HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Report to Council - R Katz Hollis
CITE' OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
OcI L, cni- THE CITY CLERIC
2000. MAIN S 1 EC-T
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
on the
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
for the
HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT`PROJECT
Prepared by
Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc.
for the
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May, 1987
051987.tmc
1193.hnt/7
Katz Hol l is
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
I. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA; DESCRIPTION OF
SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY AGENCY; DESCRIPTION OF HOW
PROPOSED PROJECTS WILL IMPROVE OR ALLEVIATE BLIGHT
CONDITIONS; AND EXPLANATION OF WHY PROPOSED PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PRIVATE
ENTERPRISEACTING ALONE ............................................................ I-1
A. Reasons for Selection of Project Area .................................... I-1
B. Description of Specific Projects Proposed by Agency' in
Project Area ..........................................................................I-3
C. Description of How Projects Proposed by Agency Will
Improve on Alleviate Blight Conditions .................................. I-3
D. Explanation of Why Proposed Public Improvements Cannot
be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting .Alone............... I-4
II. DESCRIPTION OF .PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
EXISTINGIN PROJECT AREA ...........................................................II-1
A. Existing Physical Conditions ..................................................II-1
1. Project .Location ..........:.....................:.............:...............
II-1
2. Land Uses and Businesses ............................................II-2
3. Predominantly Urbanized Area ............:..................
.......II-2
4. Properties Included .for Planning Purposes ...:.............II-2
5: Buildings and Structures ..............................................II-3
a. Deterioration and Dilapidation ...............................II-3
b. Defective .Design and Character of Physical
Construction .............................:............................II-3
c. Age and _Obsolescence ................:...........................II-4
-d. Mixed Character.of .Buildings .................................II-4
6. Properties ....................................:......................:..........II-5
a. . Lots (Parcels) That Are of Irregular Form,
Shape and Size .......................................................11-5
b. Inadequate Public Improvements, Facilities and
Utilities ...................................................................II-5
i
KatzHollis
PART Page
1. Deficiencies in Transportation. Circulation
System ...........................................................II-6
2. Deficiencies in Infrastructure Utilities.......... II-10
Be Existing Social Conditions .................................................... II-10
C. Existing Economic Conditions ...........................................sees II-10
1. Economic Setting .................:......:.................................II-10
2. Economic Maladjustment .:.............................................. II-11
3. Impaired Investments and Depreciated Values ........... II-11
4. Existence of Inadequate Public Improvements, Public
Facilities, Open Space and Utilities ............................ II-11
III. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT
AREA.....................................................................................:............III-1
A. General Financing Methods Available to Agency ..................III-1
Be Proposed Redevelopment Activities and Estimated Costs .....III-1
C. Estimated Project Revenues .......goes..........:............................III-2
1. Tax Increment Revenues ..........................................:....III-2
2. Loans, Grants and Contributions from City, State
and Federal Government and Project Developers...........III-3
3. Land Sale Proceeds .....................:................................III-3
4. Special Assessment Districts ..6.................................6...III-3
5. Development Fees ..........................................................III-4
D. Proposed Financing Method and Economic Feasibility of
Project ................................................:.....:......:...................III-4
E. Reasons for Including Tax Increment Financing. in
Proposed Redevelopment Plan .......................................:...:...III-4
F. , Tax Increment Use Limitations and Requirements ...............III-5
IV. PLAN AND METHOD OF RELOCATION .............................................. IV-1
A. Agency Displacement ...........................see.....................*so.......IV-1
. Be Relocation in the Event of Agency Displacement ................. IV-1
C. Rules and Regulations ..6..666.0.................................................IV-2
D. Agency Determinations and Assurances ............................... IV-2
Be Replacement Housing Plan ..................................................... IV-4
ii
Katz Hol l i s
PART Page
F. Relocation Assistance Advisory Program and Assurance of
Comparable Replacement Housing .......................................... IV-4
1. Administrative Organization .......................................... IV-5
a. Responsible Entity ................................................ IV-5 -
b. Functions .............................................................. IV-5
2. Information Program ..................................................... IV-7
3. Relocation Records ........................................................ IV-77
4. Relocations Resources Survey .......................................IV-7
6. Relocation Payments ..too..........:..........totes*posts................. IV-7
6. Temporary Moves ..............................*so......................... IV-8
7. Last Resort Housing ..................................................... IV-8
8. Grievance Procedures ........................................:..........IV-8
9. Relocation Appeals Board ............................................... IV-8
V. ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN ...................................................V-1
VI. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION ....... VI-1
VII. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE RECORD .............................................VII-1
A. Formation of PAC .................................................................VII-1
B.. information and Documents Presented to PAC by Agency.....VII-1
C. PAC Recommendation on Proposed Plan .....................&..........VII-2
Attachments 1-3 ...............................................................................
VIII. REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 21151 OF PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE (PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) .......................VIII-1
IX. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER ........................................... IX-1
X. REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE...................................:........X-1
XI. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT ..........................0...........0................ XI-1
A. Impact on Residents in Project Area and Surround-
ing Area.................................................................................... XI-1
1. Relocations Traffic Circulation, Environmental
Quality and Community Facilities and Services .............. XI-1
2. School Population and Quality of Education ..........a........ XI-2
3. Property Assessment and Taxes...................................... XI-3
Be Relocation and Low and Moderate Income Housing................. XI-4
1. Housing Units to be Destroyed or Removed ................... XI-_4
2. Projected Residential Displacement*****.... ........0. XI-5
3. Number and Location of Replacement Housing................ XI-5
iii
Katz Ho11 is
PART Page
4. Number and Location of Low and Moderate Income
Housing Planned Other than Replacement Housing.........XI-5
Be Financing Method>afor- Replacement, Housing
Requirements................................:........4.................0........XI-5
6. Timetable for Provision- of Relocation and Housing
Objectives................................*so........so*...........................XI-6
C'0 Other",Matters Affecting the•..Physical and_Social.Quality-of— -
the Environment........................................:............see...............XI-6
XII. ANALYSIS OF -REPORT.•OF COUNTY FISCAL:OFFICER;iSUMMARY•OF
CONSULTATIONS-WITH AFFECTED%TAXING AGENCIES;:AND.
ANALYSIS" OF, AND RESPONSE1'TO:'REPORT'?OF,;FISCAL-ljREVIEW
'COMMITTER �.:..:.'. :.:::.::..: :..:...'.:i i:: .:::::'r::'..: ::...::::ease:...................XII-1
'A. Introduction .....................................boot..............................XII-1
Be Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer .......................XII-1
?.1. Report Requirements ....................................................XII-1
2. Analysis of Data Reported by County Fiscal Officer.....XII-2
a: Total Assessed;Valuation- of:All•Taxable VProperty
? Within-Project�,Area?,a's Shown: on..Base .Year.,........
Assessment Roll ...................................................XII-2
Ideritification� of°Each'hTaxing :Agency: LeVying,t
' , . ..: "Taxes in Project Area; ; ::::::..:... :::...::::::::...............XII-2 .
c. Amount of Tax Revenue to be Derived by Each
t Taxing-Agency(Fr6mf�Base Year'%Assesament Roll
-Frotri' Project Area.>. ................................................XII=3
d. Total Ad Valorem Tax Revenues for. Each .Taxing
Agency, -From All Property. Within .its ,Boundaries,•r '
Whether Inside or Outside Project Area ............XII-3
'e. Estimated First•Year. Taxes Available. to •.• • i
Redevelopment Agency, Broken Down ..by.—Taxing..
Agencies :....::..::....:::.....................................:.......XII-4
+'f: Assessed Valuation-of: Project,,i Area--for Preceding.;?
-Year, or,.-for.Preceding .Five.Years, Except.for.. .;
State Assessed Property on Board Roll.................XII-4
C. Summary of Consultations With 'Affected Taxing Agencies.....XII-4
D. Analysis of_.and Response to..Repont of Fiscal Review
Committee ..So..`...::....:....:.:::..:...:.:..:.::..:::..................................XII-4
iv
I .
Kat! Hollis
MAPS
Following
No. Pa8 e._............
I-1 Super Street Demonstration Project:
Beach Boulevard Corridor Study Area .................:.........
I-1
I-2 Project Boundary ................................................................. I-1
TABLES
II-1 Existing Land Use Summary .............................................II-2
1I-2 Number of Structures ...........................................
............II-2 .
II-3 Types of Business .............................................................II-2
1I-4 Building and Site Conditions ............................................II-3
II-5 Structural Conditions Rating Definitions ...........................II-3
II-6 Site Conditions Rating Definitions ....................................II-3
II-7 Beach Boulevard Existing Right of Way (ROW) Widths ......II-6
II-8 Intersection Level of Service ...................sees....6...............I1-6
II-9 Average Daily Traffic ........................................................II-7
II-10 Levels of Service for Urban Arterial Streets ...................II-7
II-11 Accident Statistics, 1982-84 ..........................*to.................II-7
1I-12 Beach Boulevard Deficiencies Identified by
"Super Streets" Program ...................:.........................II-8
II-13 Huntington Beach Auto Sales, 1985 ................................II-10
II-14 Summary of Travel Benefits in 2005 with "Super
Streets" Maximum Improvements Program ...........:.......... II-12
II-15 Potential Additional Sales Volumes Resulting from
Beach Boulevard Improvements ................................... II-12
III-1 Estimated Public Improvements and Facilities Costs ......III-1
11I-2 Estimated Project Costs ....................................................III-2
III-3 Net Project Costs .............................................................III-2
I11-4 Projected New Development .............................................III-2
v
Katz,HolIis
Following
No, ........_Page..._...._..
III-6 Projection of Incremental Tax Revenue .:.........................
III=3
III-6 City -Five-Year Capital-..Improvement Program History, ....III-5
PHOTOGRAPHS . .r.. ,
................................................................
Plates 1 -. 26 ...:......:........................:.:.:.:..............,........................,.. II-12 '
,•t - :irf .. ' s.'.f ;j;,'t, ';r"„NiV, - t _ v,"tltlli -, - 'i ',nt --y;1F{d .,.. , V
.-• ,:. ..-ts !' '7f•.: ;r. >: kris?is- .. V
}. , ,. _ �._ �'. • . , � t; � . , .... ,.,..;.rat:.
if
vi
AMMAN
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INTRODUOTION
This Report to the City Council- ("Report") on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Huntington Beach-Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project ("Project") has been prepared for the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") pursuant to Section
33362 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety
Code, Section 33000 et sect.).
The purpose of this Report is to provide the information; .
documentation, and evidence required by Section 33362 of the Community
Redevelopment ' Law ("CRL") to accompany the proposed Redevelopment Plan
when it is submitted by the Agency -to the aCity Council.. Such information,
documentation and evidence in provided to assist the Council in its
consideration of the proposed Plan and in making the various determinations
it must make in connection with the adoption of the proposed Plan.
This Report ,is divided into 12 parts which .generally correspond. to the
subdivisions contained within ;CRL Section 33362, with each part having a
separate function as, described in the summary listing which follows this
paragraph. Certain parts of the =Report, as noted in .the summary, have
been prepared by entities other than the Agency. Section .333$2, ;however,
requires the Agency -to aggregate and -.submit such documents as a part of
this .Report.
Part No.
and -CRL Responsible
,Section No. Title Entity__
Part I Reasons .for .Selection of Project Area; .Agency
[33362(a)] Description of Specific Projects
Proposed by Agency; ;Description of
How Proposed Projects .Will Improve .or
Alleviate Blight Conditions; .and
Explanation of Why Proposed Public
Improvements Cannot -be Accomplished
by Private !Enterprise Acting Alone
Part II Description of Physical, Social and Agency
[33362(b)] Economic Conditions .Existing ,in Project
Area
Part III Proposed Method of .Financing Redevel- :.Agency
[33362(c)] opment of Project Area
Katz 1fol 1 is
Part No.
and CRY, Responsible
,Section No. Title Entity
........... .........................................................................................................................._._._..._ ___..__......._._..... ...._.............__._.... ..
Part IV Plan and Method of Relocation ... Agency
[33352(d)]
.Part V Analysis of. Preliminary Plan Agency
[33352(e)] •
Part VI Report and Recommendations of Plann- Planning
[33352(f)] ing Commission, and Report Required Commission
[33352(h)] by Seciiori '65402 of Government Code
Part VII Project Area Committee Record Agency
[33352(g)] ,
Part VIII Project Required by .Section 21151 of Agency.
[33362(i)] Public Resources Code (Project
Environmental Impact Report)
Part IX Report of County Fiscal Officer Orange
[33352(,1)l ;� County
Auditor-
Controller
Part X Report of Fiscal Review Committee Fiscal
[33362(k)] , . Review
Committee
Part XI Neighborhood Impact Report Agency
[33362(1)]
Part XII Analysis of ' Report of County Fiscal Agency
[33362(m)] Officer; Summary of Consultations with
Affected Taxing Agencies; and Analysis
of and Response to Report of Fiscal
Review Committee
This Report contains all information and documents required by the
above CRL sections that could be completed (if an Agency responsibility) or
had been received (if another entity's responsibility) as of May 15, 1987. A
supplemental report to. this Report will be. issued as soon as necessary data
or documents are available in order to complete the following Parts: Part VI
(Report and Recommendations of Planning Commission, and Report Required
by Section 65402 of Government Code), Part X (Report of Fiscal Review
Committee), and Sections C (Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing
Agencies) and D (Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review
Committee) of Part XII.
Page 2
Katz Hol l is
Part I. REASONS FOR SELECTION ,OF .PROJECT AREA• DESCRIPTION OF
.................................................—.._.............._.. . . . ..... _._............. ................._....... .__.._........_.._.._......__a_...._.__._._.................._...._......._.._.......
......._ .._..
3PSOIFIC ,PROJECTS .PROPOSBD BY ..AGBNCY�, .DESCRIPTION OF HOW
PROPOSED Pt�OJ$CTS WILL IMPROVE OR ALLEVIATE BLIGHT
.......:..............................................._.........._......................................................_.._....-_................................._......._...._.............I........._...............
_.._.
,CONDITIONS „„ ,AND ,E%PLANATION OF WHY PROPOSED PUBLIC
IMPROVBMENTS CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PRIVATE
.:....._.,...:....::,.:..::..:..:..,.....::......:....:...:.::....................,....:,...............,............_....:_................_.:......_..._._............................._......................................_..............................._._._.._......_._
,13NT8RPRISS ACTING ALONG..
A. Reasons „Selection of Project Area
...............................
Beach Boulevard within the City of Huntington Beach has been the
subject of concern for, some time. Since the late 1970s, the Orange County
Transportation Commission has monitored and analyzed traffic conditions,
highway and transit . facility requirements and future .problems that would
result if current conditions are not .ameliorated. An "Orange County
Multimodel Transportation Study" completed in 1979 . recommended a
"corridor" level analysis, following which the "Beach Boulevard Corridor
Study" was undertaken and completed in 1984. Alternative programs of
improvements were identified and recommendations for a proposed program
of projects were developed for a "Super Streets Demonstration Project,
Beach Boulevard Corridor," adopted by the Orange County Transportation
Commission earlier this year. The "Super Streets" Study Area, extending
from La Habra to the Pacific Ocean, is shown on Map I-1. In addition to the.
area's transportation problems, residents, businesses and City officials have
become increasingly concerned with the Project Area's mixed (and
incompatible) land uses, inadequate parking and access, dilapidated
buildings, lack . of sidewalks, vacant and underutilized properties and
evidence of impaired investments. The extent and nature of those problems
are more fully described in Part II of this Preliminary Report.
The City has also been concerned that the proposed Project Area
Jacks a uniform design theme consistent with the standards prevalent
throughout the balance of the City, being impacted by non-conforming and.
inappropriate signage in particular. A redevelopment project designation
will enable the City to exert a higher degree of control or influence on the
planning and architectural quality of all development - existing and new."
Because of the Project Area's constraints to parcel consolidation and new
development which has not been and cannot be overcome by the private
sector acting alone, the City needs to undertake a more active role in
encouraging controlled- growth and development at .certain intersections and
in other areas that are undeveloped or underutilized.
The Project Area lies generally one. lot deep on either side and
includes the public rights-of-way of Beach Boulevard, from Edinger Avenue
on' the north to Atlanta Avenue on the south, as shown on Map I-2.
On October 21, 1986, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 1366 that selected the Project Area, established the
boundaries and adopted the Preliminary Plan.
The selection of ,the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelop-
ment Project was in response to 'the problems of the area and the need for
public participation and assistance to solve those problems. In general, the
(I-1)
. u Calm"
_ - : S .. L.M.M. M.•rr• tl
♦
'M. La MUeda ♦�
14
Awlimtoll
rr•..•r an-ot
" .0 r•n•l.•wwl ..�3:1 • - -1l1 u;t 7tt" 1-': -i! '
ti'l/�111�If�//1; ~•►�.t.'! +1if,. . i ii 33F1 E� r.y
a
w sk.601:,
kl
A ;� ...iE- �. ' :I,}F_ � -GSStiftlOfl ��r .-1 ,i- ; } `-'e'
■•W •
., „t- f I •� 19R... ` ..� �_ .'t� dw-r,'i; to _tt' F_ ; ....� Y ..:'t # •i: !
+ its st :1 •a.°: :i-�. .a .i V , i,. r- F•f7.
t 0•rdae .0 Q�!/
-r•/''i. .F
. 'aE., "I.I{' i r .� �•!•a� :i.:. 'k�v CtE 11 t r .�:. dt1%. - `��S
S:F! ... vs' ., t.. -:� i,J•�S /•-: ..w'w .1 ti.�' .'fie .JSS'. _ ., ,_
S[iPER STREETS o_ ti ;#+ ....:s
,.
DEMONSTRATION =` I .
=n
PROJECT s.
'/�Rft/I1QfOl1 BMC/1
Beach Blvd. Corridor
STUDY AREA
MAP 1-1
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
Kau l lol l ib BEACH BOULEVARD MAP 1-1
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
• IIIII61� '� —�, ��
•w -
�iwnu/N IAIgAI� • �`
g1/1Mplb 4WA� • l ••
III out,
Inlmwul �AIAp t3 � '
IIIAA
uN
�.1.1�~ plll•IN�i1 -
1
1 F M - • rl�� �� cli•�nll��-
1� _�xnuunx►i ^�,
�h€? •} ��piwu�ipp���I :iilriai� _
.� a�.unnluxxw nn uWnnnu
xuxw.nn�upnnnw
r ==We _..
�r.
' u
i: nn-
pin
UJIAIZI
does IBM
w`
x........INnnuu r wl ••.,.f '!C
REDEVELOPMENTKatz Hol 11%. BEACH BOULEVARD
�•` �`_ €fir •�,
1., 1
Iillpntl ��/ I ciF��
-
1
1
1/ .i�� �$ioa .so-
1
rr�'IIrI272�
,a01121ft
waw•.
1121101111131
wnnm an
MeY4 r1
MIA
�ehmm0 -.iangM�._�W
Ipw■ p48 .. umu m»n[u.
�■ IIY �� � _ , � .YY�.MYYII
V41""IN.a. . i�nnr'
WNW1 � ra.,....
omm
IN
� h�nin�• ■wsa '11�;rrw.r r.........
•��iol�nf a�8 •i nn� ` ��` CC�$
g w�ilns6:w�e'. - c
Y71N111^';; Z
"I me a M
A.�• O�IR=®CI
• *, ��,iFl
�•1<`,/ �71fli�j� • ' �r w�w�i� -fit
BOULEVARDKatzHollis BEACH
REDEVELOPMENTPROJECT
KatzHollis
goals and objectives of a redevelopment program in the Project Area are as
follows:
1. The elimination and prevention of blight and blighting
influences and deterioration and the redevelopment of the Project. Area in
accord with the General Plan, specific plans, the Redevelopment Plan and .
local codes and ordinances.
I :
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 the Redevelopment
Plan:
4. The enhancement of a major, region-serving thoroughfare to
provide a quality design identity and smooth, safe circulation.
5. The replanning, redesign and development of
undeveloped/vacant, underutilized and underdeveloped 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 redevelopment.
7. The provision for increased sales, business license, hotel
occupancy and other fees, taxes and revenues to the City.
S. 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. The encouragement of cooperation and participation by
residents, business owners, public agencies and community organizations in
the development and redevelopment of the area.
(I-2)
Katz Hof l is
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 overhead
utility lines.
16. The provision of adequate 'off-street parking to serve
current and future uses within the Project Area.
Redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant 'to the above goals
and objectives will attain the purposes of the- California . Community
Redevelopment Law: (1) by the elimination of areas suffering, from economic
dislocation and disuse; (2) by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment
of areas which are stagnant, or. improperly utilized, and which could not be
accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without public participation
and assistance; (3) by protecting and promoting. sound development and
redevelopment of blighted areas and the general welfare of the citizens of
the City by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of
appropriate means; and (4) 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.
B. Description .of Specific ,Projects ,Pro�osed... .by Agf!p y in .Project
_. .....
Area
As will be described more fully in the following section of this
Report, the Agency proposes to acquire some properties within the Project
Area, relocate some existing occupants, demolish some existing buildings and
improvements, and . to provide certain street and other improvements needed
to serve the area. These improvements include: "Super Street" traffic
circulation projects; the upgrading and provisions of stormdrains and
sanitary sewers; the upgrading and provision of waterline-improvements; the
provision for the underground of overhead utility lines; the provision of
recreation and park improvements and historic preservation of Bartlett Park;
and the provision of necessary and supporting landscaping and Streescope .
Projects. Details of the proposed program of activities, 'estimated Agency
costs, and proposed financing methods are set forth in Part III of this
Report.
C. Descriptions of How Pro„iecte 1 Proposed ;by .Agency Will Improve_or
Alleviate Blight Conditions
Existing physical, social and economic conditions within the Project
Area are described in Part II of this Report. It is shown that the area
suffers from a multitude of problems of such nature and degree that it may
be found to be a blighted area under the criteria established in the
California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). As required by the CRL,
and as demonstrated in Part II, the problems affecting the. Project Area are
of such nature and degree that they cannot reasonably be expected to be
(I-3)
reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone without public
participation and assistance.
The Agency proposes a program of redevelopment activities that
will systematically address' the conditions of blight within the Project Area.
Selective property acquisition, demolition, and relocation as necessary would
serve to remove the conditions of buildings suffering from deterioration and
dilapidation, age. and obsolescence and defective design and character of
physical construction. In addition, many of these properties contain
dilapidated residences within commercial areas, so that removal would
eliminate the blight characteristic of mixed character of buildings. The lots
that are of irregular form, shape and size can be acquired by the Agency
for assembly into parcels suitable for development. The Agency's program
of public improvements and facilities is intended to comprehensively address
the inadequacies of the public improvements, which are not only a physical
blight problem, but contribute to economic maladjustment, depreciated values
and impaired investments. The public improvements and facilities listed in
Table III-I in Part III will correct deficiencies in traffic circulation, storm
drainage, sanitary sewers, waterlines,, utilities above ground and poor
landscaping, signage and street furniture. Alleviation of these specific
blighting influences in the Project Area should work to create an investment
environment in which private developers and property owners have the
incentive and the means to redevelop .their properties. The Agency's
program of activities should alleviate the current inhibitions to development
in the Project Area.
D. Explanation of _Why Proposed Public. m Improvements Cannot _be
.........
Accomphshe_d by .Private Enterprise .Acting _Alone
......_.. ..
The public improvements that the Agency .proposes .to undertake
through redevelopment (described in Parts II and III of this Report) are
intended primarily to eliminate impediments to private development of vacant.
or underutilized parcels in the Project Area. Many of the improvements are
regional in nature; .all serve the entire Project Area rather than specific
development sites, and thus would not be appropriate for a private
developer of a single property to undertake. Moreover, these deficiencies
have been blighting influences that have discouraged private investment for
taking place. to date, and are improvements typically provided by most
municipal jurisdictions. If the City were to require private developers to
assume these additional costs, it could further dissuade private investment
in the Project Area, since there are competitive development sites available
without such extra costs.
(I-4)
Katz Holfis
PART 11. DESCRIPTION.,OF PHYSICAL. SOCIAL AND, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
- gf� I ............... .........................................................................................................................................................
IN
T AREA
...................................................................................... ...............................
Information presented in, this Part JI of the. Huntington Beach
Redevelopment . Agency's ..Re port to City Council , on ,,, the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard,,.Redevelopment
Project was compiled from various sources, including:
1. A field survey .of the, Project .Area conducted, by -Katz Hollis .staff
in July, .August and October, 1986.
2. Interviews with Agency and City staff and officials.
3. A review and, analysis of various reports, Oocuments,-., plans, and
other . background data provided, by staff,,!, including, but,, not
'limited to, the following:,.
"The General Plan" of Huntington Beach.
"Super Streets Demonstration Project, :,.Beach Boulevard
Corridor: Final Report," prepared for the Orange County
Transportation.. Commission. by Parsons,. Brinckerhoff, Quade
and .Douglas, Inc., March,, 1986.
Super Streets Demonstration Project,. Beach Boulevard
Corridor: Program. Environmental Impact. Report,.'.' Orange
-
County Transportation Commission, 1986. ;
"Beach Boulevard Corridor Study," prepared for the Orange
County , Transportation Commission by Berryman, and
Stephenson, .Inc.,,.July, 1984.
The above documents are incorporated by reference into this report..
Copies of such documents may be reviewed at -City offices.
Where appropriate, sources of data are, cited through this Reporti to
City Council.
A. Existing Physical Conditions
Existing..................................,Physical......................................................................
1. Project. Location
. ................ ............. Location
........................
As described in Part I of this Report, and as shown on .Map
1-2 therein, the Project runs . generally one lot (tax assessor's parcel) deep
on both sides and includes the public rights-of-way of Beach Boulevard,
from Edinger Avenue on the north to Atlanta Avenue on the south. In
several placest parcels to the east or west of the Beach Boulevard right-of-
way are excluded, because their inclusion is not necessary to meet Project
goals and objectives or because such parcels lie in adjacent redevelopment
projects, e.g., the Huntington Center Project at Edinger Avenue and. the
Oakview Project at Warner Avenue.. The Talbert-Beach Project lies adjacent
to the Beach Boulevard Project at Talbert Street.
KatzHolfis
2. Land Uses and Businesses
The Project Area contains approximately 509 acres. As shown
in Table II-1, commercial use (retail commercial, automobile dealerships, and
offices) is the predominant land use (67.9 percent of the total 408 parcels).
Nearly one-fifth of the parcels (19.9 percent) are devoted to residential
uses, 8.3 percent (34 parcels) are vacant, and 16 parcels are publicly owned
(school facilities, open land for flood control and a Caltrans maintenance
facility). Some of the vacant parcels are exhibited in Plates 4, 23 and 24.
Table II-2 describes structures by land use. Of the 405
buildings in the area, only two are vacant, 110 are used for residences, and
293 are occupied by non-residential users. Details about the types of
businesses in the Project Area are contained in Table II-3. Over half of the
1,060 businesses provide services, in part due to a heavy concentration of
medical offices surrounding the Huntington Human Hospital. Just over a
quarter are engaged in retail trade (including 27 automobile-related);. 15
percent of all businesses are in finance, insurance, and real estate; and the
remaining 3.4 percent in construction, public uses, or and unknown.
3. Predominantly Urbanized Area
Section 33320.1 of the California Community Redevelopment
Law requires redevelopment projects selected after January 1, 1984 to be
"predominantly urbanized," which means that: 1) not less than 80 percent of
the privately owned property has been or is developed for urban uses (uses
which are consistent with zoning or otherwise permitted by law); or 2) the
area is characterized by certain defined blight conditions; or 3) the area is
an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. The Project Area
qualifies as a predominantly urbanized area under all three of the given
criteria.
First, although there is some vacant land in the Project Area,
at least 80 percent of the privately owned property has been or is
developed for urban uses.
Second, as discussed in a later section of this Report, the
Project Area contains lots (parcels) that are of irregular form and shape
and inadequate size, which has contributed to the economic deterioration,
dislocation and disuse of the area. This is one of the specified blight
conditions which qualify areas as being predominantly urbanized.
Finally, since the Project Area is located in an area of
Orange County which is completely urbanized, is now totally surrounded by
developed urban uses, and is served by streets which serve such uses, it
qualifies as a predominantly urbanized area in that it is manifestly an
integral part of an area developed for urban uses.
4. Properties ,Included .for Planning Purposes
(II-2)
Kat liollis
Table II-1-
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
RXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY
......................................................................................................................................
' Percent
......................._...
Land' Use(i) No. of Properties of Total
Commercial 277 6T.9%
Public and Institutional 16 1.9
Residential 81 '—19.9
Vacant 34 &3
PROJECT AREA TOTAL - 408 100.0%
0)The principal land use for each assessor's parcel only; some parcels have
more than one land use. Parcels that 'are used for parking to service
another parcel are classified according to the, land use of the parcel
containing the use they serve.
Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July-October 1986.
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katzliolli4
Table 11-2
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
,Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
NUMBER OF STRUCTURES
...........................................................................................
Type...of Use Number ,of
Structurea
....................I............................
Non-Residential
1) Single-Tenant Buildings:
a) Single Structurea.............................................149
b) Multiple Structures..........................................# 56
2) Multiplo Tenant Buildings........................................ 88
Residential
1) Single Family............................................................ 74
2) Multiple Units........................................................... 36
Vacant.......................................................................... 2
TOTAL .......................................................................405
Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July-October, 1986.
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz liol l is
Table 11 - 3
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project r,s
TYPES- OF BUSINESSESM
..........................................................................................................
..
Cate ory of: Business. Category ,:,;,i:Category
:::...+ILS..::::...:_.:,.,:..:.........:::....:: No. t Total :oho
.................. ................................... ........_.............................
RETAIL TRADE (273) „25.6
Building Materials and
Garden Supplies 2
Food Stores 16 `
Apparel and 'Accessory 36' r
Furniture and Home Furnishings 37'
Eating and Drinking
Establishments
Miec allaneous Retail 58
Liquor Store 10
Department Stcre 2.
Automobile Dealers 27•
Personal Services
(e.g. Beauty) 68
Business Services ,
(e.g. Printers) 81
Automobile Services and
Garages 58
Miscellaneous Repair 4
Amusement and Entertainment 16
Health Services 213
Social and Educational
Services . 12
Miscellaneous Services " 146
FINANCE, ,INSURANCE
AND REAL ESTATE 170 (170) 16.0
CONSTRUCTION 6 (6) 0.5
(continued on next page]
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hol I is
Table II - 3
(continued)
Cate�nry of„.13ueinees Category Category
No. Total 0/0
.......... ...................................... . _.............
PUBLIC (18) 1.7
Administration and Service 11
Delivery
Education 3
Recreation 1
Open Space/Flood Control 3
UNKNOWN ........13 (13) .. 1.2
... ..
TOTAL 11.060 1�060 100.00
:................... ......................: :.....:..:...::.............
�i�The total number of parcels in the Project Area is 408, containing 405
structures and 1,060 businesses.
Source: Kate Hollis field survey, July-October 1986
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Kdtl Hol l i5
Certain properties within the Project Area are not blighted
properties. Such properties have been included: (1) in order to plan and
carry out the Project as a uniform whole; (2) 'to impose uniform
requirements over a-geographically defined and identified area of the City;
(3) because such properties are impacted, by the,'coriditioris' of the blight
existing on surrounding properties, and correction of such conditions may
require the imposition of design, development or use requirements on the
unblighted properties in the event they are rehabilitated or redeveloped by
their owners; and (4) because such properties will share in the physical,
social and economic benefits which will accrue to the area through the
elimination of blight conditions and blighting influences,- including the
replacement or provision of new public improvements .and 'facilities serving
the Project Area.
6. Buildings ,and .Structures
,..+.....,...., ..........
The, ,Project, Area is characterized by they +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 because t:of any one or a combination of the
factors .described below and illustrated in part by the photographs
appearing in Plates 1 through 26.
a.� : Deterioration ,and Dilapidation
There are various examples of buildings and structures
throughout. the Project Area that suffer from deterioration and-,-dilapidation.
The results of a survey of structural and site conditions in the Project Area
are , exhibited in Table II-4. . The definitions of the structural conditions
ratings, "Sound," "Minor to Moderate Upgrading Required," and
"Dilapidated," are contained in Table II-5, and the definitions of the site
conditions ratings are described in Table II-6. Examples .of the dilapidated
units are provided in Plates 1, 2 and 3.
Although the numbers of dilapidated or deteriorated
units are not large, their deleterious impact on the Project Area is
significant. With the majority of the buildings in standard condition, the
presence of these aged structures suffering from lack of maintenance is
particularly noticeable and contributes to a negative image of the community.
Vacant properties with poorly maintained site conditions
are depicted in Plate 4.
b. ,Defective .Design .and .Character .of .Physical .Construction
Buildings of any type may suffer deterioration or
disuse, or may contribute to such problems: in other buildings, because of
inherent defects in design or character of the physical construction. Such
defects may exist from the moment a given building is completed; or, they
may evolve as uses within the building or within surrounding buildings
change over a period of time. Some of the deteriorated and dilapidated
buildings depicted in Plates 1 : through 3 and discussed above were
(II-3)
KatzHolli
Table II - 4
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
BUILDING AND SITE CONDITIONS
.........................................................................................................................._...........................
STRUCTURAL OR SITE CONDITION RATING
...................................................................................................................................................................
A B C.............................._ TOTAL
...................... ..............
No. % No. % No. 96 No. %
............. .......... .........I...... ............. ................ ........... .........._....
Structures, ' 340 83.9 63 13.1 12 3.0 405 100.0
Sites a 311 76.2 66 16.2 31 7.6 408 100.0
----------
Refer to Table II - 5 for definitions of Structural Conditions Ratings.
Refer to Table II - 6 for definitions of Site Conditions Ratings.
Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July - October, 1986.
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hol l is
Table II - 5
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency.
Huntington .Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project.
STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS RATING DEFINITIONS
_........................................_....._..................__....._..._....... ..................................._...............
tReli t .a to Table II-4)
Catear ! Definition
A "Sound": Structure appears to be in compliance with current
building. •codes, based on visual inspection of exterior. All
structural members maintain their engineering design integrity.
B "Minor to, Moderate Upgrading ' Required": Visual evidence of
minor . structural .deterioration. Small•��cracks or offset of
structural members. Does . not appear that significant
deterioration would continue with normal maintenance. All older
masonry structures are included.
C "Dilapidated": Visual evidence of substantial deterioration of
structural members. Examples of .deterioration include cracking
foundations, offset or leaning columns and posts, window or
door frames which are out of alignment, and sagging roof or
eaves. Major costs would be incurred to bring the structure
into conformance with current building codes.
Source: Katz Hollis
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hol 1 is
Table II - 6
Huntington. Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
SITE CONDITIONS RATING DEFINITIONS
......................................................................................................................................................._..............
(Relates to Table II-4)
Cstegory Definition
A "Well Maintained": Exterior areas surrounding structures or
vacant parcels are well maintained. These include landscaped
areas, parking lots, driveways, paved decks, and open storage
or work areas. Vegetation is healthy, well-watered, and
trimmed. There is no debris scattered on the .site; equipment
or other materials stored on the site are arranged in an
orderly manner; fencing is in good condition; and dirt surfaces
are clean and well compacted.
B "Moderate Maintenance Required": Visual evidence of minor to
moderate lack of site maintenance. Examples include overgrown
vegetation, weeds, and scattered limited debris.
C "Poor Maintenance": Visual evidence that the site receives
little or no maintenance. Vegetation is unhealthy or extremely
overgrown; weeds are abundant; considerable site debris,
equipment or other materials are scattered randomly across the
site; paved exterior surfaces are cracking or broken; and dirt
surfaces are not compacted and likely to be . muddy during
rainstorms.
Source: Katz Hollis
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Kim Hollis
constructed poorly and would be uneconomical to upgrade to current
standards.
In some cases, defective design`;problems are the result
of the lack of proper land. use controls or the. lack'"6i "appropriate design
standards. ; . ;
On occasion, buildings suffer from a design defect that
has a direct negative impact on the immediate area. A frequent example of
this in the Project Area is 'the existence of ' commercial buildings having
limited or no off-street loading facilities. This forces deliveryk trucks to
load and unload from -'public streets, resulting in traffic congestion and
hazards. Plate. 5 provides examples of two businesses :with facilities that
were constructed relatively recently but apparently have"insufficient space
for off-street loading.
Another example of defective design is the .existence of
limited off-street parking facilities, which is contributing greatly to the
Project Area's circulation system deficiencies, as will be discussed in a
subsequent section. . Plates 6 and 7 exhibit various examples of properties
where off-street parking is inadequate, resulting in on-street parking on .
Beach:Boulevard and adjacent streets. The occupancy of the curb-side lane
on both sides of Beach Boulevard is particularly troublesome in interrupting
traffic flow.
c. A•ge,•„and••,.Obeolescence
The age of structures on properties within the Project
Area varies widely. , For 'example,, there is- a . historic ..house about one
hundred years old (restored to perfect condition). The majority of the
buildings in "C" 'condition-! described above were 'built -over 40 -or 50 years
ago. They are not in sound condition because they have not been well
maintained, were constructed 'from''Poor 1 materii li or 'do'- not meet current
building code standards.
The conditions of deterioration and dilapidation are
discussed and documented in the section above. The age and obsolescent
design or construction standards for a significant portion of the Project
Area's structures has been a key factor contributing to their substandard
deteriorated conditions.
d. Mixed Character ,of Buildings
Buildings and structures are. generally characterized by
the uses that are made of them. A building used for living purposes is
characterized as a residential building. A building used for business
purposes is.of commercial character. And a building housing manufacturing,
fabricating, -or, processing functions is considered industrial in character.
When more than one use is made of a building, or when two buildings of
different uses exist on the same parcel, or adjacent .to each other, on
abutting parcels, then . such buildings are considered to be of mixed
character. Mixed character buildings often have different but compatible
(II-4)
Katz Hol l is
uses. Frequently, however, they have incompatible uses, with all the
accompanying aesthetic (physical), social, and sometime economic problems
such mixing can generate.
The Project Area is characterized by numerous examples
of residential units surrounded by commercial units, and even residences on
the second floor of buildings with commercial uses on the. ground floor
where no adequate provision for such uses has .been made. There are also
examples of incompatible commercial uses adjacent to each other, such .as an
office building surrounded by automobile repair workshops. Plates 8
through 10 exhibit various examples of incompatible mixed land uses,
including residences above businesses when no adequate provision for such
uses has been made.
The Project Area contains several large properties with
obsolescent land uses that are no longer appropriate for a highly urbanized
area of quality contemporary commercial development adjacent to residential
areas. Bxamples of such uses include a Caltrans maintenance yard, a school
district corporation yard, and an electric utility substation.
6. Properties
The Project Area is characterized by properties which suffer
from deterioration and disuse because of the factors described below.
a. Lots (Parcels) that Are of Irregular .Forms Shape .and
3 ize..,.... .............._.........................................................._...._...._............._...
The Project Area contains a number of lots (parcels)
that are of irregular form or shape and size in terms. of uses. and
development standards appropriate for land adjacent to a six lane major '
arterial road in an urban setting. (Lots of less than 100 feet in width are
considerate by City Standards to be undevelopable.) Some lots, although
deep, are narrow with little street frontage. Some lots have broad street
frontage, but little depth. Plate 11 exhibits two examples.
There are various lots that are only large enough for a
single dwelling unit or a 5,000 square foot commercial building. Along a
roadway with the width and traffic volume of Beach Boulevard, these lots
are not of sufficient size for a development meeting contemporary standards.
It is estimated that of the 408 parcels within the Project
Area, over 20 percent suffer from irregular form, shape or inadequate size,
including undevelopable parcels of less than 100 feet in width.
b. InadegRya 2....Public .Improvements, Facilities and _Utilities
Properties in the Project Area are impacted by .
deficiencies in the transportation circulation system (Beach Boulevard and
its intersections) and in infrastructure utilities such as water lines, storm
drainage, sanitary sewers and undergrounding of utilities.
Kat1.Hul l is
1. Deficiencies .in Transportation .Circulation System
Beach ,Boulevard,, which forms, the backbone of the
Project Area, ,is a.;major. -north-:south arterial in Orange,Aunty:that connects
communities from Huntington Beach. to La -Habra. :It provides local access to
adjacent residential, commercial, ,retail, industrial centers, and major regional
recreation areas (e.g., Pacific Ocean beaches, Knotts' Berry Farm); it also
serves as a connecting link in the regional arterial network by providing
direct access to various freeways. At the northern edge of the Project
Area, there is direct access to Interstate 406 .(the.San Diego Freeway).
Beach. Boulevard is identified as. a,major arterial on
the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial, Highways.and;swas,,adopted, as
a State Route (SR-39) , in: piecemeal fashion between 1935. ,and . 1941.. It is
presently a part of .the, .State Freeway,,,,and,_ Expressway _P.an., #.,.Beach
Boulevard generally,,, consists of, six through, travel Janes,,.plus;,a median.
Existing right-of-way .widths for. Beach..Boulevard, as., exhibited:in.zTable II-7,
range from 132 feet. to 177 ,feet. ,
The entire length of Beach Boulevard is currently
experiencing traffic flow and congestion . problems and will continue to
experience increasing traffic flow and congestion coincident with_ the 'rapid
and intensive development :of the Orange County area. ",P,revious "studies by
the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC), `such' as the Multi-
Modal Transportation Study. (1979), and the Beach :Boulevard Corridor Study
(1984), have documented ' the. current and future need for .'improvements.
The latter study: concluded that.• the` so-called',"Super' Street"c`concept' would
be effective in improving_ the.",capacity -of' Beach Boulevard:,'` The Super-
Street concept involves the coordinated: 'application of�`improvet Bents`such as .
signal coordination, restriping, '.bus turnouts,' 'access limitation, and 'selected
intersection wideniags"�and.grade separations. " "' '
Long range travel forecasts predict continued and
consistent increases in traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. If the Agency's
proposed' improvements are not made on Beach Boulevard, travel conditions
will continue to deteriorate and unacceptable levels of service for several
hours each day during the AM and PM commuter periods will be experienced
throughout most of the Project Area.
Statistical evidence indicates a need to provide
additional capacity on Beach Boulevard to meet current and future traffic
demand and to improve peak period travel speed and traffic flow so as to
provide acceptable levels of service, efficiency, and safety to highway users.
Currently, several intersections along Beach Boulevard exhibit levels of
congestion during peak hours that approach or exceed available roadway
capacity, causing substantial delays to users. Table II-8 exhibits "level of
service" ratings for key intersections within the Project Area, both under
existing conditions (1985) and 30 years into the future (2005, assuming no
improvements are undertaken). "Level of Service" is a term used to
indicate the general acceptability of a roadway or its intersection in
handling given volumes of traffic. The alphabetical designations "A"
through "F" describe "best" to "worst" conditions. The level of service
(II-6)
Katz Hol 1 i s
Table II - 7
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
BEACH BOULEVARD ,EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) WIDTHS
....................... :.... . : . . . . .. .. . ... ........................................................._..............................................................
FEET OF
ROW BEACH BOULEVARD SECTION
...............................
158 Pacific Coast Highway to Sunset Drive
1380) Sunset Drive to Atlanta Drive
138 Atlanta Drive to Garfield Avenue
132 Garfield Avenue to Ellis Avenue
149 Ellis Avenue to a/c Taylor Drive
177 s/o Taylor Drive to n/o Taylor Drive
132 n/o Taylor Drive to a/c McFadden Avenue
Plus an additional 20 foot freeway easement.
Source: Real Estate Atlas of Orange County, 1982-83 Edition.
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz•Hol•lis
Table II' - 8
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
............:..............................._...........................:...................................................................................
Existin (19$P6.M.........:.....P......M.........._.. (Projected'
...P....(M200b�M . M g..:... ,
Intersection Of ...............
PM
Beach Boulevard With: V/C(l) L.O.S.(a) V/C L.O.S. .............. ............._.--_.. ............_.. ......._......._......
Pacific Coast Highway ..60 A .61 B .64 B .58 A
Atlanta Avenue .26 A .50 • A 32 ' } A `` .61 B
Adams Avenue. _ .64 A• .72 . C: , ` .70 ` "B• " .94 E
Utica Avenue .32 A .66 A .39 A .68 B
Yorktown Avenue .47 A .57 A. .61 B .72 C
Garfield Avenue .42 A .59 A .66 A .78 C
Ellis/Main Street .69 B ' .91 E .91 ` E 1.18 F
Talbert Avenue t - .61 B -...72 C,;;;, .7,3 ; C 1.12 F
Slater Avenue ,.67' B .81 D. .81. , D .95 E
Warner Avenue 1.01 F 1.24 , F. 1.26 F 1.49 F
Heil Avenue .62 B . .84 ..D .74 C .97 E
Edinger Avenue .86 D 1.02 F .97 E . :1.13 F
cl� Volume/Capacity ratio
ta) Level of Service
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff quade & Douglas, Inc., 1985.
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hol l is
calculations were based on the Critical Movement Analysis procedure
documented in Circular 212 of the Transportation Research Board, using
peak hour turning movement counts, the existing intersection lane geometry,
signal phasing, truck percentages, OCTD bus frequencies and peak hour
factors. Currently, five of the 12 intersections are operating below "C"
level of service during afternoon, peak traffic hours. If no improvements
are made, traffic engineers expect that seven of the 12 intersections will be
operating at a P.M. level of service "E" or "F," with volume/capacity ratios
ranging from .94 to 1.49.
Counts of average daily traffic on sections of
Beach Boulevard have also been made, as well as year 2005 projections, as
exhibited in Table II-9. These volumes can 'also be analyzed in terms of
levels .of service. The criteria for levels of service for urban arterial
streets are described in Table II-10. For a six lane divided urban arterial
street, average' daily traffic volumes exceeding 54,000 are rated "E,"
unstable flow with low operating speeds and often congestion. Traffic
volumes are at or near capacity and this level of service should only be
acceptable during peak hour conditions. . The existing average daily traffic
on Beach Boulevard from Talbert Avenue to Edinger Avenue ranges from
66,600 to 80,900,, which is the "E" level of service. The volumes are
projected to .increase • in' future years, naturally, so that without
improvements, conditions could well approach "system breakdown."
Accident statistics for 1982 to 1984 are documented
by Caltrans in Table II-11. The data includes accidents on Beach Boulevard
within 200 feet of each intersection. The accident rate (percent fatal and
injury) at signalized intersections along Beach Boulevard varies from 0.27 to
0.85; the total accident rate per million. vehicle miles (MVM) varies from .69
to 2.35. The statewide average for total accidents on a six-lane "arterial
street in an urban area is 0.86 accidents per million vehicles entering the
intersection. The rates reported along Beach Boulevard are significantly
higher than the statewide averages. The numerous driveway openings tend
to be particularly hazardous. Such hazards could be reduced or eliminated
through use of reciprocal. access and parking easements between adjoining
parcels.
Current conditions on Beach Boulevard are poor,
but if no improvements are made, it can, be presumed that they will worsen
substantially. Projections in employment, population and existing and future
land uses indicate increases in, traffic generators. The Project Area and
immediate environs contain Lmajor employment centers, such as the Human
Hospital, or lies adjacent to them, such as .the office complex at Beach and
Warner and the One Pacific Plaza development. The significant current and
future demand evidenced in studies indicates that capacity on Beach
Boulevard must be improved. Congestion and delay will continue to increase
over the next 20 years with a deteriorating level of service at most
intersections. Intersections which currently operate at level of service E
and F, such as Warner Avenue, will experience deteriorating conditions over
the next 20 years, with extended peak periods and increasing intersection
delays. Traffic flow will be impaired and average vehicle speed during peak
hour will decrease as projected traffic volumes increase. The continued
(I1-7)
Matz Holfis
Table II. - 9
Huntington. Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment, Project
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
..................................................................................................
Exist P
....................
South- North- South-
Beach Boulevard Between bound bound, Total bound. . Total
...................11.11................. .......................... .......................... ..................... ......................... .........................
Atlanta/Pacific Coast Hwy 60300 6,900 13,200 9,100 9,900 19,000
Yorktown/Adams r17,300 18v500 :35,800. 21,700 23,300 45,000
Talbert/Ellis 27l800 28,800 56,600 32,400 33,600 66,000
Hail/Warner 30,900, 31,900. 62t800 .35,400 36,600 72,000
1-405/Bdinger 33J00 47,200 80,900 35,400 49,600 85,000
g;t_Wc;;;. Parsons_Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas,. Inc., .1985.
011587/5
0898.hnt/bl
Table II - 10
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Ka l7 o 1 I .7
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR URBAN ARTERIAL STREETS
Level Average Daily Traffic Service Volumes
Of 6 Lanes 4 Lanes 4 Lanes 2 Lanes
Service ___ _ Description Divided Divided Undivided Undivided
A Free Flow and low volumes. Drivers 36,000 24,000 16,000 5,000
can maintain their desired speeds
with no delays.
B Stable Flow and relatively low volumes. 40,400 27,000 18,000 7,500
Operating speeds are beginning to be
restricted somewhat by traffic conditions. -
C Stable Flow but speeds and maneuverability 45,000 30,000 20,000 10,000
are more closely controlled by traffic
volumes. This level of service is normally
considered the highest suitable for urban
design standards.
D Approaching Unstable Flow, increasing 49,500 33,000 22,000 12,500
traffic volumes with tolerable delay
and tolerable operating speeds. The
driver's freedom to maneuver is
diminishing.
E Unstable Flow, low operating speeds and 54,000 36,000 24,000 15,000
often congestion. Traffic volumes are
at or near capacity. This level of service
should only be acceptable. during peak hour.
conditions.
F Forced Flow, stop-and-go. Both speeds This condition represents system
.........................................—........
and volumes can drop to zero. Traffic breakdown and does not have a specific
stoppages may occur for short or long relationship to service volumes.
periods. The conditions often result in
vehicles backing up from one intersection
through another.
------- 112686. .
Source: Caltrans, 1985. 0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hol l i s Table II 11
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
ACCIDENT STATISTICS, 1982 - 840)
Beach Boulevard
Accident Locations
Number of Accidents _ Rate Per MV Exceeding State Average
-- Fatal ,+ . Prop. %-Fatal + Fatal + Fatal'+ -- -
__ _ __ Location (2) Total Injury• Damage Injury Injury Total Injury Total
Beach B Pacific Coast Highway. 51 16,. 35- 0.31 :32 1.04
Beach a Atlanta 32 18 14 0.56 .68 1.21
Beach 9 Indianapolis 26 12 14 0.46 X5 1.20
Beach B Adams 68 16 52 . 0.24 .49 2.10
Beach B Utica 29 10 19. 6.34 " .44 - 1.30
Beach B Yorktown 63 23 40 0.37 .85 2.35 s
Beach 9 Garfield 49 15 34 0.31 .46 1.51
Beach it Main/Ellis 105 27 _ 78- 0.26 .59 2.31
Beach e Talbert 6.1 23 38. 0,38 ".51 1.35
Beach 0 Slater 105 34 71- 0.32 .65 2.01
Beach 0 Warner 100 27 73 0.27 .37 1.40
Beach a Heil 40 16 24 0.40 •.27 .69
Beach B Mac Donald 48 20 28 0.42 .37 .90
Beach a Stark ' 93 28- .65 0.30 .51 _1.71-
Beach B Edinger 94 30 64. 0.32 .42 1.32 #
(u Includes injury accidents only; non-injury accidents are. not- compiled asza matter of City policy.
u0 Within 200 feet of each intersection.
* Total accident rate greater than 0.85 per MV; fatal + injury rate..greater:"than 0.3 per MV.
112686
Source: Caltrans, 1985. 0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hollis
existence of an inadequate circulation system will dampen efforts to upgrade
and improve existing Project Area conditions, and could significantly impact
future development desired to eliminate underutilized portions of the Project
Area.
Based on the existing physical conditions, existing
and projected (year 2005) traffic volumes, accident data and land use, a
series of physical improvement alternatives was developed for Beach
Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Imperial Highway. The
identified improvement alternatives encompass the "Super Streets" concepts.
The objective of the "Super Streets" concept (high-flow arterial) is to
enhance the level of traffic carrying capacity with the implementation of one
or a combination of the following measures:
Traffic Signal Coordination
Restriction/Elimination of On-Street Parking
Restriping
Intersection/Spot Widening
Access Limitation
Bus Turnouts
Intersection Grade Separations
Pedestrian Grade Separations
Other Measures Found Useful
The Orange County Transportation Commission
carefully examined each segment and intersection of Beach Boulevard in light
of the improvement alternatives identified above. After consideration of the
alternatives, the Commission and the Huntington 'Beach City Council adopted
a program of projects. The approved improvements, together with existing
and future volume/capacity ratios, analysis of right-of-way deficiencies and
estimated costs at each Beach Boulevard intersection in the Project Area is
exhibited in Table II-12. Signal coordination ' is recommended at the
intersections of Atlanta Avenue, Utica Avenue, Yorktown Avenue and Garfield
Avenue. A variety of improvements are recommended for several other key
intersections: Adams Avenue, Ellis/Main Street, Talbert Avenue, Slater
Avenue, Warner Avenue, Heil Avenue and Edinger Avenue.
The intersection of Beach Boulevard and Adams
Avenue, depicted in .Plate 12, is currently operating at a volume/capacity
ratio of .72, and if no improvements are made, a ratio of .94 is projected by
the year 2005. Signal coordination plus intersection widening to improve the
westbound segment to three through lanes plus a right turn lane is
recommended.
The Ellis/Main Street intersection currently is
operating in the evening peak hour at an E level of service and is
projected to remain. so, with a volume/capacity ratio of 1.18 if no
improvements are made. In addition to signal coordination, recommended
improvements to correct the deficiencies include signal modification, bus.
turnouts, access control, intersection striping and intersection widening so
that northbound and southbound includes four through lanes and a dual left
(II-8)
matimag�lideveloPont Arm
liatieltoo Bad-teai Onlawd OedeteTapost inject
NEAtB b0AE M lffMBM IE1fIElEB BT'MR S111175 pMMMM1
Katz Hol l e s situ costs
IYI�e/tapaciq Mies (Order-of b t0.0_ Total
fiistiy Est_ Year 2005 Im N_0_9_ NaOeitok) tau Casts
Intersection Improvements Beetled 9/8 fop_ W/fap_ U0 lap_ RfI p_ Regairenatst IM I$1,0011 1905 1 81.000 19AS r SI.000
Atlanta Avenue Signal Coordination 0.54 u_5t1 0-61 8.61 Is 0 10
Adams Avenue Signal Coordination 6-72 0.72 1-91 6_94 1H 0 10
Intersection Widening (am NO 0-72 9-65 9-94 0.83 W4. 46 14 60
(le: 3 through plus right)
Utica Avewme - Signal Coordination. 835 0_55 0-68 0.60 10 0 10
Yorktown Avenue Signal Coordination 037 0.57 0-72 0.72 10 0 10
Garfield Aveaae Signal Coordination 0-59 0-59 0-79 B-79 10 0 10
Ellis/Rain Street Signal Coordination 0-91 0.82 1.18 1.06 10 0 10
Signal Nodificatim IS 0 15
Bus Turnouts K 20 14 34
Access Control 2 0 2
Iotersectim Striping (ER: 4 lines) 2 0 2
Intersection Widening 101 0 lei
(Nb A SA: 4 through)
Intersection Widening (New ROW) . 0.91 0-69 1_19 8-91 NE-3' NW-3' 50 21 71
(H A 9: dual left;0: 3 through)
Talbert Avenue Signal Coordination 0-72 0.64 1.12 1.03 10 0 10
Intersection Striping 2 0 2
(M A S0: 4 through) - "
Bus Turnouts tt =20 14 34
Signal 1lodification .0.72. 0.73 1.12 0_88 IS 0 IS
Slater Avenue Signal Coordination 0-81 0.75 0.95 0.87 10 0 10
Intersection Widening- 68 0 68
(M 6 SR: 4 through)
gas Turnouts a 20 14 34
Warner Avenue Intersection Widening (New'RO11) .1.20 0.82 1.49 1.02• NW-12'SE-12' 387 - 719 1196
(H i SO: 4 through-'111, SB, EB A BE-2711-12'
WB dual left and single right) ,
Access Control 3 0 3
bus Turnouts - tt 10 .7 17
Heil Avenue Signal Coordination 0.84 0.75 0.97 0.07 10 0 10
Intersection Widening 47 0 47
(Nb A SB: 4-through)
Bus Turnouts 10 7 17
Edinger Avenue Signal Coordination 1.02 '0.-87 1.13 0.% 10 0 10
Bus Turnouts tt 20 14 34
Intersection Widening (New ROW) 16F6'SE-3' 143 32 175
(NB 6 SB: 4 through; SA dual left)
Intersection Widening (New ROW) 1.02 0.79 1.13 0.86 ES-4' 95 77 172
(EB 4 WB: 3 through) EN-41WN-3'WS-11'
$The designation fN-4' indicates that a width of.four feel is required on the north side of the intersection's east leg. Source: Orange County Transportation Commission, 1906_
the length of right-of-way required varies at each intersection, but typically ranges free 200 to 300 feet-
Might-of-may required for bus turnouts will vary at each location.
K1tzHollis
turn lane and the westbound segment contains three through lanes. This
complex intersection is depicted in Plates 13 and 14.
The Talbert Avenue intersection, shown in Plate 15,
is currently operating with a volume/capacity ratio of .72, but if no
improvements are made, it is projected (by the year 2005), to operate at an
F level of service, the volume/capacity ratio reaching 1.12. Proposed
improvements include signal coordination, intersection striping, bus turnouts,
and signal modification.
The Slater Avenue intersection, illustrated in Plate
16, is currently operating at a level of service D with a volume/capacity
ratio of .81. Conditions are projected to worsen to level of service E (.95
volume/capacity ratio) if. no improvements are made. Signal coordination, bus
turnouts and intersection widening so that northbound and southbound
segments have four through lanes in recommended.
Beach Boulevard's intersection with Warner Avenue
(Plate 17) is operating at a level of service F now, and will continue to
deteriorate if the deficiencies are not corrected. Access control and bus
turnouts are recommended in addition to substantial right-of-way acquisition
to widen the intersection to four through lanes for northbound and
southbound portions and dual left and single right lanes in all directions.
The Heil Avenue intersection exhibited in Plate 18
is presently operating at level of service D (with volume/capacity ratio of
.84) and conditions are projected to worsen to level of service E with a .97
volume/capacity ratio. Bus turnouts, signal coordination, and widening of
the intersection to four through lanes northbound and southbound are
recommended.
The Project Area's northern boundary is in the
intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. The northern portion
of the intersection lies within the Huntington Beach Huntington Center
Redevelopment Project. This intersection (Plate 19) currently operates at
level of service F, with a volume/capacity ratio of 1.02 that is expected to
degenerate further to 1.13. Improvements recommended to combat this
congestion include signal coordination, bus turnouts, intersection widenings
to four through lanes northbound and southbound with southbound dual
left, three through lanes eastbound and westbound, and the linking together
of Gothard and Hoover Streets.
As a result of a shortage of off-street parking, the
curbside lane of Beach Boulevard is often devoted to parking, as exhibited
in Plates 6 and 7. Removing this lane from use by through traffic further
contributes to traffic congestion and also places the persons entering and
exiting their vehicles at risk, in close proximity to vehicles that may be
traveling at speeds approaching 40 mph.
Sidewalks are absent in several places in the
Project Area, as shown in Plates 21 and 22.
(II-9)
Katz 1fol I is
2. Deficiencies in Infrastructure Utilities
................................................................................_........................._.......................
The City's Director of Public Works` has identified
deficiencies in storm drainage, sanitary sewers and water lines in the
Project Area. Storm drains need to be installed to complete the storm
drainage system as follows:`2;200 feet of '24" and 18" drain south of Aldrich
from Stark to Sher; one-half mile of 48 storm drain on "the east side of
Beach Boulevard between Atlanta and Indianapolis; and '36"' and• 48" drain on
the west side of . Beach Boulevard between Atlanta and` Indianapolis. An
undersieed sewer line needs to be replaced with 12" line for 2;700 feet from
Adams to Yorktown. Water line deficiencies that need to' be ' corrected
include replacement of 21,000 feet of 6" fine'and 20" steel- casing' for 12" .
water' mains- crossing Beach Boulevard in nine places.
Overhead utilities' are ' considered a blighting
influence in the Project ' - Area; in light:- of ' 'citywide "standards for
undergrounding of utilities.
B. Existing Social ,Conditions
.................. .
There are approximately 175 housing units • (including single family
and smaller multi-family buildings; see Table II-2) in the Project Area, with
an estimated 385 to 483 residents: - The majority bt the housing units are
located among, and are adversely impacted by, conflicting commercial land
uses. Children living in the Project Area find a"major` urban arterial with
traffic operating at speeds of llup. to 45 mph at the -end of their 'front yard.
This problem of mixed uses was discussed: in detail-earlier in. this report.
At least half'of the Project area housing•units- are in need of major 'repairs,
and such units, with undesirable locations and sub-standard conditions,
appear to be generally-inhabited -by -persons-of low or moderate- income.
C. Existin Economic Conditions
........................ .................................. ...................
1. Economic Setting '
.............................................................,..,....
As discussed previously, most,of the land (67.9 percent) in
the Project Area is devoted to commercial uses and 23.8 percent to
residences or public and institutional uses.- Thirty-four of the 408 parcels
(8.3 percent) are vacant, totalling nearly fifty.- acres. Thirty-one percent of
all the retail and service related businesses' in ,the City of Huntington'`Beach
are located on Beach Boulevard. Among the 1,060 businesses in the Project
Area, 25.6 percent are engaged in retail trade, M0 percent in services and
16.0 percent in finance, insurance, and real estate, as described in
Table II-3. One-fifth of the businesses are involved in health services, due
to the presence of the Human Hospital. There are -a number of new and
used auto dealerships •and leasing agents in the Project Area. Sales taxes
generated by auto dealers citywide account for 18.3% of the City's total
sales tax revenues, as shown in Table II-13.
(II-10)
Katz Holfis
Table 11 13
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTO SALES, 1985
............................................................I................................ ................SALES, ..
Auto Sales TotalSales................................................
lot Quarter $ 581522v000 $ 300,904p000
2nd Quarter 6714599000 351,904t000
3rd Quarter 66,494,000 336,588,000
4th Quarter
............ ...... ...........
TOTAL:
. ....................................................... ................................................................
[18.6% of City Total]
SoYr;c_W. City of Huntington Beach
011687/6
0898.hnt/bl
KatzHollis
2. Economic. Malad,ustment
Precise statistics are not available, but there have . been a
number of small business failures in the Project Area, which is partially
evidenced by the vacant stores and office. suites for rent._ Project Area
conditions may be a factor contributing to the business failures, namely the
presence of dilapidated structures, mixture of adjacent inappropriate land
uses, and Anadequacies . in off-street loading- and , parking and traffic
circulation.
Some businesses, such as the , auto;. dealers, may wish to
correct the problem of inadequate off-street parking,. but are .hampered by
lack of expansion area. It- is. critical to ensure that the auto dealerships are
retained.within the City because of their significant contribution to sales tax
revenues and because the ' customers they attract .generate a . significant
amount of other retail sales.,
Portions of. the Project :Areal are underutilized in, that the
land uses are inappropriate:..for: the zoning, uses and densities. Other
portions have not developed at all. Failure of the private market to
respond to development opportunities indicates the existence of problems
which private enterprise alone cannot resolve. .The absence of, private
investment and_.reinvestment results in stagnation,,or ;further deterioration.
Only through public intervention and assistance can this spiral be broken.
3. Impaired,..Investments and Depreciated-Values
The conditions of deteriorated, dilapidated buildings,
underutilized properties and mixture of inappropriate land uses ..result in
impaired - investments and depreciated values in the Project Area. While
there are only two long-vacant buildings in the Project Area, there are 34
parcels that are undeveloped, as exhibited. in-Plates 4, .23 and 24,.and many
more that are not utilized .to their full potential. There are also ,various
examples of .vacancies in. stores ;or office, spaces, such as,.those shown in
Plates 26 and 26. There are examples of properties for sale, that have been
on the market for over a year.
The presence of dilapidated structures impacts adjacent
properties and is symptomatic of owners' disinterest in upgrading , the
properties, and is also evidence of the private sector's lack ..of success in
solving such problems on its own.
4. Existence .of ,Inadequate .Public ,Improvements, .Public Facili-
,ties ,Open .Space and ,Utilities
Details of the deficiencies in the street system, the supply of
parking, intersection capacities, sidewalks and infrastructure utilities were
described in a preceding section. The present traffic circulation conditions
on Beach Boulevard have economic impacts on residents, employees and
patrons of the businesses. Travel time, which could otherwise be spent on
economically productive activities, is longer than it would be under normal
average operating conditions, which adds to the cost of travel and increases
Katz Hol l is
fuel consumption. These conditions may be discouraging the development of
vacant parcels and depressing property values. The underutilization of
property means that the''`full potential tax base, sales tax revenues and
employment generated by the area is not at capacity. Analysis of the
economic impact of alternatives under the "Super Streets" program reveals
that the present 'conditions on Beach Boulevard have had a negative impact
on property values and have depressed sales volumes by several million
dollars annually. Tables II-14 and II-15 indirectly quantify the extent of
the negative economic impacts of Beach Boulevard's present condition. Table
II-14 presents estimates of the potential vehicle-hours saved and
corresponding dollar value of time and number of.gallons of gasoline saved,
if the maximum improvements alternative of the "Super Streets" program
were implemented on the entire length of Beach Boulevard within the city
limits of Huntington Beach. Table II-15 analyzes, for each of five segments
on Beach Boulevard, the potential increase in sales that would result from
Beach Boulevard improvements, totalling over $2.6 million annually. These
analyses indicate that improved traffic flow and property. accessibility could
quickly increase business sales, as' well as lead to greater development
densities, .further increasing employment opportunities as well as personal
income and municipal tax revenues.
The shortage of off-street parking in portions of the Project
Area discourages prospective patrons of ' some businesses along Beach
Boulevard, as they may be apprehensive of exiting and entering their cars .
next to traffic that may be traveling at speeds up to 40+ mph.
(II-12)
Katz Hol I is
Table II - 14
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
SUMMARY OF TRAVEL BENEFITS IN 12006
WITH "SUPER STREETS" MAXIMUM 'IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMM
...................................................................................................................................................................,.............................._................................................
_..__..._..........
Daily. Annual(2)
Vehicle - Hours Saved(e) 2,503 hours 180,936 hours
Dollar Value of Time Saved (4) $170621 *5,466,562
Gasoline Saved 1,252 gallons 390468 gallons
On entire length of Beach Boulevard within city limits of Huntington
Beach.
cap Based on 312 days equivalent per year.
A term expressing the extent of travel time saved; equal to one vehicle
traveling one hour.
(4) $7.00/hour.
Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff euade 8. Douglas, Inc., March 1986.
121186
0898.hnt/bl/3
Katz HOi I i s
Table II - 15
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL SALES VOLUMES
RESULTING FROM BEACH BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS
Potential Increase in Sales
Beach Boulevar...... Annual(')
.. _................................................... ....................... . .............................................
Ellis Avenue - Talbert Avenue $1,125 $405,000
Talbert Avenue - Slater Avenue 1,125 405,000
Slater Avenue - Warner Avenue 435 156,600
Warner Avenue - Heil Avenue 1,305 469,800
Heil Avenue - Edinger Avenue 3.r 375 1,215,000
... . ..........................:........
TOTAL. $7,365 $2,651,400
360 business (shopping) days per year.
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 1986.
121186
0898.hnt/bl/3
DILAPIDATION, DETERIORATION, AGE
(Plates •
fro
isk
n►.....—c.. F• l - - � mow►
17221-17271 Beach Boulevard. Note lack of sidewalks and poor drainage. -als-- mixed land uses (commercial - residential).
-BEACH BOULEVARD
HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT
• PROJECT PLATE 1
,k. HUNTINGTON BEACH-
y BOULEVARD
1
REDEVELOPMENT
. • • PROJECT
• •
1
,
17052 A Street
A w
j
17101 B Street
I
` ` f
t
�,a-:.'.�. stir♦ � f ����I�"e� 4t -�1• i
'.'1Y+�.F �:�-.1'? -�It 4?R -.r.!�Yt-.n��0✓4�;�ei�' t��r�7Y.ntt�...
17021 B Street
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
au I Ilan I is BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 3
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
4ftt�`� •t4 �.` '�.°Ct v {§!'Pj.-7? L ,; �t! {r
. _ wf'{�t, � ,�,� yr/ � x � j 3 ;t�r� >•
-Al
• �y .�1 � � ,.fits !. �t Vt�r f,�rt t h�t/�`i t f-j r �`r `'� .' !•
c._ - -!ty :.'�F �� +t t.�,,,��•q!t »i i.t} �; �yx:
• "r`'. v / 1t ' �5'a"i j IrIl�1�. r ry rF. . as
•_ � � '��.:. - � • �i�i rtkq„�.r "����^}�r ?ty ���i�'I1�Vf��F��ef��c�>. r •..
� l e*- �,;, • r��. x, s'��>a�v � -�j`t{1}�i r'aZ �t Ycy .V,�w�f. (.
vl - • c. - 5��k � � 4'�r'Yr�(�jTS �1}1r}i I �'J�•�t,� •1`is�..t, � !.
'jA ti_ •"�F"rt sy'f 'i� l��Sy �'�1�,>�'iL+� °� },�;;
zL
AMP
Z. '
.,4f'. t5
Sal
§ cif.r • 3`a'S a,a,'�" >�� � �����P , sry. ti, `.. �r Sira�it�af �7a �B',�T I'4� r'r'��
r; �'�'A�} � �` Y F� • 'r �1 sy.f� rs:,off' �y��r j �t+'r' � * �<? .( h ; �t t( v�������
a •+�'��et�.,,�• �� � Y'1�_ � ,'� s��S,.-r�;�``I��_R; '!d �j�t���`�� . �'e {"�{ "1,'.
s
r� ,A'►.j -a i'11i1�� 11 �� 11111
y1 tea✓.� i s( i �,�
* � •
t k ;* �yf—�,�f'� c ';fir k s , �•.+�'"''"..: ��
! d v B 1X j afi#r y :r at, k
Z yy Y
i7 ftry •s5�• ;w
1 s.
INSUFFICIENT OFF-STREET PARKING
ON BEACH BOULEVARD
(Plates 6 and 7)
- � I
t
West side. south of Glencoe East side. north of Robidoux
_ C;E9
• ' TOTO•: C\N9
n�
irk
North o 18351 At 18881
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD p LATE 6
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
!—--------—-------- — — 1----- --
r ,
i t ♦ Y, ai '".ram '� ,�.�
04
Chrysler Court
-21
v °t
Terry Street
INSUFFICIENT PARKING
• ON
BOULEVARD
SPILLS OVER
• • ADJACENT . STREETS
BEACH-
BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 7
REDEVELOPMENT
, • • PROJECT
• •
MIXED USES: RESIDENCES IN
COMMERCIAL AREAS
(Plates.8 and 9)
R!
I
? A i
iY
12047 A Street to the west of Beach Boulevard, north of Warner Avenue. Note lack of sidewalks and street
in poor condition.
Li
I
19351 - 19361 Beach Boulevard
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
A a BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 8
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
I
West side of Beach Boulevard, south of Yorktown Avenue
19306 - 19360 Beach Boulevard
i
r
NMI .
South side of Garfield Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard
I
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 9
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
l i
INAPPROPRIATE MIXTURES OF USES
ZZ
i
tr 3
i r
i � a• � a \
f �y' Wes. ti "�j4 �'{'R, �. �•�•i- ,� r--.-�. � Y �,"'Nw�"�, '�ir ���:�;.-.�„y� �.
`-
_y
,a rH.., Ia- iii _''u�'• r. A;"'� r:AC::2,':.1".7�"°'_ r � •`•iY;- ~�
Office building with auto repair businesses on both sides (18377 - 18425 Beach Boulevard)
- t
L
y
IL
I3esiclences ahove store/repair ;holy at 19,W2 Beach Hotikward
i
HUNTINGTON BEACH—
_4 s f M > ; r., BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 10
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
:� \ 1 �'je,(h�i i'"<•� �+'5.]bl�yW{�y°���+t xy�y]�r� Vl4 !y9"�0.t/�'T.^y�??� 4�j i... ate
.�t te4 � S5 3°"'`ts�7,b ,��' '' aid',, , d' ��' ,�"��''^•`'S'- a
A Ts
�..�N•�°j+K}�F .e . 13 D may. '., ^�,tirS �ifi'����',F��aa4'$f'�^rr�r; ,r1�,y;�
Y.,�+ x
��F'A P.ir;N�t . + y �a,Yj} h�' V'�.{. Yi >• 4< -
,��'�4S?�; ,r .p� — ri!`Y`1■I■`4 t µ�3��5"� �`s'brj{�N��,S ��,g'";r�1�1�1',y�t r + .
j %P%i'{7 irsa X +,�i t .,. v"i�"�"14`.. •
� �. ,,. kk Wyk t� tle ••
•
,
t 1 ;5� �•
' � 1
r •
1
, 1
0
i
t4'
INADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
(Plates 12 through 20)
law
- I
x.
View east View west
AIL
I
View north View south
INTERSECTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD WITH ADAMS AVENUE
I HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 12
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
i
OREM.
View east View west
z ;
C
_ z-
-
View north . View soutr:
INTERSECTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD WITH ELLIS AVENUE AND MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE -13
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Westbound lane dies:
view West
41
View east of south side,
lack of sidewalks
P• ;� V y
a r•xY-r.
c
/ View west of north side,
lack of sidewalks
e
Y
INTERSECTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD WITH ELLIS AVENUE:
INADEQUATE WIDTH, LACK OF SIDEWALKS
__Wr•r -r � HUNTINGTON BEACH-
(I S BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 14
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
View east View west
'�'
View north View south
INTER.SECT•ION OF BEACH BOULEVARD. WITH TALBERT AVENUE
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 15
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
41
•1.� f Yp�a�f rx�
1 Y A14
+tier
of
• •o
or
IF
•• i h
' Irtirl}
s.
!Ot
r
low
' �`71t 4 P h ', � lF�J': � •�, a 6.t�` i�hv.an ? -,rim �'�e f
„�y M i Y 1! lr �• t .•t 5 �y ���y
• r, t .;#fin b:? ti �: e r ��, � ,�'
yti`� �,•a ��� c+ '47'Pt,
TX
SlS•4_
•
t
s
► `l�Z
r d
42
� �•. � yy.�� /.fin �pfx#7�,�^+� u �wN�f�"S x..b r t
'lok
41•':.a,.`•:
View east View west
ki
lft�N�I_m
View north View south
i
I
INTERSECTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD WITH HEIL AVENUE
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT P �.AT 1 F
r n, i; 4• � Y yr,rF
r
/,hw.7`•+• vlt a ' I �� � 4. � �� +,.aft°� '� � ;t.l c�S•r e,.
v f � •,�-� ' 1a3s! 4�� '�f`t d�i a+ �?�• jy�3,t+t:5 r"'.r��,ii
r ,�.� t�3`?;y ` , � •T J � � .^��; ire >.
_ 11 r �.� ,t r r ,� , •� � 1� 1.u.�i � r
s Epy�l
K�
,J
1. r '`'1 r �" :..�'. •.Y. M� .�(,� � �u)� a
,I...(�p / _ i � � _• 4., of w 1 f f �
�?.
d f.
� 1
•u?>,ry t41 ,:� `�� � 1 ��+i nYt I�r�� 4�w*.Len� L c�. �"
. Ufa ..J...
•
UNIMPROVED OR INADEQUATELY SURFACED ALLEYS
;,-rr"Df ..f '. `t, y y 4..',3 c :.•�' .)ty,. '' �;�,:. : •ss wi
. I,
t. -
_ p � X:Q� •i;,.r. �.` "h. ,1:i� v�" 3 "-,.:de"�. -.sa r�Af��;"ws sy ?:" ,r:F,`a i,• .T¢`
.:. o p-, e.'-. �y- xy Z - .,'•-'.`k�:. .i _ .i-:F ,.;.+." �..o �'k '!e :,y- �. � O� �i
am fi•' 4 ���.Q. .tW '• ` Y CIS i `9 v'-� '.'".�'g - f tY - �r.
-r,f►�. .. -.► - Wit:!• -
do
Between A and B Street. north o Warner Avenue
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
PLATE 20
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT j
I '
LACK OF SIDEWALKS
1 ;
so
.JIB•
.e :-fir_ 'i•..-:• "'T•.^%� jr - - .
a
:s
West side of Beach Boulevard in 18751 block. Note drainage problem'.
rpit
4.
va
ys
'.r`Ar r,..ty� r•f;l. ,r f bL+"•.��•[+wt' r f*�� Tx�M��.
' 1�t
_+�.�` \ ' f - � Y� •i ems+ ' -
East side of Beach-Boulevard,.18052 - 18072
HUNTINGTON .BEACH
BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 21
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT .
..r
STERL►�
i
IGTEL
wnv
I ^''1 r u, •sue• �-�"r'"�h�/ '�y/ i
S,t��'!�^ i� ''r } r I ��i° r"+:,'.,i4 )�i 7'�t:aE' � ry'�/Yh(!•�'2!1+1"�,.('.{
+ C� -t . 4 � S + T ♦� 7�
1 } r^r !'�. �1 ..<'a�' a.r J �,,yT.di•P!d r � ��rl►_ ty' r .
+ F•t ��'tiS r• n v�r �i!"X. {'Jli �� .sy�'` r�y� 4 r, .+ !.4r��.' ::4
,1 P l l \� ;r� tt M � •=
Z '�y #{t�.:yy 1 '�} �� �'• � Tr� � �'+�.! i:' `�'N, �rr.�.T' ti'}�, t�, "rf5;"�'�l.'3F5+ r!��'�.,
+. p {� {�y H t t r! :s5'r,, �. sfi7y� F�,E 7.S '}:C. ,�^{y[��"�•,"a .� ,�[.1 ~ i!`./r
•- • VATI 0161
I Lei Us]
• •
• , • • • • •
VACANT UNDER-UTILIZED PROPERTIES
(Plates 23 and 24)
Northeast corner of
Beach Boulevard
and Atlanta
:.i
New
View northeast of prop-
erty west of Beach
Boulevard between
Memphis Avenue and
Knoxville Avenue
i
Nort_.ieaSL core_
of Florida Sheer
and Knoxville -e.
_ r
lima
n.
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 23
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
i
i
i
I
No ills „I III , I
E�. ..�1` Iic.�;u":Irlic,ui�•v;u,I
.v
I
i
i I
i
i
M� Jw I
j
i
4 won
i
I
- i
Iif�;wh H(m1I(•v;n(I
L Apo., A ago
iee■ whom
_
I
i
3
i
f
Scarlllrwesl col1wr of
i
' 13csrch 13cxflev;iid
c anti Speer i
. 47
14
i�
.- t•• - '� - - • -
i>
I
-I
z , T HUNTINGTON BEACH- I
BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 24
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
,.� •(�a r"'1, Wy i �r.
s Fat x ,
low
;f
■■mail, �• �;
�t WON
I I/ AApP�'AAAA; ■��
•%ram`,' �T
i
41:1110JULT11=19INU:
i
f
FO EASE
R. .Afs, lv . FOR LEASE
d�o� GRCUP Retail Stores/Offices
E>ZLU54VE AGENT$
Office and Industrial Brok 90'0 SQ.FT.-courtesy to Brokers
714250 - 9166 .
YN DONOVAN • • ' • • •
AVAILABLE
OFFICE SUITES
FOR I\FOR\I,aiK.A,'A��
� ��992�0805
7 �.. _
y
I
VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE ON BEACH BOULEVARD
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD r'
atr IioI 11� REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ' PLATE
Kau tfollis
PART III. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT
.............I......,METHOD...... ....................................FINANCING .REDEVELOPMENT.....................................................................
AREA
A. G,en.e,r,.a..l ?�Rqficing Methods Available to Afirency
............. .......... ............................................._.................Agency
The proposed Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to finance
the Project with financial assistance from the City, State of California,
federal government, tax increment funds, interest income, Agency bonds,
donations, loans from private financial Institutions, the lease or sale of
Agency-owned property, participation in development or any other available
source, public or private.
The Agency Is also authorized to -obtain advances, borrow funds
and create indebtedness in carrying out the Plan. The principal and
interest on such advances, funds and indebtedness may be paid from tax
increments or any other funds available to the Agency. Advances and loans
for survey and planning and for the operating capital for nominal
administration of the Project have been and will continue to be provided by
the City until adequate tax increment or other funds are available, or
sufficiently assured, to repay the advances and loans and to permit
borrowing adequate working capital from sources other than the City. The
City' as it is .able, may also supply additional assistance through. City loans
and grants for various public facilities and other Project costs.
B. Proposed... Rede.v......e.....lI..o......men t...Ac.t...i...v......i....t...i....e...s..........and.......Estimated.......Costs
As ..........
As detailed in Part II of this Report, the Project Area is a
blighted area suffering from certain problems which cannot be remedied by
private enterprise acting alone. The Area's problems center around four
issues: 1) poor vehicular circulation and insufficient off-street parking; 2)
deteriorated structures and mixed, inappropriate land uses; 3) underutilized
properties; and 4) Insufficient land use controls and inadequate design
standards. The Agency proposes to use the redevelopment process, to the
extent possible, to help eliminate the circulation and parking deficiencies
and the presence of deteriorated buildings and inappropriate land uses in
order to provide a proper environment for controlled growth to occur.
Such activities will facilitate the full utilization of property and will enhance
the economic vitality of the Project Area.
Proposed redevelopment activities required to achieve the goals
and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and to address the Project Area's
problems will include: 1) a program of upgrading and installation of needed
public Improvements and facilities; and .2) a selective land assembly and
disposition program.
The Agency's proposed public improvements and facilities program
for the Project Area, and its estimated cost in current dollars, are detailed
In Table III-1. Improvements needed to- remedy major traffic circulation
deficiencies total $2.7 million, of which $1,297,000 is proposed for Project
funding. Related landscaping and streetscape improvements will cost an
estimated $2.0 million, all of which is proposed for Project funding. The
replacement or installation of storm drains and sanitary sewers is estimated
KatzHollis
Table III - 1
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Reach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
ESTIMATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES COSTS
......................................... ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Portion Proposed
for
Project .Funding
Estimated
Total Cost Amount %
"Super „Street" Improvements,
Atlanta to Edinger
--Signal Coordination and Modifications $ 1300000 $ 20,000 15.49E
--New Signals 92,000 92,000 100.09E
--Access Controls 500,000 500,000 100.09E
--Parking Restrictions 15,000 15,000 100.0%
Restriping Travel I.,anes and Intersections 24,000 20,000 83.39E
--Intersection Widening, Including
New Right-of-Way 1,800,000 600,000 66.79E
--Bus Turn Outs, Including Right-of-Way ....................1.79.1.000 . ......... 29.49E
Total Super Street Improvements $ 2a731.,000 $ 1J297.t000 .47.59E
Storm Drainage And Sanitary Sewers
--South of Aldrich. Stark to Sher.
2,200 ft. of 24" and 18" storm drain. $ 270,000 $ 270,000 100.0%
--Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and
Indianapolis, east side one-half
mile. 48" wide storm drain. 625,000 625,000 100.09E
--Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and
Indianapolis (west side) 48" and
36" wide storm drain. 1,300,000 1,300,000 100.09E
--Sanitary sewer - Adams to Yorktown.
2,700 ft. of 12" line 200,500 200,500 100.0%
...................................
Total Storm Drainage, Sanitary Sewers $ 2395,500 $2�395,500 100.09E
[Continued on following page]
0898.HNT/bl
Katz HolIi5
[Table III - 1, page 21
.Portion Proposed
for
Project Funding
Estimated
Total Cost Amount %
..........I.............................. ...............................
Waterline Improvements
--8" water main east and west
side of Beach Blvd., complete
loops and replace 6" $ 1,515,000 $ 1,515,000 100.0%
--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 . 414,000 100.09K
Total Waterline Improvements $ 11929,000 $ _.1,929,000 100.0%
Uttlily,.,Under�t�oundfng
--Entire length Beach Blvd. $ 4r500,000 $ 31.200;000 71.19L
............_........
.
Recreation and Park Improvements,
...............
and Historic Preearvation-Bartlett Park $1.242 000 $ 1 242 000 100.0%
a r t. ..........r.......I.......
Landsca�igg„and,,, Streetecape
--Median and frontage road
landscaping, Atlanta to Edinger $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 100.0%
--Theme signage, street furniture,
decorative street lights 11000,000 $ 1�000�000 100.0%
.. ..............
Total Landscaping and Streetscape $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 100.0%
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS P 1407/500 .12 063j500 81.5%
....-........_.......... .............................. ...................._..............._..........__ ....._...................
Source: City of Huntington Beach
0898.HNT/bl
Katz Hol I is
to cost $2.4 million, one-hundred percent of which is proposed for Project
funding. Waterline improvements will total $1.9 million, all of which is
proposed to be paid through Project funding. Seventy-one percent of the
$4.5 million in utility undergrounding costs is proposed for Project Funding.
Full Project funding is also proposed for $1.2 million in
recreation/park/historical preservation costs. The total cost of the entire
public improvements and facilities ' program is estimated at $14.8 million, of
which $12.1 million (81.5 percent) is proposed for funding from Project
revenues.
The Agency's land assembly and disposition program will focus on
eliminating non-conforming and other blighting uses as well as becoming a
means of assisting the private market to properly develop vacant and
underutilized parcels. Although the Agency does not intend to pursue an
aggressive land assembly policy, it is estimated that up to 107 acres of
property could be acquired, at an average cost of $30 per square foot.
As detailed in Table III-2, ' land assembly and related costs,
including special site preparation, total an estimated $150.7 million in 1987
dollars.
Other estimated Project costs detailed in Table III-2 include
Project administration ($4.3 million) and Low and Moderate Income Housing
Fund deposits of $41.8 million.
When a ten percent contingencies factor and an escalation factor
of 15 percent are applied to the total of the above costs, the total estimated
Project costs, exclusive of debt service on Agency bonds, become $264.1
million.
In Table III-3 projected land sale proceeds of $116.5 million are
netted against the above total Project costs, 'giving a potential bond issue
size of $147.6 million. Debt service on an issue of this size would be $322.8
million. Total net Project costs, including bond debt service, are estimated
at $470.4 million. This amount becomes the proposed tax increment limit for
the Project.
C. Estimated Project Revenues
Potential revenue sources to fund Project costs include: tax
increment receipts and proceeds from tax increment bonds; loans, grants and
contributions from the City, State or Federal Government and from Project
developers; proceeds from the sale of Agency owned land; special assessment
districts; and development fees.
1. Tax Increment Revenues
..........................................._.................................................................
Agency staff have projected the scope, type and pace of new
developments which may occur within the Project Area over the life of the
Project. The scopes and types of these developments are summarized in
Table III-4.
(III-2)
i
Katz Hol 1 i5
Table III - 2
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS*
.............................................................. ............ ................I.....................
(000's Omitted)
Proposed Public Improvements and
Facilities Projects (See Table III-1) $ 12,064
Site Assembly:
- Land Acquisition (:1.07Ac 0 $30/sq. ft.) $139,850(1)(2)
- Relocation 4,1250)
- Demolition 925(a)
- Special Site Preparation .5,8000)
Total Site Assembly 150,700
Administration (5 yrN 0 $300,000;
5 yrs 0 .$200,000; 5 yrs A $150,000;
10 yrs ® $100,000) 4,250
Low and Moderate Income Housing
(20% of total below) .41,754
Total $208,768
Plus: Contingencies (10% of above total) 20,877
Total $229,645
Plus: Escalation (15% of above total) 34t447
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS ffi264�092
* Estimated Project costs do not include payments to affected taxing agencies to
alleviate financial detriment, if any, caused by the Project, or for deposits into
the Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund as a result of such
payments. In addition, the cost of providing replacement housing for low and
moderate income dwelling units demolished by the Project is not included in the
estimated Project cost total. It is assumed that any replacement housing cost
obligations incurred by the Agency would be funded by moneys deposited into
the Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.
Source: MCity of Huntington Beach
0)Katz Hollis
(a)Pacific Relocation Consultants
. s
Katz Hoi 1 is
Table III - 3
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
„ NET PROJECT COSTS
...
................................................_..................................................._...............
(OOOj�s�Omitted)
Costs
to be Net
Financed Costs
..........................._.......... ................_.......
Total Estimated Project Costs (See Table III-2) $264,092 $264,092
Plus; Debt Service on Bond Issue
(Interest Only)(') -- _.322,809
.......................................
Total $264,092 $586,901
Less: Estimated .Land Sale Proceeds(2) <116,523> <116,523>
........................................... ............................._...........
Total Costs to be Financed with Bond Issue $147,569
Round to ,I147R570
...................................
NET PROJECT COSTS (Tax Increment Limit) $470,378
Round to P4701380
M$147,6709000 issue; 12% interest, 26-year term
(Q107Ac 0 $20/sq. ft., plus 26%)
0898.hnt/6
Katz liol I is
Table III - 4
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
PROJECTED NEW DEVELOPMENT
..................................................................................................................................................... .............. ........................
Motel Units 104 unite
Commercial 575,700 sq.ft.
Office 300,000 sq.ft
Residential Dwelling Units 507 D.U.e
Restaurant/Fast Food 16,400 sq. ft.
Auto Dealerships 52,000 sq. ft.
tourcec :.City of Huntington "Beach
0898.HNT/bl
Katz liol l is
A projection of annual estimated tax increment revenues
which would be generated within the Project Area over the life of the
Project is presented in Table III-5. The projection, totaling some $615.0 .
million, is based upon: 1) the new developments included in Table III-4; and
2) an underlying seven percent annual growth to reflect transfers of
ownership and other new construction. If a full 20% of this amount were
deposited into the Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, the net
tax increment funds available to the Project would total $412.0 million.
2. Loans, ,Grants ,and .Contributions ,from .City' State and .Federal
Government and Prom„ Project Developers
Currently, Agency administrative costs are being funded by
City advances and loans, a situation which will continue until other sources
of revenues are available. It is likely that additional City funds or other
loans will be necessary if all the implementation activities identified
previously are to be timely completed. Such loans may include advances
from future Project Area developers.
A major component of the Project Area's existing blighting
conditions is the existence of inadequate public improvements, facilities and
utilities. Local and freeway transportation, traffic and street improvement
projects needed to alleviate the area's major traffic access, circulation and
parking 'deficiencies total over $14.8 million. As detailed in Table III-1,
nearly twenty percent of this cost is proposed to be borne by sources other
than project funding. Such sources will include the City's general fund and
various public improvement funds, some of which are funded by
contributions from state and federal programs.
3. Land Sale Proceeds
The • Agency's program . contemplates the acquisition of
privately owned parcels to be sold for development in accord with the
Redevelopment Plan. For purposes of this Report it is assumed that sales
prices from the Agency to private developers . will average $20 per. square
foot, totaling an estimated $116.6 million.
4. S.peCi81 Assessment Districts
The use of special assessment' districts is not presently
considered a viable alternative to the use of tax increment revenues to fund
Project costs. By definition, and as described earlier in this report, the
Project Area is a blighted area in which existing owners and potential
outside private developers have shown a reluctance to invest. It is believed
that required contributions -above and beyond the normal costs of land
acquisition and private development may become a self-defeating disincentive
to private development. Under current conditions it is also unlikely that
existing businesses and owners could afford to participate in an assessment
district to finance major Project activities.
(III-3)
KatzH611,18
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency PEACHi
Huntinton Beach--Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
Table IhI-S.
P.RditTION OF INCREMENTAL TAX :REVENUE
To, IncreAent Grass (3} (4)
Fiscil Real . Other Prc;s:t Over Base Tax 20% H5g Net Tax
Year Propty 11). Propty (1) Value $242,0A5 Revenue .Cumulative Set-Aside Cumulative Revenue Cumulative
------ ----- - - ------- ----------- - ------ ------ ------ =----=__=_ ---------
19B6-97 217,332 24,673 2121 Ar 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
1987-eS 235,0310 24,673 21`9,?03 17,699 20B 209 (42) (42) 16b 16L
1998-89 251,676 25,13B 202,w15 40,910 479 687 . (16) 1137) 393 549
.19i;9=90 275,714 28,351. 3 4,0 62,064 726 1,413 (145) (2831 SE1 "In
1990-91 330,549 28,356 116,947 1,364 7,777. (213) (555) 1,091 2,222
1991-92 361,577 29,356 3E9,9 2 147,927. 1,721 4,49B (344) (900) 1,377 3,599
'992-93 186,887 29,420 416,=,1}7 1741302 2,023 6,521 (4051 (1,304) 1,61E 512'_7
1943-94 413,969 30,243 444,1212 202,207 2,341 8,862, (468) (1,772) 1,U3 1,09E
1994-95 463,061 30,243 497, '1 251,298 2,9C1 11,Z63- (590} {"353) 2,321 914!'
1995-46 502,866 710,21..3 ::'.'�' 291,103 3,3y2 15;.11� (670) (:.,023; 2,682 L'•,092
1996-97 538,•"134 31,379 5 9,145 32?.,440 3,761 18.1,876 (752} (3;775) 3,008 15,101
1997-9e ceq aw9 ?2'('45 e':-,9.4 375;939, 4,306 23,182 (861) (4,636) 31445 1.8,546
l993-99 637,226 32,,)45 6 ,271 427,256 4,831 28,463_ (976) (5,¢13). 3,905 22,450
19y9-00 762,789 33,446 554;'230 6,315 34,378 (1,263) (6,876) 5,032 27,502
1000-01 914,727 34,528 9G=,2 5 7121250 8,093 42,471 (4,6149) (81494) 6,475 33,977
2GG1-02 9e4,!Oe 39,244 1,623,7!2 781,347 9,855 51,326 (1,171) (10,265) 7,084 41.,06!
2002-03 1,052,995 4,149 1, 97,i44 955,138 9,665 60,991 (1,933) (12,198) 7,732 49,743
2003-G4 1,126,105 44,148 1,17:,:�3 925,248 !0,470 71,461 (2,094) 1,14,292) 8,376 57,169
2004-03 1,205,575 44,14B 1,24y,7723 1,007,719 11,329 82,790 (2,266) (16,558) 9,063 66,232
2005-06 11289,965 44,148 1,33411!3 1,092,108 12,244 95,034 (2,4491 (191007) 9,7195 76,02E
2006-07. 1;380,262 44,148 1,424,-10 1,182.,4.05 13,221 108,255 (2,644) (21,651) 10,577 96,604
2007-G8 1,416,Q81 44,148 1,�21,i-c9 f,279,024 14,262 122,518 (2.,852} (24,.04} 11,414" 49,014
2009-69 1,580,262 44,148 1,624.410 1,392,405 15,3T3 137,99i (3,015) (21,5ZB) 12,299 110,313
200-10 1,741,725 44,14E "nK,;? 1,34331868 17,122 155,413 (3,424) (31,003) l31699 124,011
2010-11 1,975,322 . 44,148 . 2,019,470 11777,465 19,659 174,672 (3,932) (34,934) 15,727 139,731
20l1-12 2,1131594 .46,090 2,1`--,5E4 1,917,679 21,151 19t,623 (4,230) (39,165} 16,921 156,659
2012-13 2,2611546 47,689 2,309,i35 2,067,230 22,73E 2181562 (4,543) (43,712) 18,191 174,B49
2013-14. 2,4191954 47,669 2,467,544 2;225,539 24,412 242,974 (41882) (48,595} 19,530 194,319
201_4-15 2,P7,858 47i6B9 2,645,547' 21403,342 26,292 269,26b (5,258} (53,853) 21,C-s3 215,412
2015-16 2,793,30b 471689 2,E3 0,c?i 2,585,990 2B,242 297,508 (3,64B) (59,502) 22,394 238,006
2016-17 2,978,13E 49,625 3,026,763 1,784,157 30,293 3271001 (61059) (65,560) 24,235 262,241
2017-10 3,186,607 48,625 3,233,=-!� 2,993,227 32,470 360,271 (6,494) (72,054) 25,976 282,217
20l8-14 3,409,670 48,625 3,458 :• 3,216,29.0 34,793 395,06. (6,9591, (79,013) 27,934 316,051
2019-2'A 3.,64E,347 48,625 3,196,r? .4,454,966 37,270 432,333 (7,454) (86,467) . 29,836 345,867
2020-21 3,903,731 48,625 -4,95 2,354 3,710,351 39,912 472,243 (7,982) (94,449) 31,930 M, ,796
2021-22 4,176,992 48,625 4,225,617 3,983,612 42,731 514,97b. . (8,546) (202,995) 34,185 4f!,9B!
TOTAL 514,976 (102,995) 411,98!
+ Eee footnotes on fallowing page:
Katz Hollis
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Reach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
Footnotes to Projection of incremental Tax Revenue
.. ...................
(Relates to Table III-5)
1. The estimated 1986-87 base year assessed valuation of the Project Area
has been determined based upon local secured and unsecured values
reported by the Orange County Auditor - Controller for fiscal year
1986-87. State assessed public utility assessment records were not
available for incorporation in the base year valuation total.
Real Property values (Le.$ land and improvements) reflect _anticipated
value added as a result of new developments identified by City/Agency
staff within the Project area, as well as an annual two percent increase
as allowed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution and a five
percent annual increase to reflect unidentified transfers of ownership
of new construction. Other Property values (i.e. personal property)
are assumed to 'increase only as a result of anticipated ' personal
property valuations of the new developments. The amounts of annual
taxable value added as a result of identified new developments include
an assumed four percent inflationary growth factor annually escalated
to reflect assumed market increases. to ' the cost of property
development and tenant improvements.
2. Gross tax revenue is projected on the basis of a representative area
tax ra in te which cludes the basic $1' per $100. rate plus' an override
rate. Future override rates reflect an assumed annual decline
equivalent to the average annual' decline of the override tax rate
'between 1980-81 and 1986-87.
3. Twenty percent Housing Set .Aside - 209E of gross .tax .revenues are
assumed to be set' aside for purposes of low and moderate income
housing pursuant to existing California redevelopment law.
4. ' Net ,tax. .revenue - For the purpose of this projection, annual tax
increment revenue shown is net of the twenty percent housing set
aside requirement. No other tax revenue allocations are assumed or
shown.
r
KatzHollis
5. Development Fees
The City of Huntington Beach currently charges modest fees
for permit processing and administration.' For the same reasons as
discussed above for special assessments, the City does not currently plan to
increase the fee schedule as a means of financing redevelopment activities.
It should be noted, however, that future Project Area
commercial and residential development will likely be subject to development
fees of 25 cents/sq.ft. and $1.50/sq.ft., respectively, which per AB 2926
(Chap. 887, 1986 Statutes, effective January 1, 1987) may be levied by local
school districts to assist in building new and renovating existing schools.
D. Proposed ,Financing, .Method ;and Economic Feasibility_of .Project
As shown on Tables III-1 through III-5, the Agency proposes a
program of redevelopment activities which total an estimated $686.9 million.
It will have funding resources of $116.5 million in land sale proceeds, giving
an estimated net Project cost of $470.4 million, including an assumed full
twenty percent annual deposit into the Project Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund. With estimated tax increment resources totaling $515.0 million
over the life of the Project, all costs are fully fundable.
Because tax increment revenues build up slowly in early years,
the Agency will likely continue to use City loans to finance initial activities.
As revenues increase, such loans may be repaid, and the Agency may choose
to fund the activities through other financing sources secured by tax
Increment. One or more bond issues may be sold by the Agency in order to
leverage future revenue flows. Because of the 1986 federal tax act, such
issues, if tax exempt, may be restricted to essential government .purposes
such as the construction of public improvements and facilities.
Based on the financing method discussed above, the Agency has
established the following tax increment and bond limits in the Redevelopment
Plan, as required by the. Community Redevelopment Law: 1) the total tax
increment. bonds which may be outstanding at one time .may not 'exceed
$147,570,000 in principal amount, and 2) the total amount of tax increment
revenues which may be allocated to the Agency from the Project Area may
not exceed $470,380,000. Both of these limits exclude any payments made by
the Agency to affected taxing agencies to alleviate fiscal detriment caused
by the Project. Any such payments the Agency may be required to make
could potentially reduce the funds available for Project activities, especially
In the Project's early years.
E. ReasoI. ns for ,Including..........Tax Increment .Financing in Proposed
Redevelopment Plan
A redevelopment program in addition to providing a proven
method of securing desired developments in locations otherwise not
attractive, also provides a financing tool in tax increments. The Agency and
the City' must look to this source of funding in order to assist in solving
the Project Area's problems. Both entities have and will consider every
(III-4)
� r
K1tr idol l is
alternative source of 'funding available to finance Project improvements prior
to considering the use of tax increment revenues. (See Section F below.)
The financing method envisioned by the Agency for the Project, as
described above, places heavy reliance on all such sources including
substantial City contributions. It is believed that neither the City nor the
private market could bear costs in excess of those assumed in the financing
program. In the City's case, a cut-back in capital improvements and
services needs in other areas of the City would be required.' In the case of
the private market, once the anticipated investment return on a property is
reduced below a rate comparable to alternative investments, the development
of the property is jeopardized.
Like most cities, since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978
Huntington Beach has experienced severe funding .shortages in the provision
of services and particularly in the installation and maintenance of public
improvements and facilities. This problem has been compounded by state
and federal cutbacks in local government funding programs. Table III-6
summarizes budgeted, requested, and funded amounts for each of the ten
categories within the City's 6-year Capital Improvements Program during the
current and prior two fiscal years. On the average, leas than 75 percent of
the cost of requested projects has been approved during this period. In
the critical areas of community services, police protection, and fire
protection, less than four percent ($164,260) out of $4.9 million in requested
funds could be approved.
F. Tax Increment Use Limitations and Requirements
...................................................,......................................................................,......................_.
As noted above, the proposed Redevelopment Plan establishes the
following tax increment and bond limits, as required by the Community
Redevelopment Law: 1) the amount of bonds supportable in whole or in part
by tax increment revenues which may be outstanding at one time may not
exceed $147,670,000; and 2) the total amount of tax increment revenues which
may be allocated to the Agency from the Project. Area may not exceed
$470,380,000. Both of these limits exclude payments which the Agency may
make to affected taxing agencies to alleviate fiscal detriment, if any, caused
by the Project, and the 20 percent low and moderate income housing set-
aside required relating to such payments. Any such payments the. Agency
may be .required to make would potentially reduce the funds available for
'Project activities.
In addition to tax increment and bonded indebtedness limits
discussed above, there are several. other statutory requirements relating to
the Agency's use of tax increment funds. The Agency is cognizant of such
requirements and intends to fully adhere to them to the extent .they are
applicable to the Agency and to the Project. A summary_ of these
requirements is presented below.
1. Prior to paying all or part of the value of land for and the
cost of installation and construction of.any publicly owned building, facility,
structure, or other improvement within or outside the Project Area, the
Agency will request .the City Council to consent to such payment and to
determine:
(III-6)
Katz Hoi I is
Table III-A 26-Jan-8/
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach-#each Boulevard Redevelopment Projjeci
CITY FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM HISTORY
(-------1984/i5------) -------1985/86------1 (-------1986/87------)
5 YR CIP REQUESTED APPROVED : 5 YR CIP REQUESTED -APPROVED _5 YR CIP REQUESTED APPROVED-
PROJECT CATEGORY 84/85 85/86 (UPDATED) 86/87 (UPDATED)
-------------------- ------------- ------------- ---------=--- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
STREETS 0,223,000 l5,223,000 t3:,612,000 $5,075,000" $4,772,800 $4,772,800 $5,378,000 ' $11,6131000 $11,613.000
DRAINAGE 504,000 504,000 347,000 715,000 727,600. 727,600 990,000 1,860,000 410.000
WATER UTILITY 1,029,500 1,029,500 1,029,500 1,159,100 622,100 -622,100- 1,063,000 L267,800 1,267.800
FACILITY MAINT. 1,013,000 1,013,000 0 595,000 800,080 0 715,000 . 650,000 0
SEWERS 328,400 328,400 328,400 279,000 407,200 407,200 355,000 680,200 688,260 .-
LANDSCAPE/PARK EQUIP 453,000 453,000 0 . 265,000- 510,000 0 165,000 -540,000 0
PARK AO. 6 DEV. 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,858,600 41291,431 4,291,431 2,560,000 2,803,000 2,803,000
COMMUNITY SERVICES 492,900 492,900 0 224,000 _ 359,500 . 0 - 1,350,000 . 11496,000 :0 --
POLICE PROTECTION 903,822 903,822 0 " '147,000 398,000 0.. 219,000 515,000 0
FIRE PROTECTION 309,000 309,000 0 640,000 225,500 0 2,033,000 164,250 164.,250
TOTAL $11,896,622 $11,896,622 $67956,900 $10,958,500 113,11A,131 . 110,821,1.31 S14,828,000 S21,597,250 .$16,946,250 .
--------------------
Source: City of Huntington Beach
0990hnt.aks4
010687/toc
t
Kat.z Hol l is
a. That such building, facility, structure or improvement is
of benefit to the Project Area or the immediate neighborhood; and
b. , That no other reasonable means of financing the
building,. facility, structure or improvement is available to the community.
2. Prior to committing to use tax increment funds to pay for all
or part of the value of the land for, and the cost of installation and
construction of, a publicly owned building (other than parking. facilities) the
Agency will request the City Council to hold a. public hearing and to make
the above determinations. In connection with such public hearing a
summary will be prepared to:
a. Show the estimated amount of tax increment funds
proposed to be used to pay for such land and construction (including
interest payments);
b. Set forth the facts supporting the Council's
determinations; and
c. Set forth the redevelopment purposes for which 'such
expenditure is being made.
3. The ,Agency will not, without the prior consent of the City
Council, develop a site for industrial or commercial use ,so_ as .to. provide
streets, sidewalks, utilities or other improvements which the owner .or
operator of the site would otherwise be obligated to provide.
4. Prior to entering into any agreement to sell or lease any
property acquired in whole or -in part with. tax increment funds, the Agency
will request the City Council to approve such sale or lease after. holding a
public hearing. In. connection, with such public hearing the Agency shall
make available a summary describing and specifying:
a. The, cost of the agreement to the Agency;
b. The estimated value of the interest to be conveyed or
leased, determined at the highest uses permitted under. the Redevelopment
Plan; .and
c. The purchase price or the sum of the lease payments,
and, if the sale price or total rental amount is less than the fair market
value of the interest to be conveyed or leased determined at the highest
and best use consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, an explanation of the
reasons for such difference.
(III-6)
Katz Hollis
2. Prior to committing.to. use. tax, increment funds to
pay for all or .part of the value of the land for, and. the; cost, of installation
and construction of, a publicly owned building. (other than parking, facilities)
the Agency will request the City. Council to hold ,a ,public hearing and to
make the above determinations.. In connection with such. public hearing. a
summary will be prepared to:
a. Show the estimated . amount of tax. increment
funds proposed to be used to pay for such.land and construction (including
interest payments);
b. Set forth the facts supporting the Council's
determinations; and
c. Set forth the redevelopment. purposes for which
such expenditure is being made. "
3. The Agency will, not, without the -prior consent of
the City Council develop a site for industrial- or commercial•.:use so as to
provide ■treete, sidewalks, utilities. or other. improvements` which. the ,owner
or operator of the site would otherwise be obligated. to provide..
4. Prior to entering : into any agreement ..to sell or
lease any property acquired in whole or in! part . with -tax-increment,funds,
the Agency will request the City Council to approve such sale or lease after
holding a public hearing. In connection with such public hearing the
Agency shall make available a- summary describing and ,specifying: .
a. The cost of the agreement ito thet Agency;,.!
b. ` The estimated 'value -, of -the, interest Ao be
conveyed or leased, determined at' the highest' uses permitted, under the
Redevelopment Plan; and
c. The purchase price or the sum -of the -lease
payments, and, if the sale price or total ,rental amount is less than the fair
market value of the interest to be conveyed or leased, determined• at" the .
highest and beet use consistent with the Redevelopment Plan,: an- explanation `
of the reasons for such difference.
� T
Katz Roltts
Part IV. PLAN ,AND MBTl3OD. OF RBLOCATION o Z _X
Section-33362(d) af-"the CRL`re moire Ott ' `r :i '8=•�Y .i
z ` i y� quir s 1fie,Agency.'s,Report to the City .Council
` on 'thee proposed "Redeevelopment Plan lb `=present a--:plan and method of
relocation for those "site occupants who may be displaced by Agency action.
A. Agency ,Displacement
As noted in Part III of this Report, the Agency anticipates that its
program -if upgrading and -installation of public improvements and facilities
needed withiii- the Project Area will. provide an incentive for the private
sector to.develop or redevelop-vacant; underutilized 'aiid blighted properties.
--As-•an-4dditional`aid to the ._private sector, the Agency may also selectively
acquire and dispose -of property:"'�1) 'to elihifr ate non=conform iig -and other
blighting: ueee; 2)- in•-reeponee to property-owner and developer initiated
efforts where public assistance is necessary to assemble property needed
for expansion of existing•'uses' or -to- create developable sites •for proposed
new uses;, and;1). "opportunity" acquisitions `in 'which an existing owner may
desire to sell,in-order 1 to'-pursue -opportunities out 'of th`e Project Area.
Under- this, selective acquisition;.'.-approach; -it•`is"-estimated that up .to 107
acres of property could be acquired over the Project life. To the extent
that the Agency acquires- occupied• property. for- land assembly or `other
purposes, .or enters- into -agreements with developers-,or-others under which
occupants will be - required -to • move, the -Agency will cause or--.will be
responsible. for. causing- such -displacement of occupants. - -The Agency-to not
responsible: for any.-displacement--.,which.- may occur, as a-result of private
development activities not directly assisted by the Agency under a
disposition and development, participation, or -other such agreement.
H. Relocation in the-Fvent of Agency.,.Displacement
As noted above, displacement of persona, families, businesses or
tenants is anticipated under current-Agency-plans. When -such displacement
occurs the Agency will provide persons, families,- -business owners and
tenants displaced by .-Agency Project Area activities with monetary- and
advisory relocation. .assistance .consistent with -the California Relocation
Assistance Law (Government Code, .Section 7260 et seq.), the .State Guidelines
adopted and promulgated pursuant thereto, Relocation Rules and Regulations
adopted by the Agency and the provisions :of the Redevelopment Plan for
the Project.
The Agency will pay .all relocation payments required by law. The
following portions of .this Part IV of the .Report to City Council outline the
general relocation rules and procedures which must be adhered to by the
Agency in activities .requiring the relocation of persons and businesses.
Also identified below are the Agency determinations and assurances which
must be made prior ;to undertaking relocation .activities. The Agency's
functions in providing relocation assistance and -benefits are also
summarized.
(IV-1)
Katz Hol 1 is
'C. Rules and Re ulations
................,,........,......_................
..,............_..
The Agency has .adopted rules and regulations that*, (1) implement
the requirements of California Relocation Assistance Law (Government 'Code,
Chapter 16 of Division 7 of Title 1, commencing., with Section 7260) (the
"Act"); (2) 'are in accordance with the provisions of the California
Department of Housing and Community Development's "Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines" (the "State Guidelines"); (3) meet .
the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law and the
provisions of the Redevelopment Plan; (4) are appropriate 'to the particular
activities of the Agency ,and . not inconsistent with the Act or' the State
Guidelines. Such rules. or regulations issued by the Agency shall be
promptly revised as necessary to conform to applicable amendments of the
Act, the California Community Redevelopment Law or the State Guidelines.
D. Agency ,Determinations and Assurances
......._....................................................... ............._.................
1. The Agency may not proceed with any phase of a project or
other activity which will. result in the displacement of- any person or busi-
noes until it makes the following determinations:
a. Fair and reasonable relocation payments will be provided
to eligible persons as required by -law, the- State Guidelines .and 'Agency
rules and regulations adopted pursuant.thereto.
b. A relocation - assistance advisory program offering the
services described in Article 2 of the State Guidelines will be established.
c. Eligible persons will be adequately informed of the
assistance, benefits, policies, practices and procedures, including grievance
procedures, provided for in the State Guidelines..
d. Based upon recent survey and analysis of both the
housing needs of. persons who will be displaced and available. replacement
housing, and considering competing demands for than. housing, comparable
replacement dwellings will be available, or provided,_ if necessary, within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement sufficient in number, size
and cost for the eligible persons who-require them. '
e. Adequate provisions have been made to provide orderly,
timely and efficient relocation of eligible persons to comparable replacement
housing available without regard to race, color, religion, sex, marital status,
or national origin with 'minimum hardship to 'those affected.
f. A relocation plan meeting the .requirements of law and
the State Guidelines. has been prepared.
2. No person shall be displaced until the Agency has fulfilled
the obligations imposed by the Act, the California Community Redevelopment
Law, the Redevelopment Plan, the State Guidelines and the Agency rules and
regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
(IV-2)
Katz Hof l is
3. No persons or• families of low and moderate income shall be
displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and
ready for occupancy by such displaced person or family at rents comparable
to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be
suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be
decant, safe, sanitary and an otherwise standard dwelling. The Agency shall
not displace such persons or families until such housing, units are available
and ready for occupancy.
4. If any portion of the Project Area is developed with low or
moderate income housing units, the Agency shall require by contract or
other appropriate means that such housing be made available for rent or
purchase to the persons and families of low and moderate income displaced
by the Project. Such 'persons and families shall be given priority in
renting or buying such housing; provided, however, that failure to give
such priority shall not affect the validity of title to real property.
5. If insufficient suitable housing units are available in the
community for low and moderate income persons and families to be displaced
from the Project Area, the City Council shall assure that sufficient land is
made available for suitable housing for rental or purchase by low and
moderate income persons and families. If insufficient suitable housing units
are available in the City for use by such persons and families of low and
moderate income displaced by the Project, the Agency may, to the extent of
'that deficiency, direct or cause the development, rehabilitation, or
construction of housing unite' within the City.
6. Permanent housing facilities shall be made available within
three years from the time occupants are displaced, and pending the
development of such facilities there will be available to such displaced occu-
pants adequate temporary housing facilities. at rents comparable to those in
the City at the time of their displacement.
7. Whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low
or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the low and moderate
income housing market as part of the Project, the Agency shall, within four
years of such destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop or construct, or
cause to be rehabilitated, developed or constructed, for rental or sale to
persons and families of low or moderate income an equal number of
replacement dwelling units at affordable housing costs within the Project
Area or the City.
'8. ' At least 30 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units
developed by the Agency, if any, shall be available at affordable housing
cost to persons and families of low and moderate income. Not less than 50
percent of the dwelling units required to be available at affordable housing
cost to persons.: and families of low or moderate income shall be available at
affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low income households.
At least 15 ' percent of all new or rehabilitated .dwelling units developed
within the Project Area by public or private entities or persons other than
the Agency, if any, shall be'available at affordable housing cost to persons
and families of low or moderate income. Not less than 40 percent of the
(IV-3)
KatzHotlls
dwelling units required to be available at affordable housing cost to persons
and families of low or moderate' -income-`-shall be available at affordable
housing cost::to:very .low-Income households. These percentage requirements
shall apply independently:of the requiremerite of paragraph !"above :and in
the aggregate ,to , housing, made available ' by the '`Agency And'`by public or
private entities or persons otter`than the Agency "respectivel' 's -and--°not to
each individual, case- of rehabilitation, development or construction of
dwelling units. '� The Agei►cy shall require that the aggregate number. of
dwelling units .rehabilitated, developed or constructed pursuant to these
requirementa;; remain available , at affordable: housing '`coat`°'th -Persoi4 and
families of .low` income,, moder.,ate`'inc6me _and`` very' low- incbnneE�Ihou'seholds,
respectively, for , not .-lees than `the'` pe'r`iod ''oP 'the land`'=uae controls
established in..the Redevelopment Plan. >
E. Replacement Housing ,Plan"
Not less' than 30 t days prior'td'`the execution-ofl an agreement for
acquisition;of reap property,, _or the`'execution`of"in,Qieem6 rit, for' th'e"dispo-
sition and. . development of property, or the execution ``bf �a' participation
agreement, which agreement would lead-.'to the' destruction' or r'emo of
dwelling unite from the.low and moderate''income yhousing market, the Agency
shall adopt. by resolution .a replacement housing plan. For a reasonable time
prior to adopting .a replacement' housing 'plan by 'resolution I the Agency shall
make available a,-drift''.of he_t proposed 'rep lacement' housing'�plan'for' review
. ,
t,0 : 4
and comment by the,.yProfect Area. Committee, `other public `agencies', and the
general public.
The replacement housing 'plan ''`'shall includes r. those elements
required 'by' the Community` Redevelopment Law:` "A 'dwelling'=,unit housing
persons of. low, or moderate. income whose replacement is required by the
Agency, but for which rio replaceiment housing plan fhaa been prepared, shall
not be destroyed or. removed from the low and moderate income housing
market until the .Agency, has„by resolution adopted_y a replacement housing
plan.
a.
Nothing, however, shall' prevent' the,`Agency 'from ''destroying or
removing from .the .low and moderate income"housing .market' a dwelling unit
which the Agency,. owns and' .which is'_ an' immediate dangor"'to _health- and
.safety. ;The;, Agency shall,` as '`aoon` ae pract 6ib%', adopt -by resolution a
replacement housing plan with respect do such dwelling
F. Relocation Assistance Advisory .Program and
Assurance of. Comparable ,Replacement .Housing
The Agency shall implement a relocation assistance advisory
program which satisfies the requirements of the State Law and Article 2 of
the State Guidelines and the Civil Rights Act. Such program shall be
administered so as * to provide' advisory' services' .which offer maximum
assistance to minimize the hardship of displacement and to ensure that (a)
all persons and families displaced from their dwellings are relocated into
housing meeting the criteria for comparable replacement housing contained
(IV-4) .
♦ T'
Katz.Hollis
in the State Guidelines, and (b) all persons displaced from their places of
business are assisted in reestablishing with a minimum of delay and loss of
earnings. No eligible person 'shall be required to move from his/her
dwelling unless within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement a
comparable replacement dwelling or, in the case of a temporary move, an
adequate replacement dwelling is available to such person.
The following outlines the general functions of the Agency in
providing relocation assistance advisory services. Nothing in this section is
intended to permit the Agency to displace persons other than in a manner
prescribed by law, the State Guidelines and the adopted Agency. rules and
regulations prescribing the Agency's relocation responsibilities.
1. Administrative Organization
a. Responsible ,Entity
The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency is.
responsible for providing relocation payments and assistance to site
occupants (persons, families business owners and tenants) displaced by the
Agency from the Project Area, and the Agency will meet its relocation
responsibilities through the use of its staff and consultants, supplemented
by assistance from local realtors and civic organizations.
b. Functions
The Agency's staff and/or consultants will perform
the following functions.
1) Prepare a Relocation Plan as soon as possible
following the initiation of negotiations for acquisition of real property by
the Agency and prior to proceeding with any phase of a public improvement
or facility project or other implementation activity that will result in any
displacement other than an insignificant amount of non-residential
displacement. Such Relocation Plan shall conform to the,requirements of the
Section 6038 of the State Guidelines. The Agency shall interview all eligible
persons, business concerns, including non-profit organizations, to . obtain
information upon which to plan for housing and other accommodations, as
well as to provide counselling and assistance needs.
2) Provide such measures, facilities or services
as needed in order to:
a) Fully inform persons eligible for reloca-
tion payments. and assistance within 15 days following the initiation of
negotiations for a parcel of land as to the availability of relocation benefits
and assistance and the eligibility requirements therefor, as well as the
procedures for obtaining such benefits and assistance, in accordance with
the requirements of Section 6046 of the State Guidelines.
(IV-5)
i
Katz Hol l is
b), Determine the extent of,the Sneed of each
such eligible' person' for • relocation assistance in accordance with- the
requirements of Section 46048 of the State .Guidelines.
c) :Assure eligible persons that within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement there. will be available com-
parable replacement 'housing ' 'meeting the criteria described in ;,Section
6008(c) of the'State .Guidelines, sufficient in number and kind for and avail-
able to such eligible persons.
d) Provide current and • continuing ,informa-
tion on the availability,' prices and rentals of comparable::sales ,and .rental
housing, and of comparable commercial properties and- locations,_and. as to
security deposits, closing costs, typical down-payments, interest ,rates, and
terms for 'residential property in the area:
e) Assist each eligible person to complete
applications for payments and benefits. f..
f) ..Assist each eligible;.+displaced, .person to
obtain and move to a comparable replacement• dwelling.
g) Assist each eligible.person displaced ,from
his/her' business in-i •obtaining and .becoming. :established _in a .suitable
replacement location. „
h) Provide any services required to insure
that the relocation process does. not result in. different or ,separate treat-
meet on account of race,, color, religion, national- origin, sex, marital .status
or other arbitrary. circumstances.
i) Supply to such _eligible persons informa-
tion concerning federal and state housing programs, disaster loan and other
programs administered by the Small Business Administration, and other
federal or state programsoffering assistance to displaced persons.
j) Provide other advisory assistance, to eli-
gible' persons . In, order to minimize their.- hardships.. . As needed, . such
assistance may include counselling and referrals. with regard to housing,
financing, employment, training, health and welfare, as..well as other: assis-
tance.
k) Inform all persons who . are expected to
be displaced about the-eviction policies to be pursued in carrying out the
Project, which policies shall be in accordance. with the provisions. of Section
6058 of .the State Guidelines.
1) Notify in writing .each individual tenant
and owner-occupant to be displaced at least 90: days in advance prior to
requiring a person to move from.a dwelling 'or to move a business.
(iv-6)
Katz Holt is
2. Information Program
The Agency shall establish and maintain an information
program that provides for the following:
a. Within 15 days following the initiation of negotia-
tions and not less than 90 days in advance of displacement, except for those
situations described in subsection 6042(e) of the State Guidelines, the
Agency shall prepare and distribute informational materials (in the language
most •easily understood by the recipients) to persons eligible for Agency
relocation benefits and assistance.
b. Conducting personal, interviews and maintaining
personal contacts with occupants of the property to the maximum, extent
practicable.
c. Utilizing meetings, newsletters and other mecha-
nisms, including local media available to all persons, for keeping occupants
of the property informed on a continuing basis.
d. Providing 'each person written notification as soon
as his/her eligibility status has been determined.
e. Explaining to persons interviewed the purpose of .
relocation needs survey, the nature of relocation payments and assistance to
be made available, and encouraging them to visit the relocation office for
information and assistance.
3. Relocation Record
The Agency shall prepare and maintain an accurate
relocation record for each person'to be displaced as required by the State
of California.
4.- Relocation.Resources "
The Agency shall conduct a survey of available
relocation resources in accordance with Section 6052 of the State Guidelines.
5. Relocation...Payments
The Agency shall make relocation payments to or on
behalf of eligible displaced persons in accordance with and to the full extent
permitted by State Law and Article 3 of the State Guidelines. The
obligations for relocation payments are in addition to any acquisition
payments made pursuant to the Agency's real property acquisition
guidelines, which may be adopted at the time the Agency's relocation rules
and regulations are adopted.
(IV-7)
3
Katz Hoilis
6. Temporary
..,... ...... f
Temporary r moves would be required only if adequate
resources for permanent relocation, sites are not available. : Staff shall. make
every effort to assist the site.•occupant in obtaining permanent relocation
resources prior to initiation of a temporary move, and,:then only after it is
determined that Project Area activities will be seriously impeded if such
.move is not performed.
Ti Last Resort- Housing
,The -Agency shall .follow State.-.law and : the criteria and
procedures set forth in Article 4 of the State' Guidelines for assuring that if
the Agency action results; or - will •result.• in• displacement, and comparable
replacement housing will. not be available as needed, the Agency shall use
its funds or fund authorized,for-the Project to provide such housing.
8. Grievance Procedures
The ,Agency has adopted.•, grievance procedures to
implement the provisions of the State Law and Article :,5 of the: State
Guidelines. ,The purpose ,of the grievance :procedures. .is :to -provide.:Agency
requirements 'for processing appeals from Agency,i determinations as to the
eligibility for, and the amount of a relocation payment, and for processing
appeals from persons aggrieved.•:by the Agency's failure to refer them to
comparable permanent or adequate temporary replacement housing. Potential
displacees will be informed by -the.Agency of their right-to,-appeal regarding
relocation payment:claims or other decisions made affecting their relocation.
9. Relocation Appeals Board
The Mayor of-:the. City of Huntington Beach may. appoint .
a relocation appeals -board composed of, five members, -and .approved. by the
City Council. The relocation appeals board- shall promptly hear all
complaints brought by residents of the Project.-Area : relating. to, relocation
and shall determine if the.,Agency. has!;-complied, with theL,applicable State
relocation requirements and where applicable, ;federal. .regulations. The
board shall, after a public hearing,. transmit its ! • findings and
recommendations to the Agency.
(IV-8)
c
Katzliollis
Part V. ANALY8I8 OF PR$LIMINARY PLAN
The Preliminary Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach 'Boulevard
Redevelopment Project, adopted by the Planning Agency on October 21, 1986
by Resolution No. 1366, describes the boundaries of the Project Area,
contains general statements of land uses, layout :-of principal streets,
population densities, building intenties. and building standards proposed as
the basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area. The Preliminary Plan
also shows how the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be
attained through the redevelopment of the area, and states that the
proposed redevelopment conforms to the General Plan of the City. The
Preliminary Plan also describes generally the impact of the Project upon the
surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area conforms
with -the standards and provisions of the Preliminary Plan. The Project
Area boundary remains, with some minor technical corrections, 'the same.
The Redevelopment Plan proposes the same land'.uses and provides for. all
principal streets indicated in the Preliminary Plan. ' ' Building intensities are
in compliance with limits established in the Preliminary Plan. Proposed
building standards also remain the same.
As set, forth in the Preliminary Plan, the proposed Redevelopment
Plan will attain the purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law
by the elimination of areas suffering from economic.. dislocation and disuse;
by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are
stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by
private 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.
(V-l)
Katz Hold is
Part VI. REPORT AND RBWMMSNDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS .AND
REPORT REQUIRED ,BY ,SECTION 66402 OF GOVERNMENT CODE
.. ................. ..............
Section 33352(f) of the Community Redevelopment Law requires the
report and recommendations 'of" the Planning Commission on''the proposed
Redevelopment Plan to be included in this Report to'-City. Council. Section
86402 of the Government Code- states that no' real property , should be
acquired by dedication or otherwise for' public' purposes; no real property
shall be disposed of, no street shall'be"vacated 'or 'abandoned* arid-"no public.
building or structure shall -be constructed or authorised until such activities
have been submitted to and reported upon by the local planning agency as
to conformity with the ,jurisdiction's adopted general plan.
When the Huntington Beach Planning Commission has adopted its
report and recommendations on the proposed . Redevelopment Plan and its
report required by Section 64502 of `'the Government Code, they will be
added to this Report to"City Council or -wili 6e'`f6rwarded td'"the-City Council
for`addition'to this Report: "
�V1_I
F'rrrt VI I. 11U0JFCT AREA COMMfTT E' RECORD
Suction 33385 of the Community H(.doVO1()p111( rnt. Law (CRL) pr•ovidum
Llml, Ow c''iI y Cotiiwil shall call uporr Lher re siderntm and existing community
urgl►nizahouti in tho Project Aroa to form a project area commitl,bo (PAC) .if a
1:uhrel.renl.ild riumb(Ir• Of low and moderate income; .families are to be: displaced
by tho Proj(wl..
A. F'orrnation of PAC
AK domcribed more fully in Bart III of " this Report, the
Agonc:y proposer a program of redevelopment activities which includes
moloctive iw..quisition and site asrembly. Some of the parcels acquired by the
• Agency could include non-conforming residential uses which may be occupied
by low or moderate income familioN. Although Agency acquisitions are not
likely to result in a substantial displacement of low and moderate income
familiou, it, wris determined that formation of a PAC' would be beneficial to
Project adoption and implementation. Accordingly, on October 10, 1986 the
Ilunl.ington Beach City Council adopted Resolution No.. 5718 which called upon
the residents, existing community organizations, and businesses within the
Project Aron to atternd a public. meeting to be held on December 3, 1986 for
tha purpomo of forming a PAC. At the December 3 public meeting and a
ruhtoquont. meeting hold on December 17 n PAC was formed. On January 5,
1987 the City Council, by Resolution No. 5746, approved the 21=member PAC .
as n roprosontritive 'Project Area Committee. A copy of "Resolution No. 5746,
including the -attac:hed PAC roster, is 'included as Exhibit 1 to this Part VII
of the Ag.eenry'K Report to City Council.
R. Information and Documents Made Available to PAC by Agency
Following is a summary of information and documents
promirntod tc) Um I'A(' by th(, Agcrnc,y.
Mnnnor/Dates of
Dissemination I reformation/Documents
Public meeting; field o Role and responsibility of PAC
can 12/3/86. o Summary of PAC formation process
o Summary of project adoption activities
0 Project Preliminary Plan
Interim PAC mooting o Review of Beach Boulevard redevelopment
held on 12/17/86 effort
0 Review of CHI. _PAC requirements
PAC; meeting hold o Summary of redevelopment plan adoption .
on 1/7/87 process and major documents involved
.o History of. Beach Boulevard redevelopment
program- and program objectives
0 S.pecific.actions .required of PAC
hilli1lolliti
Manner/Date of
Dissemination Information/Documents
PAC meeting held o Proposed Redevelopment Plan
on 1/28/87 o Discussion of eminent domain procedures
o Discussion of relocation laws and benefits
Lettor, dated 4/17/87, o Role of Project Area Committee, per CRL,
from City Attorney in relation to .proposed Redevelopment
Plan
Letter, dated o Background information addressing points
4/17/87, to PAC raised at previous PAC meeting,
Chairman from including:
Deputy City - Summary of redevelopment proce-
Administrator/ duree
Redevelopment - "Housing . and Redevelopment Semi-
Annual ' Status Report to the
Redevelopment Agency/City Council
for Period 7/1/86 to. 12/31/86
- "The Use of Redevelopment and Tax
Increment Financing by Cities and
Counties" (California Debt Advisory
Commission)
- "Anaheim Redevelopments" (news-
. .letter)
"Economic Analysis, Disposition and
Development Agreement, Main Pier
Mixed Use Project" (Report prepared
by Keyser Marston Associates, 8/85)
Project indebtedness statements.
(1986-87) for. Oakview, Yorktown .
Lake, Huntington Center, Tabbert/.
Beach and Main Pier Projects
Copies of available agendas and minutes from PAC meetings
are attached as Exhibit 2 to this Part VIi of the Agency's Report to City
Council.
C. PAC Recommendations on Proposed Redevelopment "Plan
At its meeting of April 23, 1987 the PAC considered and voted
upon three options regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan, as follows.:
Option 1: Approve the Plan as proposed
Option 2: Approve the Plan with modifications and/or
revisions
Option 3: Deny the Plan as proposed
(VII-2)
The PAC voted 18 to 3 to deny approval of the Huntington
Beach-Beach Boulevard Project Redevelopment Plan as proposed. A copy of
it letter from ,lames A. I,ane, PAC Chairperson, to the Redevelopment Agency
and City Council transmitting the PAC's recommendation on the proposed
Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 -to this Part. VII of the Agency's Report
to City Council.
(VII-3)
RESOLUTION NO. 5746
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE t C ciV D
REPRESENTATIVE CITY OF GPROJECT TON CAREA PCOMMITTEE IN APR ROVING A � 1. �587
THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD XA1Z.HOLus. COREN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT °ass°c.ArFs
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach selected the project area of and established the boundaries
for, the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project and
approved and adopted a Preliminary Plan formulated for the
redevelopment of the project area ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 5718 on October
27 , 1986, wherein the Council called for the formation of a
Project Area Committee for the ' Huntington. Beach-Beach Boulevard
R-- development Project ; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 1986 , 7 : 00 p.m, in the City Council
Chambers , ana on December 17 , 1986 at 7 : 00 p.m. in Room b-8 of the
Civic Center duly noticed public meetings were conducted to form a
Project Area Committee for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, at said December 17, 1986. meeting, the .residential .
owner-occupants , tenants ,. b'usiness persons, and representatives of
community organizations in attendance voted to have. a Project Area
Committee consisting of 21 members and appointed the members
thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach as follows :
r
SECTION 1 . The Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project Area Committee (PAC) consisting of 'the
residential tenants , residential owner occupants business persons
and representatives of community organizations named on the list
of PAC members -attached hereto, labeled Exhibit "A" and by this
reference made a part hereof, is hereby approved 'as a
representative project area. committee for the Huntington
Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project ,
SECTION 2. The Redevelopment Agency and the redevelopment
1
staff are directed to consult with and obtain the advice of the
Project Area Committee concerning those policy matters which deal
with the planning and provision of residential :facilities or
replacement housing for those to be displaced by project
activities ana other matters which affect the residents of the
Project Area while preparing a Redevelopment Plan and for a pericc
of three years after aaoption of the plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach as a regular meeting thereof held on the ;th day
of January , 1987.
Ma o
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C
City Clerk Cit Attorney
REVIEW D AND APPROVED: I ITIATED AND APPROVE
ministrator Dep y City Administrator
Rede elopment
EXHIBIT "A"
f
RE.CEiVl L)
' HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT APR 2 19a�
AREA COMMITTEE Butz.HOLLIS.COMA
a•ssocu�us
BUSINESS PERSONS:
Adkins, Charles W. Lane, James A.
Residence: 3062 Madeira Avenue Residence: 637 Frankfort Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648
957-3062 536-0449
Business: 17122 Beach Blvd. Business: Big O Tire
Huntington Beach, CA Beach & Yorktown
847-9681 336-8591
Banlch, Anne A. - ALTERNATE O'Reilly, Ernest P. - ALTERNATE
Residence: 1627 Port Barmoyth Pl. Residence: 54620 Risenhower
640-9018 La Quinta, CA 92253
Business: 17731 Beach Blvd. (619) 564-9220
.. Huntington Beach, CA. Business: 6841 Breeland
' 842-4715 Huntington Beach, CA
892-3182
BenevenIa Irma B.
Residence: 17121 Sparkleberry Pearson,'.George A.
Fountain Valley, CA Residence: 6082 Manorfield Drive
9,63-5618 Huntington Beach, CA
Business: 17502 Beach Blvd. 841-0120
Huntington Beach, CA Business: 16990 Beach Blvd.
842-5505 Huntington Beach, CA
960-2471
Berry, Ronald A. - ALTERNATE
Business: 16661 Beach Blvd. Rasmussen, William C.
842-0631 Residence: 16749 Cedarwood Circle
Cerritos, CA
Dalns, David L. (213) 40.4-4715
Residence: 18194 Blue Ridge Business: 17772.8each Blvd.
Santa An CA Huntington Beach, CA
544-0581 842-1473 X345
Business: 17751 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Rizzo, Joseph.R.
847-1884 Residence: . 600 Marguerite Avenue
• Corona Del Mar, CA 96265
Jarrett, Klmo K. 640-7135
Residence: 20731 Hopetown Lane Business: 8071 Warner Avenue
Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
968-6801 847-9062
Business: 17472 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA
r'�c,• 847-1463
Page 1 of .3
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
Russell, Richard D.
Residence: 1 1 Olympus
Irvine, CA' R,
834-9137
Business: 17042 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA
842-3734
Salem, Anthony ; .. .
Residence: 6030.Montecito,Drive
Huntington Beach,"CA 92647
840;9293. I•
Business: 19561 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, ;CA,926.46
960-4787 r
Spiegel, Mark A.
Residence: : 1036.5,,Notchvale. Road
Los Angeles, CA 90064"
(213) 839-3016
Business:' 2650 S. Bundy Dr..4225'
Los Angeles,,CA,90025
(213) 820-381 1 i
Ying, Ledy
Business:' 8032 Warner. Avenue '.
Huntington Beach, CA
0722r f r
I
f
Page 21 of 3
hatZHOIIIS
Exhibit 1 to Part VII
Resolution No. 5746
T a
EXHIBIT "A"
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA COMMITTEE
RESIDENTIAL OWNER-OCCUPANTS:
Ackerman, Thelma W. Files, Ila S. - ALTERNATE
Residence: 16911 "A" Street Residence: 16892 "A" Street
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
848-7104 847-4720
Banich, John G. Ho, Arthur Jan
Residence: 7911 Newman Residence: 17220 Beach Boulevard
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92649
846-8470
Brackens, Elnorina Inda Business: 17456 Beach Boulevard
Residence: 17421 Dairyview "A" Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Huntington Beach, CA 842-4160 / 847-8551
841-2485
Business: 16783 Beach Boulevard Hunt, Margie Marcelle
Huntington Beach; CA Residence: 16881 "B" Street
491-3365 Huntington Beach, CA
842-4307
Buckingham, Lena P. - ALTERNATE Business: 8902 Hewitt Place
Residence: 7942 Newman Garden Grove, CA
Huntington Beach, CA 894-7201
847-3228
Richmond, Frank A.
Edwards, Deanna L. Residence: 18163 Beach Boulevard
Residence: 17071 B Street, Unit A Huntington Beach, CA
Huntington Beach, CA 842-6782
842--5047 Business: 18151 Beach Boulevard
Business: 2080 Anaheim Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA
Anaheim, CA 842-1919
937-6200
Fernandez, Barbara COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
Residence: 16920 "A" Street
Huntington Beach, CA Osterlund, Chuck
847-3737 Residence: 5902 Nordina Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Fernandez, Beatrice A. - ALTERNATE 846-5384
Residence: 16932 "A" Street
Huntington Beach, CA
841-1264
0723r
Page 3 of 3
Res. No. 5746
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY .OF OB,ANGE ) ss
CITY OF:HUNTINGTON. BEACH )
I , ALICIA M. VEMVORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a `regular meeting thereof held - on the 5th day
of January 19 87 by the following vote:
AYES: . Councilmen:
Winchell Mays Finley, Kelly, Green,:*Bannister
NOES : Councilmen:
None'...
ABSENT: Councilmen:
Erskine
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
Katz Hol 1 is
Exhibit 2 to Part VII
PAC meeting agendas and minutes
N T
U NTH C ON
EACH
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
April 2, 1987 _ -
,�• L,Ls
Stephen V. Kohler
n�,y-.:rin ar,n
Principal Redevelopment Specialist Cl,.1MUNITY C:%,SLOPfJENT;
City of Huntington Beach
Housing and Redevelopment
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Steve:
Enclosed are the minutes of the Project Area Committee meeting of March 25,
1987. Included with the minutes are the Attendees list and Agenda for the upcoming
regular meeting on April 22, 1987.
Thank you for assisting the Committee with the mailing of these minutes to its
members.
All prev16us minutes are pending my review. I plan completion of the review
for April end 1987.
Again Stephen, thank you for your courtesy and .continued..assistance.
. Sincerely,
Elnorina I. Brackens
Recording Secretary
Enclosures (5)
cc: James Lane, Chairperson (wlenclosures)
`y U NTI NGT*N.
EACH
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
AGENDA
Wednesday, April 22, 1987
7:OO p.m. - Room B7
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street
=-----------
7 :00 - 1 . CALL TO ORDER .
A . Roll Call
B . Approval of Minutes of March 25 , 1987
C . Introduction of guest speaker(s )
7 : 30 - 2 . DISCUSSION OF BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
Whether the PAC will approve , recommend or reject
the project .
8 : 45 - 3 . DISCUSSION OF BY-LAWS ; as to form and final adoption
of. same .
9 : 00 - 4 . DISCUSSION OF ANY NEW BUSINESS .
9 : 15 - 5 . PUBLIC COMMENTS .
9 : 40 - 6 . ADJOURNMENT.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City
of Huntineton Beach.in the of`iceand
vlai I pos:eC this%,_ends on tn:8d iazin E:cardlnt!;eout:0depost-
Ing b&rd at Vie Civ':Center qn 4 -ti ,at a m/p.rn
Signature
c
UGTONTIN
N.
EACH
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
MINUTES OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE .(PAQ
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.
0 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.
0 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.
0 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%.
BEACH BLVU REUI:VELOPMENT �
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,;agepcy/joint
.venture redevelopment proj.ects .document., t,o 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 j% to 1i of revenue fo'r 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 a 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
REACH 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 FETING
FIBERS 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 i
Mark Spiegel
i
1
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
4r 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
3anuary 129 1997 ;;7
Dear PAC Member:
The next meeting of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee has been scheduled as
follows:
Wednesday, January 28, 1987
7:00 p.m.
Room B-7
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street
The agenda for this meeting will be as follows:
AGENDA
1. Call to order and roll call.
2. Approval of Minutes of January 7, 1997.
3. Discussion of eminent domain procedures.
4. Discussion of relocation laws and benefits.
3. Presentation of Redevelopment Plan.
6. Continued discussion of membership (representation of residential tenants and .
number of alternates).
.7. Other business.
8. Adjourn.
I look forward to seein you on January 28, 1.9 7. I you should have any questions, please
do not hesitate to t us.
Very urs,
Stephe . K e
pal R v lopm t alist
mar
Tdphom 1714)8364 m42 .
lea
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
r
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT �,D
��C 2
December 24, 1986 , 41986
i
Dear Beach Boulevard PAC Member:
The next meeting of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) has been
scheduled as follows:
Wednesday, 3anuary 7, 1997
7:00 p.m.
Room B-8
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street
The Agenda for this meeting is as follows:
1. Introduction of PAC Members and Staff.
2. Approval of Minutes of December 3 do 17, 1986.
3. Staff Presentation on the History of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Program
and Program Objectives.
4. Consultant Presentation on the Redevelopment Project Area Adoption Process and
Schedule.
3. Specific Actions Required of the PAC.
6. Discussion of PAC By-Laws.
7. Certlficatlon of PAC by City Council.
8. Other Business.
• 9. Adjournment.
Congratulations on becoming a member of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee.
We look forward to working with you on the formation of the Redevelopment Plan. Happy
Holidays:
Very truly yours,
Stephen V. Kohler
Principal Redevelopment Specialist
SVK:sar
Enclosures: Minutes of December 3 do l7, 1986.
Roster of Members.
Draft By-Laws.
Telephone(714)536-6542
MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
JANUARY 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 Einorina 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 staf f 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 (S)
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.
i
MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
JANUARY 71 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 appolnted,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
0831 r
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
RECE1 E-0
DEC 19 1986
wu�,n�wa, wNkN
+�s�rncr.7Es
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
INTERIM PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
AGENDA
1 . INTRODUCTION OF STAFF
2. REVIEW OF PURPOSE OF PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE .(PAC)
3, REVIEW OF PROGRESS AT .PAC MEETING OF -DECEMBER 3, 1986, AND
NEED FOR REPRESENTATIVE PAC
N . INTRODUCTION OF INTERIM PAC MEMBERS
5. CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO . COMPLETE .PAC MEMBERSHIP
6. MOTION: TO CONSTITUTE BEACH BOULEVARD .PAC AND REQUEST THE
CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY REPRESENTATIVENESS OF PAC
7. ADJOURNMENT
SUGGESTED
NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY JANUARY 7, 1987
7: 00 PM
HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER
Telephone(714)538-5842
1
1 i
,R MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
7:00 P.M., LOWER LEVEL, B-9
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 offices of a chairperson, vice-chairperson, and a corresponding secretary.
i
1
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
Fi � •,, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET -CALIFORNIA 02648
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT
Dear Interested Party: .
As you know, at the first organizational meeting of the Project Area Committee for the
proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment' Project Area, It was agreed. that a second ..
meeting would be called as follows:
Wednesday, December 17, 1986
7:00 p.m.
Clty Council Chambers
i Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street
It was the consensus of those attending the .first.meeting of the PAC in-formation that
those Interested In serving would seat'themselves as the Project Area Committee at this
meeting. Enclosed for your Information are the Minutes. of .the First Organizational
Meeting of the PAC.
If you should have any.'questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate
,to contact me at t ber below.
Very truly urs,
Stephen V ohler
I Redev pment 'ec alist
SVKs
Enclosure
xc: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment
Thomas Andrusky, Redevelopment Project Manager
Thomas P. Clark, Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth
Telephone 1714)6MR9
RECEIVE )
.,
p., leg
CITY OF HUNTINGTON B.W
M.5 w
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
FIRST ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
AGENDA
1. STAFF INTRODUCTION (AGENCY STAFF).
2. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND SLIDES OF THE PROPOSED BEACH
BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (AGENCY STAFF).
3. THE PROCESS FOR ADOPTING A NEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
(AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL).
4. THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC).
A. Role and Responsibility of the PAC (Agency Staff)
B. Time Requirement for Membership (Agency Staff)
C. Categories of Membership (Agency Counsel)
D. Completion of PAC Membership applications (Agency Counsel)
E. Requirement for representative Membership (Agency Counsel)
F. Election of PAC Membership/By-laws (Agency Counsel)
G. Staffing Requirements of PAC (Agency Counsel)
H. Next Formation Meeting of Project Area Committee,
if necessary Wednesday, December 17, 19869
7 P.M.
City Council Chambers,
Huntington Beach Civic.Center,
2000 Main Street (Agency Staff)
S. COMMENCE PAC FORMATION, RESIDENTS AND EXISTING COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS (AGENCY COUNCEL)
Telephora(714)5394542
SUZ
RECENr
MINUTES ac 41g66
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
3. Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel ;.;•,,; �,: , , ..
The meeting was conducted , ln;•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 ahe- 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 10:13 P.M. .
SVK/mhg
0700r
0-i o--e 3 ,
Ul
Ms. Ingrid Woken Ms. Pattie Dodd P c OA 2 e-1-
8202 Lancaster Drive 19322 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 'ja vK A
842-7215 964-9188
Dr. David L. Danis Ms. Jan Hu
17751 Beach Blvd. 17416 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
847-1884 846-8470
Ms. Deanna Edwards Kimo Jarrett
17071 B Street Unit A 17472 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
842-5047 847-1463
Elmorina Brackens Mr. Bill Rasmussen
17421 Dairyview Circle Unit A 17772 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
491-3365 842-1473
Ms. Barbara Fernally Mr. George Pearson
16920 A Street 2120 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648
847-3737 960-2471
Ms. Irma'Benevenia Mr. Ric Russell
17502 Beach Blvd. 17042 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
842-5505 842-3734
Ms. Margie Hunt Mr. Ron Berry
16881 B Street 16661 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648
842-4307 842-0631
.Ms. Thelma Ackerman Mr. Chuck Osterlund
16911 A Street 5902 Nordina Drive
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92649
848-7104 846-5384
Mr. Anthony Salem
6051 Montecito Drive
Huntington Beach, CA
h-840-9293, w-960-4787
0702r
f 1
Katz H®11 is
Exhibit 3 to Part VII
PAC recommendation on
proposed Redevelopment Plan
UNTINGTON ID
PPS 2�19a1
EACH Np s
Hpo ElOPMEN
i� � � �ei CpMMVN,�Y
*,4% BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
MEMORANDUM
RECEIV.,
TO: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency R 2,8 1987
Huntington Beach City Council
' STY Hp9$OCIAZLB EX
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) voted
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.
r a
Low
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
Huntington each Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach City Council
April 23, 1987
Page Two
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,
&amesA. Lane
Chairperson
JAL/eb
Attachments (4)
'`I
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
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
1
OPTION 1
APPROVE THE BEACH BLVD. . REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED
BENEFIT
1) -.The'.EIR Report has,.described .portions of the, project -area as exhibiting `
gigps of -blight and.-blighting influences inchudi,ng 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 1 will be discussed in OPTION 3 in more detail.
c s
1
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. � . .
`W,:7. (a) That the use of "eiainent domain (Sectifin308-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-
P i
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 bod`y'b1public 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
Urr1oN 3 - Continued
I
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 merelx 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 "Bit).
(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 licit 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
6-) `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.
I
_ 3 _
o e.
Chevron EXHIBIT (A)
Chevron U.SA. Inc.
P. 0. Box 606.La Hab(a,CA 90631 • Phone 1213) 694-7570
QO
February 10, 1987 =
Land Use Mement Amendment 87-1
Cit9'of Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Commissioner:
• • . t !.A _ _ • it
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 poasibtllties, nor does Chevron have current plans to develop all or a
portion of Area 2.4. A decision'now to alter the status quo 86pears 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.
ve /yours,
O. McCamish
LOM/sd
cc: Mr. William D. Holman
Project Representative
Huntington Beach Company
EXHIBIT (B) DRAFT EIR REPORT
TABLE 4
PUBLIC IMPROVEKENTS
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPKENT 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 lehgth-9each Blvd.
Landscaping and Streetacape
- 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, 087, `
TO: City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Project Area Committee - Beach Boulevard
i
I
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 B.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 B.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". The 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 B.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 of landuse tinges
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
addreea these or 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 frith 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 B.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.I.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.I.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
Environmental ental Board EXHIBIT (D)
--�r I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Pori 011icc Bux 190 Hunlin(pui► Buach, CaIllotma 9-16,18 .
i
. March, 11, 1987
Doug LeBelle, Director Redevelopment Agency/
Jim Palin, Director, Planning Department
City Hall
2,000 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 percul.ation 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
soutZuresbt 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 due to the
—increase in traffj&' w2i ch would generate=_mare pollutants_
iA "t1% air.
17. Fire Protection
The additional traffic caused by the development will cut
down on response time.
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.
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.
orrice or
CITY ATTORN EY
P.o.Box 2740
ant ' NING ON BE 6ASTRCN
CALIFORNIA 62647
GAIL HUTTON TELEPHONE
Oty Attorney (71416366666
April 17, 1987
TO: JIM LANE AND MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE. I
Beach Boulevard Pro.ject 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 S 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 S 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 S 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.
JI
GALL' HUTTON
City Attorney
K1t! lion l IS
Part VIII. REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 21151 OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
(PROJ,BCT..BNVIRONMBNTAL....IMPACT..REPORT)
A draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) was prepared by
the Agency and circulated for public review and comment, during the period
February 18, 1987 through April 4, 1987. On March 16, 1987 a duly noticed
public hearing was held by the Agency on the Draft EIR. On
..................:...........:....:...► 1987 the Agency adopted Resolution No. ........................I.................. which
among other things certified the final environmental impact report (Final
EIR) for the Protect .and adopted a statement of overriding considerations in
accord with Section 15093 of the State EIR Guidelines.
A copy of the Final EIR will be submitted separately to the City
Council for addition to this Report.to City Council.
(VIII-1)
KaIzHullis
Part IX. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER
... .........
The Orange County Auditor-Controller, as the fiscal officer
charged with the responsibility of allcx:ating tax increment fund" under
Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), has issued his
report dated December 23, 1986 on Project Area and taxing agency taxable
valuations and tax revenues. The Project Area base year taxable values
reported by the Auditor-Controller in his December 23 report do not include
values for the property assessed by the State Board of Equalization (SBE).
A copy of SBE's report of base year taxable values, dated January 15, 1987,
was received by the Agency. on January 21, 1987.
As required by Section 33352(m) of the CRL, the Auditor-
Controller's report, including the SBE's portion, is included in this Part IX
and is analyzed by the Agency in Part XII.B. of this Report to City Council.
(IX-1)
5. E. LEWIS
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
OUNTY OF
DEC2 FINANCE BUILDING
630 NORTH bRO ADW AY
O. BOX 567
5 (Z 3 RANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SANTA ANA• CALIFORNIA 92702
�y ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TELEPHONE: 634-2450
AREA CODE 714
OFFICE OF AUDITOR-1CONTROLLER '
December 23, 1986
Charles Thompson, Executive Director _
City of Huntington Beach 1
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(
SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach - Beach Blvd: Project,
Pursuant to Section 33328 et seq. . of the California Health and Safety Code,
you will. find enclosed your copy of the Fiscal Impact Report- for .the .subject
redevelopment agency...
Further inquiries may. be .directed to 'the: .
County of, Orange
Auditor-Controller's Office
Attn: Tax Section. .
_630 N. Broadway.
P.O. Box :567
Santa Ana, CA 92702-0567
C. H. Krueger
Manager
Property Tax Unit
CHK:hs
Enclosure
?ITO
The attached letter was, sent to the following:
City of Huntington Beach
Metropolitan Water District
Municipal Water District of Orange -County
Orange County Transit District
Orange County Vector Control District
Orange County Water District
Orange County Cemetery District
Midway City Sanitary District
Orange County Sanitation District #3
Orange County Sanitation District #11
Don Datko, Dept. of Education
Lynn Hartline, Dept. of Education
Bill Hodge, CAO
County Counsel
Steve Clayton, EMA ,Management Services
l M
TABLE I - HEALTH 6 SAFETY - CODE 33328 (A)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
1.986'-87' BASE YEAR ASSESSMENT ROLL
i
Secured Assessed Value - Local Roll $ 203,394,189
State Board of Equalization —Public Uti'lity Roll
Unsecured Assessed Value - Loca'1 Roll 38,610,959
Total Assessed'Value within the Project $' 242,005,1'48
* Not 'Availabl'e At This Time
TABLE II - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (B)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF IDENTIFICATION OF TAXING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE PROJECT
Dist #
0312A Huntington Beach Elementary School District
310A Huntington Beach Union High School District
300B Coast Community College
60OA/601A Orange County Department of Education
OOlE Orange County
710A Orange County Flood Control District
713A Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks District
054A City of Huntington Beach
703A Orange County Cemetary District
707A Orange County Transit District
744A Orange County Vector District
820P Metropolitan Water District
863B Municipal Water District of O.C.
926A Orange County Sanitation.District #11
960A/961A Orange County Water District
313B Ocean View Elementary School District
918A Orange County Sanitation District #3
760A Midway City Sanitary District
TABLE III - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (C)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF 1986-87 BASE YEAR REVENUE EACH DISTRICT
CAN EXPECT FROM WITHIN THE PROJECT
Bonded
Basic Levy Indebtedness Total
Fund Dist. Agency Name Revenue Revenue 1986-87 Revenue
0049 054A City of Huntington Beach $ 472,672.61 $133,935.93 _ $ 606,608.54
0100 001E Orange County 371 ,963.07 665.00 372,628.07
4001 710A Orange County Flood Control District 63,386 .01 3,517.55 66,903.56
4051 713A Orange County Harbors, Beaches &Parks Dist. 41,372.02- -- 41,372..02 .
5321 744A Orange County Vector Control District 4,614.96 -- . 4,614.96
5331 707A Orange County Transit District 10,626 .68 -- 10,626 .68
5881 960A Orange County Water District 18,806.32 -- 18,806.32 .
5901 961A Orange County Water District WR 270.64 -- 270.64
.7141 310A Huntington Beach Union High School 518,456.77 13,376.96 531 ,833.73
7311 300B Coast Community College 219,024.30 -- 219,024.30
8251 312A Huntington Beach Elementary 250,901 .66 10,423. 14 261 ,324.80
8841 600A Orange County Department of Education 31,002.40 -- 31,002.40
0072 Metropolitan Water District -- 36,434.54 36,434.54
9091 926A Orange County Sanitation District #11 26,509.07 1,297 .06 27 ,806.13
.9041 918A. Orange County Sanitation District #3 59 ,984.66 -- 59,984 .66
8431 313B Ocean View Elementary 330,460.31 128,099 .78 458,560.09
0066 760A Midway City Sanitary 0 --
$2,420i051.48 $327 ,749 .96 $2,747 ,801.44
TABLE IV - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (D)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF TOTAL AD VALOREM REVENUE EACH DISTRICT
HAS AVAILABLE FROM WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE PROJECT
The revenue data necessary to complete this section of the Fiscal Review
Report does not currently exist because of the impact of Assembly Bill 8. An
inordinate manual effort and expense would be required of the County Auditor-
Controller's staff to gather any reliable substitute data. Therefore, the
Fiscal Review Report does not contain the total Ad Valorem- Revenue information
for the project area.
There has been included, however, a supplemental table of comparative assessed
values for each taxing district to give a relative indication of Base Year
Revenue percentage given up to the CRA.
See Table IV (D) , Supplement.
TABLE IV' - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (D) SUPPLEMENT
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF BASE YEAR 1986-87 CRA.A.V. PERCENTAGE RELATIONSHIP TO TOTAL TAXING DISTRICT'S n.'v .
Taxing District.'s Percentage of
A.V. Within the Taxing District' s Project A.V.
Dist. Agency Name Project A.V. - County-Wide To District A.V.
312A Huntington Beach Elementary 112,623,451 . 3,454,058,524 - 3.2606
310A. Huntington Beach Union High 242,005,148 11,412_,950,318 2.1204
300 Coast Community College. 242,005,1.48 26;861,494,929 0.9009
60OA/601A Orange County Department of Education 242,005,148 103,944,930,259 0.2328
001 Orange County 242,005.,148 103,944-,9.30,259 0.2328
710A Orange County Flood Control 242,005,148 103',822.,626,208 0.2331
713A Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks .. 242,005, 148-. 7103;944.,930,259 0.2328
054A City of Huntington Beach 242,005,148 8:000,260,977 1.0250
703A Orange County Cemetary District 242,005, 148- 103,944,930,259 0.2328
707A Orange County Transit District 242,005,148: 1031944,930,259 0.2328
744A Orange County Vector Control District 242,005, 148 101,921,296,338 0.2329
820 Metropolitan Water District 2-42,005,148 101,825,99.9,186 - 0.2331
863 Municipal Water District of O.C. 242,005, 148 _ 80,313,353 086 0.3013
926A Orange County Sanitation Disttrict #11 75,885,640 5-,273;164,992 1.4391
960A Orange County Water District 217,320,279 68,256:606, 142 3. 1840
961A Orange County Water District - WR 217,320,279 67 ,917 ,877 ,102 3.2000
313. Ocean View Elementary 129,381,697 3,567,888,900 3.6263
918A Orange County Sanitation District #3 141,434,639 20,774,117 ,040 0.6808
.760A Midway City Sanitary 0 2,468,333,691 0.0000
One Percent = 1.0000
TABLE V - HEALTH 6 SAFETY CODE 33328 (E)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD.. PROJECT
REPORT OF AGENCY'S REVENUE IN FIRST YEAR
The Auditor-Controller has been advised by the City of Huntington Beach that
no major structures and improvements will be made within the Project
boundaries during the first year, so therefore we anticipate an average growth
in value of the area within the Project boundaries to increase by 8.0 percent.
Total 1986-87 Base Year Revenue $ 2,747 ,801.14
Total Expected Percentage Increase in Value 8.0
1987-88 Increment Tax Revenue Estimate i$ 219 ,824.09
TABLE VI - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (F)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF ASSESSED VALUATION BY BLOCK WITHIN THE PROJECT
Health and Safety Code , Section 33328 (f) requires: "The assessed valuation
of the project area, by block, for the preceding five years, except for state
.assessed property on the board roll.
The assessed valuation data ,necessary to complete this section of the Fiscal
Review Report does not. exist because the valuation files maintained by the
County, do not contain historical assessed values by block. Any inordinate
manual effort ..and expense would be, required of the County Assessors and
County Audi tor' s staff to gather ;any reliable cubs ti tute. data. Theref ore, the
Fiscal Review Report does not contain the preceding five-year assessed.
valuation information for the project area.
We are however, providing five year assessed valuation. information for the
entire city:
Total. Secured Unsecured Total
1986-87 $7,495,321,296 $504,939,681 $8,000,260,977
1985-86 6,970,664,670 441,125,438 7,411,790,108
1984-85 6,367,234,992 466,570,592 6,833,805,584
1983-84 5,921,976,050 370,949,364 6,292,926,314
1982-83 5,500,212,165 374,691 ,841 5,883,904,006
FCV a Full Cash Value
FsclampRep/Tax
ST)►TE Of CALIFORNIA Rr„rn
�tLIL.V+o�� WILLIAM M. UNNETT
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Fin,D;,,:,o,K«,MWd
Ion N STREET, SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 1 f1+i 2 T7 1987
�:F� l - CONWAY N. COlt15-
(P,O. BOX 17". SACRAMENTO. CA 95808) Sewed Di•t .La Anq*Ws
(916) 322-2323 January 15, 1987 ►.',:'=. Mt, us, ERNEST 1. oRONENBLMG. At.
` M'd Davie,Son Mega
RICHARD NEvINS
iovmM D:crr,ct,Posoda o .
t 1 ) l:0 1. • I i � CoA,rogo"S«•o~*o
Mr. Steven E. Lewis DOU LAS D BELL
• I, f.ecvr,.•e$eCrer�r.
Orange County Auditor-Controller '
631) N. Broadway 30
Santa Ana, .CA 92701
Dear Mr. Lewis:
P.:rsaar,: tc :action 33329 et sq•q. of th.e Health and safety Code, the 1986-57
assessed 7A1%;es of state-assessed property _o:ated within the boundaries of tie
proposed H�r.t :rig ton Beach - Bead-. Boulevard Redevelopment Project are- enc=owed.
:'ne;r assessed values »i1' continue to be valid if the project boundaries remain
:>.>:e� art' the ordinance adopting and approving the edevelopment clan for this
-:s a :{e. . i prior to August 20, 196 ?.
V y tru'-v vours
Jai• E, :.),,�hert
Area Office Ad^!inistrator
VAIXATION D:V:SIGN
JE,H:mb
Enclosure
cc: ,M ;�,harles W. Thonpson,t Exec. Dir.
i
City of Huntington Beach
,':ii.,Y.:';r��::�. ..� j:, :,',�1,t:.i7s; :. .,�siti:•tiJ. .::5���,: .5w:^..
HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT
1986-1987 Assessed Values
Com2an ►y Land Improvements Persona'_
Tax-Pate Area 4001
So. Calif. Edison Co. 493,740
So. Ca'_if. ' Gas Co. 76, 750 '
Gen. Tele. Co. of Calif., 565,020
Golden West Refining CO. 81,460 10,400
Western Union Teleg. Co. 30
TOTAL 81,460 1, 145,910 30
Tax-Rate Area 4010
So. Calif. Edison Co. 290,280 1,525,430
So. Calif. Gas Co. 193, 210
Gen. Tele. Co. of Calif.. '_,62'_,400
Western Union Tel-ea. Co. _ 2,440 5,090
TOTAL 290, 280 3, 342„90 5,090
Tax-Rate _Area 4013
So. Calif. Edison Cz. 155,030
So. Calif. Gas Co. 36,380
Gen. Tele. Co. of Calif. 82, 240
Co'_den West Refir.inc Co. . 81,460 25,6=0
Western Union Te_eg. Co. 400
TOTAL 81,460 301, 320 400
Tax-Rate Area 4038
So. Calif. Edison Co. 270
I
GRAND TOTAL WITHIN PROJECT 453,200 4,789,980 5,520
I
K1tr Hol I is
Part X. R$PORT OF FISCAL R$YISW C011MQTT$B
Section 33353 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) provides
that a .county or any affected taxing entity may call for the creation of a
fiscal review committee within 15 days after receipt from a redevelopment
agency a preliminary report prepared pursuant to the requirements of
Section 33344.5 of the CRL. As defined in Section 33353.1 of the CRL, the
fiscal review committee is composed of one representative from each of the
affected taking agencies. The purpose of the committee would be to identify
the fiscal effects of the proposed Redevelopment Plan upon the affected
taxing entities, specify additional information, if any, needed to enable those
fiscal effects to be identified and analyzed,. and suggest possible provisions
in the Redevelopment Plan which would alleviate or eliminate a financial
burden or detriment.
The Preliminary Report for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project was transmitted to all Project Area affected taxing
agencieson .........................................................................................., 1987.
On March 6, 1987 the Orange County Water District and the County
of Orange each by letter advised the Agency that it had called for the
creation of a fiscal review committee for the Project.
On , 1987 copies of the proposed Redevelopment
Plan and Draft EIR were transmitted to the Orange County representative to
the fiscal review committee, the committee's initial chairperson.
A hearing of the fiscal review committee was held on May 1, 1987
and continued to May ' 15, 1987. When the committee's report has been
prepared and issued, it will be added to this Part X of the. Agency's Report
to City Council, or . submitted separately to the City Council for .addition to
this Report.
(X-1)
Katz I1oI I is
Part XI. NEIGH1.BORHOOD IMPACT REPORT
Section 33352(1) of the Community Redevelopment Law.. .(CRL)
requires- the preparation of a neighborhood impact report if a redevelopment
project contains low or moderate income housing. The purpose of the report
is to describe in detail the impact of the project upon the residents of the
project area and surrounding areas in terms of relocation, traffic
circulation, environmental quality,. availability of' community facilities and
cervices, effect -on school population and quality of education, property
assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical and social
quality of the neighborhood. The neighborhood impact report is also to
include: (a) the number of dwelling units housing persons and families of
low or moderate income expected to be destroyed or removed from the low
and moderate income housing market as part of a redevelopment project; (b)
the number of persons and families [households] of low or moderate income
expected to be displaced by the project; (c)' the general location of housing
to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed pursuant to Section 33413 of
the California CRL; (d) 'the -number of dwelling units housing- persons and
families of low an moderate income planned for construction.or rehabilitation,
other than replacement housing; (e) the projected means .of . financing the
proposed dwelling units for housing persons and families of low and
moderate income planned for, construction or . rehabilitation; and (f) a
projected timetable for •meeting the plan's relocation,, rehabilitation and
replacement housing objectives.
Because the Project Area contains dwelling units some of which
are likely to be inhabited by persons and families of low or moderate
Income, a neighborhood impact report is included herein. Due to
overlapping among the data required in the Environmental. Impact Report,
the Method or Plan for Relocation; the Physical, Social and Economic
Conditions in the Project Area and the Neighborhood Impact Report - all of
which are contained in this Report to City Council cross-referencing is
employed in order to. reflect the- most comprehensive. data source and to
avoid repetition where possible.
A. Impact on ,Residents in Project Area and Surrounding Area
............... ..... ...... .......... ....._. . .
1. Relocation, Traffic Circulation, Environmental Quality and
Community Facilities and Services
The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), referenced in
Part VIII of this Report to City Council, presents information on the
potential Project impacts upon residents of the Project Area and the
surrounding areas, in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental
quality, availability of community facilities and services, and other matters
affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. Part II .of
this Report to Council, "Description of Physical, Social and Economic
Conditions Existing in Project Area," also presents pertinent information
concerning the above-named impacts to Project residents and adjoining
neighborhoods.
(XI-1)
4
Kit/. i loi I is
These are an estimated 74 single family residential
dwelling units and 101 dwelling units in multifamily structure 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 all .may be phased
out, resulting in' displacement. Some of this displacement 'will likely 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 plan provisions of state law relating to Agency-
assisted developments. These provisions are further described in Part IV of
this Report to City Council and in Part XI.B. below.
2. S.ch. 001...Pgpul#ti9p and Quality of Education
Three school districts, .the Ocean View School District,
Huntington Beach City School District, and the Huntington Beach Union High
School District, provide elementary, junior and high school education to the
Project Area.
Two school sites are located within the Project Area.
Both of these schools, Rancho View and Crest View, are part of the Ocean
View School District. Rancho View is currently inactive. and used as
administrative offices. The District has set the site aside for a long-term
commercial lease. The Crest View School's current enrollment is 537
students in grades kindergarten through eighth. District plans for this
school include continued educational use for five to ten . years, with a
potential commercial lease option thereafter.
Elementary/middle school (K-8) student enrollment
throughout Huntington Beach has generally declined over the past 11 years
from 14,000 in 1976 to 8,500 presently. As a result, several school sites in
the City have been closed or converted to other uses. However, current
projections indicate that this trend is leveling off, thus school enrollment
may experience a slow increase.
The Huntington Beach City School District has identified
five schools that may be potentially impacted by the Project. These schools
are. Dwyer, Perry, Kettle, Smith and Sowers. The Peterson School, located
less than one-tenth of one mile. from the Project Area between Indianapolis
and Atlanta, is presently closed. The Huntington Beach City School District
has indicated that enrollment is currently at or near capacity for operating
schools.
Residential development within the Project Area and
additional employment generated by the Project may add additional school-
aged children to the area. Accord to 1980 U.S. Census Bureau data, there
were 40,193 children enrolled in school in the City and 61,322 dwelling units.
Based on this, the housing required' for the Project could generate
approximately 304. to 412 additional children of school age.
(XI-2)
Y �
Ka t< Fil l l i S
The CRL requires the Agency to use up to 20 percent of
the tax increment money to benefit low and moderate income housing. This
may result in additional housing which may have an impact on schools in the
area. However, the CRL provides that -the 20 percent may be used to
provide additional housing or to improve existing .housing, which would not
result in additional impacts on schools. Furthermore, the Agency is not
required to spend this allocation within the Project Area boundaries. The
money may also be used to' assist. in the development, or improvement of
senior citizen _housing projects,, which' historically the Agency has actively
participated in. For. example,' the Agency,.was involved in,,the development
of a 164-unit senior citizen 'housing project which it now owns. Any
additional senior citizen housing projects, benefiting from,the 20 percent tax
increment funding from the. ;Project would not .have; an impact on the school
system.
If redevelopment activities impact school enrollment,
there are a number of options available to the school districts., to address
the situation.
The Ocean View School District will provide
transportation to other schools ,in the City of Huntington Beach for those
students that may be displaced as a result of the closure of Crest View
school.'! ' This would reduce . this impact .to .a ,level of 'insignificance. The
Huntington Beach City `School District could also open the presently closed
Petersen School site which is located within one-quarter 'mile of the
proposed residential, developments_ in. the .Project .Area.. The school .districts
should continue to acquire, to the, extent available, California State Lottery
monies for additional teaching staff to reduce student-teacher ratios.
The California legislature . has . changed the rules
governing school facilities financing ,. by ,authorizing school . districts to
directly levy school impact fees, dedications, ,or other requirements for
temporary or permanent facilities construction. This legislation (Assembly
Bill 2926, 1986 Stats. Ch. 887) also allows school districts to impose ."any
other form of requirement" on developers, including the formation of a
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District.
This legislation (which became effective January 1, 1987)
does, however, place a ceiling on the cumulative amount of developers fees
which can be levied for school facilities. Residential development fees are.
capped at $1650 per square foot, and commercial and industrial fees at $.025
per square foot. These caps will be annually adjusted to reflect inflation.
These measures would further . reduce any potential impact on the school
system resulting from the Project.
3. Property Assessment and Taxes
...... ......................... ..
In general the taxable valuations of property within the
Project Area and adjoining .the Project Area should increase as development
of the Project Area occurs. New development within the Project Area will be
assessed at market value, as determined by the assessor. Within and
outside the Project Area the assessor may increase property valuations for
(XI-3)
Kautiollis
existing properties at the maximum rate of two percent per year allowed
under Proposition 13, regardless of Project-related actions. And, in cases
where property changes hands, the assessor will likely assess the property
at the newly recorded market value. Additionally, the assessor will reassess
the added value to property and improvements due to any new development
or rehabilitation which occurs.
The only other matters potentially affecting property
taxes in the Project Area and surrounding areas would be the possibility of
additional levies resulting from formation of special assessment districts.
There are no proposals for formation of special assessment districts at this
time. A parcel evaluation would be undertaken at a later date should it be
desired to create a special assessment district within the Project Area. If
any such district were created, it would likely be in connection with
parking facilities developed within the Project Area. Special assessment
districts for various legally permitted purposes may be established by the
City in the manner provided by the law where feasible irrespective of
whether a redevelopment project is proposed or has been adopted.
B. Relocation and Low and Moderate Income Housing
......................................................................................................................................
1. ,Housing Unita to.._be Destroyed or Removed
Implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is
expected to include Agency acquisition of property within the Project Area
for the reasons discussed in Part IV.A above. Over the 35-year life of the
Project the Agency could potentially acquire up to 107 acres of property
and all 175 dwelling units within the Project Area. Since the Agency
expects the private sector to accomplish most Project Area development and
redevelopment without Agency participation (in response to the Agency's
public improvements and other implementation activities), the likelihood of
the Agency actually displacing the 175 dwelling units is not considered high.
The Agency has not surveyed existing . owners and
tenants living within Project Area dwelling units. Consequently, current
information on family income levels is not. available. An analysis of 1980
Census data for the City of Huntington Beach suggests that approximately
one-third of the City's households are of low or moderate income. Applying
this proportion to the Project Area, it is estimated that there are no more
than 58 housing units inhabited by low or moderate income families that
could be destroyed or removed from the housing market over the life of the
Project. Whenever dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low
or moderate income . are removed from the housing market as part of the
Project, the Agency would be required to construct, develop or rehabilitate,
or cause the construction, development or rehabilitation of, low and moderate
income dwelling units equal in number to those destroyed or removed. This
must occur within four years of such destruction or removal. Further,
twenty ,percent of the .Project tax increment revenues received by the
Agency must go to the provision of low and moderate income housing unless
certain findings ar made by the City Council in accordance with the CRL.
These low and moderate income "set-aside" revenues may be used by the
Agency to provide replacement housing.
(XI-4)
Katz Hol I is
2. Pro jerted .Residential Displacement
AN noted above, up to 175 dwelling units could bo
dimilnceid over Um 35-year li1'o of t.ho I'rojoet- altho»g.h..:displacomr.nt, duce to
direae.l. Agency action is: likely ito be considerably less. i
If and- when actual: displacement were 'contemplated, the
Agency would conduct individual household surveys in .order, to.-determine
the number, type. and:location of comparable replacement k,housing. units and
the required number .-of referrals thereto°' prior to displacement .of any
persons of. low or moderate: income. ..See Part :IV ;.of,. this..t.Reportk•to City
Council for; an overview of the, steps :in the. relocation process that must be
undertaken by the Agency prior to displacing any person(s) or family(ies).
3. Number and Location of Replacement Housing
.The .-specific. -number .and. type.°:of. replacement: housing
units required .pursuant to CRL Section 13413,..if,any, are not known.at this
time since the Agency has not determined specific acquisition sites. As
noted above, up to 55 replacement housing units could be required over the
life of the Project although .the actual number .is =anticipated : to i.be much
less. ..
The City . Council •and the Agency• will :make findings.
neceseary _to .provide such housing either inside or outside the -Project.=Area.
When the . Agency acquires= property;, .enters into iz.a f •`disposition and
development agreement, participation agreement or :other agreement, or
undertakes. any other: activities requiring- or causing the destruction or
removal of housing units from the low and moderate income housing market,
the Agency will provide .replacement housing required pursuant -to!:Section
33413 of the ,CRL. ..
4. Number and Location . of , Low and Moderate Income
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................._.........................._......................
Housing ......................r than Replacement Housing
The specific number and type as well as the location of
low and moderate income housing. units planned for construction or
rehabilitation other than replacement . housing units is not known at this
time. The Agency presently has no plans to develop such .units itself. The
Project Area will likely contain new residential uses after full implementation
of the proposed Redevelopment .Plan as currently envisioned, and at least 15
percent of all such units. in the aggregate must be . available at affordable
housing costs (i.e., 30 percent of a household's monthly income) to persons
and families of low or moderate income.
5. Financing.Method, for., Replacement Housing Requirements
. .__....
The Agency will employ as necessary any of the methods
outlined in Part III of this Report to City Council to meet replacement
housing requirements and other obligations under the Redevelopment. Plan
and Community Redevelopment Law. . Not less than 20 percent of all taxes
(XI-5)
Katz H®l l is
which may be allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of Article 4
of the CRf. shall be use yd ` b ' the Agency for purposes of increasing and
improving the supply of low and moderate income housing available at
affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income
and very low income households, unless certain findings prescribed in the
law, are made.
6. Timetable for Provision of Relocation and Housing
............................................ ................... _._.........................................................................................................._.........................................._...................._....
Objectives .
If replacement housing is to be provided pursuant. to
Section 33413 of the CRL, the Agency shall take necessary steps to cause
the construction, rehabilitation or development of such housing in
accordance with the time limits prescribed by law.
The relocation plan(s) prepared by the Agency for a
particular development activity shall contain schedules to insure comparable
replacement housing is available in accordance with the requirements of the
CRL and the State Relocation Guidelines.
C. Other Matters Affecting the Physical and Social Quality of the
................. . ..........._.._........................ ......... _........................_..........._ . ......_
Environment
.................................................
The Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Project will have a
beneficial impact upon residents, property owners, and businesses in the
area. Implementation of the Project will bring about coordinated growth and
development, making the Project Area a more attractive and livable
community. The Redevelopment Plan will help the City to reverse decline
without the need for more extensive and expensive measures in the future.
Through rehabilitation and new construction of low and .
moderate income housing, including housing for senior citizens, the
redevelopment process will increase the availability of quality housing in the
Project Area and City for a cross section of income groups. In addition, the
commercial, and residential development .projects that will be brought about
as a result of redevelopment action will stimulate the job-producing
economy. Thus, unemployment conditions in the Project Area may be
improved, which in turn will improve the loci-economic situation of the
residents.
Land use classifications within the Redevelopment Plan are
intended to conserve neighborhoods by limiting commercial development into
residential areas. The land use provisions contained in the Plan are
intended to upgrade the environment in the Project Area and discourage
additionally-commercial traffic in residential neighborhoods.
a
(XI-6)
Katz.Hollis
PART,XII. ANALYSIS OF .REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER; SUMMARY OF
............_.........................__......_.......__........._........................._....
......._..................
CONSULTATIONS WITH,AFFSCTSD. TAXING AGENCIESR AND ANALYSIS
OF AND RESPONSE•:TO REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
.................................. .. ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................._......__...............................
A- , Introduction
Pursuant to Section 33352(m) of the CRL, a report to city
council must include an analysis of the,,county ,,fiscal officer's report 'as well
as a summary of the ,consultations -of the agency,•. or. such . attempts to
consult, twith. each of the ,affected ,taxing agencies.; Section. 33352((m�) also
requires a., .report to,. city council.,,to include. the,.redevelopment':agency's
analysis .of, the report of.:the.;fiscal-review. committee;, if -any,:.+which shall
include the agency's response..to such; report, .any additional:,information the
agency may desire to provide, and any measures •to mitigate detrimental
fiscal impact, the agency. .may .desire .to. .propose., i This,: Part XII, of the
Agency's Report to the City Council addresses the .,requirements of Section
33352(m).
B. Analysis of Report to County Fiscal Officer
Anal.y.94-s of.....R.e.p9r.t...t9 ........................... ...............................
1. Report Requireme ....
....
Section 33328 of the CRL requires the county fiscal
officer (i.e., Auditor-Controller) responsible-, for.. the allocation -of property
taxes to prepare and.. deliver- a specific :report- to ,the Redevelopment-Agency
and each....affected . taxing .agency. ., (Affected taxing. agencies are ••those
governmental:-. entities which :levied .a property -tax on. all or. any, portion of
Project Area Property "...in • the . fiscal :year.- prior , to submission of the
[redevelopment] plan to. the. [fiscal review] committee"). The following, items
are required to be included in the Auditor-Controller's report:
a. _ -The-total assessed. valuation of all. taxable property
within the Project Area as shown on the base year assessment roll.
b. The identification , of ;each taxing , agency levying
taxes in the Project Area.
C. The amount of .tax revenue: to -be derived by each
taxing agency from the base year _ assessment .roll from the Project
Area, including state subventions for homeowners, business inventory,
and similar subventions.
d. For ,each taxing agency,. its total ad valorem tax
revenues from all property within its boundaries, whether inside or
outside the Project Area.
e. The estimated first year :taxes availably,- to the
Redevelopment Agency, if any, based upon information submitted by the
Redevelopment Agency, broken down by taxing agencies.
1193.hnt.7.1.2
051987.tmc
(XII-1)
Katz Fiol l iS
f. The assessed valuation of the Project Area for the
preceding year, or, if requested by the Redevelopment Agency, for the
preceding five years, except for state assessed property on the board
roll.
2. Analysis of Data Reported by. County...Fiscal Officer
..._. ......... _._.._._._._.. ............ .......
The report of the Orange County Auditor-Controller was
transmitted to the Agency on December 23, 1986. The report, although not
addressing the fiscal effect of the Project upon affected taxing agencies, is
nevertheless referred to by the Auditor-Controller as the "Fiscal Impact
Report." The report does not include taxable value information on state-
assessed property since the State Board of Equalization (SBE) report on
such values had not been issued at the date of the Auditor-Controller's
report. The Agency subsequently received a copy directly from the SBE.
Copies of both the Auditor-Controller's report and the SBE report are
included in Part IX of this Report to City Council.
a. Total Assessed Valuation of All Taxable Property
._........................................................................................................._........_................................._..._............._.........................
Within Project Area as Shown on Base Year Assess-
... ... ...... .................. .. ..... ..... .. ......._... ...............
ment Roll.
_............_...............
The 1986-87 base year value reported by the
Auditor-Controller for the Project Area is $242,005,148, which includes
$203,394,149 in local secured value and $38,610,959 in local unsecured value.
The Auditor-Controller's reported values are aggregated figures, and do not
distinguish between land, improvements, or personal property values. While
such categorical distinctions are not required by law, such information is
useful in projecting future values due to different assessment parameters
applicable to real property and other property.
The SBE reports an additional $5,248,700 in state-
assessed value for the Project Area, giving a combined total taxable value of
$247,253,848 for the Project.
b. Identification of Each Taxing Agency Levying Taxes
_.........._........................................_. . . ..........
in Project Area.
The Auditor-Controller's report identifies the
following Project Area taxing agencies:
City of Huntington Beach
Coast Community College District
Huntington Beach Elementary .District
Huntington Beach Union High School District
Metropolitan Water District
Midway City Sanitary District
Ocean View Elementary School District
Orange County
Orange County Cemetary District
Orange County Department of Education
Orange County Flood Control District
(XII-2)
Katzliollis
Orange County Harbors, Beaches &. Parks Dist.
Orange County Sanitation District #3
Orange County Sanitation District *11.
Orange County Transit District ;
Orange County Vector Control District
Orange County Water District
As noted above, taxing agencies are defined to
include governmental entities who levied a .property tax on all or any
portion of Project Area property in the prior-fiscal . year. - Neither the
Orange County Cemetary District or the Midway City. Sanitary District levied
a property tax in the Project Area in 1985-86. Nor is . either,,.district, .
according to, Table III ,of the Auditor-Controller's report, expected to levy a
property tax during the 19861-87 base year. Accordingly, these two districts
appear to have been erroneously identified as -affected taxing• agencies for
the Project. All other .taxing agencies listed .in the report levied.-a tax
either as a 'portion of the .basic .$1 per $100, tax _ rate, or• to• applyt tto debt
service on voter .approved .debt. (.":tax-override"), or both.
c.. . Amount of Tax:. Revenue to be Derived by Each
..........I................ ..... . . ....... ....... .... . . ........
Taxing .Agency from the Base Year Assessment Roll
....... .......................................... . .
from the Project Area, Including State Subventions
......... ..
Por Homeowners, Business ;Inventory, and!. Similar
'Subventions. t.
Table III of the Auditor-Controller's report .
presents, 'by taxing agency, the amount .of . property tax revenue., each
agency .will derive from the 1986-87 base year, roll, both from the: basic $1
tax rate and, where applicable, from tax overrides. A combined total of
$2,420#051 in property taxes will be generated by the. basic $1 tax rate, and
another $327,750 .in combined taxes will be .derived from override tax;rates.
d. Total Ad Valorem Tax .Revenue for Each - Taxing
.
........................................._..............................................................................._.............._................._..................._........................_..8'
A,geney.....from All Property _Within :.It's : Boundaries,
Whether Inside or Outside Project Area.
.. ............ ..... ......... ......... ......... ..... .. ..........
The Auditor-Controller's report .,does .not include
the total ad valorem tax revenues for each taxing agency from within its
boundaries, whether inside or outside the Project Area. The report asserts
that "the revenue data necessary to complete this section of. the ...[report]
does not currently exist because of the impact of Assembly Bill .8," and "an
inordinate manual effort and expense would be required...to . gather any
reliable substitute data." As a substitute, the report provides a
supplemental table of comparative assessed values for each taxing agency,
"... to give a relative indication of base g year revenue percentage given up
to the CRA."
The supplemental table provided by the Auditor-
Controller shows that five taxing agencies, including the City of Huntington
Beach, have more than three percent of their total assessed value within the
Project Area; one agency has just over two percent of its assessed value in
(XII-3)
Katzliollis
the Project Area; one has approximately 1.4 percent; and the remainder all
have less than one percent.
ef Estimated.,................First Year Taxes Available to
........................................ .................................................................................................................................Available
Redevelopment nqyj A!pken Down by... .,Taxin
.............................................. by ................
The Auditor-Controller estimates, on the basis of an
assumed eight percent growth from base year revenues, that the first year
revenues available to the Agency will total $219,824. This amount is not
broken down by taxing agencies. This figure is somewhat higher than the
$208,000 projected in Table 111-5 in Part III of this Report to City Council.
f. Assessed Val—u.a..t.i.o.n. . of P. rqjqq�... 4re.a......f....or............Prec....e.din
.X............................... .....
rp r Preceding Five Years, Except for State
Preceding.................................. ... .............Except.....................................State
.............
'kasessed Property Roll..............................................��p r�y..... n B rd 9...............9a.................
......... ........
The Auditor-Controller's report does not include
assessed valuation data for the preceding year or. the preceding five years
for the Project Area. "Inordinate manual effort and expense" is again cited
as the reason for omission of this data. In lieu of the required data, the
report substitutes a five year history of total secured and unsecured values
for the City of Huntington Beach as a whole.
The substituted data has little bearing on an
analysis of Project Area valuation and taxation data, unless a comparison
could be made between City-wide valuation growth and Project Area
valuation growth. ' Such comparison cannot be made because the necessary
data has been omitted from the Auditor-Controller's report.
C. Summary of Consultations with Affected Agencies
,Consultations.........................................................................I..................................... ...................... Agencies
.......................
Section 33328 of the CRL requires the Agency, prior to the
publication of notice of joint Agency/Council public hearing on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan, to consult with each affected taxing agency with
respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan and the allocation of tax
increment revenues. When the Agency has completed such consultations, a
summary will be prepared and added to this Report to City Council or
submitted separately to the City Council for addition to this Report.
D. Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal. Review
........ ........................................................................Response.......................................................Report ...............................................
Committee
.............1..............................
As noted in Part X of this Report to City Council, a fiscal
review committee has been called for in connection with the Project. When
the report of the fiscal review committee has been issued, it will be added
to Part X of this Report or submitted separately to the City Council for
addition to this Report. In addition, as required by Section 33352(m) of the
CRL, the Agency will analyze and respond to the fiscal review committee's
report, and ouch analysis and rempormo will be added to this Report or
submitted separately to the City Council for addition to this Report.
(XI1-4)
Katlfiollis
DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7550
This Report to City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project is prepared
pursuant to an Agreement for Consulting Services = :between the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ,and � Katz, Hollis,
Coren & Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1985,, and amended" April ,6,; 1987,
which Agreement provides for services, involving preparation-of -certain
reports and- documents ,+(including a , Project•-EIR) and the coordination. of
fiscal review analyses and related activities. Total compensation'• under the
Agreement is not to exceed Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000), including
out-of-pocket expenses. E
Katz Hollis
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
G" I�-E CI= TE E CITY CLERK
2000 NIIAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH,;CAL& -22W
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
on the
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
for the
HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Prepared by
Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc.
for the
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May, 1987
051987.tmc T
1193.hnt/7
Katz Hol l is
TABLE OF CONTENTS
....................................................................................................
PART Page
INTRODUCTION 1
I. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA; DESCRIPTION OF
SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY AGENCY; DESCRIPTION OF HOW
PROPOSED PROJECTS WILL IMPROVE OR ALLEVIATE BLIGHT
CONDITIONS; AND EXPLANATION OF WHY PROPOSED PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE ACTING ALONE ............................................................ I-1
A. Reasons for Selection of Project Area ................................... I-1
B. Description of Specific Projects Proposed by Agency in
Project Area .......................................................................... I-3
C. Description of How Projects Proposed by Agency Will
Improve on Alleviate Blight Conditions .................................. I-3
D. Explanation of Why Proposed Public Improvements Cannot
be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone............... I-4
II. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
EXISTINGIN PROJECT AREA ...........................................................II-1
A. Existing Physical Conditions .............................................r....II-1
1. Project Location .............................................................II-1
2. Land Uses and Businesses ............................................II-2
3. Predominantly Urbanized Area ......................................II-2
4. Properties Included for Planning Purposes .................II-2
5. Buildings and Structures ..............................................II-3
a. Deterioration and Dilapidation ...............................II-3
b. Defective Design and Character of Physical
Construction ..........................................................II-3
C. Age and Obsolescence ...........................................II-4
d. Mixed Character of Buildings ................................II-4
6. Properties ......................................................................II-5
a. Lots (Parcels) That Are of Irregular Form,
Shape and Size ......................................................II-5
b. Inadequate Public Improvements, Facilities and
Utilities ..................................................................II-5
i
Katz Hol I is
PART Page
........................
1. Deficiencies in Transportation Circulation
System ...........................................................II-6
2. Deficiencies in Infrastructure Utilities.......... II-10
B. Existing Social Conditions .................................................... II-10
C. Existing Economic Conditions ............................................... II-10
1. Economic Setting ..........................................................II-10
2. Economic Maladjustment ............................................... II-11
3. Impaired Investments and Depreciated Values ...........II-11
4. Existence of Inadequate Public Improvements, Public
Facilities, Open Space and Utilities ............................ II-11
III. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT
AREA..................................................................................................III-1
A. General Financing Methods Available to Agency ..................III-1
B. Proposed Redevelopment Activities and Estimated Costs .....III-1
C. Estimated Project Revenues ..................................................III-2
1. Tax Increment Revenues ...............................................III-2
2. Loans, Grants and Contributions from City, State
and Federal Government and Project Developers...........III-3
3. Land Sale Proceeds ......................................................III-3
4. Special Assessment Districts ........................................III-3
5. Development Fees ..........................................................III-4
D. Proposed Financing Method and Economic Feasibility of
Project .................................................................................III-4
E. Reasons for Including Tax Increment Financing in
Proposed Redevelopment Plan ...............................................III-4
F. Tax Increment Use Limitations and Requirements ...............III-5
IV. PLAN AND METHOD OF RELOCATION .............................................. IV-1
A. Agency Displacement ............................................................. IV-1
B. Relocation in the Event of Agency Displacement ................. IV-1
C. Rules and Regulations ...........................................................IV-2
D. Agency Determinations and Assurances ............................... IV-2
E. Replacement Housing Plan ..................................................... IV-4
ii
Katz Hol l is
PART Pale
F. Relocation Assistance Advisory Program and Assurance of
Comparable Replacement Housing .......................................... IV-4
1. Administrative Organization .......................................... IV-5
a. Responsible Entity ................................................IV-5
b. Functions .............................................................. IV-5
2. Information Program .....................................................IV-7
3. Relocation Records ........................................................ IV-7
4. Relocations Resources Survey ...................................... IV-7
5. Relocation Payments ...................................................... IV-7
6. Temporary Moves .......................................................... IV-8
7. Last Resort Housing ................................................... IV-8
8. Grievance Procedures ................................................... IV-8
9. Relocation Appeals Board ............................................... IV-8
V. ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN ...................................................V-1
VI. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION ....... VI-1
VII. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE RECORD ..............................0..............VII-1
A. Formation of PAC .................................................................VII-1
B. Information and Documents Presented to PAC by Agency.....VII-1
C. PAC Recommendation on Proposed Plan ...............................VII-2
Attachments 1-3 ...............................................................................
VIII. REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 21151 OF PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE (PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) .......................VIII-1
IX. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER ........................................... IX-1
X. REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE............................................X-1
XI. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT ....................................................... XI-1
A. Impact on Residents in Project Area and Surround-
ing Area.................................................................................... XI-1
1. Relocation, Traffic Circulation, Environmental
Quality and Community Facilities and Services .............. XI-1
2. School Population and Quality of Education ...................XI-2
3. Property Assessment and Taxes...................................... XI-3
B. Relocation and Low and Moderate Income Housing ................. XI-4
1. Housing Units to be Destroyed or Removed ................... XI-.4
2. Projected Residential Displacement.................................. XI-5
3. Number and Location of Replacement Housing................ XI-5
iii
Katz Hof l is
PART Page
4. Number and Location of Low and Moderate Income
Housing Planned Other than Replacement Housing.........XI-5
5. Financing Method for Replacement Housing
Requirements.................................................................... XI-5
6. Timetable for Provision of Relocation and Housing
Objectives.........................................................................XI-6
C. Other Matters Affecting the Physical and Social Quality of
the Environment............................................................4.4........ XI-6
XII. ANALYSIS OF REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER; SUMMARY OF
CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES; AND
ANALYSIS OF AND RESPONSE TO REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE .....................................................................................XII-1
A. Introduction .......................................................................XII-1
B. Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer .......................XII-1
1. Report Requirements ....................................................XII-1
2. Analysis of Data Reported by County Fiscal Officer.....XII-2
a. Total Assessed Valuation of All Taxable Property
Within Project Area as Shown on Base Year
Assessment Roll ...................................................XII-2
b. Identification of Each Taxing Agency Levying
Taxes in Project Area .........................................XII-2
C. Amount of Tax Revenue to be Derived by Each
Taxing Agency From Base Year Assessment Roll
From Project Area ...............................................XII-3
d. Total Ad Valorem Tax Revenues for Each Taxing
Agency, From All Property Within its Boundaries,
Whether Inside or Outside Project Area ............XII-3
e. Estimated First Year Taxes Available to
Redevelopment Agency,. Broken Down by Taxing
Agencies ...............................................................XII-4
f. Assessed Valuation of Project Area for Preceding
Year, or, for Preceding Five Years, Except for
State Assessed Property on Board Roll.................XII-4
C. Summary of Consultations With Affected Taxing Agencies.....XII-4
D. Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review
Committee.................................................................................XII-4
iv
Katz Hollis
MAPS
Following
No. ..........Page...............
I-1 Super Street Demonstration Project:
Beach Boulevard Corridor Study Area ........................... I-1
I-2 Project Boundary ................................................................. I-1
TABLES
II-1 Existing Land Use Summary .............................................II-2
11-2 Number of Structures .......................................................II-2
II-3 Types of Business .............................................................II-2
11-4 Building and Site Conditions ............................................II-3
II-5 Structural Conditions Rating Definitions ..........................II-3
II-6 Site Conditions Rating Definitions ....................................II-3
II-7 Beach Boulevard Existing Right of Way (ROW) Widths ......II-6
II-8 Intersection Level of Service ...........................................I1-6
II-9 Average Daily Traffic ........................................................II-7
II-10 Levels of Service for Urban Arterial Streets ..................II-7
II-11 Accident Statistics, 1982-84 ..............................................II-7
1I-12 Beach Boulevard Deficiencies Identified by
"Super Streets" Program .......................................
......II-8
II-13 Huntington Beach Auto Sales, 1985 ................................II-10
II-14 Summary of Travel Benefits in 2005 with "Super
Streets" Maximum Improvements Program ....................... II-12
II-15 Potential Additional Sales Volumes Resulting from
Beach Boulevard Improvements .................................-11-12
III-1 Estimated Public Improvements and Facilities Costs ......III-1
111-2 Estimated Project Costs ....................................................III-2
III-3 Net Project Costs .............................................
................III-2
I11-4 Projected New Development .............................................III-2
v
Katz Hol l is
Following
No. ........_Page..._.._._..
III-5 Projection of Incremental Tax Revenue ...........................III-3
III-6 City Five-Year Capital Improvement Program History ....III-5
PHOTOGRAPHS
................................................................
Plates 1 - 26 .................................................................................... II-.12
vi
KatzHollis
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
This Report to the City Council ("Report") on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Huntington Beach-Beach
Boulevard Redevelopment Project ("Project") has been prepared for the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") pursuant . to Section
33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety
Code, Section 33000 et seq.).
The purpose of this Report is to provide the information,
documentation, and evidence required by Section 33352 of the Community
Redevelopment Law ("CRL") to accompany the proposed Redevelopment Plan
when it is submitted by the Agency to the City Council. Such information,
documentation and evidence in provided to assist the Council in its
consideration of the proposed Plan and in making the various determinations
it must make in connection with the adoption of the proposed Plan.
This Report .is divided into 12 parts which generally correspond to the
subdivisions contained within CRL Section 33352, with each part having a
separate function as described in the summary listing which follows this
paragraph. Certain parts of the Report, as noted in the summary, have
been prepared by entities other than the Agency. Section 33352, however,
requires the Agency to aggregate and submit such documents as a part of
this Report.
Part No.
and CRL Responsible
Section No. Title __........
ntity _
Part I Reasons for Selection of Project Area; Agency
[33352(a)] Description of Specific Projects
Proposed by Agency; Description of
How Proposed Projects .Will Improve or
Alleviate Blight Conditions; and
Explanation of Why Proposed Public
Improvements Cannot be Accomplished
by Private Enterprise Acting Alone
Part II Description of Physical, Social and Agency
[33352(b)] Economic Conditions Existing in Project
Area
Part III Proposed Method of Financing Redevel- Agency
[33352(c)] opment of Project Area
Katz Hol l is
Part No.
and CRI, Responsible
Section No. Title Entity
.......................................... ..................................................................._............... ................................................._..__._...__.........__.... ................................._.................
Part IV Plan and Method of Relocation Agency
[33352(d)]
.Part V Analysis of Preliminary Plan Agency
[33352(e)]
Part VI Report and Recommendations of Plann- Planning
(33352(f)] ing Commission, and Report Required Commission
[33352(h)] by Section 65402 of Government Code
Part VII Project Area Committee Record Agency
[33352(g)]
Part VIII Project Required by Section 21151 of Agency
[33352(i)] Public Resources Code (Project
Environmental Impact Report)
Part IX Report of County Fiscal Officer Orange
[33352(j)] County
Auditor-
Controller
Part X Report of Fiscal Review Committee Fiscal
[33352(k)] Review
Committee
Part XI Neighborhood Impact Report Agency
[333.52(1)]
Part XII Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Agency
[33352(m)] Officer; Summary of Consultations with
Affected Taxing Agencies; and Analysis
of and Response to Report of Fiscal
Review Committee
This Report contains all information and documents required by the
above CRL sections that could be completed (if an Agency responsibility) or
had been received (if another entity's responsibility) as of May 15, 1987. A
supplemental report to this Report will be issued as soon as necessary data
or documents are available in order to complete the following Parts: Part VI
(Report and Recommendations of Planning Commission, and Report Required
by Section 65402 of Government Code), Part X (Report of Fiscal Review
Committee), and Sections C (Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing
Agencies) and D (Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review
Committee) of Part XII.
Page 2
Katz Hol f 1S
Part I. REASONS FOR SELECTION . OF PROJECT AREA; DESCRIPTION OF
_ ..._................_...............__.._............................._.............._............._........._._.._.._._..................................__.._....._.._.._.._......_..._...._........_.._.................._..................................... .._...
_SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY AGENCY, DESCRIP T ION OF HOW
PROPOSED PROJECTS WILL IMPROVE OR ALLEVIATE BLIGHT
.............................................::.........._......._.._..................................___......_..........._............_.._......................__.__..__._..............__....._.______............._.__........................................_.._.
CONDITIONS, AND EXPLANATION OF WHY PROPOSED PUBLIC
..._. . ___._..._.........................................__..__............-................................_...
__ ........._......__.._._.__...
IMPROVEMENTS . _. . . . _._.. _._.___..............._..._..___.__......__._....._.._......_...:..__.._.........._.............._......
.._........._._._.._._._.._.....___
ENTERPRISE ACTING ALONGE
......................................._..._._...............................__._:_...........................................
A. Reasons for Selection of Project Area
.........................................................................._...........................................................
Beach Boulevard within the City of Huntington Beach has been the
subject of concern for. some time. Since the late 1970s, the Orange County
Transportation Commission has monitored and analyzed traffic conditions,
highway and transit . facility requirements and future problems that would
result if current conditions are not ameliorated. An "Orange County
Multimodel Transportation Study" completed in 1979 recommended a
"corridor" level analysis, following which the "Beach Boulevard Corridor
Study" was undertaken and completed in 1984. Alternative programs of
improvements were identified and recommendations for a proposed' program
of projects were developed for a "Super Streets Demonstration Project,
Beach Boulevard Corridor," adopted by the Orange County Transportation
Commission earlier this year. The "Super Streets" Study Area, extending
from La Habra to the Pacific Ocean, is shown on Map I-1. In addition to the
area'e transportation problems, residents, businesses and City officials have
become increasingly concerned with the Project Area's mixed (and
incompatible) land uses, inadequate parking and access, dilapidated
buildings, lack. of sidewalks, vacant and underutilized properties and
evidence of impaired investments. The extent and nature of those problems
are more fully described in Part II of this Preliminary Report.
The City has also been concerned that the proposed Project Area
lacks a uniform design theme consistent with the standards prevalent
throughout the balance of the City, being impacted by non-conforming and
inappropriate signage in particular. A redevelopment project designation
will enable the City to exert a higher degree of control or influence on the
planning and architectural quality of all development - _existing and new.
Because of the Project Area's constraints to parcel consolidation and new
development which has not been and cannot be overcome by the private
sector acting alone, the City needs to undertake a more active role in
encouraging controlled growth and development at certain intersections and
in other areas that are undeveloped or underutilized.
The Project Area lies generally one lot deep on either side and
includes the public rights-of-way of Beach Boulevard, from Edinger Avenue
on the north to Atlanta Avenue on the south, as shown on Map I-2.
On October 21, 1986, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission
adopted. Resolution No. 1365 that selected the Project Area, established the
boundaries and adopted the Preliminary Plan.
The selection of the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelop-
ment Project was in response to the problems of the area and the need for
public participation and assistance to solve those problems. In general, the
(I-1)
u eeum
whhrr• O<.�<COW
•r..�r.
1.M •.r.r. �
g La Habra
3.h• LaMtrado
t
f�///talfOftr
1O.•..10• r .
YH.Y•wY.M - • -
.
S ?1
Rr••v<v lA-91
tS� 1 MmM rOlia AnabWin ••�•
5
u fdl•IF �
•Y V -
COIMIP ma .
< � V<alJaMa
y— - <
a �
i .
. f
22
aw
._.y Rr••.r<Y
mter
Mwrr..r �•h • rfi.a•-1 / .
. i
SUIPER STREETS `-
DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT )11,,~on Beach
Beach Blvd Corridor
STUDY AREA
MAP I-1 ''• f�
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
Katz I f of 11's BEACH BOULEVARD MAP 1-1
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
m
- -in Edinger Avenue
I!1
;MNIM
14
__�.__ i-amna• Heil Avenue
r l �M:.
yl iii1111T i!i 11j1 i �F
�PLi !f ;�It±1�Llllltia�.
CF-E �'\
�' W •`
� Warner Avenue
�tl..,
,ter Slater Avenue
_-
1
apt€
i4.
7� i �7-1
I — t Talbert Avenue
t `r;
hl North
0 2000
`p
scale In feet
Ellis Ave
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half
Katz Hol f 1s H EACH BOULEVARD MAP I-2A
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Ellis Avenue
L-I _I._X- 1 I_I _ — Garfield Avenue
. III
s =r~ ------- Yorktown Avenue
f T I _
a
— a
' Adams Avenue
-i--'t I' •) li fit- f- I
CF-R 1 1~ - ,
" mom;
m
if
mI = _ 1
Indianapolis Avenue
0 0EE�m
0
Bo � m t ZEE
i
�. Atlanta Avenue
North 'Ole
ton Avenue
scale in feet OC
Hamil
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
Katz Hol l ps BEACH BOULEVARD MAP 1-2B
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
KatzHolliS
goals and objectives of a redevelopment program in the Project Area are as
follows:
1. The elimination and prevention of blight and blighting
influences and deterioration and the 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 the Redevelopment
Plan.
4. The enhancement of a major, region-serving thoroughfare to
provide a quality design identity and smooth, safe circulation.
5. The replanning, redesign and development of
undeveloped/vacant, underutilized and underdeveloped 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 redevelopment.
7. 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. The encouragement of cooperation and participation by
residents, business owners, public agencies and community organizations in
the development and redevelopment of the area.
(I-2)
Katz 1fol 1 is
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 overhead
utility lines.
16. The provision of adequate off-street parking to serve
current and future uses within the Project Area.
Redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the above goals
and objectives will attain the purposes of the California Community
Redevelopment Law: (1) by the elimination of areas suffering from economic
dislocation and disuse; (2) by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment
of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be
accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without public participation
and assistance; (3) by protecting and promoting sound development and
redevelopment of blighted areas and the general welfare of the citizens of
the City by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of
appropriate means; and (4) 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.
B. Description of Specific Projects Proposed by _Agency in _Project
Area
As will be described more fully in the following section of this
Report, the Agency proposes to acquire some properties within the Project
Area, relocate some existing occupants, demolish some existing buildings and
improvements, and . to provide certain street and other improvements needed
to serve the area. These improvements include: "Super Street" traffic
circulation projects; the upgrading and provisions of stormdrains and
sanitary sewers; the upgrading and provision of waterline-improvements; the
provision for the underground of overhead -utility lines; the provision of
recreation and park improvements and historic preservation of Bartlett Park;
and the provision of necessary and supporting landscaping and Streescope
Projects. Details of the proposed program of activities, estimated Agency
costs, and proposed financing methods are set forth in Part III of this
Report.
C. Descriptions of How Projects Proposed by Agency Will Improve_or
.... .. ............__......................_.
Alleviate Blight Conditions
Existing physical, social and economic conditions within the Project
Area are described in Part II of this Report. It is shown that the area
suffers from a multitude of problems of such nature and degree that it may
be found to be a blighted area under the criteria established in the
California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). As required by the CRL,
and as demonstrated in Part II, the problems affecting the Project Area are
of such nature and degree that they cannot reasonably be expected to be
(I-3)
s, e
Kati ti®I I iS
reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone without public
participation and assistance.
The Agency proposes a program of redevelopment activities that
will systematically address the conditions of blight within the Project Area.
Selective property acquisition, demolition, and relocation as necessary would
serve to remove the conditions of buildings suffering from deterioration and
dilapidation, age and obsolescence and defective design and character of
physical construction. In addition, many of these properties contain
dilapidated residences within commercial areas, so that removal would
eliminate the blight characteristic of mixed character of buildings. The lots
that are of irregular form, shape and size can be acquired by the Agency
for assembly into parcels suitable for development. The Agency's program
of public improvements and facilities is intended to comprehensively. address
the .inadequacies of the public improvements, ,which are not only a physical
blight problem, but contribute to economic maladjustment, depreciated values
and impaired investments. The public improvements and facilities listed in
Table III-I in Part III. will correct deficiencies in traffic circulation, storm
drainage, sanitary sewers, waterlines, utilities above ground and poor
landscaping, signage and street furniture. Alleviation of these specific
blighting influences in the Project Area should work to create an investment
environment in which private developers and property owners have the
incentive and the means to redevelop their properties. The Agency's
program of activities should alleviate the current inhibitions to development
in the Project Area.
D. Explanation of Why Proposed Public. Improvements Cannot .be
........... _............................................
Accomplished by Private,.Enterprise _Actinic Alone
The public improvements that the Agency .proposes to undertake
through redevelopment (described in Parts II and III of this Report) are
intended primarily to eliminate impediments to private development of vacant
or underutilized parcels in the Project Area. Many of the improvements are
regional in nature; all serve the entire Project Area rather than specific
development sites, and thus would not be appropriate for a private
developer of a single property to undertake. Moreover, these deficiencies
have been blighting influences that have discouraged private investment for
taking place to date, and are improvements typically provided by most
municipal jurisdictions. If the City were to require private developers to
assume these additional costs, it could further dissuade private investment
in the Project Area, since there are competitive development sites available
without such extra costs.
(I-4)
Katz 11ol I is
PART 11. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
�§f� N ti;A6j. . A...............................................................................................................................................................................-
E%I
CT
..........................I................................................................................................
Information presented in this Part II of the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Agency's Report to City Council on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Project was compiled from various sources, including:
1. A field survey of the Project Area conducted by Katz Hollis staff
in July, August and October, 1986.
2. Interviews with Agency and City staff and officials.
3. A review and analysis of various reports, documents, plans and
other background data provided by staff, including but not
limited to, the following:
- "The General Plan" of Huntington Beach.
- "Super Streets Demonstration Project, Beach Boulevard
Corridor: Final Report," prepared for the Orange County
Transportation Commission by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade
and Douglas, Inc., March, 1986.
- "Super Streets Demonstration Project, Beach Boulevard
Corridor: Program Environmental Impact Report," Orange
County Transportation Commission, 1986.
- "Beach Boulevard Corridor Study," prepared for the Orange
County Transportation Commission by Berryman and
Stephenson, Inc., July, 1984.
The above documents are incorporated by reference into this report..
Copies of such documents may be reviewed at City offices.
Where appropriate, sources of data are cited through this Report to
City Council.
A. Existing Physical Conditions
.............................................................................................................................
1. Project Location
...............Project ...........................
As described in Part I of this Report, and as shown on Map
1-2 therein, the Project runs generally one lot (tax assessor's parcel) deep
on both sides and includes the public rights-of-way of Beach Boulevard,
from Edinger Avenue on the north to Atlanta Avenue on the south. In
several places, parcels to the east or west of the Beach Boulevard right-of-
way are excluded, because their inclusion is not necessary to meet Project
goals and objectives or because such parcels lie in adjacent redevelopment
projects, e.g., the Huntington Center Project at Edinger Avenue and the
Oakview Project at Warner Avenue. The Talbert-Beach Project lies adjacent
to the Beach Boulevard Project at Talbert Street.
KatzHolfis
2. Land Uses and Businesses
_.............................................__............_.............................................................
The Project Area contains approximately 509 acres. As shown
in Table II-1, commercial use (retail commercial, automobile dealerships, and
offices) is the predominant land use (67.9 percent of the total 408 parcels).
Nearly one-fifth of the parcels (19.9 percent) are devoted to residential
uses, 8.3 percent (34 parcels) are vacant, and 16 parcels are publicly owned'
(school facilities, open land for flood control and a Caltrans maintenance
facility). Some of the vacant parcels are exhibited in Plates 4, 23 and 24.
Table II-2 describes structures by land use. Of the 405
buildings in the area, only two are vacant, 110 are used for residences, and .
293 are occupied by non-residential users. Details about the types of
businesses in the Project Area are contained in Table II-3. Over half of the
1,060 businesses provide services, in part due to a heavy concentration of
medical offices surrounding the Huntington Human Hospital. Just over a
quarter are engaged in retail trade (including 27 automobile-related); 15
percent of all businesses are in finance, insurance, and real estate; and the
remaining 3.4 percent in construction, public uses, or and unknown.
3. Predominantly Urbanized Area
............._......_..........................._._.._.. .. ................................. ..
Section 33320.1 of the California Community Redevelopment
Law requires redevelopment projects selected after January 1, 1984 to be
".predominantly urbanized," which means that: 1) not less than 80 percent of
the privately owned property has been or is developed for urban uses (uses
which are consistent with zoning or otherwise permitted by law); or 2) the
area is characterized by certain defined blight conditions; or 3) the area is
an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. The Project Area
qualifies as a predominantly urbanized area under all three of the given
criteria.
First, although there is some vacant land in the Project Area,
at least 80 percent of the privately owned property has been or is
developed for urban uses.
Second, as discussed in a later section of this Report, the
Project Area contains lots (parcels) that are of irregular form and shape
and inadequate size, which has contributed to the economic deterioration,
dislocation and disuse of the area. This is one of the specified blight
conditions which qualify areas as being predominantly urbanized.
Finally, since the Project Area is located in an area of
Orange County which is completely urbanized, is now totally surrounded by
developed urban uses, and is served by streets which serve such uses, it
qualifies as a predominantly urbanized area in that it is manifestly an
integral part of an area developed for urban uses.
4. Properties Included for Planning Purposes
...............__....._.._...........................................................__..
(II-2)
Katz liol 1 is
Table II-I
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
S%ISTING LAND USE SUMMARY
................................................_................................_....._...................................._..............
Percent
Land Use(.') No. of. Properties of T....
............................... ...................................
Commercial 277 67.9%
Public and Tnstitutional 16 3.9
Residential 81 19.9
Vacant 34 8.3
....._..........
PROJECT AREA TOTAL 408 100.0%
MThe principal land use for each assessor's parcel only; some parcels have
more than one land use. Parcels that are used for parking to service
another parcel are classified according to the land use of the parcel
containing the use they serve.
Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July-October 1986.
112686
0898.hnt/bl
KatzHolfis
Table 1I-2
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
.Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
NUMBER OF STRUCTU ..................................
Type of Use Number of
Structures
_........................_......................
Non-Residential
......................................._.......................
1) Single-Tenant Buildings:
a) Single Structures.............................................149
b) Multiple Structures........................................... 56
2) Multiple Tenant Buildings........................................ 88
Residential
.........._..................
1) Single Family............................................................ 74
2) Multiple Units........................................................... 36
Vacant.......................................................................... 2
.................... ...................
TOTAL .......................................................................405
Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July-October, 1986.
112686
0898.hnt/bl
1 .f
Ft
Katz -lollis
Table 11 - 3
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
TYPES OF BUSINESSESM
.............................................................................................................
Category of Business Category Category
...................................._..._....._............................._................
No. Total 0/0
.................. ............................._.... ........_.........._............._.
RETAIL TRADE (273) 25.6
.......__....._....................................
Building Materials and
Garden Supplies 2
Food Stores 16
Apparel and Accessory 35
Furniture and Home Furnishings 37
Eating and Drinking
Establishments 91
Miscellaneous Retail 58
Liquor Store 10
Department Store 2
Automobile Dealers 27
SERVICES (583) 55.0
......................................_.....
Personal Services
(e.g. Beauty) 58
Business Services
(e.g. Printers) 81
Automobile Services and
Garages 58
Miscellaneous Repair 4
Amusement and Entertainment 16
Health Services 213
Social and Educational
Services 12
Miscellaneous Services 146
FINANCE, INSURANCE,
.........._................................_....._..........._......_.......... .......
AND REAL ESTATE 170 (170) 16.0
........_.......................................................
CONSTRUCTION 6 (6) 0.5
.............._.._...._...........
[continued on next page]
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hol l IS
Table II - 3
(continued)
Category of Business Category Category
...................
No. Total 0/0
............._.... ...........................__....... ......................_._............
PUBLIC (18) 1.7
.........._I.........
Administration and Service 11
Delivery
Education 3
Recreation 1
Open Space/Flood Control 3
UNKNOWN 1.3 (_1.3) 1...2.
............................................
TOTAL 1,060 1,060 100.00
:.................... ....................... ............................
�i�The total number of parcels in the Project Area is 408, containing 405
structures and 1,060 businesses.
Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July-October 1986
112686
0898.hnt/bl
� r
Katz Hol l is
Certain properties within the Project Area are not blighted
properties. Such properties have been included: (1) in order to plan and
carry out the Project as a uniform whole; (2) to impose uniform
requirements over a geographically defined and identified area of the City;
(3) because such properties are impacted by the conditions of . the blight
existing on surrounding properties, and correction of such conditions may
require the imposition of design, development or use requirements on the
unblighted properties in the event they are rehabilitated or redeveloped by
their owners; and (4) because such properties will share in the physical,
social and economic benefits which will accrue to the area through the
elimination of blight conditions and blighting influences, including the
replacement or provision of new public improvements and facilities serving
the Project Area.
5. Buildings_and Structures
The Project Area is characterized by 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 because of any one or a combination of the
factors described below and illustrated in part by the photographs
appearing in Plates 1 through 26.
a. Deterioration and Dilapidation
...................._........................................................................
There are various examples of buildings and structures
throughout the Project Area that suffer from deterioration and dilapidation.
The results of a survey of structural and site conditions in the Project Area
are exhibited in Table II-4. The definitions of the structural conditions
ratings, ."Sound," "Minor to Moderate Upgrading Required," and
"Dilapidated," are contained in Table II-5, and the definitions of the site
conditions ratings are described in Table II-6. Examples of the dilapidated
units are provided in Plates 1, 2 and 3.
Although the numbers of dilapidated or deteriorated
units are not large, their deleterious impact on the Project Area is
significant. With the majority of the buildings in standard condition, the
presence of these aged structures suffering from lack of maintenance is
particularly noticeable and contributes to a negative image of the community.
Vacant properties with poorly maintained site conditions
are depicted in Plate 4.
b. Defective Design and Character of Physical Construction
Buildings of any type may suffer deterioration or
disuse, or may contribute to such problems in other buildings, because of
inherent defects in design or character of the physical construction. Such
defects may exist from the moment a given building is completed; or, they
may evolve as uses within the building or within surrounding buildings
change over a period of time. Some of the deteriorated and dilapidated
buildings depicted in Plates 1 through 3 and discussed above were
(II-3)
Katz Hol l is
Table II - 4
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
BUILDING AND SITE CONDITIONS
........................_.........................................................................................._......._............................
STRUCTURAL OR SITE CONDITION RATING
A B C TOTAL
.................................. ............_.............................._
No. % No. 96 No. % No. ..................
Structures 1 340 83.9 53 13.1 12 3.0 405 100.0
Sites 7 311 .76.2 66 16.2 31 7.6 408 100.0
(1) Refer to Table II - 5 for definitions of Structural Conditions Ratings.
(_) Refer to Table II - 6 for definitions of Site Conditions Ratings.
Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July - October, 1986.
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hollis
Table II - 5
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS RATING DEFINITIONS
_......................_........................................_._......_................................._........................._.._......._..._........._....................................................
(Relates to Table II-4)
Category Definition
A "Sound": Structure appears to be in compliance with current
building codes, based on visual inspection of exterior. All
structural members maintain their engineering design integrity.
B "Minor to Moderate Upgrading Required": Visual evidence of
minor structural deterioration. Small cracks or offset of
structural members. Does not appear that significant
deterioration would continue with normal maintenance. All older
masonry structures are included.
C "Dilapidated": Visual evidence of substantial deterioration of
structural members. Examples of .deterioration include cracking
foundations, offset or leaning columns and posts, window or
door frames which are out of alignment, and sagging roof or
eaves. Major costs would be incurred to. bring the structure
into conformance with current building codes.
--------------------
Source: Katz Hollis
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz tfol l is
Table II - 6
Huntington. Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
SITE CONDITIONS RATING DEFINITIONS
............................................_...................................................._............................................................_................
(Relates to Table II-4)
Catejory Definition
A "Well Maintained": Exterior areas surrounding structures or
vacant parcels are well maintained. These include landscaped
areas, parking lots, driveways, paved decks, and open storage
or work areas. Vegetation is healthy, well-watered, and
trimmed. There is no debris scattered on the site; equipment
or other materials stored on the site are arranged in an
orderly manner; fencing is in good condition; and dirt surfaces
are clean and well compacted.
B "Moderate Maintenance Required": Visual evidence of minor to
moderate lack of site maintenance. Examples include overgrown
vegetation, weeds, and scattered limited debris.
C "Poor Maintenance": Visual evidence that the site receives
little or no maintenance. Vegetation is unhealthy or extremely
overgrown; weeds are abundant; considerable site debris,
equipment or other materials are scattered randomly across the
site; paved exterior surfaces are cracking or broken; and dirt
surfaces are not compacted and likely to be muddy during
rainstorms.
Source: Katz Hollis
112686
0898.hnt/bl
f
Kati liol I i s
constructed poorly and would be uneconomical to upgrade to current
standards.
In some cases, defective design problems are the result
of the lack of proper land use controls or the lack of appropriate design
standards.
On occasion, buildings suffer from a design defect that
has a direct negative impact on the immediate area. A frequent example of
this in the Project Area is the existence of commercial buildings having
limited or no off-street loading facilities. This forces delivery trucks to
load and unload from public streets, resulting in traffic congestion and
hazards. Plate 5 provides examples of two businesses with facilities that
were constructed relatively recently but apparently have insufficient space
for off-street loading.
Another example of defective design is the existence of
limited off-street parking facilities, which is contributing greatly to the
Project Area's circulation system deficiencies, as will be discussed in a
subsequent section. Plates 6 and 7 exhibit various examples of properties
where off-street parking is inadequate, resulting in on-street parking on .
Beach Boulevard and adjacent streets. The occupancy of the curb-side lane
on both sides of Beach Boulevard is particularly troublesome in interrupting
traffic flow.
C. Age and..__Obsolescence,
The age of structures on properties within the Project
Area varies widely. For example, there is a historic house about one
hundred years old (restored to perfect condition). The majority of the
buildings in "C" condition described above were built over 40 or 50 years
ago. They are not in sound condition because they have not been well
maintained, were constructed from poor materials, or do not meet current
building code standards.
The conditions of deterioration and dilapidation are
discussed and documented in the section above. The age and obsolescent
design or construction standards for a significant portion of the Project
Area's structures has been a key factor contributing to their substandard
deteriorated conditions.
d. Mixed Character of Buildings
Buildings and structures are generally characterized by
the uses that are made of them. A building used for living purposes is
characterized as a residential building. A building used for business
purposes is.of commercial character. And a building housing manufacturing,
fabricating, or. processing functions is considered industrial in character.
When more .than one use is made of a building, or when two buildings of
different uses exist on the same parcel, or adjacent .to each other on
abutting parcels, then such buildings are considered to be of mixed
character. Mixed character buildings often have different but compatible
(II-4)
Katz Hollis
uses. Frequently, however, they have incompatible uses, with all the
accompanying aesthetic (physical), social,. and sometime economic problems
such mixing can generate.
The Project Area is characterized by numerous examples
of residential units surrounded by commercial unite, and even residences on
the second floor of buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor
where no adequate provision for such uses has been made. There are also
examples of incompatible commercial uses adjacent to each other, such as an
office building surrounded by automobile repair workshops. Plates 8
through 10 exhibit various examples of incompatible mixed land uses,
including residences above businesses when no adequate provision for such
uses has been made.
The Project Area contains several large properties with
obsolescent land uses that are no longer appropriate for a highly urbanized
area of quality contemporary commercial development adjacent to residential
areas. Examples of such uses include a Caltrans maintenance yard, a school
district corporation yard, and an electric utility substation.
6. Properties
The Project Area is characterized by properties which suffer
from deterioration and disuse because of the factors described below.
a. Lots (Parcels) that Are of Irregular Forms Shape and
.......... . . ...........__._. . _._.__.__._._._..._.
Size
...................
The Project Area contains a number of lots (parcels) .
that are of irregular form or shape and size in terms of uses and
development standards appropriate for land adjacent to a six lane major
arterial road in an urban setting. (Lots of less than 100 feet in width are
considerate by City Standards to be undevelopable.) Some lots, although
deep, are narrow with little street frontage. Some lots have broad street
frontage, but little depth. Plate 11 exhibits two examples.
There are various lots that are only large enough for a
single dwelling unit or a 5,000 square foot commercial building. Along a
roadway with the width and traffic volume of Beach Boulevard, these lots
are not of sufficient size for a development meeting contemporary standards.
It is estimated that of the 408 parcels within the Project
Area, over 20 percent suffer from irregular form, shape or inadequate size,
including undevelopable parcels of less than 100 feet in width.
b. Inadequate Public Improvements Facilities and Utilities
Properties in the Project Area are impacted by
deficiencies in the transportation circulation system (Beach Boulevard and
its intersections) and in infrastructure utilities such as water lines, storm
drainage, sanitary sewers and undergrounding of utilities.
(II-5)
Katz Holt is
I. Deficiencies in Transportation Circulation System
....... _......... ..... ._
Beach Boulevard, which forms the backbone of the
Project Area, is a major north-south arterial in Orange County that connects
communities from Huntington Beach to La Habra. It provides local access to
adjacent residential, commercial, retail, industrial centers, and major regional
recreation areas (e.g., Pacific Ocean beaches, Knotts' Berry Farm); it also
serves as a connecting link in the regional arterial network by providing
direct access to various freeways. At the northern edge of the Project
Area, there is direct access to Interstate 405 (the San Diego Freeway).
Beach Boulevard is identified as a major arterial on
the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways and was adopted as
a State Route (SR-39) in piecemeal fashion between 1935 and 1941. It is
presently a part of the State Freeway and Expressway Plan. Beach
Boulevard generally consists of six through travel lanes plus a median.
Existing right-of-way widths for Beach Boulevard, as exhibited in Table II-7,
range from 132 feet to 177 feet.
The entire length of Beach Boulevard is currently
experiencing traffic flow and congestion problems and will continue to
experience increasing traffic flow and congestion coincident with the rapid
and intensive development of the Orange County area. Previous studies by
the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC), such as the Multi-
Modal Transportation Study (1979), and the Beach Boulevard Corridor Study
(1984), have documented the current and future need for improvements.
The latter study concluded that the so-called "Super Street" concept would
be effective in improving the capacity of Beach Boulevard. The Super
Street concept involves the coordinated application of improvements such as
signal coordination, restriping, bus turnouts, access limitation, and selected
intersection widenings and grade separations.
Long range travel forecasts predict continued and
consistent increases in traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. If the Agency's
proposed improvements are not made on Beach Boulevard, travel conditions
will continue to deteriorate and unacceptable levels of service for several
hours each day during the AM and PM commuter periods will be experienced
throughout most of the Project Area.
Statistical evidence indicates a need to provide
additional capacity on Beach Boulevard to meet current and future traffic
demand and _to improve peak period travel speed and traffic flow so as to
provide acceptable levels of service, efficiency, and safety to highway users.
Currently, several intersections along Beach Boulevard exhibit levels of
congestion during peak hours that approach or ' exceed available roadway
capacity, causing substantial delays to users. Table II-8 exhibits "level of
service" ratings for key intersections within the Project Area, both under
existing conditions (1985) and 30 years into the future (2005, assuming no
improvements are undertaken). "Level of Service" is a term used to
indicate the general acceptability of a roadway or its intersection in
handling given volumes of traffic. The alphabetical designations "A"
through "F" describe "best" to "worst" conditions. The level of service
(II-6)
Katz Hol 1 i s
Table II - 7
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
BEACH BOULEVARD EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) WIDTHS
........._........._........._................. ....-...................................................................................._......._.........................................................._...................................
FEET OF
ROW BEACH BOULEVARD SECTION
......__..........__........._. ........_..........._..............._..........................................................................................
158 Pacific Coast Highway to Sunset Drive
1380) Sunset Drive to Atlanta Drive
138 Atlanta Drive to Garfield Avenue
132 Garfield Avenue to Ellis Avenue
149 Ellis Avenue to s/o Taylor Drive
177 s/o Taylor Drive to n/o Taylor Drive
132 n/o Taylor Drive to s/o McFadden Avenue
Plus an additional 20 foot freeway easement.
Source: Real Estate Atlas of Orange County, 1982-83 Edition.
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hollis
Table II - 8
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
................................................._................................................................................................................
Existing...._(.1985).................................... M AM(Projected....._(2005)................
..................._............. ................................
Intersection Of AM AM PM PM A PM PM
Beach Boulevard With: V/C(l) -L.O.S.(z) V/C L.O.S. V/C L.O.S. V/C L.O.S.
..........................................................................................._............. .....I.........._........... ..................................... ................ ................ ............. _.. ................ .........................
Pacific Coast Highway .60 A .61 B .64 B .58 A
Atlanta Avenue .26 A .50 A .32 A .61 B
Adams Avenue .64 A .72 C .70 B .94 E
Utica Avenue .32 A .55 A .39 A .68 B
Yorktown Avenue .47 A .57 A .61 B .72 C
Garfield Avenue .42 A .59 A .56 A .78 C
Ellis/Main Street .69 B .91 E .91 E 1.18 F
Talbert Avenue .61 B .72 C .73 C 1.12 F
Slater Avenue .67 B .81 D .81 D .95 E
Warner Avenue 1.01 F 1.24 F 1.25 F 1.49 F
Heil Avenue .62 B .84 D .74 C .97 E
Edinger Avenue .86 D 1.02 F .97 E 1.13 F
(1) Volume/Capacity ratio
(2) Level of Service
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &. Douglas, Inc., 1985.
112686
0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hol 1 is
calculations were based on the Critical Movement Analysis procedure
documented in Circular 212 of the Transportation Research Board, using
peak hour turning movement counts, the existing intersection lane geometry,
signal phasing, truck percentages, OCTD bus frequencies and peak hour
factors. Currently, five of the 12 intersections are operating below "C"
level of service during afternoon peak traffic hours. If no improvements
are made, traffic engineers expect that seven of the 12 intersections will be
operating at a P.M. level of service "E" or "F," with volume/capacity ratios
ranging from .94 to .1.49.
Counts of average daily traffic on sections of
Beach Boulevard have also been made, as well as year 2005 projections, as
exhibited in Table II-9. These volumes can also be analyzed in terms of
levels .of service. The criteria for levels of service for urban arterial
streets are described in Table II-10. For a six lane divided urban arterial
street, average daily traffic volumes exceeding 54,000 are rated "E,"
unstable flow with low operating speeds and often congestion. Traffic
volumes are at or near capacity and this level of service should only be
acceptable during peak hour conditions. . The existing average daily traffic
on Beach Boulevard from Talbert Avenue to Edinger Avenue ranges from
56,600 to 80,900,_ which is the "E" level of service. The volumes are
projected to increase in future years, naturally, so . that without
improvements, conditions could well approach "system breakdown."
Accident statistics for 1982 to 1984 are documented
by Caltrans in Table II-11. The data includes accidents on Beach Boulevard
within 200 feet of each intersection. The accident rate (percent fatal and
injury) at signalized intersections along Beach Boulevard varies from 0.27 to
0.85; the total accident rate per million vehicle miles (MVM) varies from .69
to 2.35. The statewide average for total accidents on a six-lane arterial
street in an urban area .is 0.85 accidents per million vehicles entering the
intersection. The rates reported along Beach Boulevard are significantly
higher than the statewide averages. The numerous driveway openings tend
to be particularly hazardous. Such hazards could be reduced or eliminated
through use of reciprocal access and parking easements between adjoining
parcels.
Current conditions on Beach Boulevard are poor,
but if no improvements are made, it can. be presumed that they will worsen
substantially. Projections in employment, population and existing and future
land uses indicate increases in traffic generators. The Project Area and
immediate environs contain major employment centers, such as the Human
Hospital, or lies adjacent to them, such as the office complex at Beach and
Warner and the One Pacific Plaza development. The significant current and
future demand evidenced in studies indicates that capacity on Beach
Boulevard must be improved. Congestion and delay will continue to increase
over the next 20 years with a deteriorating level of service at most
intersections. Intersections which currently operate at level of service E
and F, such as Warner Avenue, will experience deteriorating conditions over
the next 20 years, with extended peak periods and increasing intersection
delays. Traffic flow will be impaired and average vehicle speed during peak
hour will decrease as projected traffic volumes increase. The continued
(II-7)
.l{atz�ollis
Table II - 9
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
...........................__......._................................................................................
Existin (1985)..................... Projected(2005).....................
North- South- North- South-
Beach Boulevard Between bound bound Total bound bound Total
........................._........_.................................................................................. ............................ .............__............ .._...............I._ ................__._...... ._...................
Atlanta/Pacific Coast Hwy 6,300 6,900 13,200 9,100 9,900 19,000
Yorktown/Adams 17,300 18,500 35,800 21,700 23,300 45,000
Talbert/Ellis 27,800 28,800 56,600 32,400 33,600 66,000
Heil/Warner 30,900 31,900 62,800 35,400 36,600 72,000
I-405/Edinger 33,700 47,200 80,900 35,400 49,600 85,000
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 1985.
011587/5
0898.hnt/bl
Table 11 10
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
KatzHollis Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR URBAN ARTERIAL STREETS
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Level Average Daily Traffic Service Volumes
.............................................................Average .......................................................................................................................................................
of 6 Lanes 4 Lanes 4 Lanes 2 Lanes
Service Description Divided Divided Undivided Undivided
.............................. .............. ........................... ........................................................................................................................................ ................................... ...........................- .............................................. ..........................................
A Free Flow and low volumes. Drivers 36,000 24,000 16,000 5,000
......................................
can maintain their desired speeds
with no delays.
B Stable Flow and relatively low volumes. 40,400 27,000 18,000 7,500
Operating-' -- speeds are beginning to be
restricted somewhat by traffic conditions.
C Stable Flow but speeds and maneuverability 45,000 30,000 20,000 10,000
................................................
are more closely controlled by traffic
volumes. This level of service is normally
considered the highest suitable for urban
design standards.
D Approaching Unstable Flow, increasing 49,500 33,000 22,000 12,500
......................................................... ..........
traffic volumes with tolerable delay
and tolerable operating speeds. The
driver's freedom to maneuver is
diminishing.
E Unstable Flow, low operating speeds and 543POOO 36,000 24,000 15,000
often--..................................
......*............congestion. Traffic volumes are
at or near capacity. This level of service
should only be acceptable during peak hour
conditions.
F Forced Flow, stop-and-go. Both speeds This condition represents system
...................................................
a n can drop to zero. Traffic breakdown and does not have a specific
stoppages may occur for short or long relationship to service volumes.
periods. The conditions often result in
vehicles backing up from one intersection
through another.
------- 112686
Source: Caltrans, 1985. 0898.hnt/bI
Katz Holt is Table II - 11
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
ACCIDENT STATISTICS, 1982 - 84(i)
Beach Boulevard
Accident Locations
Number of Accidents Rate Per MV Exceeding State Average
.............._..........._. ... .. .... .................._.._....__........._............__.._._.... - --....................._........_. ......---.........._........ -.........................................................-_.....
Fatal + Prop. % Fatal + Fatal + Fatal +
Location <z� Total Injury Damage Injury Injury Total Injury Total
Beach B Pacific Coast Highway . 51 16 35 0.31 .32 1.04
Beach a Atlanta 32 18 14 0.56 .68 1.21
Beach 9 Indianapolis 26 12 14 0.46 .55 1.20
Beach 9 Adams 68 16 52 0.24 .49 2.10
Beach e Utica 29 10 19 0.34 .44 1.30
Beach 9 Yorktown 63 23 40 0.37 .85 2.35
Beach ® Garfield 49 15 34 0.31 .46 1.51
Beach @ Main/Ellis 105 27 78 0.26 .59 2.31
Beach e Talbert 61 23 38 0.38 .51 1.35
Beach 6 Slater 105 34 71 0.32 .65 2.01
Beach a Warner 100 27 73 0.27 .37 1.40
Beach @ Heil 40 16 24 0.40 .27 .69
Beach a Mac Donald 48 20 28 0.42 .37 .90
Beach 0 Stark 93 28 65 0.30 .51 1.71
Beach e Edinger 94 30 64 0.32 .42 1.32
Includes injury accidents only; non-injury accidents are not compiled as a matter of City policy.
Within 200 feet of each intersection.
* Total accident rate greater than 0.85 per MV; fatal + injury rate greater than 0.3 per MV.
112686
Source: Caltrans, 1985. 0898.hnt/bl ,
Katz Hollis
existence of an inadequate circulation system will dampen efforts to upgrade
and improve existing Project Area conditions, -and could significantly impact
future development desired to eliminate underutilized portions of the Project
Area.
Based on the existing physical conditions, existing
and projected (year 2005) traffic volumes, accident data and land use, a
series of physical improvement alternatives was developed for Beach
Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Imperial Highway. The
identified improvement alternatives encompass the "Super Streets" concepts.
The objective of the "Super Streets" concept (high-flow arterial) is to
enhance the -level of traffic carrying capacity with the implementation of one
or a combination of the following measures:
Traffic Signal Coordination
Restriction/Elimination of On-Street Parking
Restriping
Intersection/Spot Widening
Access Limitation
Bus Turnouts
Intersection Grade Separations
Pedestrian Grade Separations
Other Measures Found Useful
The Orange County Transportation Commission
carefully examined each segment and intersection of Beach Boulevard in light
of the improvement alternatives identified above. After consideration of the
alternatives, the Commission and the Huntington Beach City Council adopted
a program of projects. The approved improvements, together with existing
and future volume/capacity ratios, analysis of right-of-way deficiencies and
estimated costs at each Beach Boulevard intersection in the Project Area is
exhibited in Table II-12. Signal coordination is recommended at the
intersections of Atlanta Avenue, Utica Avenue, Yorktown Avenue and Garfield
Avenue. A variety of improvements are recommended for several other key
intersections: Adams Avenue, Ellis/Main Street, Talbert Avenue, Slater
Avenue, Warner Avenue, Heil Avenue and Edinger Avenue.
The intersection of Beach Boulevard and Adams
Avenue, depicted in .Plate 12, is currently operating at a volume/capacity
ratio of .72, and if no improvements are made, a ratio of .94 is projected by
the year 2005. Signal coordination plus intersection widening to improve the
westbound segment to three through lanes plus a right turn lane is
recommended.
The Ellis/Main Street intersection currently is
operating in the evening peak hour at an E level of service and is
projected to remain so, with a volume/capacity ratio of 1.18 if no
improvements are made. In addition to -signal coordination, recommended
improvements to correct the deficiencies include signal modification, bus
turnouts, access control, intersection striping and intersection widening so
that northbound and southbound includes four through lanes and a dual left
TABLE II - 12
Huntington Beach Redeveloptent Agency
Huntington Beach -Beach Boulevard Redevelopeent Project
BEACH BOULEVARD DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED BY 'SUPER STREETS' PROGRAM
Katz Hol 1 iS Capital Costs
Volu�e/Capacity Aatios (Order-of New R.O.Y. Total
Existing Est. year 2005 New R.O.Y. Magnitude) Costs Costs
Intersection leprovesents Needed W/0 Iap. W/Iap. 9/0 lop. W/Itp. 4equiretentst 1985 X $1,000 1985 1 $1,000 1905 1 $1,000
Atlanta Avenue Signal Coordination 0.50 0.SO 0.61 0.61 10 0 10
Adass Avenue Signal Coordination 0.72 0.72 0.94 0-94 10 0 10
Intersection Widening (Hem ROW) 0.72 0-65 0.94 0.03 EN-4' 46 14 60
(MR: 3 through plus right)
Utica Avenue Signal Coordination 0-55 0.55 0.68 0.60 10 0 10
Yorktown Avenue Signal Coordination 0.57 0.57 0.72 0.72 10 0 10
Garfield Avenue Signal Coordination 0.59 0.59 0-78 0.78 10 0 10
Ellis/Main Street Signal Coordination 0.91 0-82 1.18 1.06 10 0 10
Signal Modification 15 0 15
Bus Turnouts tt 20 14 34
Access Control 2 0 2
Intersection Striping (EB: 4 lanes) 2 0 2
Intersection Widening 101 0 101
(MR i SB: 4 through)
Intersection Widening (New ROW) 0.91 0.69 1-18 0-91 NE-3' NW-3' SO 21 71
(NB i SB: dual left; WB: 3 through)
Talbert Avenue Signal Coordination 0.72 0.64 1.12 1.03 10 0 10
Intersection Striping 2 0 2
(10 1 SB: 4 through)
Bus Turnouts is 20 14 34
Signal Modification 0.72 0.73 1.12 0.88 15 0 15
Slater Avenue Signal Coordination 0.81 0.75 0.95 0.87 10 0 10
Intersection Widening 60 0 68
(NB i SB: 4 through)
Bus Turnouts tt 20 14 34
Warner Avenue Intersection Widening (New ROW) 1.20 0.82 1.49 1.02 NV-12'SE-12' 387 719 1106
(NB i SO: 4 through; Na, SB, EB B NE-2'EN-12'
WB dual left and single right)
Access Control 3 0 3
Bus Turnouts tt 10 7 17
Heil Avenue Signal Coordination 0-84 0.75 0.97 0.87 10 0 10
Intersection Widening 47 0 47
(NB c SB: 4 through)
Bus Turnouts tt 10 7 17
Edinger Avenue Signal Coordination 1.02 0.87 1.13 0.96 10 0 10
Bus Turnouts tt 20 14 34
Intersection Widening (New ROW) NW-6'SE-3' 143 32 175
(NB t 56: 4 through; SB dual left) '
Intersection Widening (New ROW) 1.02 0.79 1-13 0.86 ES-4' 95 77 172
(ER 9 WB: 3 through) EN-4'WN-3'WS-11'
*The designation EN-4' indicates that a width of four feet is required on the north side of the intersection's east leg. Source: Orange County Transportation rmissinn, 1906.
The length of right-of-way required varies at each intersection, but typically ranges from 200 to 3DO feet.
$#Night-of-way required for bus turnouts will vary at each location-
KatzHollis
turn lane and the westbound segment contains three through lanes. This
complex intersection is depicted in Plates 13 and 14.
The Talbert Avenue intersection, shown in Plate 15,
is currently operating with a volume/capacity ratio of .72, but if no
improvements are made, it is projected (by the year 2005), to operate at an
F level of service, the volume/capacity ratio reaching 1.12. Proposed
improvements include signal coordination, intersection striping, bus turnouts,
and signal modification.
The Slater Avenue intersection, illustrated in Plate
16, is currently operating at a level of service D with a volume/capacity
ratio of .81. Conditions are projected to worsen to level of service E (.95
volume/capacity ratio) if no improvements are made. Signal coordination, bus
turnouts and intersection widening so that northbound and southbound
segments have four through lanes in recommended.
Beach Boulevard's intersection with Warner Avenue
(Plate 17) is operating at a level of service F now, and will continue to
deteriorate if the deficiencies are not corrected. Access control and bus
turnouts are recommended in addition to substantial right-of-way acquisition
to widen the intersection to four through lanes for northbound and
southbound portions and dual left and single right lanes in all directions.
The Heil Avenue intersection exhibited in Plate 18
is presently operating at level of service D (with volume/capacity ratio of
.84) and conditions are projected to worsen to level of service E with a .97
volume/capacity ratio. Bus turnouts, signal coordination, and widening of
the intersection to four through lanes northbound and southbound are
recommended:
The Project Area's northern boundary is in the
intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. The northern portion
of the intersection lies within the Huntington Beach Huntington Center
Redevelopment Project. This intersection (Plate 19) currently operates at
level of service F, with a volume/capacity ratio of 1.02 that is expected to
degenerate further to 1.13. Improvements recommended to combat this
congestion include signal coordination, bus turnouts, intersection widenings
to four through lanes northbound and southbound with southbound dual
left, three through lanes eastbound and westbound, and the linking together
of Gothard and Hoover Streets.
As a result of a shortage of off-street parking, the
curbside lane of Beach Boulevard is often devoted to parking, as exhibited
in Plates 6 and 7. Removing this lane from use by through traffic further
contributes to traffic congestion and also places the persons entering and
bxiting their vehicles at risk, in close proximity to vehicles that may be
traveling at speeds approaching 40 mph.
Sidewalks are absent in several places in the
Project Area, as shown in Plates 21 and 22.
(II-9)
Katz Hol I is
2. Deficie..............................................................................................._....................._.......................
...
The City's Director of Public Works has identified
deficiencies in storm drainage, sanitary sewers and water lines in the
Project Area. Storm drains need to be installed to complete the storm
drainage system as follows: 2,200 feet of 24" and 18" drain south of Aldrich
from Stark to Sher; one-half mile of 48" storm drain on the east side of
Beach Boulevard between Atlanta and Indianapolis; and 36" and 48" drain on
the west side of Beach Boulevard between Atlanta and Indianapolis. An
undersized sewer line. needs to be replaced with 12" line for 2,700 feet from
Adams to Yorktown. Water line deficiencies that need to be corrected
include replacement of 21,000 feet of 6" line and 20" steel casing for 12" .
water mains crossing Beach Boulevard in nine places.
Overhead utilities are considered a blighting
influence in the Project Area in light of citywide standards for
undergrounding of utilities.
B. Existing Social Conditions
................................. ...................._................................
There are approximately 175 housing units (including single family
and smaller multi-family buildings; see Table II-2) in the Project Area, with
an estimated 385 to 483 residents. The majority of the housing units are
located among, and are adversely impacted by, conflicting commercial land
uses. Children living in the Project Area find a major urban arterial with
traffic operating at speeds of up to 45 mph at the end of their front yard.
This problem of mixed uses was discussed in detail earlier in this report.
At least half of the Project area housing units are in need of major repairs,
and such units, with undesirable locations and sub-standard conditions,
appear to be generally inhabited by persons of low or moderate income.
C. Existing Economic Conditions
1. Economic Setting
As discussed previously, most of the land (67.9 percent) in
the Project Area is devoted to commercial uses and 23.8 percent to
residences or public and institutional uses. Thirty-four of the 408 parcels
(8.3 percent) are vacant, totalling nearly fifty acres. Thirty-one percent of
all the retail and service related businesses in the City of Huntington Beach
are located on Beach Boulevard. Among the 1,060 businesses in the Project
Area, 25.6 percent are engaged in retail trade, 55.0 percent in services and
16.0 percent in finance, insurance, and real estate, as described in
Table II-3. One-fifth of the businesses are involved in health services, due
to the presence of the Human Hospital. There are a number of new and
used auto dealerships and leasing agents in the Project Area. Sales taxes
generated by auto dealers citywide account for 18.3% of the City's total
sales tax revenues, as shown in Table II-13.
(II-10)
Katz Hollis
Table II - 13
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTO SALES, 1985
......................................................................................................................._......................................................
Auto Sales Total Sales
.........................._..................... ....................................................
1st Quarter $ 58,522,000 $ 300,904,000
2nd Quarter 67,459,000 351,904,000
3rd Quarter 66,494,000 336,588,000
4th Quarter 67,548,000 358,851.,000
TOTAL: $250,023,000 1,348,247�000
.................. .::....::...::................. ......... .....................................................
[18.6% of City Total]
Source: City of Huntington Beach
011587/5
0898.hnt/bl
Katz Hol l i s -
2. Economic Maladjustment
Precise statistics are not available, but there have been a
number of small business failures in the Project Area, which is partially
evidenced by the vacant stores and office suites for rent. Project Area .
conditions may be a factor contributing to the business failures, namely the
presence of dilapidated structures, mixture of adjacent inappropriate land
uses, and inadequacies in off-street loading and parking and traffic
circulation.
Some businesses, such as the auto dealers, may wish to
correct the problem of inadequate off-street parking, but are hampered by
lack of expansion area. It is critical to ensure that the auto dealerships are
retained within the City because of their significant contribution to sales tax
revenues and because the customers they attract generate a significant
amount of other retail sales.
Portions of .the Project Area are underutilized in that the
land uses are inappropriate for the zoning, uses and densities. Other
portions have not developed at all. Failure of the private market . to
respond to development opportunities indicates the existence of problems
which private enterprise alone cannot resolve. The absence of private
investment and reinvestment results in stagnation or further deterioration.
Only through public intervention and assistance can this spiral be broken.
3. Imuaire_d Investments and Depreciated Values
The conditions of deteriorated, dilapidated buildings,
underutilized properties and mixture of inappropriate land uses result in
Impaired investments and depreciated values in the Project Area. While
there are only two long-vacant buildings in the Project Area, there are 34
parcels that are undeveloped, as exhibited in Plates 4, 23 and 24, and many
more that are not utilized to their full potential. There are also various
examples of vacancies in stores or office spaces, such as those shown in
Plates 25 and 26. There are examples of properties for sale that have been
on the market for over a year.
The presence of dilapidated structures impacts adjacent
properties and is symptomatic of owners' disinterest in upgrading the
properties, and is also evidence of the private sector's lack of success in
solving such problems on its own.
4. Existence of Inadequate _Public Improvements, _Public Facili-
........................__.._.............._..........................._.........
_ties, Open Space_ and _Utilitiea
Details of the deficiencies in the street system, the supply of
parking, intersection capacities, sidewalks and infrastructure utilities were
described in a preceding section. The present traffic circulation conditions
on Beach Boulevard have economic impacts on residents, employees and
patrons of the businesses. Travel time, which could otherwise be spent on
economically productive activities, is longer than it would be under normal
average operating conditions, which adds to the cost of travel and increases
(II-11)
Katz Hol 1 is
fuel consumption. These conditions may be discouraging the development of
vacant parcels and depressing property values. The underutilization of
property means that the full potential tax base, sales tax revenues and
employment generated by the area is not at capacity. Analysis of the
economic impact of alternatives under the "Super Streets" program reveals
that the present conditions on Beach Boulevard have had a negative impact
on property values and have depressed sales volumes by several million
dollars annually. Tables II=14 and II-15 indirectly quantify the extent of
the negative economic impacts of Beach Boulevard's present condition. Table
II-14 presents estimates of the potential vehicle-hours saved and
corresponding dollar value of time and number of gallons of gasoline saved,
if the maximum improvements alternative of the "Super Streets" program
were implemented on the entire length of Beach Boulevard within the city
limits of Huntington Beach. Table II-15 analyzes, for each of five segments
on Beach Boulevard, the potential increase in sales that would result from
Beach Boulevard improvements, totalling over $2.6 million annually. These
analyses indicate that improved traffic flow and property accessibility could
quickly increase business sales, as well as lead to greater development
densities, .further increasing employment opportunities as well as personal
income and municipal tax revenues.
The shortage of off-street parking in portions of the Project
Area discourages prospective patrons of some businesses along Beach
Boulevard, as they may be apprehensive of exiting and entering their cars
next to traffic that may be traveling at speeds up to 40+ mph.
(II-12)
Katz Hol t is
Table II - 14
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
SUMMARY OF TRAVEL BENEFITS IN 2005
WITH "SUPER STREETS" MAXIMUM IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMM
..............................................................._........................._.............................................................................................................._.........__........................................_..........._..........._............
Daily Annual(2)
Vehicle - Hours Saved(3) 2,503 hours 780,936 hours
Dollar Value of Time Saved «1 $17,521 $5,466,652
Gasoline Saved 1,252 gallons 390,468 gallons
entire length of Beach Boulevard within city limits of Huntington
Beach.
(2) Based on 312 days equivalent per year.
(3) A term expressing the extent of travel time saved; equal to one vehicle
traveling one hour.
(4) $7.00/hour.
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff na uade & Douglas, Inc., March 1986.
121186
0898.hnt/bl/3
Katz H®11 i s
Table II - 15.
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL SALES VOLUMES
RESULTING FROM BEACH BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS
Potential Increase in Sales
Beach Boulevard Block Dail Annual(')
.................................................._.................................................... ....................... . .....................-......................
Ellis Avenue - Talbert Avenue $.1,125 $405,000
Talbert Avenue - Slater Avenue 1,125 405,000
Slater Avenue - Warner Avenue 435 156,600
Warner Avenue - Heil Avenue 1,305 469,800
Heil Avenue - Edinger Avenue 3,375 1,215,000
.......................... .........................................
TOTAL. $7,365 $2,651,400
cl� -.360 business (shopping) days per year.
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 1986.
121186
0898.hnt/bl/3
DILAPIDATION., DETERIORATION, AGE
AND OBSOLESCENCE
(Plates 1 through :
I _
M.
. ",i •-`f..« .Y?' - �..r. _. - -.w: :�yY4! - .tSri`,`a.•`''�. f��� _kit.�.• •.- -
r
1 7221-1 7271 Beach Boulevard. Note lack of sidewalks and poor drainage. mixed land uses (commercial - residential).
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 1
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
,��. �,�• �;f,,gip'•; �. �� •�
lk�
i�
ni
BEACH-
BEACH • PLATE
• • PROJECT
.,
,..
17052 A Street
1
17101 B Street i
I
i,
4 -
'
F 1CY i" •�- tl.l�a eft ''' i
.a Vr4'Msp 7t`S/' .��_' fJ�.�•��q[,�'��hf��'� 4'►�NL
17021 B Street
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 3
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
„�! ,! xi l r 1 t 5iY stj�- I'`r I •P4 s -
_
l Ha t WK.
46&"�
iA
• �! �� n t 1 �4f.�1�'��•..a�t'C'y`,!!.�.��1H�� 11 ��.� *aY_. [�., � •
� 7"�4r1}.�'`ia�1�r�'�[a `�'y,3'r s r�tt �v'ti;ft 'h4' • c ` r �
•. a 1.�,\ T�atrl{�h mil Y �-`1� lA L' �
� t�MYti� r Nat�7•r�F �n"?�4�ljf x�� �`��=S S-y�. ,�__�. '- �.� , ._ I ' � ..
r �� v t�`>�r rl+r.-�' �� ?"1�x��i�f j � �•i ..lr.. ty'r _ .,,y -
• ���1�`i g�Irt�n�l�rs'df�� ���tFt �,� ct;)r �� Fy� •• �- . �-
•• / J mot• >L ZN' ��, {k�' F i �'. >.
_ qyy�
•. ram..,�” �.i� i ��+!?f� X,"� [��1 - ��"t.� 'Sl.. � •�..`
• .f;. a r11111-----dfra = fi ,�r1 !{ -•�+�i� F _ •. /,�..' _r
S�".. ." ;i. F`t{t l �`M' I 'i � aFy • J1C� "�Iw
41 y z
.;� F _` S- 9 �LYF'4� fi£T 'kr" � 4 ♦1 [,�f ►
•:7
•i f n
�17 - !Y t {;,r t,� y.h'• 7,t,�.
f lie.
.q
� �� � � �`g� s ,rt ]�.',pw+'� rs•��3.-d.a•�� if to �'',I-i.� '� I. �r
r _ r irgts q� �A•'�a w _k�t - r�("y R��q i � .
� cN � 4i"T�,S.} r J: 1cR .��` 19.".Shr ; t Lk•� +�' _
�i
i
.. 1 - 1' fit. A� �♦ � � �1•� f - '�1"T�'f:.
,r• + ' (� t
F'
Fs s
-
11,,
.F.
,i
d 7
d.. e
Wl
ppp
':Ntl�
• • • COMM
• • . • •• ••
7
IIATJ:I
A
o] 0
INSUFFICIENT OFF-STREET PARKING
ON BEACH BOULEVARD
(Plates 6 and 7)
iip
West side. south of Glencoe East side. north of Robidoux
4
RUE CCNB
taro•:,
- I
North of At 18881 I�
HUNTI REDEVELOPMENT B PROJECT BOULEVARD P LATE 6 I.
.JCL
' IL
Chrysler Court
•6 `i.
Terry Street
INSUFFICIENT PARKING ON
• • I,
SPILLS • R • • ADJACENT SIDE STREETS
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
1 _ BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT
• PROJECT
r��u,R�.ae�+reroa:a�r>�so®a.
n��a�+ati'' ���IW�4-xUY•'�
roe v�l Atwl� 15 + � � x,� r. �•
r_ - µ
.•e
`\ .,
West side of Beach Boulevard, south of Yorktown Avenue
Vill
19306 - 19360 Beach Boulevard
00
I � 1
w I
South side of Garfield Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 9 i
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INAPPROPRIATE MIXTURES OF USES
1 r
�yl •
• 1 I
CI •I: a1Rlt I' •
1 � M•
T 9 I
:a� •wn' ��91�� _�s6�t... .�.�,+.:�N!: •'r_,..��.`.� „^.•,�,'�.�_Jir; "�i�' ��_� �,�. r t-� •.- ' — _
-� -�-�T - .. � � ._..`T��.:.y •yes„ ►,.. .�_�yir�� � r��'
v
`iA f,
Office building with auto repair businesses on both sides (18377 - 18425 Beach Boulevard)
1
j
419 y
air
IZesiclences ribove store/repair .;hop at 19322 Boach Hoillevard
I
j
HUNTINGTON BEACH— I
BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 10
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ;
1 •
1 qq
t,.
4 � �
, ra Lf
INC r
y
ti�+rYi� a..•:
•
r, f
} Y t fq�}�r 1 1
� � ��� is 3r`'�'•,�. �ti°�i't'.°Y fr ��'.�*��,F (r��� rz {.. �: �j
t �
a �
t o
n �y
-,...f i��.. rt a� �r4 C .+.5s Y{�'. :..A �'�",�� j,. y ',Y" "'}. :.V 3EH ri as � •,. �
OtV�'. r5��p 1 r
t W f?f cr �A i
A
INADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
(Plates 12 through 20)
. .
View east View west
i
• - �- -r: 77- i
- � a' ,,,_.."yram vim'''_` \��,'n''-:�a _ �y:c;_ �:-••�. _ _
:�.. ..sY'�:f� ',�l�':� .;:;ti':t.=-�#!Sri... -_.. .��- -._ bi,..�.-•- " s.�.... ._'3. .
View north View south i
i
INTERSECTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD WITH ADAMS AVENUE
I
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH. BOULEVARD . 1 PLATE 12
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
- J
_ _.. •._ -
P.
I
View east View west
i
C
View north View soutr.
INTERSECTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD WITH ELLIS AVENUE AND MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 1
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT i
;.
M�,
^Ht'
Q w
f!'c i•
C4 �; ��:`�� L,:eh '�:r, •yet '',ac�'
t
t -r ♦ a
Ya211a a z -
t
View east View west
View
u
north •
BEACHINTERSECTION OF BOULEVARD TALBERT AVENUE
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
PLATE 15
REDEVELOPMENT
• PROJECT
.+�+.;i. ..�.• ;� - _1 ;'p'_ '"y + r;�_;.;.s: 'S.F •" w..�a0��.-_.f - :�f."�' �•Z•¢ '.��..=:; re ar-..°
tsr� `` '�` r��x i - '. - s ��,_'�9.: ,��t•„irr�# �� '""'�'' ��'''�'3r� �' •`t��i 'ax �'�:;'
. Jfi�r Y� �.`� -�',• :f .'• _ t.\',' i1�,�. -r't� - t -.E.i. .gyp rsa`��4 j�•,tl.•u
ro'y, ,,.�.�-"':. .:•7r .':�•� _ ....s-; 'n. .?r%'.•=-..:.�:>;::.{;�.�ova;".
e may. ____ _ .�r'�� _.r._�:F_•�'u'�:,������ {'}�;,'I
i •
r ?-
y+��` acS:h. �ifi.. *���`' � " s� • i�� -ry- !- � - $-�{e'�%_^'e it - r - a
View east View west y
_
,ems•-.... �. �µ,,+..-; -
.� �- _� ."
is
I
view nor. View south
i
INTERSECTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD WITH SLATER AVENUE
a : HUNTINGTON BEACH—BEACH BOULEVARD
PLATE 16
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I
7 I + S o
ts3 yid !a )tj + ♦( a r'i �`C�'�ry"} L/
<.w 1. } r,h�'}�a. •: oar F��b*g `�� t".F. w
meµ- #�9t 'hL9 LIr
'yy f
•
� J
•� • �, f. rlyli .•� .l , P..i}ti 1. Ii�z.. .Y 1•..`.
• ' r� � �� � ' '� � III f`s ry ^ g•ti
' r
t
ry `^ ?nuw sJr:b' Jfy L k k •r> a 1', K -in •� ,r
k7�1-
''
4 vx
' I
�
View east View west
INK
View north View south
i
i
INTERSECTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD WITH HEIL AVENUE
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD P ` ATE 1
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
4y f
��r M.1�'���L��krr��.3' ' r % Y} ¢, .�z•�
3, s
Pn In
Wit
;I -t :'"��` ,}n•� L �� Yew ''
j7�,�}�' � fit. �5 "�L •��4 i'`I � A'' 'P� .� 1 � •
11 Y1� f �II
t
•
rbt' [�' ti1 •
f � (�(u7 �' � M 11 •
% o L
•� '+
Jow
qw,ii -�����
p t
of
1.7
•'.�►'.;�y.^.Cif-. �',��, '� �
ff - '••tip '.�
• ..rw -
i
1�1 � � .�� G " moo•'•. w
111 F '
\ '� -�� n •ter y}�t.
�.� `��' �` r ~ _:tip � �•.�; � `\ '�
LACK OE SIDEWALKS
I �
a
A;Aft
r
-dam_. -r � •,y;. � - :y.:
West side of Beach Boulevard in 18751 block. Note drainage problem.
r
j r!
ft` ' srd• Yy`L' �y. - ;,� t'r. :,a.q''.•�ate`•: •.-,.
r'
rA,r. 't Y
S•� r ;�� t . 1 i. y ..Y:a!� 'u�r fir `+
M East side of Beach Boulevard, 18052 - 18072
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 21 ,
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
•r,
SiERU�G
IOTEL
J ^I.
{
�rVt r ''+ r v6.�L `�"?' ^Y✓.3• � 'x %E� •'r;�
} �. � Y71� 3S�fK f:�.4� yya � nri i _ ,{ yH`y ;++��. ` �.�' �j _ k )�,,. � ✓�
Y
Z• n
httd•Zr �yaak'�Y t .�.7 � I ':'�:. ,° �!.• 'i'�S �Z,��K!�-
':
�)r , t{dcs �,t � �tit�r �?s- C,j,-•S,pf�r.a ��, .fir r. _�
rq � �4y�. axd°�t�4,�3`P '^ y;!rp'+ycrr.•.'r�` .�• ;,ti�'s�� ^i ,. ' i ..r1
' i^`��' L �".s t' 'N n v�j�;�'�t���y��.�r 4,3��K:��r`S+i��,�'�}h" - .y _1�r� �t,•� _`. �..i.
a !r .� y 3 ..' •+ �,a�I Tr t - is
y's J�� j. fi ���Y hr t� +�a�. 4Y °'t�} '�•' cy�, ' � ' +r����✓.. � .4
'4 S�``z���9 ��''�h a�rr�i�� y rT `� �?.1;e��-.'•h „fir. '��
<B. �• tit �,;i. 4 :'-}Y.'�` � ,r '� �np2i � •.J .d
MUM to] 1 i
c v
VACANT UNDER-UTILIZED. PROPERTIES
(Plates 23 and 24)
Northeast corner of
Beach Boulevard
and Atlanta
I
View northeast of prop-
erty west of Beach
Boulevard between
Memphis Avenue and
Knoxville Avenue
I
NorClieast corner
o£ Florida St_eet
and Knoxville ,:-e.
t -
I
1
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
�' q �t BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 23
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
f •l
I
NuiIIi id 1'.i1 , 1 j
F� lii�;uarliuui�•vru�l j
i
M•
i
i
o
i
I
No ills ( t
Al
L �•. �_ .1
1
Solithwest corner of
I
13each Bmilevmd
anti ;leer
_ � I
• _ _ -•..f.. :='yam,:.: !��..� �:• _.,:.'�._ +.:a>,:.�,,,. � T f
4 t
7� im
r,
I
i
HUNTINGTON BEACH-
BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 24
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TV
.+. *� .«ice � � �'i G,��� .a•�. �� i.:' ,�;s,°• '.
Mn
� �- �■�■����,. gym! ��: ■■■a■■■������;■�I■■� f r��,
s ��R lr1i 3 miyq r.aq
-I:ffet
i
II�
1
F01ktEASE
FOR LEASE - :.: ...
R..B.�.LLEN :::
L�0� Retail Stores/Offices _
F'^l�5':E AGENT.S GROUP So,FT.�Courtes to Brokers
mam
Office and Industrial Brokers 90C Y
714250 - 9166 ,. .
YN DONOVAN • • • •
�1
N.
- AVAILABLE - - -' M.OFFICE SUITES -- _
FUR I\FORvAFV_;'.
8
(,14)992'0 05
VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE ON BEACH .BOULEVARD
. _ HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 2G
aIz Ii ! I I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Kaullollis
PART III. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT
.....................................................I...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
AREA
..............
A. General Financing Methods Available to Agency
................................................................................._Methods.......................................................................................Agency
....
The proposed Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to finance
the Project with financial assistance from the City, State of California,
federal government, tax increment funds, interest income, Agency bonds,
donations, loans from private financial institutions, the lease or sale of
Agency-owned_property, participation in development or any other available
source, public or private.
The Agency is also authorized to obtain advances, borrow funds
and create indebtedness in carrying out the Plan. The principal and
interest on such advances, funds and indebtedness may be paid from tax
increments or any other funds available to the Agency. Advances and loans
for survey and planning and for the operating capital for nominal
administration of the Project have been and will continue to be provided by
the City until adequate tax increment or other funds are available, or
sufficiently assured, to repay the advances and loans and to permit
borrowing adequate working capital from sources other than the City. The
City' as it is able, may also supply additional assistance through City loans
and grants for various public facilities and other Project costs.
B. Proposed Redevelopment Activities and Estimated Costs
................ ......................................................Redevelopment..................................................... ... . ......................... .. ....................................................Costs
....-
As detailed in Part II of this Report, the Project Area is a
blighted area suffering from certain problems which cannot be remedied by
private enterprise acting alone. The Area's problems center around four
issues: 1) poor vehicular circulation and insufficient off-street parking; 2)
deteriorated structures and mixed, inappropriate land uses; 3) underutilized
properties; and 4) insufficient land use controls and inadequate design
standards. The Agency proposes to use the redevelopment .process, to the
extent possible, to help eliminate the circulation and parking deficiencies
and the presence of deteriorated buildings and inappropriate land uses in
order to provide a proper environment for controlled growth to occur.
Such activities will facilitate the full utilization of property and will enhance
the economic vitality of the Project Area.
Proposed redevelopment activities required to achieve the goals
and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and to address the Project Area's
problems will include: 1) a program of upgrading and installation of needed
public improvements and facilities; and 2) a selective land assembly and
disposition program.
The Agency's proposed public improvements and facilities program
for the Project Area, and its estimated cost in current dollars, are detailed
in Table III-1. Improvements needed to remedy major traffic circulation
deficiencies total $2.7 million, of which $1,297,000 is proposed for Project
funding. Related landscaping and streetscape improvements will cost an
estimated $2.0 million, all of which is proposed for Project funding. The
replacement or installation of storm drains and sanitary sewers is estimated
(III-1)
f ,
Katz.. Hollis
Table III - 1
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
ESTIMATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES COSTS
_.......................... ..._....__........ .._......_............._..._._......_..............._........................................................_..................................................................
Portion Proposed
for
Project Funding
Estimated
Total ......
. _...
"Super Street" Improvements,
Atlanta to Edinger
....................._..............._......................_...........
--Signal Coordination and Modifications $ 130,000 $ 20,000 15.4%
--New Signals 92,000 92,000 100.0%
--Access Controls 500,000 500,000 100.0%
--Parking Restrictions 15,000 15,000 100.0%
--Restriping Travel Lanes and Intersections 24,000 20,000 83.3%
--Intersection Widening, Including
New Right-of-Way 1,800,000 600,000 66.7%
--Bus Turn Outs, Including Right-of-Way 170,000 50,000 29.4%
........ ...........
Total Super Street Improvements $. 2.. a.731�000 $ 1,297,000 47..5%
Storm Drainage And Sanitary Sewers
............ _..._.....
--South of Aldrich. Stark to Sher.
2,200 ft. of 24" and 18" storm drain. $ 270,000 $ 270,000 160.0%
--Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and
Indianapolis, east side one-half
mile. 48" wide storm drain. 625,000 625,000 100.0%
--Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and
Indianapolis (west side) 48" and
36" wide storm drain. 1,300,000 1,300,000 100.0%
--Sanitary sewer - Adams to Yorktown.
2,700 ft. of 12" line 200,500 200,500 100.0%
.....................I._......._.._... ...................I......................._... ............................
Total Storm Drainage, Sanitary Sewers $ 2,395,500 $2,395,500 100.0%
[Continued on following page]
0898.HNT/bl
Katz Hol l is
[Table III - 1, page 21
Portion Proposed
for
Project Funding
Estimated
Total Cost Amount %
............................................... ..................._...._....... ......
Waterline Improvements
.................._......_.............................................................._........
--8" water main east and west
side of Beach Blvd., complete
loops and replace 6" $ 1,515,000 $ 1,515,000 100.0%
--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 414,000 414,000 100.0%
........................... ........................_........................_... .............................
Total Waterline Improvements $ 1L929,000 $ 1,929,000 100.0%
Utility Undergrounding
.........................................................................................................
--Entire length Beach Blvd. $ 4,500,000 $ 3,200,000 71.1%
......................._...___............I....... ....................................................._. .............................
Recreation and Park Improvements,
and Historic Preservation-Bartlett Park $1,242,000 $ 1,242,000 100.0%
...................................................................._................................................................................................................. ............................................ ....................................................... ..............I..............
Landscaping and Streetscape
..........._..........._........._................................................................................................
--Median and frontage road
landscaping, Atlanta to Edinger $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 100.0%
--Theme signage, street furniture,
decorative street lights 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 100.0%
Total Landscaping and Streetscape $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 100.0%
....................__.................._.......... .........._.............................._....... ......_.__.............
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS .14,797,500 12�_063 500 81.5%
__ __.... __
Source: City of Huntington Beach
0898.HNT/bl
Katz Hoi 1 is
to cost $2.4 million, one-hundred percent of which is proposed for Project
funding. Waterline improvements will total $1.9 million, all of which is
proposed to be paid through Project funding. Seventy-one percent of the
$4.5 million in utility undergrounding coats is proposed for Project Funding.
Full Project funding is also proposed for $1.2 million in
recreation/park/historical preservation costs. The total cost of the entire
public improvements and facilities program is estimated at $14.8 million, of
which $12.1 million (81.5 percent) is proposed for funding from Project
revenues.
The Agency's land assembly and disposition program will focus on
eliminating non-conforming and other blighting uses as well as becoming a
means of assisting the private market to properly develop vacant and
underutilized parcels. Although the Agency does not intend to pursue an
aggressive land assembly policy, it is estimated that up to 107 acres of
property could be acquired, at an average cost of $30 per square foot.
As detailed in Table III-2, land assembly and related costs,
including special site preparation, total an estimated $160.7 million in 1987
dollars.
Other estimated Project costs detailed in Table III-2 include
Project administration ($4.3 million) and Low and Moderate Income Housing
Fund deposits of $41.8 million.
When a ten percent contingencies factor and an escalation factor
of 15 percent are applied to the total of the above costs, the total estimated
Project costs, exclusive of debt service on Agency bonds, become $264.1
million.
In Table III-3 projected land sale proceeds of $116.5 million are
netted against the above total Project costs, giving a potential bond issue
size of $147.6 million. Debt service on an issue of this size would be $322.8
million. Total net Project costs, including bond debt service, are estimated
at $470.4 million. This amount becomes the proposed tax increment limit for
the Project.
C. Estimated Pro,�ect Revenues
........................................................... ... .... .....................
Potential revenue sources to fund Project costs include: tax
increment receipts and proceeds from tax increment bonds; loans, grants and
contributions from the City, State or Federal Government and from Project
developers; proceeds from the sale of Agency owned land; special assessment
districts; and development fees.
1. Tax Increment Reven ..........
Agency staff have projected the scope, type and pace of new
developments which may occur within the Project Area over the life of the
Project. The scopes and types of these developments are summarized in
Table III-4.
(III-2)
KatzHolfis
Table III - 2
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS*
...._...................._........................... .........._. ..._._.............................
(000's Omitted)
Proposed Public Improvements and
Facilities Projects (See Table III-1) $ 12,064
Site Assembly:
- Land Acquisition (107Ac @ $30/sq. ft.) $139,850(1)c2>
- Relocation 4,125(3)
- Demolition 925(2)
- Special Site Preparation 5,800(1)
...................................................
Total Site Assembly 150,700
Administration (5 yrs @ $300,000;
5 yrs @ .$200,000; 5 yrs @ $150,000;
10 yrs @ $100,000) 4,250
Low and Moderate Income Housing
(20% of total below) 41,754
.....................................
Total $208,768
Plus: Contingencies (10% of above total) 20,877
Total $229,645
Plus: Escalation (15% of above total) 34,447
............................
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $2641092
* Estimated Project costs do not include payments to affected taxing agencies to
alleviate financial detriment, if any, caused by the Project, or for deposits into
the Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund as a result of such
payments. In addition, the cost of providing replacement housing for low and
moderate income dwelling units demolished by the Project is not included in the
estimated Project cost total. It is assumed that any replacement housing cost
obligations incurred by the Agency would be funded by moneys deposited into
the Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.
Source: 6 City of Huntington Beach
(2)Katz Hollis
MPacific Relocation Consultants
r
Katz HOl l is
Table III - 3
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
NET PROJECT COSTS
........ ..._. .... ......... .. .. .......... . ........ .... .... ............... .....................
.........
(000's Omitted)
Costs
to be Net
Financ...... .................
Total Estimated Project Costs (See Table III-2) $264,092 $264,092
Plus: Debt Service on Bond Issue
(Interest Only)( ) -- 322,809
....................... ......................................
Total $264,092 $586,901
Less: Estimated Land Sale Proceeds(Z) <116,523> <116,523>
.............._..........._.........._. ............................._..........
Total Costs to be Financed with Bond Issue ° $147,569
Round to V47x670
................................_
NET PROJECT COSTS (Tax Increment Limit) $470,378
Round to #4701.380
-----------------
(1)$147,570,000 issue; 12% interest, 25-year term
(2)107Ac B $20/sq. Pt., plus 25%)
0898.hnt/5
Katz lio1 l is
Table III - 4
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
PROJECTED NEW DEVELOPME .................. ...................
._.. ............_......................... .
Motel Units 104 unite
Commercial 575,700 sq.ft.
Office 300,000 sq.ft
Residential Dwelling Units 507 D.U.s
Restaurant/Fast Food 16,400 sq. ft.
Auto Dealerships 52,000 sq. ft.
Source: City of Huntington Beach
0898.HNT/bl
Katz Hol I is
A projection of annual estimated tax increment revenueH
which would be generated within the Project Area over the life of the
Project is presented in Table III-5. The projection, totaling some $515.0
million, is based upon: 1) the new developments included in Table III-4; and
2) an underlying seven percent annual growth to reflect transfers of
ownership and other new construction. If a full 20% of this amount were
deposited into the Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, the net
tax increment funds available to the Project would total $412.0 million.
2. Loans, Grants and Contributions from City, State and Federal
......... ............. ..........._.._................................................-........................_..............
Government anal from Project Developers
Currently, Agency administrative costs are being funded by
City advances and loans, a situation which will continue until other sources
of revenues are available. It is likely that additional City funds or other
loans will be necessary if all the implementation activities identified
previously are to be timely completed. Such loans may include advances
from future Project Area developers.
A major component of the Project Area's existing blighting
conditions is the existence of inadequate public improvements, facilities and
utilities. Local and freeway transportation, traffic and street improvement
projects needed to alleviate the area's major traffic access, circulation and
parking deficiencies total over $14.8 million. As detailed in Table III-1,
nearly twenty percent of this cost is proposed to be borne by sources other
than project funding. Such sources will include the City's general fund and
various public improvement funds, some of which are funded by
contributions from state and federal programs.
3. Land Sale Proceed .
The Agency's program . contemplates the acquisition of
privately owned parcels to be sold for development in accord with the
Redevelopment Plan. For purposes of this Report it is assumed that sales
prices from the Agency to private developers will average $20 per square
foot, totaling an estimated $116.5 million.
4. Special Assessment Districts
_..............._............s. ..........................
The use of special assessment districts is not presently
considered a viable alternative to the use of tax increment revenues to fund
Project costs. By definition, and as described earlier in this report, the
Project Area is a blighted area in which existing owners and potential
outside private developers have shown a reluctance to invest. It is believed
that required contributions above and beyond the normal costs of land
acquisition and private development may become a self-defeating disincentive
to private development. Under current conditions it is also unlikely that
existing businesses and owners could afford to participate in an assessment
district to finance major Project activities.
(III-3)
Katz t s
Huntington Beath Redevelopment Agency E*ACH1
Huntin-gton-Beach--Beath Boulevard Redeve_4sert Praj.ect
Table II-I-5:
PROAl TION OF INCREMEN AL TAX .REVENUE
(000's Omitted) (2)
Tcta! Increment Gross M. (4)
fiscal Real . :Other Prn;4_t Over Base Tax. 20% Hsg Net Tax
Year Propty ;il;).: Propty (1) Velue $242,005 Revenue Cumulative Set-Aside Cumulative Revenue Cumulative
------ ------- ------- ----------- ---- ===9= =- --------- ===_===_=_ ---------
1986-97 217,332 24,673 2i2, 05 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0
1987-8B 235,030 24,673 259,?.3 17,698 202 208 (42) (47) 166 166
19ES-89 257,676 A,13B 282l5 40,210 479 687.. (96) (137) 383 549
:19.0-90 273,714 26,35E 3 1.0i" 62,064 726 1,413 (145) (287) 581 !,ln
1940-41 330,597 28,356 116,947 11364 21777 (273) 1555) 1,091 2,222
1991-92 361,577 29,356 359,9 2 147,927 1,721 4,498 (344) (900, 1,377 3,599
1992-9.3 186,897 .29,420 416,1 7 174,302 2,023 61521 (405) (1,304) 1,612 5,217
1993-94 413,969 30,243 444.1212 202,207 2,341 8,962. (468) (1,772) 1,2-73 71090
1994-95 ,63,061 301243 493. 44 251,298 2,901 111763 ,: (580) (2,333) 2,321 9,4!1
1 95-46 5+,2,g66 30,243 `,_ _�'s 291,103 3,352 l5;114 (6T0) C;,023) 2,682 12,09
1996-97 538,A6- 31,379 9,i45 321,440 3,161 18_1876 (752) 13,775) 3,008 l51101
1947-9e G55,'99 ?i,045 c1',9=4 375;939, 4,306 23,182 (861) (41616) 31445 18,546
199°-99 637.,226 12,045 6 =,27.1 427,266 4,83! 28,63_ (976) (3,¢i3). 3,905 22,450
19Y9-40. 162,784 33,446 354 PM 6,315 34,378 (1,263) (6,816) 5,052 27,502
11000-01 919,121 34,520 95',2``5 712,250 8,093 42,471 (l,619) (6-,494) 6,475 33,977
20G:-c'2 984,!08 39,244 1,023.3G2 781,347 9,855 51,326 , (1,771) (10,269) 7,084 41906'_
2002-03 !,0521995 44.149 1,:97,'_44 a55,1s8 9,665 60,991 (1,933) (!2,198) 7,732 48,763
2003-04 1,126,105 44,148 1,110,9;5 926,042 10,470 71,461 (2,094) (14,292) 9,315 57,169
2004-03 1,205,575 44,148 1,24y,723 1,007,719 11,329 82,790 (2,266). (16,558) 9,063 66,232
2005-06 1,,289,963 44,148. 1,334,l13 1,092,1108 12,244 95,034 (2,449) (19,00711 9,795 76,022
2006-01 l,380,262 44,149 1,424,-10 1,182,,405 13,221 108,255 (2,644) (21,651) 10,577 86,604
.2007-08 1,476,88! 44,149 1,521, Z 11279,024 14,262 122,318 (2.,852) (24,504) 11,410 98,014
2008-01 1,580,262 44,149 1,624:4l0 1,382,405 15,373 l31,841 (3,0T5) t27,57B) 12,299 110,313
2009-l0 1,741,725 44,14E 1,1w,S?3 1,543t868 11,!22 155,0!3 (3,434} (3l,003) !3,698 124,011
2010-11 1,975,322 44,148 2,019,410 11777,465 19,659 174,672 (3,932) (34,934) 15,727 M,731
20!!-12 2,113,594 .46,050 2,15a.`S4 1,917.,679 21,151 I95,823 (4,230) (39,16.5) 16,921 156,659
2012-13 2,2611546 47,689 2,3001,235 2,0671230 22,738 218,562 (4,548) (43,712) 18,191 174,849
2013-14 2,419,954: 47,689 2,467,J44 21225,539 24,412 242,974 . (41882) (489595) 191530 194,379 .
2014-13 2,P7,858 ',47,689 216451'.47' 2,403,342 26,292 269,266 (51250) (53,853) 21,033 215,412
2015-16 2,763,306 47,689 2,'.01996 2,388,990 28,242 2911508 (5,648) (59,502) 22,394 236,006
2016-17 2,978,133 48,625 3,026,163 2,784,157 30,293 327,801 (6,059) (65,560) 24,235 262,241
2017-18 -3,186,6Q7 48,625 3,23z.,2=2� 2,993,227 32,470 360,271 (6,494) (72,054) 23,976 282,217
2018-19 3,409,670 48,625 3,458.2%a 3,216,290 34,793 395,063 (6,954) (79,013) 21,934 316,051
1014-201 3.,648,347 48,625 3,454,966 37,270 432.,333 (7,454) (86,467) . 29,916 345,867
2020-21 3,903,731 48,625 3,9.2„5-4 3,710,351 . 39,912 .472,243 (7,982) (94,449) 31,930 3'7,796
2021-22 4,176,992 4B,b25 4,2 jl1 3,983,612 42,731 514,976: 18,546) (102,995) 34,165 41,1,98-'
TOTAL 514,976 (102,995) 411,98!
t
4 See footnotes on following page,
! r
Kate Hol l is
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
Footnotesto P.._.... ................................._........... ................................................................................................
(Relates to Table III-5)
1. The estimated 1986-87 base year assessed valuation of the Project Area
has been determined based upon local secured and unsecured values
reported by the Orange County Auditor - Controller for fiscal year
1986-87. State assessed. public utility assessment records were not
available for incorporation in the base year valuation total.
Real Property values (i.e., land and improvements) reflect anticipated
value added as a result of new developments identified by City/Agency
staff within the Project area, as well as an annual two percent increase
as allowed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution and a five
percent annual increase to reflect unidentified transfers of ownership
of new construction. Other Property values (i.e. personal property)
are assumed to increase only as a result of anticipated personal
property valuations of the new developments. The amounts of annual
taxable value added as a result of identified new developments include
an assumed four percent inflationary growth factor annually escalated
to reflect assumed market increases to the cost of property
development and tenant improvements.
2. Gross tax revenue is projected on the basis of a representative area
tax rate which includes the basic $1 per $100 rate plus an override
rate. Future override rates reflect an assumed annual decline
equivalent to the average annual decline of the override tax rate
between 1980-81 and 1986-87.
3. Twenty percent Housing Set Aside - 209K of gross tax revenues are
assumed to be set aside for purposes of low and moderate income
housing pursuant to existing California redevelopment law.
4. Net tax revenue - For the purpose of this projection, annual tax
_............._.........................................._....__..........
increment revenue shown is net of the twenty percent housing set
aside requirement. No other tax revenue allocations are assumed or
shown.
f �
Katz Hollis
5. Development Fees
The City of Huntington Beach currently charges modest fees
for permit processing and administration. For the same reasons as
discussed above for special assessments, the City does not currently plan to
increase the fee schedule as a means of financing redevelopment activities.
It should be noted, however, that future Project Area
commercial and residential development will likely be subject to development
fees of 25 cents/sq.ft. and $1.50/sq.ft., respectively, which per AB 2926
(Chap. 887, 1986 Statutes, effective January 1, 1987) may be levied by local
school districts to assist in building new and renovating existing schools.
D. Proposed Financing Method and Economic. .. . _ ...
As shown on Tables III-1 through III-5, the Agency proposes a
program of redevelopment activities which total an estimated $586.9 million.
It will have funding resources of $116.5 million in land sale proceeds, giving
an estimated net Project cost of $470.4 million, including an assumed full
twenty -percent annual deposit into the Project Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund. With estimated tax increment resources totaling $515.0 million
over the life of the Project, all costs are fully fundable.
Because tax increment revenues build up slowly in early years,
the Agency will likely continue to use City loans to finance initial activities.
As revenues increase, such loans may be repaid, and the Agency may choose
to fund the activities through other financing sources secured by tax
increment. One or more bond issues may be sold by the Agency in order to
leverage future revenue flows. Because of the 1986 federal tax act, such
issues, if tax exempt, may be restricted to essential government purposes
such as the construction of public improvements and facilities.
Based on the financing method discussed above, the Agency has
established the following tax increment and bond limits in the Redevelopment
Plan, as required by the Community Redevelopment Law: 1) the total tax
increment bonds which may be outstanding at one time may not exceed
$147,570,000 in principal amount, and 2) the total amount of tax increment
revenues which may be allocated to the Agency from the Project Area may
not exceed $470,380,000. Both of these limits exclude any payments made by
the Agency to affected taxing agencies to alleviate fiscal detriment caused
by the Project. Any such payments the Agency may be required to make
could potentially reduce the funds available for Project activities, especially
in the Project's early years.
E. Reasons for Including Tax Increment Financing in Proposed
Redevelopment Plan
A redevelopment program in addition to providing a proven
method of securing desired developments in locations otherwise not
attractive, also provides a financing tool in tax increments. The Agency and
the City must look to this source of funding in order to assist in solving
the Project Area's problems. Both entities have and will consider every
(III-4)
Katz Iiol I is
alternative source of funding available to finance Project improvements prior
to considering the use of tax increment revenues. (See Section F below.)
The financing method envisioned by the Agency for the Project, as
described above, places heavy reliance on all such sources including
substantial City contributions. It is believed that neither the City nor the
private market could bear costs in excess of those assumed in the financing
program. In the City's case, a cut-back in capital improvements and
services needs in other areas of the City would be required. In the case of
the private market, once the anticipated investment return on a property is
reduced below a rate comparable to alternative investments, the development
of the property is jeopardized.
Like most cities, since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978
Huntington Beach has experienced severe funding shortages in the provision
of services and particularly in the installation and maintenance of public
improvements and facilities. This problem has been compounded by state
and federal cutbacks in local government funding programs. Table III-6
summarizes budgeted, requested, and funded amounts for each of the ten
categories within the City's 5-year Capital Improvements Program during the
current and prior two fiscal years. On the average, less than 75 percent of
the cost of requested projects has been approved during this period. In
the critical areas of community services, police protection, and fire
protection, less than four percent ($164,250) out of $4.9 million in requested
funds could be approved.
F. Tax Increment Use Limitations and Requirements
......................................_.._....................................__...................................................................................................._.
As noted above, the proposed Redevelopment Plan establishes the
following tax increment and bond limits, as required by. the Community
Redevelopment Law: 1) the amount of bonds supportable in whole or in part
by tax increment revenues which may be outstanding at one time may not
exceed $147,570,000; and 2) the total amount of tax increment revenues which
may be allocated to the Agency from the Project Area may not exceed
$470,380,000. Both of these limits exclude payments which the Agency may
make to affected taxing agencies to alleviate fiscal detriment, if any, caused
by the Project, and the 20 percent low and moderate income housing set-
aside required relating to such payments. Any such payments the Agency
may be required to make would potentially reduce the funds available for
Project activities.
In addition to tax increment and bonded indebtedness limits
discussed above, there are several other statutory requirements relating to
the Agency's use of tax increment funds. The Agency is cognizant of such
requirements and intends to fully adhere to them to the extent they are
applicable to the Agency and to the Project. A summary of these
requirements is presented below.
1. Prior to paying all or part of the value of land for and the
cost of installation and construction of any publicly owned building, facility,
structure, or other improvement within or, outside the Project Area, the
Agency will request the City Council to consent to such payment and to
determine:
(III-5)
Katz Hol l is
Table 1II-6 26-Jan-8/
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project
CITY FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM HISTORY
(-------1984/85------) (-------1985186------) (-------1986/87------)
5 YR CIP REQUESTED APPROVED 5 YR CIP REQUESTED APPROVED 5 YR CIP REQUESTED APPROVED
PROJECT CATEGORY 84/85 85/86 (UPDATED) 86/87 (UPDATED)
-------------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
STREETS $5,223,000 $5,223,000 $:;,612,000 $5,075,000 $4,772,800 $4,772,800 $5,378,000 $11,613,000 $11,613,000
DRAINAGE 504,000 504,000 347,000 715,000 727,600 727,600 990,000 1,860,000 410,000
WATER UTILITY 1,029,500 1,029,500 11029,500 11159,100 622,100 622,100 1,063,000 1,267,800 1,267,800
FACILITY MAINT. 1,013,000 1,013,000 0 595,000 800,000 0 715,000 650,000 0
SEWERS 328,400 328,400 328,400 279,000 407,200 407,200 355,000 688,200 688,200
LANDSCAPE/PARK EQUIP 453,000 453,000 0 265,000 510,000 0 165,000 540,000 0
PARK AO. 6 DEV. 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,858,600 4,291,431 4,291,431 2,560,000 2,803,000 2,803,000
COMMUNITY SERVICES 492,900 492,900 0 224,800 359,500 0 1,350,000 1,496,000 0
POLICE PROTECTION 903,822 903,822 0 147,000 398,000 0 219,000 515,000 0
FIRE PROTECTION 309,000 309,000 0 640,000 225,500 0 2,033,000 164,250 164,250
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
TOTAL $11,896,622 $11,896,622 $6,956,900 $10,958,500 $13,114,131 $10,821,131 $14,828,000 $21,597,250 .$16,946,250
--------------------
Source: City of Huntington Beach
0990hnt.wks4
010687/tmc
Katz Hol l is
a. That such building, facility, structure or improvement is
of benefit to the Project Area or the immediate neighborhood; and
b. That no other reasonable means of financing the
building, facility, structure or improvement is available to the community.
2. Prior to committing to use tax increment funds to pay for all
or part of the value of the land for, and the cost of installation and
construction of, a publicly owned building (other than parking facilities) the
Agency will request the City Council to hold a public hearing and to make
the above determinations. In connection with such public hearing a
summary will be prepared to:
a. Show the estimated amount of tax increment funds
proposed to be used to pay for such land and construction (including
interest payments);
b. Set forth the facts supporting the Council's
determinations; and
C. Set forth the redevelopment purposes for which 'such
expenditure is being made.
3. The .Agency will not, without the prior consent of the City
Council, develop a site for industrial or commercial use so as to. provide
streets, sidewalks, utilities or other improvements which the owner or
operator of the site would otherwise be obligated to provide.
4. Prior to entering into any agreement to sell or lease any
property acquired in whole or in part with. tax increment funds, the Agency
will request the City Council to approve such sale or lease after holding a
public hearing. In connection with such public hearing the Agency shall
make available a summary describing and specifying:
a. The cost of the agreement to the Agency;
b. The estimated value of the interest to be conveyed or
leased, determined at the highest uses permitted under the Redevelopment
Plan; and
c. The purchase price or the sum of the lease payments,
and, if the sale price or total rental amount is less than the fair market
value of the interest to be conveyed or leased determined at the highest
and best use consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, an explanation of the
reasons for such difference.
(III-6)
f f
Katz Hol lis
2. Prior to committing to use tax increment funds to
pay for all or part of the value of the land for, and the cost of installation
and construction of, a publicly owned building. (other than parking facilities)
the Agency will request the City Council to hold a public hearing and to
make the above determinations.. In connection with such public hearing a
summary will be prepared to:
a. Show the estimated amount of tax increment
funds proposed to be used to pay for such land and construction (including
interest payments);
b. Set forth the facts supporting the Council's
determinations; and
c. Set forth the redevelopment purposes for which
such expenditure is being made.
3. The Agency will not, without the prior consent of
the City Council develop a site for industrial or commercial use so as to
provide streets, sidewalks, utilities or other .improvements which the owner
or operator of the site would otherwise be obligated to provide.
4. Prior to entering into any agreement to sell or
lease any property acquired in whole or in part . with tax increment funds,
the Agency will request the City Council to approve such sale or lease after
holding a public hearing. In connection with such public hearing the
Agency shall make available a summary describing and specifying: .
a. The cost of the agreement to the Agency;
b. The estimated value of the interest to be
conveyed or leased, determined at the highest uses permitted under the
Redevelopment Plan; and
C. The purchase price or the sum of the lease
payments, and, if the sale price or total rental amount is less than the ;fair
market value of the interest to be conveyed or leased determined at 'the
highest and best use consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, an explanation
of the reasons for such difference.
(III-6)
Katz Hollis
Part IV. PLAN AND METHOD OF RELOCATION
Section. 33352(d) of the CRL requires the Agency's Report to the City Council
on the proposed Redevelopment Plan to present a plan and method of
relocation for those site occupants who may be displaced by Agency action.
A. Agency Displacement
As noted in Part III of this Report, the Agency anticipates that its
program if upgrading and installation of public improvements and facilities
needed within the Project Area will provide an incentive for the private
sector to develop or redevelop vacant, underutilized and blighted properties.
As an additional aid to the private sector, the Agency may also selectively
acquire and dispose of property: 1) to eliminate non-conforming and other
blighting uses; 2) in response to property-owner and developer initiated
efforts where public assistance is necessary to assemble property needed
for expansion of existing uses or to create developable sites for proposed
new uses; and 3) "opportunity" acquisitions in which an existing owner may
desire to sell in order to pursue opportunities out of the Project Area.
Under this selective acquisition approach,. it is estimated that up to 107
acres of property could be acquired over the Project life. To the extent
that the Agency acquires occupied property for land assembly or other
purposes, or enters into agreements with developers or others under which
occupants will be required to move, the Agency will cause or will be
responsible for causing such displacement of occupants. The Agency is not
responsible for any displacement which may occur as a result of private
development activities not directly assisted by the Agency under a
disposition and development, participation, or other such agreement.
B. Relocation in the Event of Agency Displacement
As noted above, displacement of persons, families, businesses or
tenants is anticipated under current Agency plans. When such displacement
occurs the Agency will provide persons, families, business owners and
tenants displaced by Agency Project Area activities with monetary and
advisory relocation assistance consistent with the California Relocation
Assistance Law (Government Code, Section 7260 et seq.), the State Guidelines
adopted and promulgated pursuant thereto, Relocation Rules and Regulations
adopted by the Agency and the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for
the Project.
The Agency will pay all relocation payments required by law. The
following portions of this Part IV of the Report to City Council outline the
general relocation rules and procedures which must be adhered to by the
Agency in activities requiring the relocation of persons and businesses.
Also identified below are the Agency determinations and assurances which
must be made prior to undertaking relocation activities. The Agency's
functions in providing relocation assistance and benefits are also
summarized.
(IV-I)
KatzHollis
C. Rules and Regulations
............................................................_.
The Agency has adopted rules and regulations that: (1) implement
the requirements of California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code,
Chapter 16 of Division 7 of Title 1, commencing with Section 7260) (the
"Act"); (2) are in accordance with the provisions of the California
Department of Housing and Community Development's "Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines" (the "State Guidelines"); (3) meet .
the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law and the
provisions of the Redevelopment Plan; (4) are appropriate to the particular
activities of the Agency and not inconsistent with the Act or the State
Guidelines. Such rules or regulations issued by the Agency shall be
promptly revised as necessary to conform to applicable amendments of the
Act, the California Community Redevelopment Law or the State Guidelines.
D. Agency Determinations and Assurances
... ..................._................................................_.................
1. The Agency may not proceed with any phase of a project or
other activity which will result in the displacement of any person or busi-
ness until it makes the following determinations:
a. Fair and reasonable relocation payments will be provided
to eligible persons as required by law, the State Guidelines and Agency
rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
b. A relocation assistance advisory program offering the
.services described in Article 2 of the State Guidelines will be established.
c. . Eligible persons will be adequately informed of the
assistance, benefits, policies, practices and procedures, including grievance
procedures, provided for in the State Guidelines.
d. Based upon recent survey and analysis of both the
housing needs of. persons who will be displaced and available replacement
housing, and considering competing demands for that housing, comparable
replacement dwellings will be available, or provided, if necessary, within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement sufficient in number, size
and cost for the eligible persons who require them:
e. Adequate provisions have been made to provide orderly,
timely and efficient relocation of eligible persons to comparable replacement
housing available without regard to race, color, religion, sex, marital status,
or national origin with minimum hardship to those affected.
f. A relocation plan meeting the requirements of law and
the State Guidelines has been prepared.
2. No person shall be displaced until the Agency has fulfilled
the obligations imposed by the Act, the California Community Redevelopment
Law, the Redevelopment Plan, the State Guidelines and the Agency rules and
regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
(IV-2)
a
Katz-Hollis
3. No persons or families of low and moderate income shall be
displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and
ready for occupancy by such displaced person or family at rents comparable
to those 'at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be
suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be
decent, safe, sanitary and an otherwise standard dwelling. The Agency shall
not displace such persons or families until such housing units are available
and ready for occupancy.
4. If any portion of the Project Area is developed with low or
moderate income housing units, the Agency shall require by contract or
other appropriate means that such housing be made available for rent or
purchase to the persons and families of low and moderate income displaced
by the Project. Such persons and families shall be given priority in
renting or buying such housing; provided, however, that failure to give
such priority shall not affect the validity of title to real property.
5. If insufficient suitable housing units are available in the
community for low and moderate income persons and families to be displaced
from the Project Area, the City Council shall assure that sufficient land is
made available for suitable housing for rental or purchase by low and
moderate income persons and families. If insufficient suitable housing units
are available in the City for use by such persons and families of low and
moderate income displaced by the Project, the Agency may, to the extent of
that deficiency, direct or cause the development, rehabilitation, or
construction of housing units within the City.
6. Permanent housing facilities shall be made available within
three years from the time occupants are displaced, and pending the
development of such facilities there will be available to such displaced occu-
pants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in
the City at the time of their displacement.
7. Whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low
or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the low and moderate
income housing market as part of the Project, the Agency shall, within four
years of such destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop or construct, or
cause to be rehabilitated, developed or constructed, for rental or sale to
persons and families of low or moderate income an equal number of
replacement dwelling units at affordable housing costs within the Project
Area or the City.
8. At least 30 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units
developed by the Agency, if any, shall be available at affordable housing
cost to persons and families of low and moderate income. Not less than 50
percent of the dwelling units required to be available at affordable housing
cost to persons and families of low or moderate income shall be available at
affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low income households.
At least 15 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed
within the Project Area by public or -private entities or persons other than
the Agency, if any, shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons
and families of low or moderate income. Not less than 40 percent of the
(IV-3)
KatzHollis
dwelling units required to be available at affordable housing cost to persons
and families of low or moderate income shall be available at affordable
housing cost to very low income households. These percentage requirements
shall apply independently of the requirements of paragraph 7 above .and in
the aggregate to housing made available by the Agency and by public or
private entities or persons other than the Agency, respectively, and not to
each individual case of rehabilitation, development or construction of
dwelling units. The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of
dwelling units rehabilitated, developed or constructed pursuant to these
requirements remain available at affordable housing cost to persons and
families of low income, moderate income and very low income households,
respectively, for not less than the period of the land use controls
established in the Redevelopment Plan.
E. Replacement Housing Plan
Not less than 30 days prior to the execution of an agreement for
acquisition of real property, or the execution of an agreement for the dispo-
sition and development of property, or the execution of a participation
agreement, which agreement would lead to the destruction or removal of
dwelling units from the low and moderate income housing market, the Agency
shall adopt by resolution a replacement housing plan. For a reasonable time
prior to adopting a replacement housing plan by resolution, the Agency shall
make available a draft of the proposed replacement housing plan for review
and comment by the Project Area Committee, other public agencies, and the
general public.
The replacement housing plan shall include those elements
required by the Community Redevelopment Law. A dwelling unit housing
persons of low or moderate income whose replacement is required by the
Agency, but for which no replacement housing plan has been prepared, shall
not be destroyed or removed . from the low and moderate income housing
market until the Agency has by resolution adopted a replacement housing
plan.
Nothing, however, shall prevent the Agency from destroying or
removing from the low and moderate income housing market a dwelling unit
which the Agency owns and which is an immediate danger to health and
safety. The Agency shall, as soon as practicable, adopt by resolution a
replacement housing plan with respect to such dwelling unit.
F. Relocation Assistance Advisory Program and
Assurance of Comparable Replacement Housing
The Agency shall implement a relocation assistance advisory
program which satisfies the requirements of the State Law and Article 2 of
the State Guidelines and the Civil Rights Act. Such program shall be
administered so as to provide advisory services which offer maximum
assistance to minimize the hardship of displacement and to ensure that (a)
all persons and families displaced from their dwellings are relocated into
housing meeting the criteria for comparable replacement housing contained
(IV-4)
Katz Hol 1 is
in the State Guidelines, and (b) all persons displaced from their places of
business are assisted in reestablishing with a minimum of delay and loss of
earnings. No eligible person shall be required to move from his/her
dwelling unless within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement a
comparable replacement dwelling or, in the case of a temporary move, an
adequate replacement dwelling is available to'such person.
The following outlines the general functions of the Agency in
providing relocation' assistance advisory services. Nothing in this section is
intended to permit the Agency to displace persons other than in a manner
prescribed by law, the State Guidelines and the adopted Agency rules and
regulations prescribing the Agency's relocation responsibilities.
1. . Administrative Organization
a. Reanonsible Entity
The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency is
responsible for providing relocation payments and assistance to site
occupants (persons, families business owners and tenants) displaced by the
Agency from the Project Area, and the Agency will meet its relocation
responsibilities through the use of its staff and consultants, supplemented
by assistance from local realtors and civic organizations.
b. Functions
The Agency's staff and/or consultants will perform
the following functions.
1) Prepare a Relocation Plan as soon as possible
following the initiation of negotiations for acquisition of real property by
the Agency and prior to proceeding with any phase of a public improvement
or facility project or other implementation activity that will result in any
displacement other than an insignificant amount of non-residential
displacement. Such Relocation Plan shall conform to the requirements of the
Section 6038 of the State Guidelines. The Agency. shall interview all eligible
persons, business concerns, including non-profit organizations, to . obtain
information upon which to plan for housing and other accommodations, as
well as to provide counselling and assistance needs.
2) Provide such measures, facilities or services
as needed in order to:
a) Fully inform persons eligible for reloca-
tion payments and assistance within 15 days following the initiation of
negotiations for a parcel of land as to the availability of relocation benefits
and assistance and the eligibility requirements therefor, as well as the
procedures for obtaining such benefits and assistance, in accordance with
the requirements of Section 6046 of the State Guidelines.
(IV-5)
. R
Katz Hol I is
b) Determine the extent of the need of each
such eligible person for relocation assistance in accordance with the
requirements of Section 6048 of the State Guidelines.
c) Assure eligible persons that within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement there. will be available com-
parable replacement housing meeting the criteria described in Section
6008(c) of the State Guidelines, sufficient in number and kind for and avail-
able to such eligible persons.
d) Provide current and continuing informa-
tion on the .availability, prices and rentals of comparable sales and rental
housing, and of comparable commercial properties and locations, and as to
security deposits, closing costs, typical down payments, interest rates, and
terms for residential property in the area.
e) Assist each eligible person to complete
applications for payments and benefits.
f) Assist each eligible, displaced person to
obtain and move to a comparable replacement dwelling.
g) Assist each eligible person displaced from
his/her business in obtaining and becoming established in a suitable
replacement location.
h) Provide any services required to insure
that the relocation process does not result in different or separate treat-
ment on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status
or other arbitrary circumstances.
i) Supply to such eligible persons informa-
tion concerning federal and state housing programs, disaster loan and other
programs administered by the Small Business Administration, and other
federal or state programs offering assistance to displaced persons.
j) Provide other advisory assistance to eli-
gible persons in order to minimize their hardships. As needed, such
assistance may include counselling and referrals with regard to housing,
financing, employment, training, health and welfare, as well as other assis-
tance.
k) Inform all persons who . are expected to
be displaced about the eviction policies to be pursued in carrying out the
Project, which policies shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section
6058 of the State Guidelines.
1) Notify in writing each individual tenant
and owner-occupant to be displaced at least 90 days in advance prior to
requiring a person to move from .a dwelling or to move a business.
(IV-6)
KatzHollis
2. Information Program
The Agency shall establish and maintain an information
program that provides for the following:
a. Within. 15 days following the initiation of negotia-
tions and not less than 90 days in advance of displacement, except for those
situations described in subsection 6042(e) of the State Guidelines, the
Agency shall prepare and distribute informational materials (in the language
most easily understood by the recipients) to persons eligible for ' Agency
relocation benefits and assistance.
b. Conducting personal interviews and maintaining
personal. contacts with occupants of the property to the maximum extent
practicable.
C. Utilizing meetings, newsletters and other mecha-
nisms, including local media available to all persons, for keeping occupants
of the property informed on a continuing basis.
d. Providing each person written notification as soon
as his/her eligibility status has been determined.
e. Explaining to persons interviewed the purpose of
relocation needs survey, the nature of relocation payments and assistance to
be made available, and encouraging them to visit the relocation office for
information and assistance.
3. Relocation Record
The Agency shall prepare and maintain an accurate
relocation record for each person to be displaced as required by the State
of California.
4. Relocation Resources Survey
........_.._..._......................................................................................................._...
The Agency shall conduct a survey of available
relocation resources in accordance with Section 6052 of the State Guidelines.
5. Relocation Payments
The Agency shall make relocation payments to or on
behalf of eligible displaced persons in accordance with and to the full extent
permitted by State Law and Article 3 of the State Guidelines. The
obligations for relocation payments are in addition to any acquisition
payments made pursuant to the Agency's real property acquisition
guidelines, which may be adopted at the time the Agency's relocation rules
and regulations are adopted.
(IV-7)
Katz Hollis
6. Temporary.._Moves
Temporary moves would be required only if adequate
resources for permanent relocation sites are not available. Staff shall make
every effort to assist the site occupant in obtaining permanent relocation
resources prior to initiation of a temporary move, and then only after it is
determined that Project Area activities will be seriously impeded if such
move is not performed.
7. Last Resort Housing
..............................................._........_...................._........
The Agency shall follow State law and the criteria and
procedures set forth in Article 4 of the State Guidelines for assuring that if
the Agency action results, or will result in displacement, and comparable
replacement housing will not be available as needed, the Agency shall use
its funds or fund authorized for the Project to provide such housing.
8. Grievance Procedures
The Agency has adopted grievance procedures to
implement the provisions of the State Law and Article 5 of the State
Guidelines. The purpose of the grievance procedures is to provide Agency
requirements for processing appeals from Agency determinations as to the
eligibility for, and the amount of a relocation payment, and for processing
appeals from persons aggrieved by the Agency's failure to refer them to
comparable permanent or adequate temporary replacement housing. Potential
displacees will be informed by the.Agency of their right to appeal regarding
relocation payment claims or other decisions made affecting their. relocation.
9. Relocation Appeals_ Board
The Mayor of the City of Huntington Beach may appoint
a relocation appeals board composed of five members, and approved by the
City Council. The relocation appeals board shall promptly hear all
complaints brought by residents of the Project Area relating to relocation
and shall determine if the Agency has complied with the applicable State
relocation requirements and where applicable, federal regulations. The
board shall, after a public hearing, transmit its findings and
recommendations to the Agency.
(Iv-8)
KatzHolfis
Part V. ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN
The Preliminary Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project, adopted by the Planning Agency on October 21, 1986
by Resolution No. 1365, describes the boundaries of the Project Area,
contains general statements of land uses, layout of principal streets,
population densities, building intenties and building standards proposed as
the basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area. The Preliminary Plan .
also shows how the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be
attained through the redevelopment of the area, and states that the
proposed redevelopment conforms to the General Plan of the City. The
Preliminary Plan also describes generally the impact of the Project upon the
surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area conforms
with the standards and provisions of the Preliminary Plan. The Project
Area boundary remains, with some minor technical corrections, the same.
The Redevelopment Plan proposes the same land uses and provides for. all
principal streets indicated in the Preliminary Plan. Building intensities. are
in compliance with limits established in the Preliminary Plan. Proposed
building standards also remain the same.
As set forth in . the Preliminary Plan, the proposed Redevelopment
Plan will attain the purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law
by the elimination of areas suffering from economic. dislocation and disuse;
by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are
stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by
private 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.
(V-1)
a �
KatzHollis
Part VI. REPORT AND MCOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMESSIONt _AND
................................................ UIRSD BY .3SCTION 654......................... .t30VSRNMSNT .00DE
Section 33352(f) of the Community Redevelopment Law requires the
report and recommendations of .the Planning Commission on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan to be included in this Report to City Council. Section
65402 of . the Government Code states that no real property should be
acquired by dedication or otherwise for public purposes, no real property
shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned and no public.
building or structure shall be constructed or authorized until such activities
have been submitted to and reported upon by the local planning agency as
to conformity with the jurisdiction's adopted general plan.
When the Huntington Beach Planning Commission has adopted its
report and recommendations on the proposed Redevelopment Plan and its
report required by Section 64502 of the Government Code, they will be
added to this Report to City Council or will be forwarded to the City Council
for addition to this Report.
(VI-1)
. a
Pari Vlt. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE, RECORD
:;rtr.t.ion :13385 of the Community Itedr.velopment. I,aw (CRL,) provides
that. Lhe t".it y Comwil shall call upon the resident.H rind existing cornmuunity
(Irgarnizait.ono in the Project Area to form a project area corTimittoe (PAC) if a
;uh�;l.arnl.iarl number of low and moderate income .families are to be: displaced
by tho ProjecA.
A. Formation of PAC
As described more fully in Part 1II. of this Report, the
Agency proposes a program of redevelopment activities which includes
selective acquisition and site assembly. Some of the parcels acquired by the
Agency could include non-conforming residential uses which may be occupied
by low or moderate income families. Although Agency acquisitions are not
likely to result in a substantial displacement of low and moderate income
families, it was determined that formation of a PAC would be beneficial to
Project adoption and implementation. Accordingly, on October 10, 1986 the
I-lunl.ington Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 5718 which called upon
the residents, existing community organizations. and businesses within the
Project Area to attend a public. meeting to be held on December 3, 1986 for
the purpose of forming a PAC. At the December 3 public meeting and a
subsequent meeting held on December 17 a PAC was formed. On January 5,
1987 the City Council, by Resolution No. 5746, approved the 21-member PAC
as a representative Project. Area Committee. A copy of Resolution No. 5746,
including the attached PAC roster, is included as Exhibit 1 to this Part VII
of the Agency's Report to City Council.
R. Information and Documents Made Available to PAC by Agency
}Following is a summary of information and documents
fwesented Lo Lhe: PA(', by Lhe Agency.
Man het•/Dat.e of
Dissemination 1 nformation/Documents
Public meeting held o Role and responsibility of PAC
on 12/3/86 o Summary of PAC formation process
0 Summary of project adoption activities
0 Project Preliminary Plan
Interim PAC mooting 0 Review of Beach Boulevard redevelopment
held on 12/17/86 effort
0 Review of CRI, PAC requirements
PAC ineet.ing held 0 . Summary of redevelopment plan adoption
on 1/7/8 7 process and major documents involved
o History of Reach Boulevard redevelopment
program and program objectives
0 Specific actions required of PAC
Kalzllollis
Manner/Date of
Dissemination Information/Documents
.....................................
PAC meeting held o Proposed Redevelopment Plan
on 1/28/87 o Discussion of eminent domain procedures
o Discussion of relocation laws and benefits
Letter, dated 4/17/87, o Role of Project Area Committee, per CRL,
from City Attorney in relation to proposed Redevelopment
Plan
Letter, dated o Background information addressing points
4/17/87; to PAC raised at previous PAC meeting,
Chairman from including:
Deputy City - Summary of redevelopment proce-
Administrator/ dures
Redevelopment - "Housing and Redevelopment Semi-
Annual Status Report to the
Redevelopment Agency/City Council
for Period 7/1/86 to 12/31/86
"The Use of Redevelopment and Tax
Increment Financing by Cities and
Counties" (California Debt Advisory
Commission)
"Anaheim . Redevelopments" (news-
letter)
"Economic Analysis, Disposition and
Development Agreement, Main Pier
Mixed Use Project" (Report prepared
by Keyser Marston Associates, 8/85)
- Project indebtedness statements.
(1986-87) for Oakview, Yorktown .
Lake, Huntington Center, Tabbert/
Beach and Main Pier Projects
Copies of available agendas and minutes from PAC meetings
are attached as Exhibit 2 to this Part VII of the Agency's Report to City
Council.
C. PAC Recommendations on Proposed Redevelopment Plan
_......... ............. ........................_......__......._.........._.._.........._...._.... ......_.............._........ ...............
At its meeting of April 23, 1987 the PAC considered and voted
upon three options regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan, as follows:
Option 1: Approve the Plan as proposed
Option 2: Approve the Plan with modifications ' and/or
revisions
Option 3: Deny the Plan as proposed
(VII-2)
The PAC voted 18 to 3 to deny approval of the Huntington
Beach-Beach Boulevard Project Redevelopment Plan as proposed. A copy of
n letter from JameR A. lane, PAC Chairperson, to the Redevelopment Agency
and City Council transmitting the PAC's recommendation on the proposed
Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 to this Part VII of the Agency's Report
to City Council.
(VII-3)
RESOLUTION NO i 5746
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE R ECECITY OF '
REPRESSENTATIVEGTON PROJECTCAREAPROVING COMMITTEE IN go? � 1 1987
THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD XA7Z.Haws. COR"
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT �assocr►res
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach selected the project area of and established the boundaries
for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project and
approved and adopted a Preliminary Plan formulated for the
redevelopment of the project area ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 5718 on October
27, 1986 wherein the Council called for the formation of a
Project Area Committee for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project ; and
WHEREAS, on December 3 , 1966 ; 7 : 00 p.ir. in the City Council
C;a.noers , ana on December 17 ; i586 at 1 : 00 p.m. in Roos: b-6 of t-le
Civic Center duly noticed public meetings were conducted to form a
roject Area Committee for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, at said December 17, 1986 meeting; the residential
owner-occupants , tenants , business persons, and representatives of
community organizations in attendance voted to have a Project Area
Committee consisting of 21 members and appointed the members
thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach as follows :
,.� SECTION 1 . The Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project Area Committee (PAC) consisting of the
residential tenants , residential owner occupants business persons
and representatives of community organizations named on the list
of PAC members attached hereto, labeled Exhibit "A" and by this
reference made. a part hereof , is hereby approved as a
representative project area committee for the Huntington
Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project .
SECTION 2. The Redevelopment Agency and the redevelopment
staff are directed to consult with and obtain the advice of the
Project Area Committee concerning those policy matters which deal
with the planning and provision of residential :facilities or
replacement housing for those to be displaced by project
activities ana other matters which affect the residents of the
Project Area while preparing a Redevelopment Plan and for a perioc
of three years after aeoption of the plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach as a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day
of January , 1987.
Ma o
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk Cit Attorney
REVIEL4 D AND APPROVED: I ITIATED AND APPROVE
y A ministrator Depqqy. City Administrator ,
Rede elopment
„
EXHIBIT "A”
REL'€lit-_"v
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT APR 2 11987
AREA COMMITTEE xAm HOLLIS. CODA
a ss & a
BUSINESS PERSONS:
Adkins, Charles W. Lane, James A.
Residence: 3062 Madeira Avenue Residence: 637 Frankfort Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648
957-3062 536-0449
Business: 17122 Beach Blvd. Business: Big O Tire
Huntington Beach, CA Beach & Yorktown
847-9681 536-8591
Banich, Anne A. - ALTERNATE O'Reilly, Ernest P. - ALTERNATE
Residence: 1627 Port Barmouth Pl. Residence: 54620 Risenhower
640-8018 La Quinta, CA 92253
Business: 17731 Beach Blvd. (619) 564-9220
-. Huntington Beach, CA Business: 6841 Breeland
842-4715 Huntington Beach, CA
$92-3182
Benevenial Irma B.
Residence: 17121 Sparkleberry Pearson,' George A. `
Fountain Valley, CA . Residence: 6082 Manorfield Drive
9.63-5618 Huntington Beach, CA
Business: 17502 Beach Blvd. 841-0120
Huntington Beach, CA Business: 16990 Beach Blvd.
842-5505 Huntington Beach, CA
960-2471
Berry, Ronald A. - ALTERNATE
Business: 16661 Beach Blvd. Rasmussen,_ William C.
842-0631 Residence: 16749 Cedarwood Circle
Cerritos, CA
Dains, David L. (213) 404-4715
Residence: 18194 Blue Ridge Business: I7772 Beach Blvd.
Santa Ana, CA Huntington Beach, CA
544-0581 842-1473 X345
Business: 17751 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Rizzo, Joseph R.
847-1884 Residence: . 600 Marguerite Avenue
Corona Del Mar, CA 96265
Jarrett, Kimo K. 640-71.35
Residence: 20731 Hopetown Lane Business: 8071 Warner Avenue
Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
968-6801 847-9062
Business: 17472 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA
:y > 847-1463
Page 1 of 3
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
Russell, Richard D.
Residence: I I Olympus
Irvine, CA
854-9137
Business: 17042 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA
842-3734
Salem, Anthony
Residence: 6050 Montecito Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
840-9293
Business: 19501 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
960-4787
Spiegel, Mark A.
Residence: 1 Q365 Notchvale Road
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(213) 839-3016
Business: 2650 S. Bundy Dr. Jf 225
Los Angeles, CA 90025
(213) 820-381 1
Ying, Ledy
Business:` 8032 Warner Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA
841-3591
.0722r
I
I
Paga 2 of 3
K,atZHOIII5
Exhibit 1 to Part VII .
Resolution No. 5746
EXHIBIT "A"
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA COMMITTEE
1
RESIDENTIAL OWNER-OCCUPANTS:
Ackerman, Thelma W. Files, Ila S.,- ALTERNATE
Residence: 16911 "A" Street Residence: 16892 "A" Street
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
848-7104 847-4720
Banich, John G. _ Ho, Arthur Jan
Residence: 7911 Newman Residence: 17220 Beach Boulevard .
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92649
846-8470
Brackens, Elnorina Inda Business: 17456 Beach Boulevard
Residence: 17421 Dairyview "A" Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Huntington Beach, CA 842-4160 / 847-8551
841-2485
Business: 16783 Beach Boulevard Hunt, Margie Marcelle
Huntington Beach; CA }residence: 16881 "B" Street
491-3365 Huntington Beach, CA
842-4307
Buckingham, Lena P. - ALTERNATE Business: 8902 Hewitt Place
Residence: 7942 Newman Garden Grove, CA
Huntington Beach; CA 894-7201
847-3228
Richmond, Frank A.
Edwards, Deanna L. Residence: 18163 Beach Boulevard
Residence: 17071 B Street, Unit A Huntington Beach, CA
Huntington Beach, CA 842-6782
842--5047 Business: 18151 Beach Boulevard
Business: 2080 Anaheim Boulevard -Huntington Beach, CA
Anaheim, CA 842-1919
937-6200
Fernandez, Barbara COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
'Residence: 16920 "A" Street
Huntington Beach, CA Osterlund, Chuck
847-3737 Residence: 5902 Nordina Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Fernandez, Beatrice A. - ALTERNATE 846-5384
Residence: 16932 "A" Street
Huntington Beach, CA
841-1264
0723r
Page 3 of 3
Res. No. 5746
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNrY OF OMME ) sa
CITY OF RMINCTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENZWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day
of January 19 87 by the following vote:
AYES : Councilmen:
Winchell . Mays , Finley, Kelly, Green.:.Bannister
NOES: Councilmen: .
None
ABSEh?: Councilmen:
Erskine
City Clerk and ex-officio Cleric
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
Katz Hol 1 is
Exhibit 2 to Part VII
PAC meeting agendas and minutes
UNTINGTON
EACH
w BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
" �r•+. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
April 2, 1987 _ _
Stephen V. Kohler
al Redevelo went Specialist 4,��
P P P C^•.1MUNITY C="::LOP
Princi
City of Huntington Beach
Housing and Redevelopment
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Steve:
Enclosed are the minutes of the Project Area Committee meeting of March 25,
1987. Included with the minutes are the Attendees list and Agenda for the upcoming
regular meeting on April 22, 1987.
Thank you for assisting the Committee with the mailing of these minutes to its
members.
All previous minutes are pending my review. I plan completion of the review
for April end 1987.
Again Stephen, thank you for your courtesy and .continued7.assistance.
Sincerely,
Elnorina I. Brackens
Recording Secretary
Enclosures (5)
cc: James Lane, Chairperson (w/enclosures)
c UNTINGTON.
EACH
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
w�
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
•,, AGENDA
Wednesday, April 22, 1987
7:OO p.m. - Room B7
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street
7 : 00 - 1 . CALL TO ORDER.
A . Roll Call
B . Approval of Minutes of March 25 , 1987
C . Introduction of guest speaker(s) .
. 7 : 30 - 2 . DISCUSSION OF BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
Whether the PAC will approve , recommend or reject
the project .
8 : 45 - 3 . DISCUSSION OF BY-LAWS ; as to form and final adoption
of. same .
9 : 00 - 4 . DISCUSSION OF ANY NEW BUSINESS .
9 : 15 - 5 . PUBLIC COMMENTS .
9 : 40 - 6. ADJOURNMENT.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am enployed by the City
of Huntinp,ton Leach,in t!:c � . 01Q1'eArIC, of:ica and
t iai I;oslaV this;!;enda on tns El latin EcardintheoOLWe post•
ing bgari:at the Civi:Cante:cn4 -, ,at a /p.m.
Signature
CNTINGTON'
EACH
w�
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
" '��•+._. � PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
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%.
a _ -
BEACH 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 a 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
REACH BLVD KEUFVELOPMENT
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
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
January 12, 1987
Dear PAC Member:
The next meeting of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee has been scheduled as
follows:
Wednesday, January 28, 1987
7:00 p.m.
Room B-7
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street
The agenda for this meeting will be as follows:
AGENDA
1. Call to order and roll call.
2. Approval of Minutes of January 7, 1987.
3. Discussion of eminent domain procedures.
4. Discussion of relocation laws and benefits.
S. Presentation of Redevelopment Plan.
b. I—ontinued discussion of membership (representation of residential tenants and
number of alternates).
.7. Other business.
8. Adjourn.
I look forward to seeing you on January 28, 19 7. I you should have any questions, please
do not hesitate to t us.
Very I urs,
Stephe . Ko e
1pal R v lopm t alist
sar
Telephone(714)53"542
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT -,VZO
'CSC 2
December 24, 1986 '+tip 4 I986
Dear Beach Boulevard PAC Member:
The next meeting of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) has been
scheduled as follows:
Wednesday, January 7, 1987
7:00 p.m.
Room B-8
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street
The Agenda for this meeting is as follows:
1. Introduction of PAC Members and Staff.
2. Approval of Minutes of December 3 & 17, 1986.
3. Staff Presentation on the History of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Program
and Program Objectives.
4. Consultant Presentation on the Redevelopment Project Area Adoption Process and
Schedule.
S. Specific Actions Required of the PAC.
6. Discussion of PAC By-Laws.
7. Certification of PAC by City Council.
8. Other Business.
9. Adjournment.
Congratulations on becoming a member of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee.
We look forward to working with you on the formation of the Redevelopment Plan. Happy
Holidays!
Very truly yours,
Stephen V. Kohler
Principal Redevelopment Specialist
SVK:sar
Enclosures: Minutes of December 3 & 17, 1986.
Roster of Members.
Draft By-Laws.
Telephone(714)536-5542
1 �
MINUTES
BEACH. BOULEVARD PAC MEETING
JANUARY 7v 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 be 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 staf f 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
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 "
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
RECENED
DEC 19 1986
1W1�, hvLLJ, I;UNEN
F •S4np►!.TES
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
INTERIM PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
AGENDA
1 . INTRODUCTION OF STAFF
2. REVIEW OF PURPOSE OF PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
3. REVIEW OF PROGRESS AT PAC MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 1986, AND .
NEED FOR REPRESENTATIVE PAC
4 . .INTRODUCTION OF INTERIM PAC MEMBERS
S. CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO COMPLETE PAC MEMBERSHIP
6. MOTION: TO CONSTITUTE BEACH BOULEVARD PAC AND REQUEST THE
CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY REPRESENTATIVENESS OF PAC
7. ADJOURNMENT
SUGGESTED
NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY JANUARY 7, 1987
7: 00 PM
HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER
Telephone(714)536-5542
MINUTES
BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 179 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 offices 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
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT
Dear Interested Party:
As you know, at the first organizational meeting of the Project Area Committee for the
proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area, it was agreed that a second
meeting would be called as follows:
Wednesday, December 17, 1986
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Huntington Beach Civic Center
2000 Main Street
It was the concensus of those attending the first meeting of the PAC in-formation that
those interested in serving would seat themselves as the Project Area Committee at this
meeting. Enclosed for your information are the Minutes of the First Organizational
Meeting of the PAC.
If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate
.to contact me at t ber below.
Very truly urs,
Stephen V ohler
i Redev pment ec alist
SVK:s
Enclosure
xc: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment
Thomas Andrusky, Redevelopment Project Manager
Thomas P. Clark, Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth
Telephone(714)536-6542
RECEIVEn
D
i, CITY OF HUNTINGTON B-,
�a � ."•ua cum i.
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
FIRST ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
AGENDA
1. STAFF INTRODUCTION (AGENCY STAFF).
2. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND SLIDES OF THE PROPOSED BEACH
BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (AGENCY STAFF).
3. THE PROCESS FOR ADOPTING A NEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
(AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL).
4. THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC).
A. Role and Responsibility of the PAC (Agency Staff)
B. Time Requirement for Membership (Agency Staff)
C. Categories of Membership (Agency Counsel)
D. Completion of PAC Membership applications (Agency Counsel)
E. Requirement for representative Membership (Agency Counsel)
F. Election of PAC Membership/By-laws (Agency Counsel)
G. Staffing Requirements of PAC (Agency Counsel)
H. Next Formation Meeting of Project Area Committee,
if necessary Wednesday, December 17, 1986,
7 P.M.
City Council Chambers,
Huntington Beach Civic Center,
2000 Main Street (Agency Staff)
5. COMMENCE PAC FORMATION, RESIDENTS AND EXISTING COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS (AGENCY COUNCEL)
Telephone(714)536-6542
Olt
RECEIVE'
MINUTES
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
FIRST ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING siep(."FTfs
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
Ms. Ingrid Woken Ms. Pattie Dodd C oA Q e i-
8202 Lancaster Drive 19322 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
842-7215 964-9188
Dr. David L. Danis Ms. Jan Hu
17751 Beach Blvd. 17416 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
847-1884 846-8470
Ms. Deanna Edwards Kimo Jarrett
17071 B Street Unit A 17472 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
842-5047 847-1463
Elmorina Brackens Mr. Bill Rasmussen
17421 Dairyview Circle Unit A 17772 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
491-3365 842-1473
Ms. Barbara Fernally Mr. George Pearson
16920 A Street 2120 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648
847-3737 960-2471
Ms. Irma Benevenia Mr. Ric Russell
17502 Beach Blvd. 17042 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA
842-5505 842-3734
Ms. Margie Hunt Mr. Ron Berry
16881 B Street 16661 Beach Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648
842-4307 842-0631
Ms. Thelma Ackerman Mr. Chuck Osterlund
16911 A Street 5902 Nordina Drive
Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92649
848-7104 846-5384
Mr. Anthony Salem
6051 Montecito Drive
Huntington Beach, CA
1 h-840-9293, w-960-4787
0702r
Katz IN !is
Exhibit 3 to Part VII
PAC recommendation on
proposed Redevelopment Plan
UNTINGTON
EACH
0
0
11
5' ivoPN'£N
i . rr nt co`AMVN�jY
BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT
`E PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
L"f '.• ' MEMORANDUM
'°'ww� .......�
REC E'V'•
TO: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency APR 1 b 190
Huntington Beach City Council
XAi$ He15Fi0ClAT68 EA
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) voted
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.
C9
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
PAC
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Huntington Beach City Council
April 23, 1987
Page Two
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,
?ames'�'A. Lane
Chairperson
JAL/eb
Attachments (4)
J.
VLSI
BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT
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
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 1 will be discussed in OPTION 3 in more detail.
t •
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.
o�:- (a) That the use of eminent domain (Sect 7o-n ;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-
went 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-
s
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
WUUN 3 - Continued
DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED
1
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 licit 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 _
a _
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 -
e
Chevron EXHIBIT (A)
fto Chevron U.SA. Inc.
P. 0. Box 606,la Habra,CA 90631 • Phone(213) 694-7570
NCO
February 10, 1987
Land Use Element Amendment 87-1
City of Huntington 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.
Ve y yours,
O. McCamish
LOM/sd
cc: Mr. William D. Holman
Project Representative
Huntington Beach Company
EXH1811 (8)• DRAFT EIR REPORT
TABLE 4
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPKENT 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)
4811 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 i
Entire length Reach Blvd.
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". The 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 and4 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 a s use ange
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.
I I .
Redevelopment Agency
April 2, 1987
Page 2
There are 509 acres in the project a
s rea. '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 analysed With mitigating measures.
C. Lack of Economic Analysis Within the braft 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.I.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
•
Environmental Board - EXHIBIT (D)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ntu�t.k �•�u�� PUSI 0111ce BOX �00 Hunt l(lion Belch, �„11111)1111:1 11_'()4(�
March 11, 1987
Doug LeBelle, Director Redevelopment Agency/
Jim Palin, Director, Planning Department
City Hall
2,000 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
soutku eSR 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
S. 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 due to the' '' =' `
-; -increase in traffi& 4 ci h would generate=_Ymore. pollutants_
into"tWe air. ..
17. Fire Protection
The additional traffic caused by the development will cut
down on response time.
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.
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.
I
' I
OFFICE OF
W CITY ATTORNEY
= P.O.Box W40
=W MAIN STREET
�►�rr HUNTINGTON BEACH
CALIFORNIA 92647
GAIL HUTTON TELEPHONE
Gty Attorney (7141 536-SM
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 5 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 S 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 S 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
Katzliollis
Part VIII. REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 21151 OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
...................................... ........ ............. ............--........ ......................... .(PROJECT. .. . . ENVIRONMENTAL. . . . .. . . . .. ....IMPACT. . . . . REPORT)
.. .. .. . ..... ..........
.. ............................................................................................................................ ........................-
A draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) was prepared by
the Agency and circulated for public review and comment during the period
February 18, 1987 through April 4, 1987. On March 16, 1987 a duly noticed
public hearing was held by the Agency on the Draft EIR. On
1987 the Agency adopted Resolution No. which
among other things certified the final environmental impact report (Final
EIR) for the Project and adopted a statement of overriding considerations in
accord with Section 15093 of the State EIR Guidelines.
A copy of the Final EIR will be submitted separately to the City
Council for addition to this Report to City Council.
(VIII-1)
KatzHollis
Part IX. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER
The Orange County Auditor-Controller, as the fiscal officer
charged with the responsibility of allcx:ating tax increment funds under
Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), has issued his
report dated December 23, 1986 on Project Area and taxing agency taxable
valuations and tax revenues. The Project Area base year taxable values
reported by the Auditor-Controller in his December 23 report do not include
values for the property assessed by the State Board of Equalization (SBE).
A copy of SBE's report of base year taxable. values, dated January 15, 1987,
was received by the Agency on January 21, 1987.
As required by Section 33352(m) of the CRL, the Auditor-
Controller's report, including the SBE's portion, is included in this Part IX
and is analyzed by the Agency in Part XII.B. of this Report to City Council.
(IX-1)
DS. E. LEWIS
D AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
t5j31F
NTY O F
DEC2 6 158b FINANCE BUILDING
430 NORTH BROADW AY
P. O. BOX 587
ANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTQN &EACH SANTA ANA• CALIFORNIA 92702
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TELEPHONE: 834-2450
AREA CODE 714
OFFICE OF AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
December 23, 1986
Charles Thompson, Executive Director _ / -1
City of Huntington Beach
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach - Beach Blvd. Project
Pursuant to Section 33328 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code,
you will find enclosed your copy of the Fiscal Impact Report for the subject
redevelopment agency.
Further inquiries may be directed to the:
County of Orange
Auditor-Controller's Office
Attn: Tax Section
630 N. Broadway
P.O. Box 567
Santa Ana, CA 92702-0567
C. H. Krueger IT
Manager
Property Tax Unit
CHK:hs
Enclosure lip
The attached letter was. sent to the following:
City of Huntington Beach
Metropolitan Water District
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Orange County Transit District
Orange County Vector Control District
Orange County Water District
Orange County Cemetery District
Midway City Sanitary District
Orange County Sanitation District #3
Orange County Sanitation District #11
Don Datko, Dept. of Education
Lynn Hartline, Dept. of Education
Bill Hodge, CAO
County Counsel
Steve Clayton, EMA Management Services
TABLE I - HEALTH b SAFETY - CODE 33328 (A)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
1.986-87 BASE YEAR ASSESSMENT ROLL
Secured Assessed Value - Local Roll $ 203,394,189
State Board of Equalization - Public Utility Roll
Unsecured Assessed Value - Local Roll 38,610,959
Total Assessed Value within the Project $ 242,005,148
* Not Available At This Time
TABLE II - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (B)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF IDENTIFICATION OF TAXING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE PROJECT
Dist #
0312A Huntington Beach Elementary School District
310A Huntington Beach Union High School District
300B Coast Community College
60OA/601A Orange County Department of Education
001E Orange County
710A Orange County Flood Control District
713A Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks District ,
054A City of Huntington Beach
703A Orange County Cemetary District
707A Orange County Transit District
744A Orange County Vector District
820P Metropolitan Water District
863B Municipal Water District of O.C.
926A Orange County Sanitation.District #11
960A/961A Orange County Water District
313B Ocean View Elementary School District
918A Orange County Sanitation District #3
760A Midway City Sanitary District
TABLE III - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (C)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF 1986-87 BASE YEAR REVENUE EACH DISTRICT
CAN EXPECT FROM WITHIN THE PROJECT
Bonded
Basic Levy Indebtedness Total
Fund Dist. Agency Name Revenue Revenue 1986-87 Revenue
0049 054A City of Huntington Beach $ 472,672.61 $133 935.93 $ 606,608.54
0100 001E Orange County 371 ,963.07 665.00 372,628.07
4001 710A Orange County Flood Control District 63,386 .01 3,517.55 . 66,903.56
4051 713A Orange County Harbors, Beaches &Parks Dist. 41,372.02 -- 41,372..02 .
5321 744A Orange County Vector Control District 4,614.96 -- 4,614.96
5331 707A Orange County Transit District 10,626 .68 -- 10,626 .68
5881 960A Orange County Water District 18,806.32 -- 18,806.32
5901 961A Orange County Water District WR 270.64 -- 270.64
7141 310A Huntington Beach Union High School 518,456.77 13,376.96 531 ,833.73
7311 300B Coast Community College 219,024.30 -- 219,024.30
8251 312A Huntington Beach Elementary 250,901 .66 10,423. 14 261 ,324.80
8841 600A Orange County Department of Education 31,002.40 -- 31,002.40
0072 Metropolitan Water District -- 36,434.54 36,434.54
9091 926A Orange County Sanitation District #11 26,509.07 1,297 .06 27 ,806.13
.9041 918A Orange County Sanitation District #3 59 ,984.66 -- 59,984 .66
8431 313B Ocean View Elementary 330,460.31 128,099 .78 458,560.09
0066 760A Midway City Sanitary _ 0 -- 0
$2,4202051.48 $327 ,749 .96 $2,747 ,801.44
TABLE IV - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (D)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF TOTAL AD VALOREM REVENUE EACH DISTRICT
HAS AVAILABLE FROM WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE, PROJECT
The revenue data necessary to complete this section of the Fiscal Review
Report does not currently exist because of the impact of Assembly Bill 8. An
inordinate manual effort and expense would be required of the County Auditor-
Controller's staff to gather any reliable substitute data. Therefore, the
Fiscal Review Report does not contain the total Ad Valorem Revenue information
for the project area.
There has been included, however, a supplemental table of comparative assessed
values for each taxing district to give a relative indication of Base Year
Revenue percentage given up to the CRA.
See Table IV (D), Supplement.
TABLE IV - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (D) SUPPLEMENT
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF BASE YEAR 1986-87 CRA.A.V. PERCENTAGE RELATIONSHIP TO TOTAL TAXING DISTRICT'S A.V .
Taxing District's Percentage of
A.V. Within the Taxing District' s Project A.V.
Dist. Aency_Name Project A.V. - County-Wide To District A.V.
312A Huntington Beach Elementary 112,623,451 3,454,058 ,524 3.2606
310A Huntington Beach Union High 242,005,148 11,412,950,318 2.1204
300 Coast Community College 242,005,148 26,861,494,929 0.9009
600A/601A Orange County Department of Education 242,005,148 103,944,930,259 0.2328
001 Orange County 242,005,148 103,944,9,30,259 0.2328
710A Orange County Flood Control 242,005,148 103,822,626,208 0.2331
713A Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks 242,005,148 103,944,930,259 0.2328
054A City of Huntington Beach 242,005,148 8,000,260,977 3.0250
703A Orange County Cemetary District 242,005, 148 103,944,930,259 0.2328
707A Orange County Transit District 242,005,148 103,944,930,259 0.2328
744A Orange County Vector Control District 242,005, 148 103,921,296,338 0.2329
820 Metropolitan Water District 242,005,148 103,82 5,999 J 86 0.2331
863 Municipal Water District of O.C. 242 ,005, 148 80,313,353 086 0.3013
926A Orange County Sanitation Disttrict #11 75,885,640 5,273,164,992 1.4391
960A Orange County Water District 217,320,279 68,256,606, 142 3. 1840
961A Orange County Water District - WR 217 ,320,279 67 ,917 ,877 ,102 3.2000
313 Ocean View Elementary 129,381 ,697 3,567,888,900 3.6263
918A Orange County Sanitation District #3 141,434,639 20,774,117 ,040 0.6808
760A Midway City Sanitary 0 2,468,333,691 0.0000
One Percent = 1.0000
TABLE V - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (E)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF AGENCY'S REVENUE IN FIRST YEAR
The Auditor-Controller has been advised by the City of Huntington Beach that
no major structures and improvements will be made within the Project
boundaries during the first year, so therefore we anticipate an average growth
in value of the area within the Project boundaries to increase by 8.0 percent.
Total 1986-87 Base Year Revenue $ 2,747 ,801.14
Total Expected Percentage Increase in Value 8.0
1987-88 Increment Tax Revenue Estimate $ 2191824.09
TABLE VI - HEALTH S SAFETY CODE 33328 (F)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT
REPORT OF ASSESSED VALUATION BY BLOCK WITHIN THE PROJECT
Health and Safety Code , Section 33328 (f) requires: "The assessed valuation
of the project area, by block, for the preceding five years, except for state
.assessed property on the board roll.
The assessed valuation data necessary to complete this section of the Fiscal
Review Report does not exist because the valuation files maintained by the
County do not contain historical assessed values by block. An inordinate
manual effort and expense would be required of the County Assessor's and
County Auditor' s staff to gather any reliable substitute data. Therefore, the
Fiscal Review Report does not contain the preceding five-year assessed
valuation information for the project area.
We are however, providing five year assessed valuation information for the
entire city:
Total Secured Unsecured Total
1986-87 $7,495,321,296 $504,939,681 $8,000,260,977
1985-86 6,970,664,670 441 ,125,438 7,411,790,108
1984-85 6,367,234,992 466,570,592 6,833,805,584
1983-84 5,921,976,450 370,949,364 6,292,926,314
1982-83 5,509,212,165 374,691 ,841 5,883,904,006
FCV = Full Cash Value
FsclLmpRe p/Tax
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION WIll1AM M. BENNETT
iin.Asma.K*.gm4d
1020 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA I AN 2'7 1987
CONWAY H. COLLIS
(P.O. BOX 1799• SACRAMENTO. CA 95808) Second Dntr.ct.tos Angeles
(916) 322-2323 January 15, 1987 �� = �u�"' ERNEST J. ORONENSLOG• JR.
` Third Dnrtics•Son Diego
RICHARD NErtiS
Fovr*Disma,Pasadena
T.
I J�' �� '`., ('- KENNETH CORY
I L i ' I Conrr*410"Soaonrnso
Mr. Steven E. Lewis ., r ( DouG;AS D BELL
lf.ervn�s.r,,,,Dr•
Orange County Auaitor-Controller
631D N. Broadway _ 30
Santa Ana, CA . 92701
''. ,.
a
Dear Y-r. Lewis:
c .r soar: .�: _ -t iGn 33328 et s,',q :if the Health and a*ety Code, the 'J'
=_Sc5s=!] ?S O= S_ate-3ssessed orocertf _o:a_ed wit'tir� the boun tries o' t-he
prop •s?; Huntington Beach - Beach Bol leva,d Re-Jevelopnent Project are enclosed.
nest as=es-=&6 values will. cant:nue to G'? valid if the Droject boundaries remain
an:! the ordinance adopting and approving the edeve=oment clan for this
yr i Dr to Auaust 20, ?9S .
Ay
tru'v •:ours,
a, E. i:urert
Area _:fice A minist :aCor
Enclosure .
CC: ;tr.- Charles W. Tho^lpson, Exec. Dir.
City of Huntington Beach
.+�... _ _ - -..--... r.�...... �..—...+r. �....--_ - _t:. _.f r� .r _ ... ....�-.Y.', '�:F•_i �!.'JfC"•�1-!7� -.-'!6'."'c7•'P.�!rnT':^SK.i 6.1.G ._peer.-.-., '
� - NYC•. �Y/
HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT v F u• ` ,��
f `"J
1986-1987 Assessed Values
Company Land Improvements Personal
Tax-Pate Area 4001
So. Calif. Edison Co. 493,740
So. Calif. Gas Co. 76,750
Gen. Te_e. Co. of Calif. 565,020
Golden West Refining Co. 81,460 10,400
Western Union Teleg. Co. 30
TOTAL 81,460 1, 145,910 30
Tax-Rate Area 4010
a
So. Calif. Edison Co. 290,280 1,525,430
So. Calif. Gas Co. _93, 210
Gen. Tele. Co. of Calif. 1,621,400
Western Union Tel-ea. Co. _ 2, 440 51090
TOTAL 290, 280 3, 342,430 5,090
Tax-Raze Area 40'-3
So. Calif.- .aisorl Cz. 155,030
So. Calif. Gas Co. 38, 380
Gen. Te_e. Co. of Calif. 82, 240
Golden West Re=ir.irc Co. • 81,460 25,670
Western Ur.ion Teleg Co. 400
TOTAL 81,460 301, 320 400
Tax-Rate Area 4038
So. Calif. Edison Co. 270
GRAND TOTAL WITHIN PROJECT 453,200 4,789,980 5,520
_ I
I
s
KatAbills
Part X. R....... ..........
...._...__..._-------
Section 33353 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) provides
that a .county or any affected taxing entity may call for the creation of a
fiscal review committee within 15 days after receipt from a redevelopment
agency a preliminary report prepared pursuant to the requirements of
Section 33344.5 of the CRL. As defined in. Section 33353.1 of the CRL, the
fiscal review committee is composed of one representative from each of the
affected taxing agencies. The purpose of the committee would be to identify
the fiscal effects of the proposed Redevelopment Plan upon the affected
taxing entities, specify additional information, if any, needed to enable those
fiscal effects to be identified and analyzed,. and suggest possible provisions
in . the Redevelopment Plan which would alleviate or eliminate a financial
burden or detriment.
The Preliminary Report for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project was transmitted to all Project Area affected taxing
agencies on , 1987.
.........._..............._.................
On March 6, 1987 the Orange County Water District and the County
of Orange each by letter advised the Agency that it had called for the
creation of a fiscal review committee for the Project.
On , 1987 copies of the proposed Redevelopment
........................._.............._..............
....
Plan and Draft EIR were transmitted to the Orange County representative to
the fiscal review committee, the committee's initial chairperson.
A hearing of the fiscal review committee was held on May 1, 1987
and continued to May 15, 1987. When the committee's report has been
prepared and issued, it will be added to this Part X of the Agency's Report
to City Council, or submitted separately to the City Council for addition to
this Report.
(X-1)
Kaullollis
Part XI. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT
........................................................ .... ............................................_.........
..........
Section 33352(1) of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL)
requires the preparation of a neighborhood impact report if a redevelopment
project contains low or moderate income housing. The purpose of the report
is to describe in detail the impact of the project upon the residents of the
project area and surrounding areas in . terms of relocation, traffic
circulation, environmental quality,. availability of community facilities and
services, effect on school population and quality of education, property
assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical and social .
quality of the neighborhood. The neighborhood impact report is also to
include: (a) the number of dwelling units housing persons and families of
low or moderate income expected to be destroyed or removed from the low
and moderate income housing market as part of a redevelopment project; (b)
the number of persons and families (households) of low or moderate income
expected to be displaced by the project; (c) the general location of housing
to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed pursuant to Section 33413 of
the California CRL; (d) the number of dwelling units housing persons and
families of low an moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation,
other than replacement housing; (e) the projected means of financing the
proposed dwelling units for housing persons and families of low and
moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation; and (f) a
projected timetable for meeting the plan's relocation, rehabilitation and
replacement housing objectives.
Because the Project Area contains dwelling units some of which
are likely to be inhabited by persons and families of low or moderate
income, a neighborhood impact report is included herein. Due to
overlapping among the data required in the Environmental. Impact Report,
the Method or Plan for Relocation, the Physical, Social and Economic.
Conditions in the Project Area and the Neighborhood Impact Report - all of
which are contained in this Report to City Council - cross-referencing is
employed in order to reflect the most comprehensive. data source and to
avoid repetition where possible.
A. Impact on Residents in Project Area and Surrounding Area
1. Relocation, Traffic Circulation, Environmental Quality and
........................_....................................................__._......._.........._.................._ ........................._....................... ..
Community Facilities and Services
.......................................................
The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), referenced in
Part VIII of this Report to City Council, presents information on the
potential Project impacts upon residents of the Project Area and the
surrounding areas, in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental
quality, availability of community facilities and services, and other matters
affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. Part II of
this Report to Council, "Description of Physical, Social and Economic
Conditions Existing in Project Area," also presents pertinent information
concerning the above-named impacts to Project residents and adjoining
neighborhoods.
(XI-1)
tilt/. ilolI1s
These are an estimated 74 single family residential
dwelling units and 101 dwelling units in multifamily structure 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 all .may be phased
out, resulting in displacement. Some of this displacement will likely 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 plan provisions of state law relating to Agency-
assisted developments. These provisions are further described in Part IV of
this Report to City Council and in Part XI.B. below.
2. School Population and Quality of Education
.. . ._.__... ....... ......_. . ...
Three school districts, .the Ocean View School District,
Huntington Beach City School District, and the Huntington Beach Union High
School District, provide elementary, junior and high school education to the
Project Area.
Two school sites are located within the Project Area.
Both. of these schools, Rancho View and Crest View, are part of the Ocean
View School District. Rancho View is currently inactive and used as
administrative offices. The District has set the site aside for a long-term
commercial lease. The Crest View School's current enrollment is 537
students in grades kindergarten through eighth. District plans for this
school include continued educational use for five to ten years, with a
potential commercial lease option thereafter.
Elementary/middle school (K-8) student enrollment
throughout Huntington Beach has generally declined over the past 11 years.
from 14,000 in 1976 to 8,500 presently. As a result, several school sites in
the City have been closed or converted to other uses. However, current
projections indicate that this trend is leveling off, thus school enrollment
may experience a slow increase.
The Huntington Beach City School District has identified
five schools that may be potentially impacted by the Project. These schools
are Dwyer, Perry, Kettle, Smith and Sowers. The Peterson School, located
less than one-tenth of one mile from the Project Area between Indianapolis
and Atlanta, is presently closed. The Huntington Beach City School District
has indicated that enrollment is currently at or near capacity for operating
schools.
Residential development within the Project Area and
additional employment generated by the Project may add additional school-
aged children to the area. Accord to 1980 U.S. Census Bureau data, there
were 40,193 children enrolled in school in the City and 61,322 dwelling units.
Based on this, the housing required for the Project could generate
approximately 304 to 412 additional children of school age.
(XI-2)
Katz Hol 1 is
The CRL requires the Agency to use up to 20 percent of
the tax increment money to benefit low and moderate income housing. This
may result in additional housing which may have an impact on schools in the
area. However, the CRL provides that the 20 percent may be used to
provide additional housing or to improve existing housing, which would not
result in additional impacts on schools. Furthermore, the Agency is not
required to spend this allocation within the Project Area boundaries. The
money may also be used to assist in the development or improvement of
senior citizen housing projects, which. historically the Agency has actively
participated in. For example, the Agency was involved in the development
of a 164-unit senior citizen housing project which it now owns. Any
additional senior citizen housing projects benefiting from the 20 percent tax
increment funding from the Project would not have an impact on the school
system.
If redevelopment activities impact school enrollment,
there are a number of options available to the school districts to address
the situation.
The Ocean View School District will provide
transportation to other schools in the City of Huntington . Beach for those
students that may be displaced as a result of the closure of Crest View
school. This would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. The
Huntington Beach City School District could also open the presently closed
Petersen School site which is located within one-quarter mile of the
proposed residential developments in the Project Area. The school districts
should continue to acquire, to the extent available, California State Lottery
monies for additional teaching staff to reduce student-teacher ratios.
The California legislature has changed the rules
governing school facilities financing by authorizing school districts to
directly levy school impact fees, dedications, or other requirements for
temporary or permanent facilities construction. This legislation (Assembly
Bill 2926, 1986 Stats. Ch. 887) also allows school districts to impose "any
other form of requirement" on developers, including the formation of a
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District.
This legislation (which became effective January 1, 1987)
does, however, place a ceiling on the cumulative amount of developers fees
which can be levied for school facilities. Residential development fees are..
capped at $1.50 per square foot, and commercial and industrial fees at $.025
per square foot. These caps will be annually adjusted to reflect inflation.
These measures would further reduce any potential impact on .the school
system resulting from the Project.
3. Property Assessment and Taxes
......._................................................................
In general the taxable valuations of property within the
Project Area and adjoining the Project Area should increase as development
of the Project Area occurs. New development within the Project Area will be
assessed at market value, as determined by the assessor. Within and
outside the Project Area the assessor may increase property valuations for
(XI-3)
a •-
Katz Hol I is
existing properties at the maximum rate of two percent per year allowed
under Proposition 13, regardless of Project-related actions. And, in cases
where property changes hands, the assessor will likely assess the property
at the newly recorded market value. Additionally, the assessor will reassess
the added value to property and improvements due to any new development
or rehabilitation which occurs.
The only other matters potentially affecting property
taxes in the Project Area and surrounding areas would be the possibility of
additional levies resulting from formation of special assessment districts.
There are no proposals for formation of special assessment districts at this
time. A parcel evaluation would be undertaken at a later date should it be
desired to create a special assessment district within the Project Area. If
any such district were created, it would likely be in connection with
parking facilities developed within the Project Area. Special assessment
districts for various legally permitted purposes may be established by the
City in the manner provided by the law where feasible irrespective of
whether a redevelopment project is proposed or has been adopted.
B. Relocation and Low and Moderate Income Housing
.............._........................................................................................................................................_......................................._....................................
1. Housing Units to be Destroyed or Removed
Implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is
expected to include Agency acquisition of property within the Project Area
for the reasons discussed .in Part IV.A above. Over the 35-year life of the
Project the Agency could potentially acquire up to 107 acres of property
and all 175 dwelling units within the Project Area. Since the Agency
expects the private sector to accomplish most Project Area development and
redevelopment without Agency participation (in response to the Agency's
public improvements and other implementation activities), the likelihood of
the .Agency actually displacing the 175 dwelling units is not considered high.
The Agency has not surveyed existing owners and
tenants living within Project Area dwelling units. Consequently, current
information on family income levels is not available. An analysis of 1980
Census data for the City of Huntington Beach suggests that approximately
one-third of the City's households are of low or moderate income. Applying
this proportion to the Project Area, it is estimated that there are no more
than 58 housing units inhabited by low or moderate income families that
could be destroyed or removed from the housing market over the life of the
Project. Whenever dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low
or moderate income . are removed from the housing market as part of the
Project, the .Agency would be required to construct, .develop or rehabilitate,
or cause the construction, development or rehabilitation of, low and moderate
income dwelling units equal in number to those destroyed or removed. This
must occur within four years of such destruction or removal. Further,
twenty percent of the .Project tax increment revenues received by the
Agency must go to the provision of low and moderate income housing unless
certain findings ar made by the City Council in accordance with the CRL.
These low and moderate income "set-aside" revenues may be used by the
Agency to provide replacement housing.
(XI-4)
Katz 1fol 11s
2. Projected Residential Displacement
AN noLod above, up to 175 dwelling units could be
diNt►Iacod over Lim 35-year life of the 1►rojoet, although diNplacemc►nt, due to
direct. Agency action is likely to be considerably less.
If and when actual displacement were contemplated, the
Agency would conduct individual household surveys in order to determine
the number, type and location of comparable replacement housing units and
the required number of referrals thereto prior to displacement of any
persons of low or moderate income. See Part IV of this Report to City
Council for an overview of the steps in the relocation process that must be
undertaken by the Agency prior to displacing any person(s) or family(ies).
3. Number and Location of Replacement Housing
................._........_....._....................................._..........................................._... ...................
The specific number and type of replacement housing
units required pursuant to CRL Section 33413, if any, are not known at this
time since the Agency has not determined specific acquisition sites. As
noted above, tip to 58 replacement housing units could be required over the
life of the Project although the actual number is anticipated to be much
less.
The City Council and the Agency will make findings
necessary to provide such housing either inside or outside the Project Area.
When the Agency acquires property, enters into a disposition and
development agreement, participation agreement or other agreement, or
undertakes any other activities requiring or causing the destruction or
removal of housing units from the low and moderate income housing market,
the Agency will provide replacement housing required pursuant -to Section
33413 of the CRL.
i
4. Number and Location of Low and Moderate Income
................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................._..................................................
Housing Planned Other than Replacement g
Housin
The specific number and type as well as the location of
low and moderate income housing units planned for construction or
rehabilitation other than replacement housing units is not known at this
time. The Agency presently has no plans to develop such units itself. The
Project Area will likely contain new residential uses after full implementation
of the proposed Redevelopment Plan as currently envisioned, and at least 15
percent of all such units in the aggregate must be available at affordable
housing costs (i.e., 30 percent of a household's monthly income) to persons
and families of low or moderate income.
5. Financing _Method for Replacement Housing Requirements
.............. ... ........ ._. .........
The Agency will employ as necessary any of the methods
outlined in Part III of this Report to City Council to meet replacement
housing requirements and other obligations under the Redevelopment Plan
and Community Redevelopment Law. Not less than 20 percent of all taxes
(XI-5)
0
Katzli®11is
which may be allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of Article 4
of the CRL shall be used by the Agency for purposes of increasing and
improving the supply of low- and moderate income housing available at
affordable housing cost "to persons and families of low or moderate income
and very low income households, unless certain findings prescribed in the
law are made.
6. Timetable for Provision of Relocation and Housing
.........................._..........................................._..........._._............_......................................._..............................................................................................................__...
.
Objectives .
If replacement housing . is to be provided pursuant to
Section 33413 of the CRL, the Agency shall take necessary steps to cause
the construction, rehabilitation or development of such housing in
accordance with the time limits prescribed by law.
The relocation plan(s) prepared by the Agency for a
particular development activity shall contain schedules to insure comparable
replacement housing is .available in accordance with the requirements of the
CRL and the State Relocation Guidelines.
C. Other Matters Affecting the Physical and Social Quality of the
......... . ...
Environment
...................................................
The Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Project will have a
beneficial impact upon residents, property owners, and businesses in the
area. Implementation of the Project will bring about coordinated growth and
development, making the Project Area a more attractive and livable
community. The Redevelopment Plan will help the City to reverse decline
without the need for more extensive and expensive measures in the future.
Through rehabilitation and new construction of low and
moderate income housing, including housing for senior citizens, the
redevelopment process will increase the availability of quality housing in the
Project Area and City for a cross section of income groups. In addition, the
commercial, and residential development projects that will be brought about
as a result of redevelopment action will stimulate the job-producing
economy. Thus, unemployment conditions in the Project Area may be
improved, which in turn will improve the loci-economic situation of the
residents.
Land use classifications within the Redevelopment Plan are
intended to conserve neighborhoods by limiting commercial development into
residential areas. The land use provisions contained in the Plan are
intended to upgrade the environment in the Project Area and discourage
additionally commercial traffic in residential neighborhoods.
(XI-6)
Katz Hollis
PART XII. ANALYSIS OF REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICERS SUMMARY OF
CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES; .AND ANALYSIS
OF AND RESPONSE TO REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
..............................._......................_........................................................................................................................._._.................................................................._.........._........_.............
A. Introduction
..............................._._....
Pursuant to Section 33352(m) of the CRL, a report to city
council must include an analysis of the county fiscal officer's report as well
as a summary of the consultations of the agency, or such attempts to
consult, with each of the affected taxing agencies. Section 33352(m) also
requires a report to city council to include the redevelopment agency's
analysis of the report of the fiscal review committee, if any, which shall
include the agency's response to such report, any additional information the
agency may desire to provide, and any measures to mitigate detrimental
fiscal impact the agency may desire to propose. This Part XII of the
Agency's Report to the City Council addresses the requirements of Section
33352(m).
B. Analysis of Report to County Fiscal Officer
...... ......_ .............. ..
1. Report Requirements
Section 33328 of the CRL requires the county fiscal
officer (i.e., Auditor-Controller) responsible for the allocation of property
taxes to prepare and deliver a specific report to the Redevelopment Agency
and each affected taxing agency. (Affected taxing agencies are those
governmental entities which levied a property tax on all or any portion of
Project Area Property "...in the fiscal year prior to submission of the
[redevelopment] plan to the [fiscal review] committee"). The following items
are required to be included in the Auditor-Controller's report:
a. The total assessed valuation of all taxable property
within the Project Area as shown on the base year assessment roll.
b. The identification of each taxing agency levying
taxes in the Project Area.
C. The amount of tax revenue to be derived by each
taxing agency from the base year assessment roll from the Project
Area, including state subventions for homeowners, business inventory,
and similar subventions.
d. For each taxing agency, its total ad valorem tax
revenues from all property within its boundaries, whether inside or
outside the Project Area.
e. The estimated first year taxes available to the
Redevelopment Agency, if any, based upon information submitted by the
Redevelopment Agency, broken down by taxing agencies.
1193.hnt.7.1.2
051987.tmc
(XII-1)
ti
KatzHolfis
'. f. The assessed valuation of the Project Area for the
preceding year, or, if requested by the Redevelopment Agency, for the
preceding five years, except for state assessed property on the board
roll.
2. Analysis of Data Reported by County Fiscal Officer
............._.. ........ .........
The report of the Orange County Auditor-Controller was
transmitted to the Agency on December 23, 1986. The report, although not
addressing the fiscal effect of the Project upon affected taxing agencies, is
nevertheless referred to by the Auditor-Controller as the "Fiscal Impact
Report." The report does not include taxable value information on state-
assessed property since the State Board of Equalization (SBE) report on
such values had not been issued at the date of the Auditor-Controller's
report. The Agency subsequently received a copy directly from the SBE.
Copies of both the Auditor-Controller's report and the SBE report are
included in Part IX of this Report to City Council.
a. Total Assessed Valuation of All Taxable Property
........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Within Project Area as Shown on Base Year Assess-
....................................._......_................................._....._..........._._.._...................................
ment Roll.
.............._................
The 1986-87 base year value reported by the
Auditor-Controller for the Project Area is $242,005,148, which includes
$203,394,149 in local secured value and $38,610,959 in local unsecured value.
The Auditor-Controller's reported values are aggregated figures, and do not
distinguish between land, improvements, or personal property values. While
such categorical distinctions are not required by law, such information is
useful in projecting future values due to different assessment parameters
applicable to real property and other property.
The SBE reports an additional $5,248,700 in state-
assessed value for the Project Area, giving a combined total taxable value of
$247,253,848 for the Project.
b. Identification of Each Taxing Agency Levying Taxes
_.........................................................................................._....................
in..Projet Area.
. ...... ................................
The Auditor-Controller's report identifies the
following Project Area taxing agencies:
City of Huntington Beach
Coast Community College District
Huntington Beach Elementary District
Huntington Beach Union High School District
Metropolitan Water District
Midway City Sanitary District
Ocean View Elementary School District
Orange County
Orange County Cemetary District
Orange County Department of Education
Orange County Flood Control District
(XII-2)
Katz 1fo11 is
Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks Dist.
Orange County Sanitation District *3
Orange County Sanitation District *11
Orange County Transit District
Qrange County Vector Control District
Orange County Water District
As noted above, taxing agencies are defined to
include governmental entities who levied a property tax on all or any
portion of Project Area property in the prior fiscal year. Neither the
Orange County Cemetary District or the Midway City Sanitary District levied
a property tax in the Project Area in 1985-86. Nor is either district, .
according to Table III of the Auditor-Controller's report, expected to levy a
property tax during the 1986-87 base year. Accordingly, these two districts
appear to have been erroneously identified as affected taxing agencies for
the Project. All other taxing .agencies listed in the report levied a tax
either as a portion of the basic $1 per $100 tax rate, or to apply to debt
service on voter approved debt ("tax override"), or both.
C. Amount of Tax Revenue to be Derived by Each
.. ............ ........ .............. .. ..... ..... . ........ .......
Taxing Agency from the Base Year Assessment Roll
from the Project Area. Including .State Subventions
...............*
.
Por Homeowners. Business Inventory. and Similar
Subventions.
Table III of the Auditor-Controller's report .
presents, by taxing agency, the amount of property tax revenue each
agency will derive from the 1986-87 base year roll, both from the basic $1
tax rate and, where applicable, from tax overrides. A combined total of
$2,420,051 in property taxes will be generated by the basic $1 tax rate, and
another $327,750 in combined taxes will be derived from override tax rates.
d. Total Ad Valorem Tax Revenue for Each Taxing
.. ......................................................................_......................._....._......_..................................................._...................._.................._.............._.................
Agency from All Property Within It's Boundaries,
Whether Inside or Outside Pro,iec t A rea.
The Auditor-Controller's report does not include
the total ad valorem tax revenues for each taxing agency from within its
boundaries, whether inside or outside the Project Area. The report asserts
that "the, revenue data necessary to complete this section of the ...[report]
does not currently exist because of the impact of Assembly Bill 8," and "an
inordinate manual effort and expense would be required—to gather any
reliable substitute data." As a substitute, the report provides a
supplemental table of comparative assessed values for each taxing agency,
"... to give a relative indication of base year revenue percentage given up
to the CRA."
The supplemental table provided by the Auditor-
Controller shows that five taxing agencies, including the City of Huntington
Beach, have more than three percent of their total assessed value within the
Project Area; one agency has just over two percent of its assessed value in
(XII-3)
Katzilollis
the Project Area; one has approximately 1.4 percent; and the remainder all
have less than one percent.
e. Estimated, First Year Taxes Available to
.............................................................._.................................................................
Redevelopment. Agency, Broken Down.. by. _Taxing
.Agencies.
... ............................
The Auditor-Controller estimates, on the basis of an
assumed eight percent growth from base year revenues, that the first year
revenues available to the Agency will total $219,824. This amount is not
broken down by taxing agencies. This figure is somewhat higher than the
$208,000 projected in Table III-5 in Part III of this Report to City Council.
f. Assessed Valuation of Project Area for Preceding
............._.................................................................................................................. .............................._...................._....................__.-
.Year,.. or for Preceding Five Years, Except for State
Assessed P roperty .on Board Roll.
The Auditor-Controller's report does not include
assessed valuation data for the preceding year or the preceding five years
for the Project Area. "Inordinate manual effort and expense" is again cited
as the reason for omission of this data. In lieu of the required data, the
report substitutes a five year history of total secured and unsecured values
for the City of Huntington Beach as a whole.
The substituted data has little bearing on an
analysis of Project Area valuation and taxation data, unless a comparison
could be made between City-wide valuation growth and Project Area
valuation growth. Such comparison cannot be made because the necessary
data has been omitted from the Auditor-Controller's report.
C. Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies
.... _....... _........
Section 33328 of the CRL requires the Agency, prior to the
publication of notice of joint Agency/Council public hearing on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan, to consult with each affected taxing agency with
respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan and the allocation of -tax
increment revenues. When the Agency has completed such consultations, a
summary will be prepared and added to this Report to City Council or
submitted separately to the City Council for addition to this Report.
D. Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review
......_ . ... ... .. ............... ...... ......_... ......... ..... . .... ....... ......._..
Committee
As noted in Part X of this Report to City Council, a fiscal
review committee has been called for in connection with the Project. When
the report of the fiscal review committee has been issued, it will be added
to Part X of this Report or submitted separately to the City Council for
addition to this Report. In addition, as required by Section 33352(m) of the
CRL, the Agency will analyze and respond to the fiscal review committee's
report, and such analysis and responme will be added to thin Report, or
submitted separately to the City Council for- Addition to this Report.
(XII-4)
Kautiollis
DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7550
This Report to City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project is prepared
pursuant to an Agreement for Consulting Services between the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Katz, Hollis,
Coren & Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1985, and amended April 6, 1987,
which Agreement - provides for services involving preparation of certain
reports and documents (including a Project EIR) and the coordination of
fiscal review analyses and related activities. Total compensation under the
Agreement is not to exceed Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000), including
out-of-pocket expenses.
REQUEST FO VI; -�? A NCY ACTION
ROVED BY CITY CO I
19� RH 87-38
4 LEILK to May 22, 1987
CITY CLEVUL
Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency mbers .
Submitted to:
Charles W. Thompson, Chief Executive Off' e
Submitted by:
Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrato /Redevelopmen
Prepared by:
RESOLUTION APPROVING OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES -
Subject: BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA y
Consistent with Council Policy? [7 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception . U5
1
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The attached resolution approves the "Rules Governing Participation and Preferences
by Property Owners and Business Occupants in the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project." Commonly known as "Owner Participation Rules" it is
necessary for this document to be approved prior to consideration by the
Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the proposed Redevelopment Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and authorize the Agency Clerk to execute the attached resolution approving
the Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business
Occupants in the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project.
ANALYSIS:
The Owner Participation Rules for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Project Area were completed in early 1987. Subsequent to that time the Owner
Participation Rules were reviewed by the Project Area Committee and staff. The
attached document incorporates comments received in this review process.
(A summary of the rules is attached).
Prior to establishing the date for a Joint Public Hearing on the proposed Redevelopment
Plan, it is necessary for the Redevelopment Agency to approve these Owner
Participation Rules. The current schedule for the adoption of the Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project Area calls for the Joint Public Hearing to be held July 6, 1987
and the first advertisement of this Hearing to appear in a newspaper of general
circulation on June 8, 1987.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area adoption administrative costs are a
Redevelopment Agency expense.
P10/1/85
R H 87-38
May 22, 1987
Page Two
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not approve the attached resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No.
2. Summary of Rules
3. Owner Participation Rules.
CWT/DLB/SVK:sar
1555r
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
SUMMARY OF OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES
SECTION 100 PURPOSE AND INTENT
-------------------------------
To permit and encourage the participation of property owners,
business occupants and others in the Project, and to establish
proceedures and preferences for such participation.
SECTION 200 DEFINITIONS
------------------------
SECTION 300 TYPES OF PARTICIPATION
-----------------------------------
Participation includes, but is not limited to, remaining in
substantially the same location, retaining. all or protions of the
property, purchasing property from the Agency, or joining with
others. Owners participating in the same location may be
required to rehabilitate or demolish improvements, Participation
may also include purchase of land and improvements by the Agency,
and offering alternative sites -to the occupants or offering the
opportunity for development at the same location with others.
SECTION 400 PREFERENCES TO EXISTING OWNERS AND BUSINESS
OCCUPANTS WITHIN PROJECT AREA
---------------------------------------------------------
Participation by as many existing occupants as practicable is
desired. Agency will extent preferences to existing owners and
occupants to remain or re-enter the Project Area subject to the
requirements of the Redevelopment Plan and the Owner
Participation Rules.
This Section lists thirteen factors. to which owner participation
may be limited.
Where conflicts occur the Agency will concider length of time in
the area; accommodation of as may participants as possible;
ability to perform; similar land use to similar land use; and
conformity with the Plan.
SECTION 500 CONFORMING. PROPERTIES
----------------------------------
Any owner of a property that conforms to. the Plan may apply for a
Certificate of Conformance in lieu of entering into an Owner
Participation Agreement with the Agency.
•
SECTION 600 PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES
-------------------------------------
At least 45 days before the Agency may enter into any agreement
for the development of property it must first notice all owners
and/or occupants of the subject property and offer the
opportunity to .participate. Any interested party must respond by
filing a "Statement of Interest in Participating" form (cop
attached to OP Rules) within 30 days of receipt.
Owners or others selected to participate shall enter into an
Owner Participation Agreement with the Agency that stipulates the
responsibilities of the Participant and the Agency.
SECTION 700 ENFORCEMENT
------------------------
If the Participant fails to perform on the terms of the
agreement, the Agency may: purchase the property, purchase an
interest sufficient to obtain performance, or take any other
appropriate action.
The Agency shall not acquire any property subject to an Owner
Participation Agreement if the Participant performs, unless
acquisition is called for in the Agreement.
SECTION 800 AMENDMENT OF RULES
-------------------------------
The Rules may be amended by a majority vote of the Agency members.
at any regular or special meeting after notice is posted and
published or mailed.
RESOLUTION NO. 143
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING
RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION AND PREFERENCES BY
PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OCCUPANTS IN THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF SAID RULES
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
WHEREAS, Section 33339 .5 of the California Community Redevelop-
ment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 , et seq. ) provides
that a redevelopment agency shall adopt and make available for
public inspection rules to implement the operation of business re-
entry preferences in connection with a redevelopment plan; and
Section 33345 of the Community Redevelopment Law provides that
a redevelopment agency shall adopt and make available for public
inspection rules to implement the operation of owner participation
in connection with a redevelopment plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Huntington Beach as follows:
1 . The "Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by
Property Owners and Business Occupants in the Huntington Beach -
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, " attached as Exhibit A and
by reference made a part hereof, are hereby approved and adopted .
2 . The Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach is hereby authorized and directed to make
available for public inspection these adopted rules .
3 . The Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach is hereby authorized and directed to
transmit a copy of the Rules, together with a copy of this Resolu-
tion to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach.
: s
s
1 .
T PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day
of June , 1987 .
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
• C� yf �/7
$-Z
City Clerk �on--City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
ity Admi istrator Depult City Administrator.
Redevelopment
:f
2193L
2 .
KatzHollis
EXHTBIT A
t
RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION AND PREFERENCES
BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OCCUPANTS
IN THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Adopted by:
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Date:
Resolution No:
010887/5
0989.hnt/b
KatzHollis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
................._......_..........._........_.............._ _.......................
PAGE
I. [Section 1001 PURPOSE AND INTENT.............................................. I
I1. [Section 2001 DEFINITIONS............................................................. .
III. [Section 3001 TYPES OF PARTICIPATION'........................................2
IV. [Section 4001 PREFERENCES TO EXISTING OWNERS AND
BUSINESS OCCUPANTS WITHIN PROJECT AREA........2
V. [Section 5001 CONFORMING PROPERTIES ........................................4
VI. [Section 6001 PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES....................................5
A. [Section 601] Notice and Statement of Interest......................5
B. [Section 6021 Participation Agreements...................................5
1. [Section 6031 General........................................................5
2. [Section 6041 Contents......................................................6
VII. [Section 7001 ENFORCEMENT...........................................................6
VIII. [Section 8001 AMENDMENT OF RULES.............................................6
"Statement of Interest in Participating" Form
Katz Hol l is
EXHIBIT A
RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION AND PREFERENCES BY
PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OCCUPANTS IN THE
HUNTINGTON .. _.................._....._............_............._............_...........................-._._.............. ._...... ..............._.._.._......... ...
I. [Section 1001 PURPOSE AND INTENT
These rules . are adopted to implement the provisions of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Project regarding participation and the exercise of
preferences by property owners, business occupants and others within the
Project. These rules set forth the procedures governing such preferences
and participation.
The California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et seq.) requires the adoption of these rules by the
Agency to permit participation in the redevelopment of the Project Area by
owners of real property and persons engaged in business within the
boundaries of the Project Area to. the maximum extent feasible consistent
with the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.
II. [Section 2001 DEFINITIONS
As used herein, the following definitions apply: .
(1) "Redevelopment Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for the
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, as adopted by
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach.
(2) "Project Area" means the project area described in Section
200 of the Redevelopment Plan and shown on Exhibit "A", Redevelopment
Plan Map, attached thereto.
(3) "Agency" means the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency.
(4) "Owner" means any person, persons, corporation, association,
partnership, or other entity holding fee title to or a long term lease of real
property in the Project Area on the date of adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan by the City Council, for so long as it holds such title or lease.
(5) "Long Term Lease" means a lease of real property with a
term of twenty (20) years or more, with at least five (5) years remaining on
such term.
(6) "Business Occupants" means persons engaged in business
within the Project Area on the date of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan
by the City Council.
Katz Hol 1 is
(7) "Other Owners" means any person, persons, corporation,
association, partnership, or other entity who purchase or• otherwise acquire
title to or a long term lease of real property in the Project Area subsequent
to the date of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council.
(8) "Other Business Occupants" means persons engaged in
business within the Project Area . subsequent to the adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan by the City Council who were not engaged in business
in the Project Area on the date of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan.
(9) "Participation Agreement" means an agreement entered into
by an Owner, Other Owner, Business Occupant, Other Business Occupant or
others with the Agency in accordance with the provisions of the
Redevelopment Plan and these rules.
M. [Section 3001 TYPES OF PARTICIPATION
Participation may involve existing Owners and Other Owners and,
if they acquire property within the Project Area, participation may involve
existing Business Occupants, Other Business Occupants, and others.
Participation includes remaining in substantially the same location either by
retaining all or portions of the property, or by retaining all or portions of
the property and purchasing adjacent property from the Agency or joining
with another person or entity for the development of the owner's property
and, if appropriate, other property. An Owner or Other Owner who
participates in the same location may be required to rehabilitate or demolish
all or part of his/her existing buildings, or the Agency may acquire the
buildings only and then remove or demolish the buildings. Participation also `
includes the Agency buying land and improvements at fair market value
from existing Owners and Other Owners and offering other parcels for
purchase by such Owners and Other Owners, or offering an opportunity for
such owner or other owner to develop property jointly with other persons
or entities.
IV. [Section 400] PREFERENCES TO EXISTING OWNERS AND
BUSINESS OCCUPANTS WITHIN PROJECT AREA
Participation is desired in the rehabilitation and redevelopment of
the Project Area by as many existing Owners and Business Occupants as
practicable. The Agency shall extend preferences to existing Owners and
Business Occupants to continue in or, if the Agency acquires the land of an .
existing property Owner or the land on which an existing Business Occupant
is located, to re-enter the Project Area if any such Owner or Business
Occupant meets the requirements prescribed in the Redevelopment Plan and
in these rules.
Subject to these rules, existing Owners of real property in the
Project Area shall be extended a reasonable preference to participate in
redevelopment of their properties by rehabilitation, by retention of
improvements, by new development, by retaining all or a portion of their-
properties, by acquiring adjacent properties from the Agency, by
participating with developer(s) in the redevelopment of all or a portion of
their properties or by other suitable means; provided, however, that such
KatzHollis
development will be consistent with and will not impair the objectives of the
Redevelopment Plan as determined by the. Agency and is otherwise consistent.
with the guidelines provided by these rules.
Subject to these rules, existing Owners within the Project Area
who desire to acquire new property within the Project Area shall be
extended a reasonable preference to acquire and develop substitute
properties within the Project Area at such time as the Agency is able to
make available for private development for such purpose properties within
the Project Area; provided, however, that such development will be con-
sistent with and will not impair the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan as
determined by the Agency, and is otherwise consistent with the guidelines
provided by these rules.
Subject to these rules,s existing Business Occupants within the
Project Area who desire to continue or re-enter into business within the
Project Area shall be extended a reasonable preference to acquire and
develop substitute locations for such purpose within the Project Area at
such times as the Agency is able to make available for private development
for such purpose properties within the Project Area; provided, however,
that such development will be consistent with and will not impair the
objectives of the Redevelopment Plan as determined by the Agency.
Participation opportunities shall necessarily be subject to and
limited by factors such as the following:
(1) The elimination and changing of some land uses;
(2) The construction, realignment, abandonment, widening, opening
and/or other alteration or elimination of public rights-of-way;
(3) The removal, relocation, and/or installation of public utilities and
public facilities;
(4) The ability of participants to finance the proposed acquisition,
development or rehabilitation in accordance with the
Redevelopment Plan;
(5) The ability and experience of participants to undertake and
complete the proposed rehabilitation or development; '
(6) The advisability of consolidating parcels in the Project Area
where appropriate to maximize productive land units;
(7) The construction or expansion of public improvements and
facilities, and the necessity to assemble areas for such;
(8) Any change in orientation and character of the Project Area;
(9) The necessity to assemble areas for public and/or private
development.
Katz Hollis
(10) The requirements and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and
applicable rules and regulations of the City of Huntington Beach;
(11) Any design guide adopted by the Agency pursuant to the
Redevelopment Plan;
(12) The feasibility of the participant's proposal; and
(13) The need to maximize revenue generation, job creation, shopping
opportunities, and to attract beneficial uses.
If conflicts develop between the desires of potential participants
for particular sites or land uses, the Agency is, subject to the preference
provisions above, authorized to establish reasonable priorities and
preferences among the potential participants and to determine a solution by
consideration of such factors as:
-length of time in the area;
-accommodation of as many participants as possible;
-ability to perform;
-similar land use to similar land use; and
-conformity with intent and purpose of the Redevelopment Plan
and these rules.
Participation to the extent feasible shall be available for two or
more persons, firms or institutions to join together in partnerships,
corporations, or other joint entities.
Preferences set forth in this Section 400 may be given, at the
Agency's option, to other Owners and other Business Occupants as well as to
existing Owners and Business Occupants.
V. [Section 5001 CONFORMING PROPERTIES
The Project Area is large and contains many parcels of real
property. As a result, there is a need to simplify the availability of
participation opportunities. Therefore, as an alternative to requiring a
Participation Agreement for each property not to be purchased or subject to
Agency acquisition by eminent domain, the Agency may, in its sole and
absolute discretion, determine that certain real properties within the Project
Area presently meet the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan and the
Owners or Other Owners of such properties will be permitted to remain as
owners of conforming properties without a Participation Agreement with the
Agency, provided such Owners or Other Owners continue to. operate, use,
and maintain the real properties within the requirements of the
Redevelopment Plan or of any design guide approved by the Agency
pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan. A certificate of conformance to this
effect may be issued by the Agency and recorded.
-4
KatzHollis
In the event that any of the owners of conforming properties or
their tenants desire to (1) construct any additional improvements of,
substantially alter or modify existing structures on any of the real property
described above as conforming, or (2) acquire additional property within the
Project Area, then, in such event, such owners of conforming properties may-
be required by the Agency to. enter into a Participation Agreement with the
Agency.
VI. [Section 6001 PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES
A. [Section 6011 Notice and Statement or Interest
..............._......._.._........._........_.........................._............_._........._......_.._............._..._........
Before entering into any Participation Agreements, disposition and
development agreements, exclusive negotiation agreements, or taking other
actions which may involve the acquisition of real property in the Project
Area, the Agency shall first notify Owners, Other Owners, Business
Occupants, or Other Business Occupants of property which may be acquired
and call upon them to submit Statements of Interest in participating in the
proposed development or in otherwise participating in the redevelopment of
the Project Area.
The Agency shall provide to each Owner, Other Owner, Business
Occupant or Other Business Occupant of real property which may be
acquired, a form Statement of Interest at least forty-five (45) days prior to
considering any of the actions requiring acquisition of real property. Those
desiring to submit Statements of Interest must complete and submit such
statements to the Agency within thirty (30) days of receipt. Such
statements shall include information requested by the Agency and shall be
in the form requested by the Agency.
Any Owner, Other Owner, Business Occupant., Other Business
Occupant, or others may .also submit such a Statement at any time before
such notification.
The Agency shall consider such Statements as are submitted on
time and shall seek to develop reasonable participation for those submitting
such Statements whether to stay in place, to move to another location, or to
obtain preferences to re-enter the Project Area. The Agency may in its sole
discretion determine that a participation proposal is not feasible or
otherwise in the best interest of the Redevelopment Project or the
community, or is otherwise limited by one or more of the criteria set forth
in Section 400 hereof. In such event, the Agency shall select a developer
from' among prospective participants submitting Statements of Interest and
others invited to submit proposals.
B. [Section 6021 Participation Agreements
1. [Section 6031 Gene .........
Public and private Owners, Other Owners, Business Occupants or
Other Business Occupants wishing to develop or improve their properties
within the Project Area may be required, as a condition to Agency approval
of such development, to enter into a Participation Agreement with the
•-5--
Katz Hollis
Agency if the Agency determines it is necessary to impose upon such
property any of the standards, restrictions and controls of the
Redevelopment Plan or of any design guide adopted by the Agency pursuant
to the Redevelopment Plan.
2. [Section 6041 Contents
. .. ....... ...._.._
A Participation Agreement shall obligate the Owner, or Other
Owner, his/her heirs, and successors and assigns, and/or a Business
Occupant or Other Business Occupant to acquire, rehabilitate, develop and
use the property in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and to be
subject to such other provisions and .conditions of the Redevelopment Plan
for the period of time that the Redevelopment Plan is in force and effect,
excepting those provisions related to non-discrimination and non-segregation
which shall run in perpetuity.
Each Participation Agreement will require the participant to join in
the recordation of such documents as the Agency may require in order to
insure the property will be acquired, rehabilitated, developed and used in
accord with the Redevelopment Plan and the agreement. Participation
Agreements will be effective only if approved by a majority vote of the
members of the Agency.
VII. (Section .7001 ENFORCEMENT
In the event a property is not acquired, developed, rehabilitated,
or used in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan, with an Agency
determination of conformance, or a Participation Agreement, then the Agency
is authorized to (1) purchase the property, (2) purchase any interest in the
property sufficient to obtain conformance, or (3) take any other appropriate
action sufficient to obtain such conformance. The Agency shall not acquire
real property retained or developed under an approved Participation
Agreement if the participant fully performs under the agreement unless such
acquisition is a requirement of the approved Participation Agreement.
VIII. [Section 800] AMENDMENT OF RULES
The Agency may .amend these rules at any regular meeting or duly
called special meeting held after their adoption, but only after notice to the
Agency members and the public. The text of the proposed change shall be
furnished along with the notice of the meeting. Such notice shall be posted
and published or delivered by regular U.S. mail (first class) deposited at
least fourteen (14) days before the date of the meeting at which the
proposed amendment will be considered. The method of notice is at the
discretion of the Agency.
No such amendment shall retroactively impair the rights of any
parties who have executed Participation Agreements with the Agency in
reliance upon these rules as presently constituted.
Katz Hol l i s
STATEMENT OF INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING
............_...._......._.......... ............_.........._..._..._.....__._._._.......... - ._......_....... .._............_...._........._....
I hereby express my interest in participating in the Redevelopment
Project and submit the following. information:
1. Name Telephone
2. Home Address
_...........__..._.. _._..._.._... _.................._ ._. .........................._....
3. Name of Business
4. Address of Business
5. My present involvement in the Project Area is:
I now own property in the Project
I now lease property in the Project
Explain [include statement whether the property (or any portion) is
used for residential purposes]:
6. I am interested in participating:
As a Property Owner As a Tenant
....... ...... ....._................................................
7. If I participate:
I would like to continue at the same location
.............................................................__. ..............................................
I would like to change my present location
..........................................._._...._............................
.._...._..._. ....._
I would like to acquire real property for expansion (indicate approxi-
mate requirements)
REMARKS:
....................................................................................._........................_._........._.............................._..............._............................_.............._........._......._...................................................................................__..._._.....................
I understand that submission of this Statement of Interest form does
not obligate me to participate if the Redevelopment Plan is carried out, nor
does it indicate an opinion concerning the Project Area within the
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project.
Signed Date
Reseo. 143
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH)
I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing
resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach at a meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the
day of June 1 19 87 , and that it was so adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Members:
Winchell, Mays, Finley, Kelly, Erskine, Green, Bannister
NOES: Members:
None
ABSENT: Members:
None
Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of—
the
City of Huntington Beach, Ca.
REQUEAFOR CITY COUNCILACT10 D
RH 87-37
Date May 22, 1987
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Member
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administra r 19V
Prepared by: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Red 'fopment _.
Subject: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR JOINT PUBLIC HEARI - ciT
BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA
Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception s
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: $/
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Attached is a Resolution of the City Council establishing the date for Joint Public
Hearing with the Redevelopment Agency on the proposed Beach Boulevard
Redevelopment Plan for Monday, July 6, 1987.
RECOMMENDATION :
Approve and authorize the City Clerk to approve the attached resolution establishing
the date for the Joint Public Hearing with the Redevelopment Agency on the proposed
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan for Monday, July 6, 1987, consenting to
participate in said Joint Public Hearing and receiving the proposed Redevelopment Plan.
ANALYSIS:
The various documents necessary to bring forward a proposed Redevelopment Plan
(including but not limited to the Redevelopment Plan, report to City Council,
Environmental Impact Report, and Owner Participation Rules) have now been
completed. These documents have undergone the review and comment periods
prescribed by State Law.
The next step in the process is to present the proposed Redevelopment Plan to both the
City Council and Redevelopment Agency at a Joint Public Hearing. The attached
resolution receives the proposed Redevelopment Plan, establishes the date of the Joint
Public Hearing for Monday, July 6, 1987 and expresses the City Council's consent to
participate in the Hearing.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Beach Boulevard Project Area adoption administrative costs are a Redevelopment
Agency expense.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION :
Do not approve the attached resolution. This will pre-empt establishment of the date
of a Joint Public Hearing and the continuance of the project area adoption process.
PIp 5/85
RH 87-37
May 22, 1987
Page Two '
ATTACHMENTS: y
1. Resolution No. "
CWT/DLB/SVK:sar
1554r
RESOLUTION NO. 5774
A RESOLUTION -OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH RECEIVING PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND CONSENTING TO AND CALLING. A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach submitted to the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach a proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach -
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, accompanied by the Agency ' s
Report to the City Council and Rules Governing Participation and
Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants, and con-
sented to the request that the City Council call a joint public
hearing of the Agency and the City Council to consider and act
upon the proposed Redevelopment Plan; and
The City Council acknowledges receipt of the proposed Rede-
velopment Plan, the accompanying Agency 's Report to the City
Council, and the Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by
Property Owners and Business Occupants; and
Section 33355 of the California Community Redevelopment Law
(Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 , et seq. ) authorizes a
joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan with the
consent of the Agency and the City Council .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Huntington .Beach as follows :
1 . The City Council hereby receives the proposed Redevelop-
ment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment
Project, the Redevelopment Agency ' s Report to the City Council on
the proposed Redevelopment Plan, and the Rules Governing Partici-
pation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants .
2 . The City Council hereby consents to, and, at the request
of the Redevelopment Agency, calls a joint public hearing of the
Agency and the City Council in the Huntington Beach Council
Chambers, to consider and act upon the proposed Redevelopment Plan
and all documents and evidence pertaining thereto. The time and
date of such joint public hearing shall be July 6 , 1987, at 7:00
p.m. , or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard .
1 .
_ 3 . The City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach shall, in
" .. cooperation with the Executive Director of the Agency,,
p g y, prepare,
;. . publish and mail such notices and documents and do all other acts
as may. be necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of .
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on theist
day of June , 1987 .
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
co/o,�,
V
City Clerk City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: IcNITIATED AND APPROVED:
ty Admi is rat De u y City Administrator
Redevelopment
=. 1
2194L
2 .
Res. 5774
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) s a
' CITY OF HW INGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the _lst day
of June lg 87 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Mays, Finley, Kelly,_ Erskine, Green, Bannister
NOES: Councilmen:
Winchell
ABSENT- Councilmen:
None
i C1c%/
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
REQUEST FOPI@EDEVELOPM NCY ONE
44 40
tell
RH 87-39
�g
atk� ay 22. 1987
Gt1
Honorable Chairman and R devel nt ncy mbers
Submitted to: Charles W. Thompson, Chief 'cutive Of c
Submitted by:
Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopm
Prepared by: APPROVAL OF REPORT TO COUNCIL - CALL FOR HEARING -
Subject: ' BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Consistent with Council Policy? ('Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The documents necessary to bring forward a proposed Redevelopment Project Area for
the Beach Boulevard Corridor have . now been prepared. These documents have
undergone the review process prescribed by State Law and it is now necessary to call
for a Joint Hearing of the Redevelopment Agency and City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and authorize the Agency Clerk to execute the attached resolution approving
the report to City Council, authorizing submittal of the Redevelopment Plan to the
City Council, and consenting to the Joint Public Hearing of the Redevelopment Agency
and City Council on the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan on Monday,
July 6, 1987.
ANALYSIS:
The Redevelopment Plan, Preliminary Report, and Environmental Impact Report for the
adoption of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area were received by the
Redevelopment Agency in February, 1987. At that time the Agency authorized the
transmittal of these documents for review by the various appropriate agencies. The
culmination of this process will be the presentation of the proposed Redevelopment
Plan and attendant documents at a Joint Public Hearing of the Redevelopment Agency
and City Council.
The attached resolution approves the report to Council and authorizes transmittal of
the Report and Redevelopment Plan to the City Council. The "Report to Council" is
the document which the Redevelopment Agency Members have previously reviewed
under the title of "Preliminary Report" (attached is an outline of the changes in this
report as a result of public and staff review). This report is a technical report on the
current physical and economic conditions within the proposed project area. In addition,
the attached resolution also requests the establishment of the date for the Joint Public
Hearing with the City Council for Monday, July 6, 1987. _
i
PI O/1/85
RH 87-39
May 22, 1987
Page Two
FUNDING SOURCE:
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area adoption administrative costs are a
Redevelopment Agency expense.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not approve the attached resolution. This will pre-empt scheduling of the Joint
Public Hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No.
2. Report to City Council.
3. Comparison of Preliminary Report and Report to City Council.
CWT/DLB/SVK:sar
1557r
KatzHollis
COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY REPORT COMPONENTS
AND REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL COMPONENTS
Preliminary Report Report to Council
(CRL Section 33344.5) (CRL Section 33352)
1 . Reasons for selection of project la. Reasons for selection of project
area area
b. Description of proposed projects*
c. Description of how proposed pro-
jects* will eliminate blight
d. Explanation why public improvements,
if proposed, cannot be reasonably
expected to be accomplished by
private enterprise acting alone
2. Description of existing physical , 2. Description of existing physical ,
social , and economic conditions social , and economic conditions
(Blight Report) (Blight Report)
3a. Preliminary assessment of propos- 3. Proposed method of financing rede-
ed method of financing redevelop- velopment of project in sufficient
ment of project detail so that Council may deter-
b. Assessment of economic feasibil- mine economic feasibility of pro-
ity of project ject
c. Reasons for including tax incre-
ment financing
4. Description of proposed projects* [See lb above]
5. Description of how proposed pro-
jects* will eliminate blight [See lc above]
[No comparable components] 4. through 13.
* The word "projects" is presumed to mean the various redevelopment
activities and undertakings of the redevelopment agency in the
implementation of the redevelopment plan for the redevelopment
project.
This comparison of CRL Sections 33344.5 and 33352 is of such sections as
they have been amended by AB203 (Hannigan) , effective 1/1/85•
41 , rv�,�ES, S 7 7V
RESOLUTION NO. 144
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE AGENCY 'S REPORT TO
THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN,
AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF REPORT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
TO CITY COUNCIL, AND CONSENTING TO JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ON THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach has prepared a Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach -
Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project; and
The Agency has submitted the proposed Redevelopment Plan to
the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach for its
report and recommendation and has received such report and recom-
mendation; and
Pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Community Rede-
velopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 , et seq. ) the
Agency has prepared a Report to the City Council on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan; and
Pursuant to Section 33339 .5 and 33345 of the Community -Rede-
velopment Law, the Agency has prepared and adopted Rules Govern-
ing Participation and Preferences for Property Owners and Business
Occupants; and
Section 33355 of the .California Community Redevelopment Law
authorizes a joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment
Plan with the consent of the Agency and the City Council .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Huntington Beach as follows:
1 . The Agency hereby approves its Report to the Huntington
Beach City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project , in the
form attached hereto.
2 . The Agency hereby submits to the City Council the pro-
posed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boule-
vard Redevelopment Project, the Agency 's Report to the City
Council , including the report and recommendation of the Planning
Commission, and the Rules Governing Participation and Preferences
by Property Owners and Business Occupants.
1 .
3 . The- Agency hereby consents to a joint public hearing on
' .7 the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project , and requests the
City Council to call a joint public hearing of the Agency and the
City Council, at such time as it may determine, in the Council
Chambers in the Huntington Beach City Hall to consider and act
upon the proposed Redevelopment Plan and all documents and evi-
dence pertaining thereto.
4 . The Executive Director of the Agency shall , in coopera-
tion with the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, prepare,
publish and mail such notices and documents, and do all other acts
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City, Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st
day of June , 1987 .
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk t--- City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
t �
4
A mi "ator D u y City Administrator
Re elopment
i
2196L
2 .
RAo. 144
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) .
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH)
I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing
resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach at a meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the
day of June 1 19 87 and that it was so adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Members:
Mays, Finley, Kelly, Erskine, Green, Bannister
NOES: Members:
Winchell
ABSENT: Members:
None
erk of the Redevelopment Agenc f
the City of Huntington Beach, Ca.