have already improved their own property and other owners or future
owners who will receive special CRA benefits and incentives to improve
their business or property.
- 3 -
o
Chevron EXHIBIT (A)
t Chevron U.SA. Inc.
P. 0. Box 606, La Habra,CA 90631 • Phone(213) 694-7570
February 10, 1987
Land Use Element Amendment 87-1
City of HunthZ1M Beach
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Commissioner:
Chevron has studied the proposal before you tonight with regards to Area 2.4 and
agrees with the Huntington Beach Company that the General Plan designation of
Medium Density Residential should be retained. Moreover, we question the need to
even consider a zoning change at this time.
City staff have not, to my knowledge, approached Chevron to discuss future
development possibilities, nor does Chevron have current plans to develop all or a
portion of Area 2.4. A decision now to alter the status quo appears to be premature,
inefficient and could unnecessarily restrain consideration of future development
planning options. For these reasons, Chevron requests that the current designations on
the site be maintained until a more appropriate occasion arises to fully debate the
complicated issues associated with the City's Land Use Planning.
Ver }ly yours,
O. McCamish
LOM/sd
cc: Mr. William D. Holman
Project Representative
Huntington Beach Company
1
EXHIBIT (B) RAFT EIR REPORT •
TABLE 4
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
"Super Street" Improvements, Atlanta to Edinger
- Signal Coordination and Modification
- New Signals
- Access Controls
- Parking Restrictions
- Restriping Travel Lanes and Intersections
- Intersection Widening, including New Right-Of-Way
- Bus turnouts, Including Right-of-Way
Storm Drain and Sanitary Sewer Improvements
- South of Aldrich. Stark to Sher 2,200 ft. of 24" and 18"
storm drain.
- Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis, east side
one-half mile 48" wide storm drain.
- Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis (west. side)
48" and 36" wide storm drain.
- Sanitary sewer - Adams to Yorktown 2,700 feet of 12" line
Waterline Improvements
- 8" water main east and west side of Beach Blvd. , complete
loops and replace 6"
- 20" casing steel, boring and jacking for 12" water main,
crossing every 1/2 mile. Locations: Heil, Warner, Slater,
Talbert, Ellis-Main, Garfield, Yorktown, Indianapolis,
Atlanta. 200 ' length per crossing.
Utility Undergrounding
Entire length BQact Hlwd.
Landscaping and Streetscape
- Median and frontage road landscaping, Atlanta to Edinger
- Theme signage, street furniture, decorative street lights
Recreation and Park Improvements & Historic Preservation -
Bartlett Park
Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
16
EXHIBIT (C)
April 2, 1987
TO: City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Project Area Committee - Beach Boulevard
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Project
To complete the major task of the Project Area Committee, we feel
there has been insufficient time to adequately review the draft E.I.R.
Report before the due date of May 14, 1987.
The E.I.R. Report, itself, is inadequate and incomplete and does not
contain enough information to make an adequate recommendation. We also
feel that this incomplete E.I.R. Report has not been sent to all necessary
affected taxing agencies. (Examples: Cal-Trans and Orange County's Fiscal
Review Committee.) Due to the limited time provided, the Committee's remarks
concerning the E.I.R. will address the following issues:
A. Lack of Information on Existing Uses. Page 1, First Paragraph,
states "Elimination of Blighting Influences currently preventing the full
and effective use of the land". TUe Committee feels strongly that the
wording needs to be changed. The statement is misleading and does not
mention the tremendous- amount of recycling and renovation of existing
property in the proposed redevelopment area that has already occurred.
The E.I.R. is to be an information document (Page XVIII) and complete
information is not provided. The Executive Summary also does not provide
adequate description of existing uses.
B. Transportation/Circulation (3.13). The E.I.R. is inadequate in
several areas concerning analysis and proposed mitigating measures for
this important item.
1. No discussion concerning impact of Beach traffic during the summer
months. The .proposed increased density and use will tremendously impact
an existing serious traffic circulation problem.
2. No discussion concerning impact of Downtown Redevelopment Projects
on Beach Boulevard and twelve major East-West arterials. Resort destinations,
i.e. , hotels, tourist attractions, mean an increase in vehicle traffic. .
trying to reach freeways.
3. There is not an adequate review of the Super Streets Demonstration
Project Final Report as-approved by"Council. The impact o? land use c sages
in the project area and the elimination of the flyover at Beach/Warner,
would change the impact on the mitigating measures outlined in the Super
Streets Report. Two land use changes at Beach and Warner (approximately
24 acres) would generate nearly 20.000 daily trips over existing land use.
Redevelopment Agency
April 2, 1987
Page 2
There are 509: acres in .the project: area...,: Does the-Super Street Project
.,<.�.._ •address these major proposed changes? Volume of traffic is addressed;
however, how.to handle• the 73% more trips in the project area is not
adequately. covered. Page 94, Table 23 clearly shows intersections at
unacceptable.level of service at intersections in the study area.
4. The elimination of parking on Beach Boulevard with the installation
of bus turnouts, widening and red curbing -is not even covered in the E.I.R.
The tremendous impact on existing businesses and residential areas needs
to be carefully analyzed with mitigating measures.
C. Lack of Economic Analysis Within the Draft E.I.R.
The P.A.C. Committee recommends the Redevelopment Agency/City Council
carefully review the Committee's concerns of the draft E.I.R. and accept
input from the Environmental Board, Planning Commission, and other agencies,
and not certify the E.I.R. until the concerns are adequately addressed.
The Project Area Committee believes that there must be a final Public
Hearing on the proposed final draft of the E.Z.R. The final draft E.I.R.
must be made available prior to the Public Hearing.
All public agencies, businesses, property owners and the general
public must be notified of the Public Hearing and have access to the
document thirty (30) days in advance of the meeting. When the final
E.I.R. Report -is sent to the Planning Commission to determine if the
E.Z.R. is in conformance with the General Plan, that meeting should be
scheduled as a Public Hearing. On your present Calendar Schedule,
July 6 is a holiday weekend and would be an inappropriate date for a
meeting to be held.
PAC:dc
� +I� Environmental Board EXHIBIT (D)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
/11•V I♦+.IU\111\I++ Post OI IIC(_` Box 190 • Huntll)mon Bl dch, CA
March 11, 1987
Doug LeBelle, Director Redevelopment Agency/
Jim Palin, Director, Planning Department
City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Gentlemen:
At the PAC meeting of the Beach Boulevard Redevlopment Committee
held on February 25, 1987 and the Environmental Board meeting
held on February 26, 1987, Steve Kohler stated that the
Environmental Board's responses had been incorporated into the
DRAFT EIR for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment project.
The Board's Adhoc Committee met on March 4, March 9, and March
10, 1987 to review the DRAFT EIR. The Committee was still unable
to find these responses as stated by Mr. Kohler.
Enclosed is a copy of our response to TABLE A, ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT SUMMARY, Page XIV. Would you please refer the enclosed
material to the Planning Commission for their review prior to the
March 24, 1987 Public Hearing on this project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dean Albright
Chairman
Beach Boulvevard Redevelopment
Adhoc Committee
DA:cmw
Enclosures
cc: Kent Pierce, Chairman, Planning Commission
Tom Livingood, Planning Commission
Tom Androusky
Responses to TABLE A, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SURVEY
Page XIV
1. Air
A major concern would be stalled traffic which would
contribute to a concentration of lead and pollution. (Refer
to Page 26, DRAFT EIR, for comments from the AQMD.
Page 35, DRAFT EIR, Is there an error with regards to 9986
co decreased to 9658 co? All other figures on this table
showed an increase.
2 . Land Use
No comments
3 . Traffic/Circulation
The flyover at Beach and Warner was not addressed. The city
recently approved the Beach Boulevard Super Street Final
Report, but denied the Warner flyover. How would this be
mitigated?
The DRAFT EIR did not address the Downtown Redevelopment
project nor the two-three months of Beach traffic during the
summer months. These are three very serious problems.
4. Earth
Ninety-Ninety-five percent site coverage would result in
loss of water perculation and loss of ground water. In high
areas, such as Indianapolis, west of Beach, water could
collect behind a project, undermining the soil and result in
slippage of earth. Areas south of Adams are most
susceptible to this problem. (Example: Blue Bird Canyon in
Laguna Beach is an example of development in a manner that
stored water in the land mass, resulting in eventual
landslides. )
5. Surface and Ground Water
The DRAFT EIR does not adequately cover impact on the
Talbert Channel (DO1) . (Example: protection of area
southwIt of Beach and Indianapolis that flooded in 1983 .
Study's show existing proposed flood control improvements
will not solve flood control problems of existing
development, let alone proposed projects. Mitigating
measures must include recommendations for improving the main
channels.
6. Noise
Will mitigating measures adequately cover existing
residential and commercial property?
7. Light and Glare
No comments
8. Water
Is the city's present water supply adequate for any new
development?
9. Sewer
The mitigation measures do not address the realities of life
with the expansion of existing treatment plants nor the
building of new ones. Throughout the report the treatment
plants are not, addressed.
10. Storm Drains
Where is the terminus of the storm drains and will this
terminus be able to handle the extra water? The mitigation
measures are contingent upon the upgrading of the Orange
County Flood Control 'Channels.
11. Schools
No comments
12. Risk of Upset
Methane gas, underground pipelines and abandoned wells have
not been addressed.
13 . Population
No comments
14 . Housing
Under California Redevelopment Law there are guidelines to
protect the residents. The Redevelopment Agency needs to
insure that the 180 units housing approximately 500 people
are protected.
15. Parks and Recreation
As stated in the Master Plan for Parks, preservation of
neighborhood parks must be taken into consideration.
(Example: Rancho View and Crest View) .
16. Health Hazards
The proposed project is expected to generate 73% more trips
within the . project compared to existing conditions. The
Committee feels this will create a health hazard :date to the
increase in traffic which would : generate more pollutants..
into the air.
17. Fire Protection
The additional traffic caused by the development will cut
down on response time.
SUMMARY: k
Flood
In order to proceed with the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Project it will be necessary to upgrade the Orange County
Flood Control Channels in order to receive the run-off from
the storm drains, which also need to be upgraded.
Sewage
In order to proceed with the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Project it will be necessary to upgrade Sanitation Plant #2
in order to receive the additional affluent which will occur.
OFFICE OF
CITY ATTORN EY
V
P.O.BOX 2740
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CALIFORNIA 92647
GAIL HUTTON TELEPHONE
City Attorney (714)5366M
April 17, 1987
TO: JIM LANE AND MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
Beach Boulevard Project Area
RE: Role of Project Area Committee
The Project Area Committee ( "PAC" ) has asked my office to advise
as to the role of the PAC in connection with the consideration of
the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan by the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Beach City Council .
By way of introduction, Health & Safety Code Section 33385
provides, in relevant part, as follows:
The legislative body of a city or county
shall call upon the residents and existing
community organizations in the
redevelopment project area, within which a
substantial number of low- and
moderate-income families are to be
displaced by the redevelopment project, to
form a project area committee. . . .
Although there are no specific plans to displace a substantial'
number of low- and moderate-income families, the City Council
decided, in an abundance of caution, to call upon the residents
and existing community organizations to form a PAC .
PAC was formed in accordance with Health & Safety Code § 33385 and
subsequently approved by the City Council . Thereafter, the
Redevelopment Agency forwarded a copy of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan to the PAC for its review.
I am advised that the PAC has now reviewed the Redevelopment Plan
and seeks direction in terms of its recommendations to the City
Council and Redevelopment Agency. In this regard, the PAC can
either ;
( 1 ) Recommend approval of the Redevelopment Plan as
submitted to it by the agency,
JIM LANE AND MEMBERS OF THE
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
April 17, 1987
Page 2
( 2 ) Recommend denial of the Redevelopment Plan as
submitted to it, by the agency, or
( 3 ) Recommend approval provided that the agency make
specified modifications to the Redevelopment Plan.
In accordance with Health & Safety Code § 33366, (attached) these
are the results of the exercise of the various options :
1 . If PAC recommends approval, council may adopt the
redevelopment plan by a majority vote of the entire
membership qualified to vote on the plan;
2 . If Pac recommends denial or approval of the plan with
modifications which are later rejected by the council
then, in such event, the plan may still be adopted by
a 2/3rds vote of the entire membership of the council
eligible and qualified to vote on the plan .
3 . If PAC recommends approval of the plan with
modification, which modifications the council
incorporates in the plan, the council may adopt the
plan by majority vote of the entire membership
eligible and qualified to vote on such a plan.
4 . If PAC recommends approval of the plan with
modifications and the council elects to incorporate
such modifications, the plan as modified must be
presented to the Planning Commission for its report
and recommendation . Health & Safety Code § 33363 .5 .
Under any of the other circumstances where no such modifications
or changes are contemplated, the agency may act on the plan as set
forth hereinabove.
Should you have any further questions or comments, a
representative of my office will be in attendance at your meeting
of April 22, 1987 .
GAIL HUTTON
City Attorney
4
BEACH BLVD REDFVELOPMENT
PAC
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee Members
Sherry Passmore
Huntington Beach Tomorrow
Huntington Beach Flood Prevention Group
Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce
Huntington Beach Board of Realtors
Environmental Board
Planning Commission
Main Street Pier Redevelopment Project
Huntington Beach Company
Orange County Register Newspaper
Huntington Beach Daily Pilot Newspaper
Los Angeles Times Newspaper
Ocean View School District
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF REDEVELOPMENT
April 16, 1987
Mr. Jim Lane, Chairman
Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee
637 Frankfort Avenue
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Jim,
I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you on April 9 to discuss staff's continuing
objective to assist the Project Area Committee in providing additional background
information to enable the Committee to complete its report on the Proposed Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Plan. Realizing a number of individual Committee Members
were unable to make one meeting of the PAC was our reason for offering to schedule
informal question and answer sessions at the convenience of individual PAC Members.
We would welcome the opportunity, as previously indicated, to answer specific written
questions that the Project Area Committee has or that individual members of the
committee have upon receipt of those questions. Based upon our discussion of last
Thursday regarding the various alternatives available to the Project Area Committee in
terms of its action on the Proposed Beach Boulevard Plan, the City Attorney's office
along with Agency Special Counsel are preparing a communication that will address the
questions that we discussed and that information will be transmitted to the Project Area
Committee in advance of your April 22 meeting.
The written information that I indicated staff was compiling addressing the points raised
at your,last-meeting.ducing the discussion process is enclosed as background information
for review by the Project Area Committee Members. Staff would be happy to answer any
specific additional questions the PAC or individual members of the PAC may have as a
result of their review of these materials.
I and the entire City staff remain available at your convenience, and the Committee's and
individual members of the Committee's convenience, to share information regarding the
objectives of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan. Your time and effort on behalf
of this important community endeavor is .sincerely appreciated and again, I would
welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with you at any time.
t
el ,
N. I a Belle
Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment
DLB:sar
xc: Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee Members
Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist
Gail Hutton, City Attorney Telephone(714)636-5582
i
1
4o..;....Cow` C
+�1_1P Katz Hollis Coren
KatzHolfts 1 J ��aA & Associates, Inc.
Transmittal °�,��w, ^ Financial
y o>,q^+o Consultants
�C
550 South Hill St.
1, Suite 980
To:, v Date Am Los Angeles, CA
' 90013-2410
Client
n (213) 629-3065
• Project L
Client/Project No. v
Regarding San Francisco, CA
i�: (415) 788-0360
We are 7Attaed
you:
h ❑ Under Separate Cover ❑ Enclosed
Via: ❑ Messenger �lstClassL J Mail ❑ Express Mail
❑ Federal Express ❑ Other
The following: CA 64- 2- M JA
This transmittal is:
❑ P our request El For your files
For your information and use ❑ Other
❑ For your review and comment
❑ Per the request of
Remarks:
B cc:
_.-...---- -- _...
KatZHollis
CALENDAR OF REQUIRED AGENCY REPORTS
Date Due Report Authority
February 15th Report to the Legislature setting forth in detail Health & Safety
(each year) agency activities involving the rehabilitation of Code Sec. 33444
structures. Report includes expenditure of
public funds, number and kind of units re-
habilitated, and the disposition of rehabilitated
units.
By September For redevelopment projects adopted priorto Jan- Health & Safety
1, 1986 uary 1977, AB 265 requires a resolution to be Code Sec. 33334.6
adopted at a public hearing stating the
existence of obligations, projects or programs as
of January 1, 1986, which would allow less than
the full 20% set aside for low and moderate
income housing. The agency must notice the
public hearing two weeks in advance and also
send a statement describing the existence of
such obligations, projects or programs to its
legislative body and -the Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) pEi2r to
giving notice- of the public hearing.
October 1st Statement of Indebtedness to be filed with Health & Safety
(each year) county auditor, including the date each loan, Code Sec. 33675
advance or indebtedness was incurred, the
principal amount and terms of such
indebtedness, and the outstanding balance and
amount due or to be paid by the Agency.
December 31st Annual Report to the agency's legislative body Health & Safety
(Six months which includes: Code Sec. 33080.1
after the close - An independent financial audit containing
of the Agency's financial statements which present operational
fiscal year) and financial results of the agency. Also
includes an opinion on compliance. .
- A fiscal statement for .the previous year.
- A description of the agency's activities
affecting housing and displacement.
The agency shall send a copy of its Annual Health & Safety
Report to the State Controller at the same time Code Sec. 33080;
it is sent.to its legislative body. Government.
Code Sec. 53891
As Required Statement of Facts - within 70 days after the Government
creation of an agency, and within 10 days of Code Sec. 53051
any change, submit the names, titles and
addresses of agency members to the Secretary
of State and County Clerk.
Katz Hol l is
Date Due Report Authority
Biennially Public hearing to review redevelopment plans Health & Safety
(not applicable to cities of less than 75,000). Code Sec. 33348.5
Annually, Report to the California Debt Advisory Government
As required Commission (CDAC) regarding activities for Code Sec. 8855.5
housing construction and rehabilitation funded
by agency issuance of SB 99 bonds or Marks-
Foran Rehabilitation Act bonds respectively,
which were issued after January 1, 1985.
•
JUNTIAGTON
EACH
BEACH B LV D REDEVELOPMENT
l;a
" PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
jj
_ .
MINUTES OF
^° --�- HUNTINGTON BEACH
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
The regular monthly meeting of the PAC was held on Wednesday, March 25,
1987, at 7:15 p.m. at the Civic Center building, the Chairperson being in the
chair and the Secretary being present. The minutes of the last meeting were
approved as corrected.
The Chair introduced guest speaker, Mr. Doug LaBelle, Deputy City
Administrator. At the conclusion of Mr. LaBelle's talk, relating to individual
and group meetings of the PAC, the Chair expressed that no special meetings
shall be scheduled without prior approval from the Chair.
The Chair introduced guest speaker of the evening, Sherry Passmore, Land
Use Consultant whose subject was Redevelopment and Land Use. Ms. Passmore
expounded the following topics:
• How redevelopment got started in the State.
• The difference between public and private investment
pertaining to blight.
• -Referendum bonds and debts regarding property tax
,increments.
• The purpose of redevelopment.
• How your vote for a tax increase also votes for redevelopment.
• How every redevelopment project in California affects us.
• The why and how of a redevelopment agency debt pay off.
• How a city helps create its own blight._
• The difficulties of obtaining a full loan when you live
in a potential redevelopment area.
• How joint venture and/or partnerships become a source
of revenue for the City.
• How redevelopment can sell any amount of their debt.
• That new legislation may allow an agency to start
redevelopment without a public hearing.
• How an employee of a redevelopment agency can not
promise or guarantee new relocation.
The chair opened the floor for questions.
Quick take and appeal: Can only contest the amount that the
property is worth.
Eminent domain: Can put a cloud over your property. Thereby,
property could be put under a special assessment. Some property tax
increases have been up to 400%.
BrACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT • •
PAC
Minutes of PAC
March 25, 1987
Page Two
Redevelopment: Means power, control and design of property.
Realtors: Are to inform perspective buyers that the area is slated for
redevelopment.
What can we do: Go to public hearing - Make our report - Recommend in
favor of or against adoption of the plan - Study the law as to whether the
project is a necessary redevelopment - That the Committee meet together and
. not individually - Find out what other redevelopment is going on in the City
- That we have to be active and involved as well as educated; otherwise, we
stand a chance of being ran by the State. And, seek to get an exemption from
eminent domain.
Tax increment: Is a tool to implement a plan for redevelopment.
After various comments from Mr. Clark, he concluded that Ms. Passmore is
right and that he has no idea what the comment of the Council would be.
Doug LaBelle summerized the negative and positive benefits of redevelopment
and, will provide copies of the owner/participation success and agency/joint
venture redevelopment projects document to the PAC.
Co-chair Chuck Osterlund spoke on behalf of the school district and took excep-
tion that they too are trying to generate revenue, but has no feeling of support
and that funding from the Lottery has gone from 3% to 1% of revenue for the
school.
The Chair called for a 5 minute break. The Chair reconvened the meeting
by asking that old business from the Agenda be completed by amendment to the
By-laws that an alternate may serve as recording secretary for the PAC. Chuck
Osterlund made the motion and it was seconded and adopted with a 2/3 majority
vote that an alternate may serve as recording secretary for the PAC.
Discussion regarding the response of City Administrator Charles Thompson's
memorandum to the Mayor and City Council members opposing the PAC's request
for special consultant was decided by the PAC that the Chair will respond in
writing to Mr. Thompson's memorandum.
Comments from the PAC with respect to the EIR draft that is due April 4,
1987 was discussed; that a subcommittee be formed to respond to this. A motion
was made by Chuck Osterlund and seconded that a subcommittee be formed. Chair-
person Jim Lane asked for volunteers. The subcommittee members are:
Ron Berry
Jim Lane
George Pearson
The Chair asked for show of hands from the Committee of those interested
in placing on the Agenda for discussion whether the PAC will approve, recommend
or reject the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The show was 14 to 1 in
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT • •
PAC
Minutes of PAC
March 25, 1987
Page Three
favor of. Therefore, a motion was made by Joseph Rizzo and seconded thatthis
discussion be put on the Agenda for the next regular meeting on April 22, 1987.
With no further business being discussed, the meeting was adjourned at
10:10 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the PAC is scheduled for
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1987 at 7:00 p.m.
Elnorina I. Brackens, Secretary
BEACH "BLVD REDEVELOPMENT •
PAC
` PAC ATTENDEES OF
MARCH 25, 1987 MEETING
MEMBERS AGENCY STAFF
Thelma Ackerman Tom Andrusky
Charles Adkins Tom Clark, Special Agency Counsel
Ann Banich - Alternate Stephen Kohler
Irma Benevenia
Ron Berry GUEST
Elnorina Brackens - Alternate
Barbara Fernandez Dean Albright, Enviornmental Bd.
Beatrice Fernandez - Alternate Barbara Chunn, Enviornmental Bd.
Ila S. Files Doug LaBelle, Deputy City Admin.
Arthur Jan Ho Tom Livengood, Planning Commission
Margie Hunt Charles Montero, Enviornmental Bd.
James Lane Sherry Passmore, Land Use Consultant
Ernest O'Reilly - Alternate for David Dains Dorothy Pendleton, Enviornmental Bd.
Chuck Osterlund Kay Seraphine, Enviornmental Bd.
George Pearson Corinne Welch, Enviornmental Bd.
Bill Rasmussen
Frank Richmond
Joseph R. Rizzo
Anthony Salem
Mark Spiegel
w • •
MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1987
The meeting was convened by Chairperson Lane at 7:15 p.m. with the following members,
alternates, and guests in attendance:
Members: Guests:
Margie Hunt Corinne Welch
Thelma Ackerman Dean Albright
Ila S. Files - Alternate Chauncey A. Alexander
Kimo Jarrett Wes Bannister - Councilman
Chuck Adkins
Joseph Rizzo Staff:
George Pearson
Jim Lane Tom Andrusky
Elnorina Brackens Pat Mann -
John Banich Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc.
Chuck Osterlund
Minutes:
The Minutes of the February 25, 1987 meeting were reviewed. The spelling of Ila S. Files
was corrected. The Minutes were approved with the spelling correction.
Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report:
Staff introduced Mr. Pat Mann of Cotton/Beland/Associates to discuss the Draft EIR for
the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The schedule for EIR review
process was presented by the consultant. It was stated that the PAC could provide
written comments to be included in the Final EIR. The comment period on the Draft EIR
closes April 4, 1987.
Comments were received from the Environmental Board Members Dean Albright and
Corinne Welch. Also comments were received from Chauncey Alexander regarding floor
control issues. PAC also discussed various issues relative to the EIR.
Pat Mann, EIR Consultant, took notes in the various comments and questions raised. Staff
did clarify that their written comments and responses would be included in the Final EIR
along with other written responses received.
Action to Amend By-Laws (Requires two-thirds (2/3) vote):
This item was deferred until the Wednesday, March 25, 1987 meeting due to the lack of
two-thirds of total membership present.
Resignation of Ledy Ying and Replacement:
The resignation of Ledy Ying was accepted. A replacement will be discussed at the next
meeting.
f � •
MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
MARCH 11, 1987
Request for Special Counsel:
The PAC discussed the matter of hiring special counsel. The PAC approved a motion to
request the City Council for $1,000 to hire a Special Redevelopment Consultant
Sherry Passmore. Chairman Lane agreed to prepare a letter and submit it to City Council.
Also the PAC passed a motion to request the City Attorney's office to respond to the
same questions to be presented to the Special Consultant.
The group agreed to formulate questions to be presented to the Special Consultant and to
the City Attorney's office.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next regular adjourned meeting is scheduled
for Wednesday, March 25, 1987.
Secretary
TA:sar
1 174r
MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 1987
The meeting was convened by Chairperson Lane at 7:15 p.m. with the following members,
alternates, and guests in attendance:
Members: Guests:
Thelma Ackerman Corinne Welch
Arthur Jan Ho Dean Albright
Barbara Fernandez Carolyn H. Hunt
Margie Hunt Byong Chung
Ila S. Files - Alternate Clarence Luis
Irma Benevenia James Provo
Chuck Adkins
Ron Berry - Alternate Staff:
Dave Dains
Mark Spiegel Tom Andrusky
Ernest O'Reilly - Alternate Stephen V. Kohler
James A. Lane
Elnorina Brackens
Kimo Jarrett
George Pearson
The PAC discussed an amendment to the By-Laws to permit alternates to serve as
Corresponding Secretary. After referring to the requirements of the By-Laws it was
acknowledged that a seven (7) day Notice to the PAC Members was required to make
amendments to the By-Laws. Staff and PAC unanimously passed a motion requesting that
such amendment be noticed and presented on the PAC's next Agenda.
On a motion made by Adkins, seconded by Benevenia the PAC approved the Minutes with
an amendment to clarify that the action of the PAC at its previous meeting regarding the
service of Alternates as Corresponding Secretary was intended to be a direction for the
preparation of such an amendment to the By-Laws and presentation of it to the PAC with
appropriate notice.
The Redevelopment staff presented the Owner Participation and Preference Rules. Staff
then responded to questions on the Owner Participation Rules, Eminent Domain, and other
topics of interest to the PAC Members.
The Project Area Committee took a short break.
When the PAC're-convened the Redevelopment Agency staff reviewed the importance of
the Owner Participation Rules. The PAC determined to dispense with the staff
presentation on the Redevelopment Plan for .Beach Boulevard and go directly to questions
and answers.
The PAC established that it will meet twice in the month of March on the 11 th and 25th.
Under public comments, Dean Albright of the Environmental Board addressed the PAC
and expressed the Board's concern of "over commercialization" in some areas of the City.
He also requested clarification as to whether or not the Environmental Board's review of
MINUTES
7 BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 1987
the Initial Study for the Beach Boulevard EIR had been incorporated in the document. The
PAC requested copies of-the Environmental Board's comments on the Initial Study.
The PAC requested that as an Agenda .item at its next meeting there be an item
concerning hiring of a Special Counsel to the PAC.
The Project Area Committee adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to March 11, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Huntington Beach Civic Center.
Secretary
SVK:sar
1098r
14
MINUTES
1 BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1987
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lane at 7:1 S p.m. with the following
members in attendance:
Members: Guests:
Barbara Fernandez Dean Albright
Elnorina Brackens Corinne Welch
Charles Osterlund Councilwoman Grace Winchell
Bill Rasmussen
Margie Hunt Staff:
Thelma Ackerman
Ida Files - Alternate Tom Andrusky
John Banich Stephen V. Kohler
Ernest O'Reilly - Alternate Margaret Ward
Charles Adkins Tom Clark, Special Agency Counsel
Irma Benevenia Celeste Brady, Special Agency Counsel
Ron Berry - Alternate Robet Shober, Pacific Relocation
George Pearson
Kimo Jarrett
David Dains
Frank Richmond
Joseph Rizzo
Mark Spiegel
After the introduction of staff and guests, the Chair requested that the PAC Members
hold comments and questions regarding personal situations until after staff presentations
had occurred. He hoped that this would contribute to the smooth flow of the meetings
and would help achieve the PAC's target adjournment time of 9:30 p.m.
Torn Clark reviewed the acquisition procedures as they have been used in Huntington
Beach and emphasized that the Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach has used
eminent domain in very selected circumstances. To date, these specifically concerned
"small" encyclopedia lots in the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project Area where
the owners of record could not be located and to secure clear title to the beach south of
the pier. He also stressed the Agency's emphasis on willing seller/willing buyer
negotiations and the success of these without the use of eminent domain. He then
reviewed, along with the assistance of Celeste Brady, the legal steps in any eminent
domain proceeding. Both Mr. Clark and Ms. Brady responded to questions of the PAC
Members regarding eminent domain.
Mr. Clark also reviewed the opportunities for owners to become participants in projects.
It was agreed that owner participation and preference rules would be a subject of
discussion at the PAC's next meeting.
The Project Area Committee adjourned for a break and reconvened at 8:45 p.m. The
Chair introduced Robert Shober of Pacific Relocation to discuss relocation procedures and
benefits.
MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1987
Mr. Shober explained the existence of federal and state regulations and that the
regulations which apply in any given case is determined by the source of funds used to
make the relocation payments. He mentioned that a consultant is used to assist the
Redevelopment Agency in relocation because it provides greater objectivity, laws
regarding relocation often change, and as an assistance to staff. He reviewed the types of
services which a relocation consultant provides and stressed that residential owners and
tenants as well as businesses are eligible for unique types of benefits. He responded to a
variety of questions from the PAC regarding relocation procedures and benefits.
Dean Albright, of the City's Environmental Board, provided comments on the pending
amendments to the City's General Plan Land Use Element.
It was agreed that Elnorina Brackens will serve as an alternate in the "Business" category
and a motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to this affect.
There was a motion to amend the By-Laws to permit alternates to serve as Corresponding
Secretary. Staff will prepare the necessary changes and provide the necessary notice for
this amendment to the By-Laws.
It was also agreed that Mrs. Banich would resign from the Project Area Committee.
There were two members of this family serving as representatives on the PAC and this
was in violation of the approved By-Laws.
Staff distributed copies of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan and requested that
the PAC Members review the document prior to the PAC's next meeting.
The Project Area Committee adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to its next regular meeting of
February 25, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center.
Secretary
SVK:sar
0967r
J MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
JANU.ARY 7, 1987
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Lane at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Lane called the
role of the Project Area Committee and determined those PAC Members who were
present are as follows:
Ric & Jeanie Russell Elnorina Brackens
Joseph Rizzo Margie Hunt
Ledy Ying Bill Rasmussen
Ron Berry - Alternate Thelma Ackerman
George Pearson John Banich
Arthur Jan Ho Ernest O'Reilly - Alternate
Kimo Jarrett Mark Spiegel
Irma Benevenia David L. Dains
Frank Richmond Ila Files - Alternate
Erdem Denktas Barbara Fernandez
Allan A. Robertson Jennifer N. M. Coile
The Minutes of December 2 and 17, 1986 were approved as written.
The Chair requested staff to commence the presentation and Mr. Kohler, of the
Redevelopment Agency Staff, reviewed the history of the Beach Boulevard Project Area
effort. He discussed the preparation and adoption of the Community and Neighborhood
Enhancement Program in 1981 and 1982. He presented a map depicting the five (5)
current Redevelopment Project Areas within the City of Huntington Beach and discussed
the highlights of development within each.
Mr. Al Robertson and Jennifer Coile, of Katz, Hollis, Coren, . reviewed the major
documents which will be produced to accomplish the adoption of a Redevelopment Project
Area. These included those to be reviewed by the PAC:
The Redevelopment Plan.
The Environmental Impact Report.
The Owner Participation Rules.
Mr. Robertson also discussed the schedule of presentation of these documents to the
Project Area Committee. He emphasized that the formal review of documents by the
PAC would commence with distribution of the Redevelopment Plan,tentatively scheduled
for the PAC's meeting of January 28, 1987, and conclude with the approval of the Project
Area Committee Report to the City Council which should be accomplished by the PAC's
April meeting.
Following the presentation staff and the consultants addressed questions of the Project
Area Committee Members. The PAC Members requested copies of the City's General
Plan be distributed and requested that Agency Council be available at its next meeting to
discuss eminent domain.
MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
JANUARY 7, 1987
The PAC then discussed the Draft By-Laws which were distributed with the Agenda
packet. The PAC approved the By-Laws by a Minute action with changes (see corrected
copy attached). The motion was made by Mark Spiegel and seconded by Pearson to
request the City Council to provide independent legal council for the PAC. After further
discussion this motion was withdrawn.
The PAC discussed limiting the number of alternates which might be appointed, and also
that Elmorina Brackens, who has been appointed in the "Residential Tenant" category does
not live within the Project Area. PAC agreed to consider these issues again at its next
meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. to January 28, 1987 at 7:00 p.m.
Secretary
SVK:sar
0831r
i
MINUTES
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
FIRST ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Wednesday, December 3, 1986 - 7 p.m.
Meeting was called to order by Stephen V. Kohler of the Agency staff with the following
agency staff members in attendance:
1. Stephen V. Kohler
2. Tom Andrusky
3. Florence Webb
4. Margaret Ward
5. Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel
The meeting was conducted in the City Council Chambers and staff provided a
presentation of slides depicting existing public improvement and land use conditions
within the proposed project area. Special agency counsel reviewed the process for
adopting a new redevelopment project area and the role and responsibility of a project
area committee.
Agency staff responded to a number of questions from the audience regarding the history
of the redevelopment effort for the Beach Boulevard corridor and on the role of a project
area committee in the formulation of a redevelopment plan.
It was the consensus of those present that formal action on the organization of a Beach
Boulevard project area committee would be postponed until Wednesday, December 17, 1986.
However, approximately 17 volunteers expressed their interest in serving on the project area
committee (see list attached). This group adjourned to an adjoining room and appointed
themselves as an "interim project area committee". Determining the interest of those
volunteering to serve on the PAC, staff suggested that the composition of these volunteers
was approximately representative of the current mix of land uses within the project area.
The consensus of the interim PAC was to appoint Mr. Chuck Osterlund (representing the
Ocean View School District) as an interim chair person. It was requested that staff
prepare press release relating the first organizational meeting of the Beach Boulevard
PAC and announcing its next meeting of December 17, 1986. The meeting was adjourned
at 10:15 P.M.
SVK/mhg
0700r
i
MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986
7:00 P.M., LOWER LEVEL, B-8
HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER
The meeting was called to order by the interim chairperson Chuck Osterlund at 7:10 P.M.
Mr. Osterlund reviewed the schedule for the project area adoption, stated that an interim
Project Area Committee was established on December 3, 1986, reviewed the categories of
representation and the suggested percentage of positions for each category, and
recommended that the PAC consider establishing its maximum membership at twenty-five
persons. The interim chair went on to state that the objective of tonight's meeting was to
constitute a Project Area Committee and elect its officers.
Staff reviewed the history of the Beach Boulevard redevelopment effort as well as the
need for a PAC. Special Agency Counsel, Tom Clark, reviewed the Health and Safety
Code requirements for a PAC and the requirement that a PAC be representative of the
residents, businesspersons, and community organizations. Applications for membership
for the PAC were distributed to all those present. Everyone was requested to state on the
application the category of representation for which they would apply.
On a motion by Kimo Jarrett, seconded by Mr. Pierson, the following composition of the
PAC was suggested:
(1) residential - owner 7, tenant 1 8
(2) businesspersons - 12
(3) community organizations - 1
TOTAL MEMBERSHIP: 21
The motion carried by all ayes, except one no vote. It was suggested that the candidates
present divide into two groups; one representing residential interests, and one
representing business interests, and through these independent caucuses the members
representing each group be determined as nominees to the full Project Area Committee.
At the conclusion of this caucus, a spokesperson for both residential interests and business
interests, read into the record the names of the nominees and alternates from each
group. On a motion by Frank Richmond, seconded by Elnorina Brackens, the nominees and
alternates were appointed by the Project area Committee by a unanimous vote of those
present (see roster attached).
On a motion by Mr. Osterlund, seconded by Mr. Richmond, the Project area Committee
unanimously voted to adopt Roberts Rules of Order as their operating procedure, with
exceptions to be determined by bylaws of the Project .area Committee to be subsequently
adopted. On a motion by- Osterlund, seconded by Banich, the PAC unanimously voted to
establish the of fices of a chairperson, vice-chairperson, and a corresponding secretary.
BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1986
Page Two
In response to the call for volunteers for the officer positions on the PAC, Jim Lane and
Charles Osterlund placed their names in nomination for chairperson and each made a
statement of his qualifications. The two candidates for chairperson left the room and the
remainder of the PAC determined that each would be assumed to abstain from the vote
for chair, and determined that the nominee receiving the second highest number of votes
would assume the vice-chair position. With these parameters established, nine members
of the PAC voted for Mr. Lane, and seven members voted for Mr. Osterlund as
chairperson. Both candidates returned to the room and the results of the election for
chairperson were announced. Chair and vice-chair assumed the seats of office and
requested a volunteer to serve in the office of corresponding secretary. Elnorina
Brackens was the sole volunteer and was selected by acclimation of her peers.
The PAC also determined that alternates were welcome to attend all meetings of the
PAC, however, alternates were eligible to vote only when their corresponding
representative was not present. It was also determined that alternates would fill seats
vacated through resignation. The PAC's next meeting was established for Wednesday,
January 7, 1987, at 7:00 P.M., in the Huntington Beach Civic Center.
A motion to adjourn was made at 9:00 p.m.
2974h