HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Main-Pier Phase II (Coultrup) Aff • •
n7
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL/
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ED 92-57
Date: November 16, 1992
Submitted irman and City
Council/Redevelopment Agency Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator/Executive
Director a- C" "__
Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator
Subject: A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency to Authorize
the Application for Tentative Tract Map 14666 Pursuant
to HB Municipal Code Section 9801.4 ,
Consistent with Council/Agency policy? K Yes [ 1 New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommended Agency Action,Analysis,.Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments
i
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Applications for certain entitlements may be filed by the Redevelopment Agency
without the consent of the property owner.
The Redevelopment Agency wishes to apply for approval of Tentative Tract Map
14666 (Coultrup Project) without the consent of all the property owners of property
included within such map.
RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL/AGENCY ACTION:
The Redevelopment Agency hereby adopts Resolution No. 237 and authorizes the
Executive Director to execute any and all documents, and ratifies any previously
executed applications relating to and necessary to file such application for Tentative
Tract Map 14666 (Coultrup Project).
ANALYSIS:
Applications for certain entitlements may be filed by the Redevelopment Agency
without the consent of the property owner. The Agency has filed and requested
approval of Tentative Tract Map 14666 without the consent of all the property owners
of property included within such map. The Tentative Tract Map is for the Coultrup r
\r%..
project for two blocks located between Main, Pacific Coast Highway, Walnut, & 6th
Street. The excluded owners include Abdelmuti (already has an approved OPA and
l
j
entitlements), Lane (in negotiations for rehab), Worthy (in negotiations for rehab), and
> Sarrabere/Wood/Goodman (Resolution of Necessity adopted).
FUNDING SOURCE:
None as the result of this action.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not adopt resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
MTU/BAK:ls
137
•
RESOLUTION NO. 237
'A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO AUTHORIZE
THE APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #14666
PURSUANT TO HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 9801.4
WHEREAS, Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 9801.4
provides that applications for certain entitlements may be
filed by the Redevelopment Agency without the consent of the
property owner; and
The Redevelopment Agency wishes to apply for approval of
Tentative Tract Map #14666 without the consent of all the
property owners of property included within such map,
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code
Section 9801.4 , the Redevelopment Agency hereby authorizes the
Executive Director to execute any and all documents, and
ratifies any previously executed applications relating to and
necessary to file such application for Tentative Tract Map
#14666 .
This authorization and notification is in furtherance of
the two-block Coultrup project .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on
the 16th day of November 1992 .
Chairman
ATgTKT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Agency Clerk //-/� Agency Counsel
IEWED AND APPROV INITIATED AND APPROVED:
i —` \c.� 4 11?K L
j xecutive Di ector Director of Economic
Development
Res&. 237
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH)
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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
16th day of November , 19_3Z, and that it was so adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Members:
Winchell, Silva, Green, MacAllister
NOES: Members:
None
ABSENT: Members:
Robi to i l l e, Mou l ton-Pati-erc;nn, (Deaf- vacant)
Clerk of the Redevelopment nency of
the City of Huntington Beach, Ca.
�, • REQUEST FA REDEVELOPMENT AfEl.NCY ACTION
ED 93-11
Date July 6, 1993
Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Dir DENIED
BY COUNCIL.
Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Director of RedevelopmentVie. �• /9- 9-�
. - -•-----....
Subject: Main-Pier Phase H (Coultrup) Affordable HousingPlan' '�' •- ''°- - "
Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ]New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Main-Pier Phase II (Coultrup) project, if approved, triggers the requirements of Health & Safety
Code Section 33413(b)(2). This section requires that 15% of the units constructed (12 out of 80 units),
must be provided to low and moderate income households. Of this 15%, 40% of the units must be
very low income units.(5 of the 12 units). Staff recommends an Affordable Housing Plan that complies
with this requirement in several steps.
RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION:
1) Approve the proposed Affordable Housing Plan for the Main Pier Phase II (Coultrup) Project, as
proposed, and appropriate $732,000, using redevelopment housing funds (set aside) for
implementation, if the project proceeds.
2) Approve the proposed Affordable Housing Plan as meeting Condition No. 9-g (Affordable Housing
Program) of the Conditional Use Permit No. 92-17 for the Main-Pier Phase II project.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed the negotiations for a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement for the
development of 80 condominiums and 47,500 square feet of commercial/office space at Main Street
and Pacific Coast Highway (Main-Pier Phase II). The construction of housing within a redevelopment
project area triggers Section 33413 (b) (2) of California Community Redevelopment Law ("Production
Requirement"). The Production Requirement states that 15% of all housing built in a redevelopment
project area must be affordable to households of low and moderate income. In addition, 40% of the
15% must be affordable to households of very low income. Production housing units may be built
offsite of the project that triggers them but they must be built in the redevelopment project area. At
tfiis time, staff has no others available or proposals for development of affordable housing within
the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area that are financially feasible.
In the past, projects such as Pier Colony, Bayshore and Villas del Mar have not complied with this
requirement. This has resulted in a current net deficit of 133 affordable units. Under the terms of the
proposed Disposition and Development Agreement for the Main Pier Phase II Project, the Agency has
assumed the responsibility for meeting the Production requirements of this project.
Staff has analyzed the potential costs for providing very low and moderate income units on site.
Coultrup Companies anticipates the following sales prices with Agency subsidies as indicated for a one
bedroom, two person household.
Sales Price Sales Prices (max.) Affordable Unit Subsidy Amt./Unit (8% 1st TD)
$220,000 $ 159,000 Moderate Income $ 61,000
$220,000 38,500 Very Low Income 181,500
Total Subsidy Required: 7 Moderate x $ 61,000 = $ 427,000
5 Very Low x 181,500 = 907,500
Total: $ 1,334,500
As the above analysis demonstrates it is prohibitively expensive to subsidize units on-site for sale
housing for very-low income. Therefore, staff is recommending that a subsidy be provided to future
buyers for 12 moderate income units on site and that 5 very-low income rental units be developed
offsite at some time in the future. The subsidies to the 12 future buyers would be in the form of second
trust deeds, with equity sharing upon sale. The final sales prices will be established upon completion of
the project, and the subsidy amount will be adjusted accordingly.
To implement this recommendation staff requests that $732,000 be appropriated to assist the 12
moderate income units onsite. The additional 5 very low income rental units to be developed offsite
would be funded from future years Housing Set-Aside. The Redevelopment Agency's Housing capital
outlay budget for FY 93/94 contains funds to meet this obligation. This proposed Affordable Housing
Plan only becomes effective if the proposed DDA is approved, signed and implemented.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution No.
2) Affordable Housing Plan for Main Pier Phase II (Coultrup).
3) Affordable Housing Calculations
4) Draft CUP
MTU/BAK:ls
351
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLAN FOR THE MAIN PIER, PHASE II PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach (the "Agency") desires to initiate the Main Pier Phase II
Association Project (the "Project") which includes the
construction of 80 residential units, which triggers the
requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33413(b) (2)
Production Requirement; and
Under the Redevelopment Agency' s Draft Housing Policy the
meeting of the production or replacement requirements requires
the submission to the Redevelopment Agency by the developer of
an acceptable low and moderate income housing plan
demonstrating how they will meet their commitment; and
Under the terms of the proposed Disposition and Development
Agreement for this project the Agency is assuming the
developer' s obligation to provide affordable housing; and
The Agency has prepared an Affordable Housing Plan to meet
the requirements of Health & Safety Code Section 33413(b) (2)
and Agency policy. The Affordable Housing Plan is attached
hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated by reference herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of _
Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows :
SLk 8/92346 1
r r • •
SECTION 1. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach hereby approves and adopts the Affordable
Housing Plan for Main Pier Phase II (Coultrup) .
SECTION 2 . The Executive Director of the Agency is
authorized to implement the Affordable Housing Plan and to
execute any documents and take any other action necessary or
convenient for the proper accomplishment of its purposes .
SECTION 3 . This resolution shall take effect upon
approval and execution of the Disposition and Development
Agreement by and between the Redevelopment Agency and Coultrup
Companies and Birtcher Real Estate Limited.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on
the day of 199.1 .
Chairman
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Agency Clerk Wc--4 AAgency Counsel 15�t.�1/�J
R D APPRO INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Executive Directo Director, Economic Development
SLk 8/92346 2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
In connection with the development of real property
located within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area
(Main-Pier Phase II - Coultrup Project)
i
I
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
DULY 6, 1993
Main-Pier Phase H
Affordable Mousing Plan
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this affordable housing plan is to identify how the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (Agency) will cause "the rehabilitation,
development, or construction of low and moderate income housing available at
affordable housing cost" to meet the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law
triggered by the Main Pier Phase II (Coultrup) development. Under the terms of the
Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the Agency and the
Developer the Agency has assumed the responsibility of meeting the Production
requirements of this project. This Plan outlines the Agency's method to provide the 12
low and moderate income units (of which 5 must be very low) to satisfy the Production
requirement.
Background:
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the Main Pier
Redevelopment Project Area on September 20, 1982. The Plan was amended on
September 6, 1983. The Plan for the Main Pier Project Area calls for the development
of the area with commercial, retail, hotel, and residential uses.
The Agency is presently considering the disposition of that certain property known as
"Main-Pier Phase II or Coultrup" to facilitate the development of a mixed-use
residential and commercial project. The proposed Main-Pier Phase II project is
described in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), which is proposed to
be entered into by and between Coultrup Companies, Birtcher Real Estate Limited,
Main-Pier Property Owners, and the Agency.
Health and Safety Code Section 33413 (b) (2) requires that 15% of all housing
developed in a redevelopment project area be affordable to low and moderate income
households and that 40% of that 15% be affordable to very low income households. It
is proposed in the DDA that the Agency assume the Developer's responsibility.
1
Project Description:
The proposed project consists of 80 residential condominium units and 47,500 square
feet of commercial space. The project site consists of two contiguous blocks bounded
by Main Street on the south, Pacific Coast Highway on the west, Sixth Street on the
north and Walnut Ave. on the east. The site is split by Fifth Street. The development
team includes Coultrup Companies, Birtcher Real Estate Limited, and the Main-Pier
Property Owners.
Affordable Housing Plan
To meet the 15% Production requirement, a project of 80 units must provide 12 units of
low and moderate income housing of which 5 must be affordable to very low income
households. The proposed DDA states:
"Affordable Housing: Agency shall provide replacement housing
units as required by law and shall assure that a minimum of 12 units
of affordable housing are provided consistent with Community
Redevelopment Law. Agency shall have the right to designate 12
units as affordable to low and moderate use within the project site
for the life of the project. Such designation shall not effect the
market price of the unit to the Developer as the Agency's Low and
Moderate Income Housing Fund shall be utilized to make the unit
affordable to the designated eligible family or individual."
It is the Agency's intent to meet the Production requirement by (1) designating and
subsidizing 12 moderate income units onsite to meet affordable housing requirements,
and (2) producing 5 very low affordable units offsite, but within the project area. In
keeping with AB315, the affordable units shall be provided within 3 years but not later
than 10 years from the date of issue of the certificate of occupancy for the project.
This Plan shall become effective only if the DDA for the Main Pier Phase II (Coultrup)
Project is approved, signed and implemented.
352
2
TABLE A-1
SUPPORTABLE HOUSING PRICES(STUDIOS-4 BEDROOM UNITS)
MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS(110%MEDIAN INCOME LEVEL)
SUPPORTABLE HOUSING COST CALCULATION(1993 INCOME&REDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
STUDIO(1) 1 BEDROOM(2) 2 BEDROOM(3) 3 BEDROOM(4) 4 BEDROOM(5)
MODERATE INCOME $43,560 $49,720 $55,880 $62,150 $67,100
INCOME ALLOTTED TO HOUSING @ 35%OF INCOME $15,250 $17,400 $19,560 $21,750 $23,490
(LESS)HOA FEES, UTIL+CONTENTS INSURANCE ($2,400) ($2,400) ($2,400) ($2,400) ($2,400)
(LESS)PROPERTY TAXES @ 1%OF MKT VALUE ($1,000) ($1,270) ($1,550) ($1,790) ($1,500)
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
INCOME AVAILABLE FOR MORTGAGE $11,850 $13,730 $15,610 $17,560 $19,590
MORTGAGE AT 8.00% INT(8.81%CONSTANT) $134,500 $155,800 $177,200 $199,300 $222,400
HOME BUYER DOWN PYMNT @ 5%MARKET VALUE 5,000 6,350 7,750 8,950 7,500
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
MAXIMUM HOME INVESTMENT $139,500 $162,150 $184,950 $208,250 $229,900
(LESS)CLOSING COSTS @ 2.5%OF VALUE $2,500 $3,200 $3,900 $4,500 $3,800.
NET SUPPORTABLE VALUE OF HOUSE $137,000 $159,000 $181,100 $203,800 $226,100
s
(1)ASSUMED MARKET VALUE OF$100,000 FOR STUDIO UNITS
(2)ASSUMED MARKET VALUE OF$127,000 FOR ONE-BEDROOM UNITS
(3)ASSUMED MARKET VALUE OF$155,000 FOR TWO-BEDROOM UNITS
(4)ASSUMED MARKET VALUE OF$179,000 FOR THREE-BEDROOM UNITS
(5)ASSUMED MARKET VALUE OF$150,000 FOR FOUR-BEDROOM UNITS
SOURCE:KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES.INC.
FILE NAME:REDEVINC:APRIL.1993
TABLE A-3 _
SUPPORTABLE HOUSING PRICES(STUDIOS-4 BEDROOM UNITS)
VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS(50%MEDIAN INCOME LEVEL)
SUPPORTABLE HOUSING COST CALCULATION(1993 INCOME&REDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
STUDIO(1) 1 BEDROOM(2) 2 BEDROOM(3) 3 BEDROOM(4) 4 BEDROOM(5)
VERY LOW INCOME $19,800 $22,600 $25,400 $28,250 $30,500
INCOME ALLOTTED TO HOUSING @ 30%OF INCOME $5,940 $6,780 $7,620 $8,480 $9,150 •
(LESS)HOA FEES, UTIL+CONTENTS INSURANCE ($2,400) ($2,400) ($2,400) ($2,400) ($2,400)
(LESS)PROPERTY TAXES @ 1%OF MKT VALUE ($1,000) ($1,270) ($1,550) ($1,790) ($1,500)
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
INCOME AVAILABLE FOR MORTGAGE $2,540 $3,110 $3,670 $4,290 $5,250
MORTGAGE AT 8.00% INT(8.81%CONSTANT) $28,800 $35,300 $41,700 $48,700 $59,600
HOME BUYER DOWN PYMNT @ 5%MARKET VALUE 5,000 6,350 7,750 8,950 7,500
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
MAXIMUM HOME INVESTMENT $33,800 $41,650 $49,450 $57,650 $67,100
(LESS)CLOSING COSTS @ 2.5%OF VALUE $2,500 $3,200 $3,900 $4,500 $3,800
NET SUPPORTABLE VALUE OF HOUSE $31,300 E,500 $45,600 $53,200 $63,300
•
(1)ASSUMED MARKET VALUE OF$100,000 FOR STUDIO UNITS
(2)ASSUMED MARKET VALUE OF$127,000 FOR ONE-BEDROOM UNITS
(3)ASSUMED MARKET VALUE OF$155,000 FOR TWO-BEDROOM UNITS
(4)ASSUMED MARKET VALUE OF$179,000 FOR THREE-BEDROOM UNITS
(5)ASSUMED MARKET VALUE OF$150,000 FOR FOUR-BEDROOM UNITS
SOURCE: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES,INC.
FILE NAME: REDEVINC:APRIL, 1993
REQU FOR CITY COON& ACTION
(C,,16 ea)
f
Date November 16, 1992
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
Prepared by: Michael Adams , Director of Community DevelopmentUA�
Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 92-17 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/CONDITIONAL
EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 92-28/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
14666/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-14
Consistent with Council Policy? (10 Yes [ J New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At the City Council meeting of October 19 , 1992 the appeal by
Coultrup Development Co . of the Planning Commission' s denial -of
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-17 with Special Permits, Conditional
Exception (Variance) No. 92-28, Tentative Tract Map No. 14666 and
Coastal Development Permit No . 92-14 was continued in order to
provide the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project to
address the concerns raised by the Council . The Council further
directed staff to develop findings and conditions which allow for
the elimination of commercial uses along PCH between 6th and 5th
Streets : The proposed project is an 80 unit condominium project and
two (2) commercial buildings totaling square feet on 3 . 8 net
acres, located on a two (2) block projTecarea between Sixth and
Main Streets , and Walnut and Pacific Cighway.
RECOMMENDATION: .' wj
Motion to:
"Uphold the appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit No . 92-17 with
Special Permits, Conditional Exception (Variance) No . 92-28,
Tentative Tract Map No . 14666 and Coastal Development Permit No .
92-14 with the attached findings and conditions of approval . "
C . Floor plans for new construction shall depict natural gas and
220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of
clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the
locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central
heating units; and low-volume heads shall be used on all
spigots and water faucets .
d. All new residential structures on the subject property,
whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in
compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for
units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property.
Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an
acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of
a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering,
with the application for building permit (s) .
e. All new rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from
any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible
with the building in terms of materials and colors . If
screening is not designed specifically into the building, a
rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing
screening and must be approved.
f . (Revised)Outdoor lighting shall be provided and shall be
high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings
lamps shall be used . All outside lighting shall be directed
to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be
noted on the site plan and elevations . The walkway to the
^\south of the Main Street building shall be lighted .
(JPrior to issuance of building permits for the construction of
the residential portion, Developer shall provide the City
with an Affordable Housing program to be approved by the
Director of Community Development and in accordance with
provisions of the City' s adopted Housing Element and
Redevelopment Law. The affordable housing program shall
provide for the development of not less than 12 residential
units which will be available at affordable housing costs to
persons. and households of low and moderate income, with not
less than 5 of those units units available at "affordable
housing costs" to "very low income" households as defined by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D. ) .
The affordable housing program shall identify housing
proposals, locations and implementation strategies for the
development of new residential units designed for families of
low and moderate income. The Developer shall provide
affordable housing within the residential portion of the site
or provide affordable housing off-site. If all or a portion
of the affordable housing is to be provided off-site, one or
more of the following must occur prior to the issuance of
building permits of the construction of residential phase of
Main Pier Phase II .
RCA 11/16/92 -7- (4719d)
1
0
1 . Control of an off-site location acceptable to the City.
2 . City approval of a development plan for an off-site
location.
3 . Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant shall
identify a location for the replacement of units lost
through demolition. Said plan shall comply with Section
33413 . 5 of California Community Development Law. All
units must be replaced within four (4 ) years of approval
of this conditional use permit.
h. The Design Review Board (and/or Community Development
Department) shall review and approve the following:
1 . All project revisions specified in Condition of Approval
No . 1 .
2 . The final landscape plan, including all landscape and
softscape.
i . The site .plan shall include (or reference page) all
conditions of approval imposed on the project printed
verbatim.
j . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered
soils engineer . This analysis shall include on-site soil
sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide
detailed recommendations regarding grading, soil corrosion,
fill properties, toxics, foundations, walls , streets and
facilities .
10 . Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant/owner shall
complete the following:
a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and
elevations pursuant to Condition No . 1 for review and
approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. Said plan
shall include final design for 5th Street .
b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the
Departments of Community Development and Public Works and
must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall
include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State
Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all
proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size,
quantity) , an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved
site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of
approval . The landscape plans shall be in conformance with
Section- 9608, the Downtown Specific Plan and the Main Street
Improvement Plans of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
The set must be approved by both departments prior to
issuance of building permits. Any existing mature trees that
must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with
minimum 36=inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into
the project ' s landscape plan.
RCA 11/16/92 -8- (4719d)
ILE GUIDE •
Please file this document in:
Category: Label : `
zt
it-AI-60?
Established file
___( New file — see
Other:
0846I
.REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENTOGENCY ACTION
ED 92-41
]� �eZ N b_ ovemer 16, -:1992
L!�
Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agenc Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Di or
Prepared by:
Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development
Subject: - ,
MAIN-PIER PHASE II AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
Consistent with Council Policy? N Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,.Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: W&
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
State Law declares affordable housing a fundamental purpose of redevelopment. It
further requires the replacement of affordable housing whenever it is removed as a
result of Agency actions (Replacement Requirement) and the provision of affordable
housing whenever new housing is built (Production Requirement): The Main Pier
Phase II (Coultrup) Project does both. Therefore as a part of approving the project the
Agency should approve an Affordable Housing Plan for the project. On July 20, 1992
the Agency approved a Replacement Housing Plan for the project. The attached
proposed Affordable Housing Plan meets the Production Requirement. The two plans
together comply with the Agency's obligation to provide low,and moderate.income
housing.
RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION:
Review and provide direction to staff regarding the proposed Affordable
Housing Plan for the Main Pier Phase II (Coultrup) Project.
ANALYSIS:
On July 15, 1991, the Redevelopment Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement with the Coultrup Development Company and the Main Pier Phase II
Property Owners Association. These negotiations have now resulted in a proposed
Disposition and Development Agreement for the development of 80 condominiums and
47,500 square feet of commercial/office space.
PIO/1/85 •
The construction of housing within a redevelopment project area triggers Section 33413
(b) (2) of California Community Redevelopment Law or "Production Requirement".
The Production Requirement states that 15% of all housing built in a redevelopment
project area must be affordable to households of low and moderate income. In
addition, 40% of the 15% must be affordable to households of very low income.
Production housing units may be built offsite of the project that triggers them but they
must be built in the redevelopment project area. In the past, projects such as Pier
Colony, Bayshore and Villas del Mar have not complied with this requirement.
Under the terms of the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement for the Main
Pier Phase H Project, the Agency has assumed the responsibility of meeting the
Production and Replacement requirements of this project. Staff has analyzed the costs
for providing very low and moderate income units on site as follows:
Coultrup Development anticipates the following sales prices with Agency
subsidies as indicated for a one bedroom, two person household.
Sales Price Affordable Unit Sales Prices (Max.) Subsidy Amt./Unit
$220,000 $155,849 Moderate Income $ 64,151
$220,000 $ 71,431 Very Low Income $148,569
Total Subsidy Required: 7 Moderate x $64,151= $449,057
5 Very Low x $148,569 $742,845
Total: $1,191,902
The proposed Affordable Housing Plan is a statement of how the Agency will meet the
obligation to provide 12 low and moderate income Production units. The Plan provides
the Agency with three options. First, to subsidize 12 units within the Main Pier Phase
II Project. Second, to create 12 affordable units (7 moderate and 5 very low) offsite,
but in the Main Pier Project Area. And third, combination of the two.
As the above analysis demonstrates it is prohibitively expensive to subsidize units on-
site for very low income. Therefore, staff is recommending that a sudsidy be provided
for 12 moderate income units on site and that 5 very low income units be developed
off-site within 3 years. To implement this recommendation staff requests that $769,812
be appropriated to assist the 12 moderate income units onsite. The additional 5 very
low income units to be developed off-site within 3 years would be funded from future
years Housing Set-Aside. The Redevelopment Agency's Housing capital outlay budget
for FY 92/93 contains funds to meet this obligation. The alternate recommendation
would be to direct staff to develop 12 affordable units (7 moderate and 5 very low)
elsewhere within the Mian Pier Project Area during the next 3 years.
0
This proposed Affordable Housing Plan only becomes effective if the proposed DDA is
approved signed and implemented.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. (:Z)iWA4--
Affordable Housing Plan for Main Pier Phase II (Coultrup)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLAN FOR THE MAIN PIER, PHASE II PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach (the "Agency") desires to initiate the Main Pier Phase II
Association Project (the "Project") which includes the
construction of 80 residential units, which triggers the
requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33413(b) (2)
Production Requirement; and
Under the Redevelopment Agency' s Draft Housing Policy the
meeting of the production or replacement requirements requires
the submission to the Redevelopment Agency by the developer of
an acceptable low and moderate income housing plan
demonstrating how they will meet their commitment; and
Under the terms of the proposed Disposition and Development
Agreement for this project the Agency is assuming the
developer ' s obligation to provide affordable housing; and
The Agency has prepared an Affordable Housing Plan to meet
the requirements of Health & Safety Code Section 33413(b) (2)
and Agency policy. The Affordable Housing Plan is attached
hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated' by reference herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows :
SLk 8/92346 1
i
i
i
SECTION 1. The Redevelopment: Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach hereby approves and adopts the Affordable
Housing Plan for Main Pier Phase II (Coultrup) .
SECTION 2 . The Executive Director of the Agency is
authorized to implement the Affordable Housing Plan and to
execute any documents and take any other action necessary or
convenient for the proper accomplishment of its purposes .
SECTION 3 . This resolution': shall take effect upon
approval and execution of the Disposition and Development
Agreement by and between the Redevelopment Agency and Coultrup
Companies and Birtcher Real Estate Limited.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on
the day of 19-92 .
Chairman
ATTEST: APPROVED' A�S�TO )FORM:
�k cat'
Agency Clerk t-Agency Counsel
RNVTZWED V INITIATED AND APPROVED:
xecutiv or Director, Economic Development
SLk 8/92346 2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
In Connection with the Development of Real Property
Located within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area
(Main-Pier Phase II- Coultrup Project)
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AUGUST 31, 1992
Affordable Housing Plan
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this affordable housing plan is to identify how the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (Agency) will cause " the rehabilitation,
development, or construction of low and moderate income housing available at
affordable housing cost" to.meet the requirements of Community Redevelopment Law
triggered by the Main Pier Phase II (Coultrup) development. Under the terms of the
Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the Agency and the
Developer the Agency has assumed the responsibility of meeting the Production and
Replacement requirements of this project. This Plan outlines the Agency's options in
providing the 12 low and moderate income units (of which 5 must be very low) to
satisfy the Production requirement. A separate Replacement Housing Plan has been
prepared and adopted by the City Council.
Background
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the Main Pier
Redevelopment Project Area on September 20, 1982. The Plan was amended on
September 6, 1983. The Plan for the Main Pier Project Area calls for the development
of the area with public improvements, commercial, retail, hotel,and residential uses.
The Agency is presently considering the disposition of that certain property known as
"Main-Pier Phase II or Coultrup" to facilitate the development of a mixed-use
residential and commercial project. The proposed Phase II project is described in the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), which is proposed to be entered into
by and between Coultrup Companies, Birtcher Real Estate Limited and the Agency.
Health and Safety Code Section 33413 (b) (2) requires that 15 % of all housing
developed in a redevelopment project area be affordable to low and moderate income
households and that 40% of that 15% be affordable to very low income households.
Section 33413 (a) requires that low and moderate income housing that is removed from
a project area as a result of Agency involvement be replaced by an equal number of
units that have an equal or greater number of bedrooms and that at least 75% of the
replacement units be in the same income category as the households relocated. The
Draft Redevelopment Agency Housing Policy states
"Developers shall be responsible for meeting both the Production and
Replacement Requirements of their projects, unless otherwise negotiated
with the Redevelopment Agency." .
It is proposed in the DDA that the Agency assume the Developer's responsibility.
Project Description
The proposed project consists of 80 residential condominium units and 47,500 square
feet of commercial space.The project site consists of two contiguous blocks bounded by
Main Street on the south, Pacific Coast Highway on the west, Sixth Street on the north
and Walnut Ave. on the east. The site is split by Fifth Street. Eight residential units
occupied by low and moderate households will be demolished are part of the
development. The development team is a California Limited Partnership of'Coultrup
Companies and Birtcher Real Estate Limited.
Affordable Housing Plan
A separate Replacement Housing Plan has been prepared and adopted by the Agency on
July 20, 1992 to deal with the 8 units of low and moderate income housing that will be
removed by this project. To meet the 15% Production requirement, a project of 80
units must provide 12 units of low and moderate income housing of which 5 must be
affordable to very low income households. The proposed DDA states:
"Affordable Housing Agency shall provide replacement housing units as
required by law and shall assure that a minium of 12 units of affordable
housing are provided consistent with Community Redevelopment Law.
Agency shall have the right to designate 12 units as affordable to low
and moderate use within the project site for the life of the project. Such
designation shall not effect the market price of the unit to the Developer
as the Agency's Low_ and Moderate Income Housing Fund shall be
utilized to make the unit affordable to the designated eligible family or
individual."
It is the Agency's intent to meet the Production requirement by (1) designating and
subsidizing moderate income units on. site to meet affordable housing requirements, and
/or (2) producing moderate and very low affordable units offsite, but within the project
area and/or (3) a combination of onsite and offsite units. In keeping with AB315 the
affordable units shall be provided within 3 years but not later.than 10 years from the
date of issue of the certificate of occupancy for the project inkeeping with
Redevelopment Law. In anticipation of this obligation, the Agency's capital outlay
budget for FY 92/93 contains sufficient funds to subsidize 12 moderate income units
onsite. This Plan shall become effective only if the DDA for the Main Pier Phase II
(Coultrup) Project is approved, signed and implemented.
-2-
12 November 1992
Honorable Mayor James Silva
Huntington Beach City Council
City of Huntington Beach
Ji 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mayor Silva:
On NoVember 16th, I respectfully request your consideration of passing the decision to seat a
new council member on to December 7th, when the new council members will be sworn in.
It would appear that this would be an advantageous decision to the new council, simply
because they will be the members who will be working with a member of their choice. The
idea of calling a special election for this purpose is not financially responsible to the City at
this time, nor any time in the near future. If, however, the election is left until June when an
already planned election is to take place, this leaves a void of several months or an interim
council member to contend with. The logical choice would seem to be - let the new council
look after this one!
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincer y,
J � ,
Curt J. and W. Dianne Easterling
203 Eighth Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
cc: City Council Members
Victor Leipzig o z
David Sullivan
- City-Clerk
y "gym
r � n
F.0
>•r m m
X. Pa
x� n
o f
�-� T
I
REQUEST FOR CITY COUN IL ACTION
April 6, 1992
Date
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City AdministratoroW
Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Developm
Subject: AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE ANALYSIS
Consistent with Council Policy?" 1\4 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: ! �✓
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for City Council consideration is the Affordable Housing
Task Force recommendations along with staff analysis and comments .
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Direct staff to prepare implementing ordinances on affordable
housing for Planning Commission review and City Council action as
recommended by the Affordable Housing Task Force with suggested
modifications by staff . "
ANALYSIS:
On February 3, 1992, the City Council reviewed the Affordable
Housing Task Force recommendations and directed staff to analyze the
report and prepare implementing ordinances . The purpose of this
report is to provide the City Council with that analysis in order to
make a more well informed decision.
On September 16, 1991, the City Council appointed a task force to
make recommendations to the Council on affordable housing. The task
force was given the charge of exploring the various aspects of
affordable housing and to recommend an affordable housing strategy
to implement the City' s adopted Housing Element.
The Affordable Housing Task Force Report provides the City Council
with four major conclusions :
- It recognizes that there is a City-wide need to provide
affordable housing.
- There is a direct link between the City's long term economic
stability and the quality and affordability of its housing stock.
PI O 5/85
All future development has an obligation to address affordable
housing (residential, commercial and industrial) .
The City and development community need to work cooperatively on
achieving a greater number of affordable units.
Staff Comment
The staff agrees with the conclusions reached by the task force. We
would further recommend that the Council consider adopting a set of
specific priorities for implementing an affordable housing
strategy. The priorities will ultimately relate to how we allocate
City housing funds and what our affordable housing needs will be.
The staff suggests that the City Council adopt the following
priorities:
1. Preservation and rehabilitation of the City' s existing single
family and multi-family housing stock.
2. Preservation of existing affordable housing for City residents
with special needs, especially large families and seniors .
3 . Expansion of housing stock for all segments of the community,
particularly lower income (50-80% Median Income) households .
4 . Increased opportunities for moderate income homeowners,
particularly for first time buyers.
5 . Support housing needs for "at risk" population.
6 . Ensure that persons displaced by Redevelopment or any other
governmental activities receive financial assistance and
replacement units .
The Affordable Housing Task Force provided the City Council with 14
specific recommendations . The following is a summary of their
recommendations with staff suggested changes .
Task Force Recommendation
1. Housing opportunities for families earning less than 50% of the
County Median income are primarly limited to existing rental
units . Currently the Orange County Housing Authority is only
able to meet 25% of the. rental assistance needs for these
families within the city.
- The City should assist in providing rental assistance for the
remaining 75% of the City's very low income individuals and
families.
RCA - 4/6/92 -2- (2792d)
The City slMld assist in providing fi cial assistance for
the develo t of new rental units wh S target the very low
income individuals and families.
- The City should identify locations for single room occupancy
projects and other innovative projects which target the very
low income.
Staff Comment
The staff agrees with these recommendations .
Task Force Recommendation
2 . Housing opportunities for families earning 50-80% of the County
Median Income are primarily limited to rental units . New
housing opportunities for low income individuals and families
are not being adequately addressed by the market place.
- The City should assist in providing financial assistance for
new rental projects which target low income individuals and
families .
- The city should develop new development standards to
encourage the development of new projects for the low income.
- The city should only assist in the development of for-sale
housing units for low income households when initiated
through non-profit organizations .
Staff Comment
The . staff agrees with the task force and would add one additional
recommendation.
- City staff should actively participate in the League of
Cities/County of Orange Joint Committee on Reducing Barriers
to Affordable Housing.
Task Force Recommendation
3 . Housing opportunities for families earning 80-100% of the County
Median ' Income are being met by the City' s existing supply of
rental units. Ownership opportunities are not available.
- The City should not assist in the development. of new
conventional rental projects unless the vacancy factor
significantly drops.
RCA - 4/6/92 -3- (2792d)
- The City should facilitate condominium conversion projects
only if it results in a permanent net increase in affordable
units .
- The City should explore opportunities for assistance and the
adoption of new development standards to encourage the
development of for-sale housing which targets moderate income
individuals and families .
Staff Comment
Staff agrees with the task force and would add one additional
recommendation:
- The City should encourage or require developers who are
unable to provide on-site affordable housing to purchase
existing "at risk" or non-restricted apartment projects to
ensure their long term affordability. There are four
apartment projects in the City with a total of 524 units that
are at risk of losing their status as low and moderate
housing. It is conceivable that these units will experience
substantial rent increases thus forcing families to move.
Task Force Recommendation
4 . Housing opportunities for families earning 100-120% of the
County Median Income are primarily being met only through the
City' s existing and new rental units. Ownership opportunities
are very limited for moderate income households.
- The City should assist in providing financial assistance and
subsidies for new for-sale housing projects which target
moderate income households, or
- The City should adopt new development standards to encourage
the development of for-sale housing which targets moderate
income individuals and families.
Staff Comment
The staff does not concur with these two recommendations .
Households earning between $52,200-$62, 640 (100-120% of the Median
Income) is where the market demand will be in the coming years . The
staff has recently received several requests for financial
assistance in conjunction with reductions or deletion of development
standards. These projects are designed with small units at a high
density. These projects are then presented under the guise of
providing affordable housing. In reality their market rate selling
price would be equivalent to 100-120% Median Income level .
RCA - 4/6/92 -4- (2792d)
Another reason that staff does not support financial benefits for
households in this income range is that many landowners come to the
City seeking something beyond the existing zoning on their
property. This may include a general plan amendment, zone change,
specific plan, development agreement, etc. In these cases the
developer would be receiving a substantial benefit through a land
use decision by the City. The land use decision has an economic
value which should be returned to the project without additional
City funds. Lastly, City Housing Funds or fee reductions should be
targeted, toward our primary affordable housing priorities as listed
above.
The staff does concur in part with the second aspect of the
Affordable Housing Task Force recommendation which speaks to
adopting new development standards for affordable housing projects .
It is important to recognize that small and medium size projects
will have difficulty providing on-site affordable housing given the
fact we have development standards that are for luxury housing. In
some cases an in lieu fee may be appropriate if the units cannot be
provided on-site. Other projects may need certain development
standards reduced in order to make the project work financially.
However, a new ordinance which modifies development standards should
only be used as a tool to encourage those property owners who have
their zoning in place and are not seeking a signficant land use
change from the City. If a project does use a modified development
standard ordinance the units should be for households earning
between 50-80% of the Median Income. Property owners who desire a
general plan amendment, specific plan or development agreement
should comply with the development standards their new specific plan
provides (i .e. Holly-Seacliff, Bolsa Chica, NESI) .
Task Force Recommendation
5 . The community need for affordable housing has not been
adequately addressed by the City and, therefore, should be
considered as part of all new development projects .
- The City should place a condition on all new development
projects stating the following:
"The City shall require that concurrent with the approval of all new
residential projects of three or more units the developer shall have
and affordable housing obligation for a minimum of ten percent of
the projects units to be addressed in an affordable housing proposal.
An affordable housing proposal shall address one or more of the
following:
- On-site construction of affordable units.
- Off-site construction of affordable units.
- Payment of in-lieu fee for affordable units .
RCA - 4/6/92 -5- (2792d)
The affordable housing obligation shall be calculated in residential
units and shall be based on 10% of the non affordable units proposed.
Staff Comment
The staff strongly supports the intent of the Affordable Housing
Task Force recommendation with respect to requiring a definite
percentage of affordable units or in-lieu fee for all residential
projects . However, it is important for, the Council to be aware of
the number of affordable units it can hope to provide given a 10%
requirement. As a reminder, the City Council adopted the following
goal in the Housing Element:
Income Category No. of Units
Very Low ( 0-50% County Median Income) 984 15 . 8%
Low ( 50-80% County Median Income) 1,284 20 .3%
Moderate (80-120% County Median Income) 1,370 22 0
3, 638 58 . 1%
The remaining -2, 610 units are above 120% of the Orange County Median
Income.
The following chart is an estimated summary as to the number of
units the City can acheive given a 10, 15 - and 20% requirement. It
is important to note that a majority of the units produced under any
of the scenarios will be for sale units to households earning
between 100-120% of the County Median income. The City' s long term
needs are better addressed by providing a variety of housing types.
Project 1006 15% 2006
Holly-Seacliff 378 567 756
3, 780 units Moderate
For Sale
Units
Meadowlark 60 90 120
600 units
Waterfront 64 96 128
639 units
NESI (Aston) 60 90 120
60 units
Wintersburg School Site 26 39 52
260 units
Bolsa Chica 488 732 976
4, 880 units
RCA - 4/6/92 -6- (2792d)
` Project 10 15 0
Atlanta/Huntington 60 90 120
600 units
Rancho View School 20 30 40
200 units
Bushard School Site 6 12
58 units
Total v 1,222 1, 830 2,324
(33% of (50% of (64% of
goal) goal) goal)
Housing Element Goal = 3, 618 units
Staff believes the 10% requirement as recommended by the task force
is only appropriate for property that has existing zoning in place
and is not requesting a change in land use status . For those
developers who are seeking to enter into a development agreement
with the City or need a general plan amendment or zone change to
make their project work, a 20% requirement would be more benificial
to the city in meeting its goals. Staff would also like to
emphasize what ever percentage is ultimately adopted, the City
Council needs to recognize that there is a need for both rental and
for sale affordable units in Huntington Beach.
Task Force Recommendation
The in-lieu fee alternative shall be figured at $1. 00 per square
foot .
The City shall also require that affordable housing in-lieu fee be
paid at the time of development of all new commercial and industrial
projects . The in-lieu fee shall be figured at twenty cents per
square foot.
Staff Comment
The concept of allowing an in-lieu affordable housing fee is a good
one. It provides an opportunity for those projects which are unable
to provide affordable housing units on-site to buy their way out.
However, several basic questions are raised when a City decides to
adopt an in lieu housing fee.
1. How much should the fee be?
2. What is the relationship or nexus between the fee and the
affordable housing a City needs?
RCA - 4/6/92 -7- (2792d)
3 . What threshold should be used to determine who can utilize the
in-lieu- fee?
Questions one and two are directly linked to one another. The fee
should relate to one of the following: .
a) The cost of construction .a new affordable unit.
b) The cost of rehabing an existing affordable unit.
c) The difference in price between the market rate unit and the
affordable unit.
The Affordable Housing Task Force proposal of $1. 00 per square foot
for residential and twenty cents per square foot for commercial and
industrial does not relate to any of the three criteria stated
above. Staff would recommend that the City Council postpone action
on adopting an in-lieu affordable housing fee until a more
comprehensive analysis can be performed. We would also recommend
that only projects less than 20 units or 1 acre in size be
permitted to pay the in-lieu fee. The primary objective of a
housing strategy should be to build affordable units, not collect
funds .
Summary
The staff would recommend that the City Council direct staff to
prepare ordinances for Planning Commission consideration which would
adopt the Affordable Housing Task Force recommendations with the
additions and modifications outlined. in this report.
1. Property which currently has zoning in place and is not seeking
a change in land use status shall provide 10% of the project for
low and moderate households .
2 . Developers which are seeking a general plan amendment, zone
change, specific plan, development agreement, etc. , shall
provide 20% of the project for low and moderate households.
3 . Projects targeted for households earning between 100-120% of the
Orange County Median income shall not be eligible for financial
assistance from the City.
4 . The City should adopt new development standards to encourage the
development of rental housing which targets low and moderate
households. The ordinance should be used as a tool to encourage
property owners who are not seeking special entitlements from
the City to provide affordable housing.
RCA - 4/6/92 -8- (2792d)
. FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Motion to:
"Continue action to allow staff additional time to provide the City
Council with more specific information. "
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo in response to Council Workshop (January 25, 1992) issues
MTU:MA:HZ :kjl
\; RCA - 4/6/92 -9- (2792d)
ASSOCIATION of REALT0RS®
8101 Slater Avenue•Huntington Beach,CA 92647•(714)847-6093 •FAX(714)841-3375
April 3, 1992
Mayor Jim Silva and
Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Agenda Item F-2,Affordable Housing Task Force Analysis
Honorable Councilmembers:
We have just received the agenda packet for your April 6 meeting and are extremely
disturbed about the Staff Analysis submitted on this issue.
As you know, our Association has a strong interest and commitment to this issue, and our
past president, James Righeimer, has been serving on your Affordable Housing Task
Force which has been working for months to hammer out a recommended policy on this
important community issue. At first glance, it appears that staff concurs with much of the
Task Force's Report, but if you read carefully, you will see that their recommendations on
the most important issues are diametrically opposed to those of the Task Force.
The Task Force's recommendations are part of a "package" which was negotiated over
several months, with give and take on all sides. For staff to come in and oppose selected
pieces of this complicated puzzle after the fact is unfair and flies in the face of the good faith
effort made by the Task Force. In addition, while we support the stated goal of the staff
report which is to "provide the City Council with information to made a more well-
informed decision," their analysis does not address many of the most critical issues.
We strongly recommend that the City Council meet with the entire Affordable Housing
Task Force in an open study session so that you and the members of the Task Force can
speak to one another directly about these important issues. I might add that this would be
consistent with the way you handled the Report of the Citizens Budget Advisory Task
Force.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely, ,e
Florence Lubow-Bell
Association President
FLB/JAL
cc: Board of Directors
Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator
Michael Adams, Director of Community Development
® FLORENCE LUBOW-BELL, President•PAT PAULK, First Vice President
LUCILLE HARMON, Second Vice President•JOHN CLOUGHEN, Secretary/Treasurer 1 1
,en00e Directors:JAMES RIGHEIMER•JOE GNAS •TERRY REAY• ANNE PUGH•JACKIE CORDARY ........,..
WILL L. WOODS, Executive Vice President•JUDITH A. LEGAN, Vice President/Public Affairs
F3 �` � �
�, �♦ � � Dep. d�-- ne�
• JEROME M.B Pho
` A77VUEY AT 1.AW
ssin 92709
" (71414�7816
July 2, 1993
ia FAX (714)374-1590/0rahmal by Ma
Gail Hutton cin'OF 0 219930
City Attorney cyryCpU7.//V, N
2000 MaCITY OF in NTIrNGiON BEACH NCk QFp�E CN
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attn.: Arthur DeLaLoza, Deputy City Attorney
Re: Main Pier Phase I Reimbursement
For Undergrounding, Relocation and Utility Costs
Due to California Resorts
Dear Ms. Hutton and Mr. DeLaLoza:
1 believe that I have accumulated all of the necessary information
necessary to respond to your letter of June 3, 1993, with the exception of
the following two (2) issues raised in that letter. I will need further
information and/or supporting documentation from you to do so:
Re: Item #4 --- FLOOD DAMAGE LITIGATION: In this portion of
your June 3, 1993 letter, you stated 'All claims in the sum of
approximately $78,000 relating to the flood damage are
rejected because such losses were the subject of
litigation...." and 'Such litigation resulted in the payment by
such parties of various sums of money in exchange for
appropriate rele, 3 and settlements.' and "The claims are
accordingly barred by virtue of such releases and settlements
which were also execUted by your (emphasis added)
My client is not aware of any release and/or settlement that
would bar its pending request for reimbursement. Therefore,
If you truly believe "releases and settlements' exist that
(i) would bar my client's request for reimbursement and
t
A NOWNINS MOM Arm
11-1: 4F,RM F 11
(ii) you ha ossession of any such 'relea s and
settlement�hich were executed by my lint, please send
copies of such to me forthwith.
Re: Item #6 -- LITIGATION CONCERNING BIDDING - DEFEND &
INDEMNIFY: In this portion of your June 3, 1993 letter, you
stated `...this office sought and secured an agreement to
defend and indemnify the City/Agency should the issue of
public bidding lead to litigation (a cony will be pr vim to
you under seoarat coved." (emphasis added)
I have yet to receive the copy which you were to provide me
under separate cover. If you have not yet done so prior to
your receipt of this correspondence, please send me this
document forthwith.
I am anxious to receive this information and material as soon as possible,
so that I may respond to your June 3, 1993 letter at my earliest
opportunity.
Very truly yours,
JEROME M.BAME
JMB:gw
/C: Mayor Grace Winchell (via fax)
Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator (via fax)
Barbara Kaiser, Director of Economic Development (via fax)
Keith Bohr, Assistant Project Manager (via fax)
07-022 = 3 10:46AM pr•,
I
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
20451 Craimer Lane • P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach.California 92648 (714)964-8888
O ,a
BOARD OF TRUSTEES July 7, 1993
Shirley Carey
President
Brian Garland Mayor Grace Winchell
Clerk City of Huntington Beach
Robert Mann.Ed. D. 20W Main Street
MemberHuntington Beach, CA 92648
Catherine McGough Member Re: City Council Agenda- July 6, 1993
Item D-1 - The Coultrup Project
Brian E. Rechsteiner
Member
Dear Mayor Winchell:
ADMINISTRATION Needless to say I was dismayed by the results of the July 6, 1993, City Council
Meeting on the Coultrup Downtown Project. I am writing this letter to plead the
Superintendent Duane A. rate n°,ndentt Beach D. case of the Huntington Bh City School District for reconsideration of the item.
The ease at which the council rejected mitigation language forces the district to
Alan Rasmussen.Ed.D. reconsider the language now pending before the Planning Commission.
Assistant Superintendent
Personnel/Educational The language proposed by City Staff would allow the Planning Commission to
Services . waive mitigation fees on a case by case basis. This clearly does not work for the
Jerry Buchanan Huntington Beach City School District. The waiving of fees on an 80 unit
Assistant Superintendent Business Services condominium project in the middle of the most impacted area for students in the
city, increases the need for higher fees on every other project.
The need to provide adequate school facilities does not go away because the
developer pleads poverty and the council waives adequate fees. The district has
consistently documented that the statutory fees are inadequate and will not be
enough to provide needed facilities. Even with the additional $1.00 per square
foot that the district is temporarily able to levy, the district is far short of collecting
what it actually requires. The additional$1.00 authorization expires in November
of 1993 following the election, which includes ACA 6 which provides for a simple
majority vote on General Obligated Bonds.
This action by the council clearly signals a new direction. Every major project
considered by the council since Holly Seacliff was approved in February of 1992
has required a mitigation agreement from the developer. Surfcrest North and
Magnolia Pacific are two examples of past support by the council for mitigation
agreements. This new direction has potential problems for both the District and
the City. Every developer might now assume that adequate fees may be waived if
pressure is exerted.
The district has consistently argued that every developer should be treated equally.
To allow some developers to escape paying their fair share should not be allowed;
especially one that is so heavily subsidized from City Redevelopment Funds.
S
RECEIVED AND MADE A
?ART OF THE RECORD AT
7 4 MEETING
ITEM NO.
Mayor Grace Winchell OFFICE OF THE CITY CUUM
July 7, 1993 CONNIE BROCKWAY
Page 2
Once again, I am requesting that the council reconsider its approval of the Coultrup
Project and include in its final approval the following language:
"Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the developer shall mitigate
the impacts of the project on school facilities, using any combination of
measures listed in Government Code Section 65996 or other legal means,
to a level acceptable to the appropriate school district(s)for K-12. This
condition may be waived by the appropriate school district(s)."
I have included the following attachments to this letter:
1. Language proposed by City Staff for the Downtown Specific Plan.
2. Proposed language that was in this project on November 16, 1992.
3. Letter to Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator, dated February 12, 1993,
which documents the facility needs and costs of the District.
4. Testimony presented to City Council on October 5, 1992.
Sincerely,
Jerry S. Buchanan
Assistant Superintendent
Business Services
Attachments
cc: City Council Members
Huntington Beach City School District Board of Trustees
Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent
Mr. Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator
►Jb-19-93 MON 17:07 EX CUTIVE MGMT SVCS FAX NO. 19164825473 P. 02
✓ 1_C. �r2wr�
CALIFORNIA
AMBULANCE
ASSOCIATION
. c 1w�r�gor�
July 19, 1993
RECEIVED/AND MADE A
PART OF THE RECORD AT q
City Council
MEETING
City of Huntington Beach ITEM NOAl- 9 a CO01 �t
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Huntington Beach, CA CONNI--E BROCKWAY,.
Dear Members of the City Council:
The California Ambulance Association (CAA) is interested in the City Council's
decision of July 6, 1993, to approve a City Fire Department ambulance program. We
understand that the City Council determined that a competitive procurement process did
not apply to the proposed Fire Department program based on a City Attorney opinion
that the City's ambulance ordinance did not pertain to public providers.
The CAA is California's only private ambulance association. It has been in existence
for 44 years and represents most private: ambulance service providers in tl-.c State. The
CAA was a major proponent and supporter of the State Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) Act, and a chief sponsor of the 1984 amendments to the Act which provide for
the establishment of exclusive operating areas for emergency medical tran.;portation
providers. As such, the CAA is in a unique position to provide valuable insight into
the public policies underlying the EMS Act.
The City Council's recent action has been reviewed by the Association's legal counsel.
For the reasons explained below, the CAA believes that the.City Attorney's legal
assessment is incorrect and inconsistent with both the letter and intent of the State EMS
Act. We believe that the City Council may not authorize the City Fire Department
ambulance service program without utilizing a competitive process for the selection of
the primary ambulance service provider within the City jurisdiction.
The useful starting point for analysis is Section 5.20.130 of the lluntingtol Beach
Ambulance Service Ordinance:
3300 Auburn Blvd., Suite C Sacramonto, CA 95821-2196
FXCCL11iVR Offices (9--16) 483-3852 • Govornmont Rotations (916) 446 505
i
.JUL-L9-93 MON 17:08 EXECUTIVE MGhIT SVCS FAX NO. 19164825473 P..03
(a) The City shall contract with licensees on a competitive basis for the provision of
ambulance service in response to emergencies in each emergency response area. Said
contract shall provide for one primary contractor per emergency response area, with
such other backup service by other emergency ambulance service providers as deemed
necessary by the City. In awarding these contracts, the City shall consider the
comparative value of competing proposals in the same fashion as would be the case
where the City evaluating proposals from prospective service providers for other City
activities, including consideration of;
1. The quality of service to be provided;
2. The level of service to be provided;
3. The rates charged for services to be provided; and
4. The cost, if any to the City_
Apparently, the City Attorney has opined that the intent of the City's ambulance
service ordinance is to provide fair and impartial procedures for the selection of riv
ambulance services only, and that a City Dire Department proposal is immune from the
competitive process otherwise prescribed by law. We believe such an assessment is
incorrect since Section 5.20.130 must. be interpreted in light of and consis'ent with
State EMS regulation of prehospital emergency medical services.
Prior to the enactment by the Legislature of the EMS Act, California's ENIS system
was a disorganized and fragmented conglomeration of numerous providers with widely
varying levels of ability and service. There was little or no coordination of the services
being provided, and many areas had either no services or inadequate services. The
intent of the State EMS Act (Division 2.5 of the Health & Safety Code) is to provide
an organized and coordinated system by designating specific agencies at the state and
local level to manage and coordinate the provision of EMS services by exi.iting and
future providers. The county had been designated through state statute as :he local
government organization responsible for providing overall management of the local
EMS system. This includes all geographic areas within a county; unincorporated
areas, cities, and special districts.
Orange County has designated the County Health Care Agency as the local EMS
agency responsible for the state mandated management and coordination of the local
EMS system. The local EMS agency is specifically charged with the responsibility of
planning, implementing and evaluating an organized system of readiness and response
services based on public and private agreements and operational procedures. The local
EMS agency was assigned these responsibilities in order to ensure the availability of an
organized and coordinated emergency medical response system.
.z.
• _ RIL-19-93 MON 17:49 EXECUTIVE MGMT SVCS FAX NO. 64825473 P. 01
Another authorized function of local EMS agencies is the designation of exclusive
operating areas of the provision of advance life support and emergency ambulance services
(Health& Safety Code § 1797.85). in the creation of exclusive operating areas, a
competitive process which has been approved by the State EMS Authority must be
followed, unless the EMS plan envisions the continuation of the use of existing providers
operating in the manner and scope in which the services have been provided without
interruption since January 1, 1981 (Health& Safety Code § I797.224). Nov,,here in the
EMS Act is a local EMS agency authorised to establish an exclusive operating area for a
city or fire district without using a competitive process, unless it is pursuant to an
agreement between the local EMS agency and the city or fire district which l--provided that
level of prehospital emergency medical services as of June 1, 1980 (Health 8: Safety Code
§§ 1797.201, 1797.224).
Another area of concern we would like to bring to the City's attention is fedcral anti-trust
policy- In cases where competition is displaced, protection for a municipality from anti-
trust liability is only extended to state authorized action. (Cgmmunity Communications
Co, Inc. vs City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40(1984).) Therefore, decisions re@ arding
exclusive operating areas may only be made within the state sanctioned proa:.ss for the
purposes of carrying out the state's intentions in establishing and regulating t lie EMS
system (Health & Safety Code §1797 224). We trust the interest in tl`e City Fire
Department program will take this into consideration
In summary, in our view, the City is not authorized to establish an exclusive operating area
in favor of the City Fire Department without use of a state-approved competitive process.
Recognizing the importance and difficulties associated with the developmcn of a well
planned, integrated and coordinated EMS system, we hope this letter is of b.:nefrt to the
decision-making process. If we can be of any further assistance, please do n:It hesitate to
contact us at the California Ambulance Association's executive offices in Sa-:.ramento.
Sincerely,
Lou Meyer— ,Pre idcnt
CALIFORNIA AMBULANCE ASSOCIATION
cc: California State EMSA
Orange County EMSA
caa/lephAuntftr