HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2001-3 Designates Southeast Huntington Beach as a 1% oN-7 Is NAM, k(aA-9W
411,�
v�
• o
v�`1
Council/Agency Meeting Held: 02- 05 --01
Deferred/Continued to:
proved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied ler Signature
Council Meeting Date: February 5, 2001 Department ID Number: ED 01-04
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION �.m.
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator
PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Director Of Economic Development
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. o?00/-,3 of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Designating a Redevelopment Survey Area for
Project Study Purposes
Statement of Issue,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has previously
reviewed the Southeast Coastal Area Redevelopment Feasibility Study report, dated
October 5, 1999, in which it was demonstrated that this area could be designated as a new
redevelopment project area. Economic Development staff has prepared the necessary
documents for the City Council to adopt a resolution designating this "redevelopment
survey area" as the first step in considering establishment of the Southeast Coastal Project
Area.
Funding Source: Not Applicable.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. a00/ of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
designating a redevelopment survey area for project study purposes.
Alternative Action(s):
1. Do not adopt the resolution.
2. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Analysis: For the past several years, the City has been actively engaged in efforts to
facilitate the remediation and reuse of the contaminated ASCON Superfund property, at the
southwest corner of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue. At the same time, surrounding
properties, including abandoned oil storage facilities and the AES generating plant, have
shown an increasing need for revitalization to mitigate their impacts on surrounding
neighborhoods. 10,
RNAUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIR
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 01-04
These activities culminated in a proposal to have the City become more proactively
involved in these various initiatives and create a new redevelopment project area in the
vicinity of Beach Boulevard, Hamilton Avenue, Magnolia Street, and Pacific Coast
Highway. In August 1999, the Redevelopment Agency commissioned a redevelopment
feasibility study, which generally concluded that the area, with the exception of the
Huntington-by-the-Sea Mobilehome Park, would qualify and benefit from a potential
redevelopment project.
Staff is proposing that the City proceed with the steps necessary to consider the approval
of a redevelopment project area encompassing 266 acres. (The Huntington-by-the-Sea
Mobilehome Park would not be a part of the proposed project area.) Prior to initiating the
plan adoption process, California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et. M. requires that a survey area be established for study purposes.
The purpose of the survey area is to refine the boundaries of the proposed redevelopment
project area, prior to proceeding with redevelopment plan adoption activities.
A number of activities have taken place over the past few months in an effort to take input
from the community and to educate the community about the redevelopment process and
the reasons for including this area in a new redevelopment project area. Specifically, on
November 15, 2000, a meeting was held at Edison Community Center, at which time over
200 people attended. Over 2000 invitation letters were initially sent out covering an area of
500 feet from the proposed project area. This meeting focused on taking community input
and providing information on the various questions posed by those in attendance.
Subsequently, the City Council appointed the Southeast Area Committee comprised of
Councilmembers Ralph Bauer, Connie Boardman, and Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook.
They held a committee meeting on December 20, 2000. A significant portion of the
meeting was devoted to City staff providing information on the various clean-up efforts and
City projects underway in the area. These efforts and projects are part of the City's Fact
Sheet that has been distributed to you under separate cover. At this meeting the
Committee agreed to forward to the City Council the Schedule for Plan Adoption. This
schedule was approved by the City Council on January 16, 2001.
On January 18, 2001, the Council Committee held a public meeting at Edison High School
to further solicit community input on the redevelopment process for the Southeast Coastal
Area. The Economic Development Department mailed a notice of this session to property
owners, community groups and others and a special handout was delivered door to door to
properties within one-quarter mile of the proposed redevelopment area. Over 100 people
attended this second community meeting.
The attached resolution designates the boundaries of the redevelopment survey area. If
the resolution were approved by the City Council, the next step in the plan adoption
process would involve preparation of a Preliminary Plan that will eventually be considered
by the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency.
RCASouArea2nd -2- 01/25/01 8:35 AM
• 0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 01-04
Environmental Status: Not applicable at this time; however, if redevelopment plan
adoption activities are initiated, then a program environmental impact report would be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of Redevelopment Law and the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
Page Number No. Description
1. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach.- {� ,
2. Southeast Coastal Industrial Area Redevelopment Feasibility
Study.
RCA Author: Gus Duran X1529
RCASouArea2nd -3- 1/22/01 2:24 PM
Resolution Designating Redevelopment Survey Area
a
0
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DESIGNATING A
REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA FOR
PROJECT STUDY PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach("City Council") desires
to designate the area depicted on Exhibit"A"herewith to be studied as a redevelopment survey
area("Survey Area"); and
The purpose of the City Council in designating the Survey Area is to enable the City
Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to proceed with studies
to determine the feasibility of potential redevelopment activities within the Survey Area; and
The California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000
et seq. ("Law"), provides that if directed by the City Council, the Planning Commission shall
select a project comprised of all or part of a redevelopment Survey Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
find,resolve and determine as follows:
1. That consideration of a redevelopment project within the said redevelopment
Survey Area is in the best interests of the City; and
2. That the City Council directs the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach to select the boundaries for a redevelopment project area within the Survey Area and to
submit a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of such a proposed project area pursuant to
Sections 33334 and 33345 of the Law; and
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof on the 24±day of November 2099.
5th February 2001. N m
Mayor(/
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�00 e. 0�� � ::a
CityClerk i2-�2-�� City Attorney
i —1-06 I�ao
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Ly-
Ci dministrator Director of Economic Development
1
4/s:4-2000 Resolution:Project Study
RLS 2000-1065
11-3-00
• Res. No. 2001-3
EXHIBIT"A"
SURVEY AREA BOUNDARIES
F:\rsg\hmtbch\staffrepons&reso\reso-surveyarea
• Res. No. 2001-3
Southeast Coastal Project
Legal Description
A parcel of land in the Rancho Las Bolsas, within Fractional Sections 13 and 24 of
Township 6 South, Range 11 West and Section 18 and Fractional Section 19 of Township
6 South, Range 10 West of the San Bernardino Base, in the City of Huntington Beach,
County of Orange, State of California, as per the map filed in Book 51, page 14 of
Miscellaneous Maps, in Records of said County,more specifically described as follows;
that parcel of land bounded on the south side by the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway
as shown on the State of California, Department of Transportation's Survey Control Map,
Map sheets ORA 001 -M 23.0 and ORA 001 -M 23.5 dated November 1988, on file at
the State of California, Department of Transportation's, Survey Section of the
Engineering Services Branch, Los Angeles, California;
said parcel of land being bounded on the east side by a line parallel with and 50.00 feet
easterly of the centerline of Magnolia Street as shown on the Street Improvement Plans,
titled Magnolia Street: Hamilton Avenue-Pacific Coast Highway, sheets one through
six of eleven inclusive, on file at the Public Works Department's, Engineering Division
at said city, and the northerly prolongation of said parallel line;
said parcel being bound on the north side by the following described line;
beginning at a point on the northerly prolongation of a line parallel with and 50.00 feet
easterly of the centerline of Magnolia Street as shown on the above said Street
Improvement Plans, titled Magnolia Street: Hamilton Avenue-Pacific Coast Highway,
at it's intersection with a line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly of the south line of
the northwest quarter of said Section 18, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San
Bernardino Base as shown on the map filed for Tract 5201, in Book 193,pages 37 and
38 of Miscellaneous Maps, in Records,of said county; westerly, along last said parallel
line to a point on the west line of said Section 18, said point being 50.00 feet northerly of
the west quarter corner of said Section 18;
thence westerly, along a line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly of the south line of the
northeast quarter of said Fractional Section 13,Township 6 South, Range 11 West, San
Bernardino Base as shown on the map filed for Tract 6568, in Book 246,pages 4 and 5 of
Miscellaneous Maps, in Records of said county,to the southerly prolongation of the west
line of said Tract 6568, said west line being parallel with and 40.00 feet easterly of the
centerline of Newland Street, as shown on said map for Tract 6568;
thence northerly along said southerly prolongation and continuing along said west line to
the easterly prolongation of the south line of Tract 811'as shown on the map filed in
Book 24, page 33, of Miscellaneous Maps, in Records, of said county; said south line
being parallel with and 660.00 feet northerly of the south line of the northwest quarter of
said Fractional Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base;
PC Docs#35901 1 Of 2
• • Res. No. 2001-3
Southeast Coastal Project
Legal Description
thence westerly along said easterly prolongation, said south line and the westerly
prolongation of the same, of said Tract 811, to the southwest corner of Parcel 1 as shown
on Parcel Map 84-590 filed in Book 202,pages 48 through 50 inclusive, of Parcel Maps,
in Records, of said county, said southwest corner being 660.00 feet northerly of the south
line of the northwest quarter of said Fractional Section 13, and said southwest corner
being 88.00 feet easterly of the west line of said northwest quarter;
said parcel of land being bound on the west side by a line parallel with and 88.00 feet
easterly of the west line of Fractional Section 13, said parallel line being the east line of
State Highway 39 (Beach Boulevard), State Highway 39 being 138.00 feet in width,
88.00 feet easterly of and 50.00 feet westerly of the survey centerline(west line of said
Fractional Section 13), as per the as-built plans for said Highway 39,per contract number
53-7VC7,Document number 70001055, dated 10 March 1952,on file at the State of
California, Department of Transportation's, Survey Section of the Engineering Services
Branch, Los Angeles, California.
Excepting therefrom:
1) That land referred to as Parcel 2, granted to Marie L. Finocchio and Adrian Finocchio
Van Schiack, Trustees of the Marie N. Finocchio Living Trust, dated 1 January 1997,
as described in the document recorded on 18 December 1997 as Instrument number
19970651089 of Official Records, in Records, of said county.
2) Also excepting therefrom that land described as Tract 9843, filed in Book 477,pages
43 and 44, of Miscellaneous Maps, in Records,of said county.
3) Also excepting therefrom that land described as Parcels 1 and 2,of the Parcel Map
Book 48,page 41 of Parcel Maps,in Records, of said county.
1,A�D Sp9`
Fq��F9
NO.7X
palZ 31 � 2U&I-4
— �L
91�OF CAL� YoseplIG. Derleth P.L.S. 7340 Date
registration expires 12/31/01
PC Docs#35901 2 of 2
Res. No. 2001-3
� e 8
W
IDOID
U ®_
m ® ® ® Cnl
Oim
HEM
® o,
C:I
cvi
Ha id ton
\ Not a part Not part
Not a part
nasty �
9h
Coastal ProjectSoutheast
N
600 0 600 1200 Feet
•
Res. No. 2001-3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 at least a majority of all the
members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th
day of February, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Green, Julien Houchen, Garofalo, Dettloff, Bauer
NOES: Boardman, Cook
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio C erk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
Southeast Area Feasibility Study
f ' y
' %gg is /
\
• •
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Southeast Coastal Industrial Area
Redevelopment Feasibility Study
OCTOBER 5, 1999
f
R
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714)541-4585
• •
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
SOUTHEAST COASTAL INDUSTRIAL AREA
RSG was retained to prepare a preliminary redevelopment feasibility study for a 266-acre area
located east of Pacific Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and Magnolia Street
("Southeast Coastal Study Area" or "Study Area"). The Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach commissioned this feasibility study to evaluate the legal and fiscal suitability
of pursuing a redevelopment project involving both the Study Area and the Holly Seacliff
Industrial Area. (The Holly Seacliff Area was previously reviewed in RSG's July 1, 1999
Redevelopment Feasibility Study.) This report presents our findings.
Existing Setting
The 266-acre Study Area is located in the southeast section of the City of Huntington Beach.
Major land uses include the 105-acre AES power generating plant, 60 acres of undeveloped
wetlands, the 36-acre Ascon Landfill, and the 20-acre Golden West refinery tank farm. Other
uses include County Flood Control property (18 acres), the 6-acre (47-coach) Cabrillo trailer
park, and a boat sales yard (2 acres). Surrounding land uses include residential single family to
the south, residential and industrial to the east, and developing tourist commercial to the north.
In addition, the Study Area envelopes the Huntington by the Sea mobile home park, though this
particular use is excluded from the Study Area because it is expected to be continued for the
foreseeable future.
A map depicting the boundaries of the Study Area is included as Exhibit A to this report.
Why Redevelopment is Being Considered
Based on RSG's discussions with Agency staff, a field inspection of the Study Area and review
of the economic opportunities in the area, redevelopment is being considered to achieve four
fundamental goals, as listed below:
1. To facilitate the modernization and reconstruction of a more efficient power generating plant
while mitigating impacts on adjoining neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas,
2. To advance the cleanup and ultimate development of the closed Ascon Landfill Superfund
site,
3. To encourage the economically feasible recycling of other Study Area properties, and
4. To assist in the protection and restoration of environmentally sensitive wetlands in
connection with the redevelopment of the area.
In general, this report concludes that the Agency can establish a redevelopment program in the
Study Area that achieves the four aforementioned goals. The legal and financial implications are
discussed below.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 1 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5, 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
G:\STEPHEN\PROIECTS\SEcoattRPA\Fea ihltystudy.dm
• •
Legal Requirements
The California Community Redevelopment Law ("Law") requires that redevelopment project
areas must be both 1) predominantly urbanized, and 2) characterized by physical and economic
conditions that cannot be alleviated by the private sector, governmental action, or both, without
redevelopment.
Urbanization
Section 33320.1 of the Law mandates that not less than 80% of the land in a redevelopment
project area is urbanized. Urbanized properties are defined as developed (or formerly developed)
parcels, parcels of irregular form under mixed ownership, and properties that are an integral part
of an urban area(i.e. substantially surrounded by developed property).
Applying this criteria to the Study Area, RSG determined that the Study Area exceeds the 80%
urbanization threshold. RSG estimates that approximately 236 acres (89%) of the Study Area is
urbanized. This total includes approximately 146 acres of developed property and 90 acres of
property that is an integral part of an urban area, because it is substantially surrounded (on three
sides)by developed property.
Approximately 30 acres (11%) of the Study Area are considered nonurbanized. These areas,
scattered throughout the Study Area, are vacant properties that are not substantially surrounded
by developed properties.
Table 1 below summarizes the urbanized character of the Study Area:
TABLE 1
URBANIZATION ANALYSIS
SOUTHEAST COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Urbanization Study Area
Category Ac. %
Developed Parcels 146 55%
Undeveloped- Integral Part 90 34%
of an Urban Area
Total Urbanized Areas 236 89%
Total Study Area 266 100%
It should be noted that if this Study Area was included with the Holly Seacliff Redevelopment
Study Area as a redevelopment project area, the urbanization requirement would apply to the
overall project area in aggregate, and not to the two noncontiguous areas separately. In our July
1999 Holly Seacliff Redevelopment Feasibility Study, RSG concluded that 91.81 acres (or 87%)
of the 105 acre Holly-Seacliff Redevelopment Study Area was urbanized. As this memorandum
indicates, since more than 80% of the Southeast Coastal Study Area is urbanized, a
redevelopment project area involving both Study Areas would meet the Law's urbanization test.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 2 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5, 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
G:WSTEPHEMPROJECTS\SEcoastRPA\Fewibltystudy.doc
Blighting Conditions
Pursuant to Section 33320.1 of the Law, redevelopment project areas must also be blighted. As
defined by Section 33031 of the Law, blight encompasses physical and economic conditions
such as unsafe or unhealthy buildings, factors hindering the economically viable use of buildings
or lots, incompatible uses, impaired investments, high crime rates, and other conditions.
RSG has identified both physical and economic blight within the Study Area that justify
proceeding with redevelopment. RSG estimates that approximately 170 acres (65%) of the
Study Area are characterized with one or more blighting conditions. In order to prepare and
adopt a redevelopment plan involving the Study Area, these blighting conditions will need to be
further documented, along with a more extensive analysis of their burden on the community and
the inability of the private sector or the City to alleviate these conditions. Nonetheless, the
following blighting conditions are evident at this time:
1. Impaired Investments Due to the Presence of Hazardous Contamination: The Study Area
includes the City's only federally-designated Superfund property, the 32-acre former Ascon
landfill, as well as other hazardous operations which are considered to be of "special
concern" in the City's General Plan. According to State Department of Toxic Substances
Control documents, the Ascon property was used to dispose of oil drilling wastes, sulfuric
acid, fuel oils, chromic acid, asphalt, metal and other materials between 1938 and 1984.
Since its closure in 1984, the property has gone through three different owners due to
separate bankruptcies in 1989 and 1993. The current owner, Signal Mortgage Company, has
already approached the Agency seeking financial assistance to facilitate site remediation,
even as the exact nature of cleanup activities is under review.
In addition to the Ascon site at Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street, other Study Area
properties are known, or suspected to contain hazardous materials. According to the City's
General Plan and the California Environmental Protection Agency, these include the closed
Golden West Refinery Tank Farm, Action Boat Brokers (at the corner of Beach Boulevard
and Pacific Coast Highway) and the AES generating plant. In total, as much as 159 acres
(53%) of the Study Area is known or suspected to contain hazardous contamination.
Because the Study Area both contains and/or adjoins environmentally sensitive uses
including City parks, wetlands, residential uses, a high school, Huntington State Beach and
the Pacific Ocean, the impact of any hazardous contamination in these areas is an acute
concern to the City as well as Study Area property owners. Acquisition and development of
properties that contain, or are suspected to contain, hazardous contamination has been
hindered by the strict liability assigned by State law. Under State law, any property owner or
operator, regardless of fault or contribution to a contamination problem, would become a
responsible party that could be pursued for cleanup. This applies to contamination that may
have migrated from one property to another; frequently, an innocent property owner or
operator with financial resources can be pursued in lieu of the actual perpetrator.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 3 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
G:ISTEPHFN\PROJEC-rSISEcoastRPA\Fea ibltystudy.dm
• •
The economic magnitude of this problem could be linked to bankruptcy of two former
property owners of the Ascon landfill. Unfortunately, according to city documents, none of
the city, state, or federal governments has pledged any funding to remediate toxic materials.
RSG estimates that cleanup costs could be in the multi-millions for the Ascon landfill alone,
burdening economically feasible development.
However, inclusion of the Study Area in a redevelopment project area would provide the
Agency useful redevelopment tools to eliminate this blighting influence. For example, many
redevelopment agencies have made extensive use of the Polanco Act, pursuant to Section
33459 of the Law. The Polanco Act allows redevelopment agencies to assume an active role
in site investigation and cleanup, as a regulatory agency, while providing for the transferable
assignment of immunity after cleanup is complete. In this way, redevelopment tools
including the Polanco Act could stimulate cleanup and investment in the Study Area.
2. Factors Hindering the Economically Viable Use of Buildings and Lots: As described above,
hazardous materials contamination hinders investment and use of Study Area properties.
Similarly, other factors negatively affect use of the Study Area, including the outmoded AES
generating facility and the presence of 60 acres of wetlands. According to discussions
between City staff and AES, the 44 year old generating plant is functionally obsolete and
operates at less than 50% of capacity. AES has .indicated a desire to invest in a
reconstruction of the facility, which would result in a smaller,but more efficient plant.
Indeed, the AES plant is currently an eyesore and negatively affects property values of
nearby residential uses. (As an example, the median price of a single family detached home
immediately south of the AES plant is $320,000, or 23% less than similar units further from
the plant.) While reconstruction of the AES facilities would be welcomed by adjacent
residents, this project would surface many ancillary redevelopment concerns, including
buffering surrounding uses from the new facility, the disposition of remnant and potentially
contaminated parcels, and protection of wetlands to the east of the site. Indeed, it is not yet
known whether AES has the financial capacity to fully implement needed improvements.
This is particularly a concern given the fact that AES recently purchased the site (in
December 1998), and further capital outlays may need to be deferred. As a result, the timing
and extent of improvements are not assured.
Redevelopment can be used to assist in the mitigation of environmental impacts by assisting
in on- and off-site improvements related to the Study Area development.
3. Incompatible Uses: Many of the uses in the Study Area conflict with adjacent uses, both
inside and outside the Study Area. The overbuilt and obsolete generating plant, as well as the
contaminated Ascon landfill, adjoins a residential neighborhood to the south. Likewise,
older petroleum uses that have a history of contamination are located next to mobile home
parks and environmentally sensitive wetlands. These examples of land use incompatibilities
in the Study Area can be mitigated through implementation of a comprehensive
redevelopment program in the Study Area to facilitate reuse of obsolete and contaminated
properties, and improved buffering between incompatible uses.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 4 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5, 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
G:\STEPHEMPROJECTS\SFc-tRPA\Fewibltystudy.doc
• •
Fiscal Implications
Redevelopment of the Study Area would be financed primarily through tax increment revenue, a
financing mechanism provided to redevelopment agencies in Section 33670 of the Law. This
report solely reviews the financial capacity of the Study Area. RSG's July 1999 Holly Seacliff
Redevelopment Feasibility Study concluded that the Holly Seacliff area generated sufficient tax
increment revenues to fund redevelopment projects in that area.
Tax Increment Projections
Table 2, located at the end of this report, presents tax increment revenue projections for the
Study Area. These projections incorporate the base year value, assessed value growth rates,
reassessment of the AES generating plant reassessment, and new development potential
assumptions as summarized below:
1. 1999-00 Base Year Value: The base year value is established by the County Auditor-
Controller; if the adopting ordinance is effective by August 20, 1999, the base year value of
the Study Area would be based on the 1999-00 equalized assessment roll. (This may not be
feasible, due to the 9-month process needed to adopt a redevelopment plan.) Nonetheless,
for consistency with RSG's Holly-Seacliff Study, we assumed the same 1999-00 base year
value for this Study Area. RSG estimated this value using the 1998-99 secured assessment
roll, and applying the 1.853% Proposition 13 inflationary adjustment. No unsecured or
nonunitary utility values were included in the base year values. The assumed 1999-00 base
year value also includes the local roll reassessment of the AES generating plant, as described
in item 3 below. For these projections, the assumed base year value is $104,310,091.
2. Assessed Value Growth Rates: RSG applied a conservative 2% assessed value growth rate to
estimate future assessed values. This is the same growth rate used in the tax increment
projections for the Holly Seacliff area.
3. Utility Reassessment: Pursuant to Rule 905 adopted by the State Board of Equalization in
July 1999, certain electrical generation facilities are to be reassessed on the local tax rolls
beginning in fiscal year 1999-00. As a result of this decision, the AES plant will be taxed as
secured real property, with the property taxes apportioned to the local affected taxing
agencies. (Previously, these utilities were taxed at the state level and taxes were shared on a
county wide basis.)
According to documents from the City, AES purchased the power plant for approximately
$96 million last December. Treated as secured real property, the Orange County Assessor
will reassess the utility on the local 1999-00 roll for$96 million, assuming the owners do not
appeal this assessment. It is RSG's understanding that this property will be subject to
Proposition 13 inflationary increases.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 5 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5, 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
G:\S7'EPHEN\PROJECTS\SEc mtRPA\Feuibltystudy.dm
4. Development Potential: Based on a review of the City's General Plan and discussions with
the City's Planning and Economic Development Departments, RSG developed a phased
development calendar for redevelopment of certain properties in the Study Area. A summary
of these assumptions is included on Table 3. This development forecast includes $100
million of improvements to the AES plant, as well as additional redevelopment of
undeveloped and underdeveloped parcels in the Study Area.
Based on these assumptions, RSG estimates that the Study Area will generate approximately
$218 million in gross tax increment revenue over the 45-year collection period provided by Law.
The Law requires that not less than 20% of this tax increment revenue, or $44 million, be
deposited into the Agency's low and moderate income housing fund. Also, the Law stipulates
that another portion (approximately $65 million, or 30%) of the tax increment revenue is to be
distributed to the affected taxing agencies. The remaining tax increment revenue of$109 million
would be available to fund nonhousing programs for the redevelopment project area. In today's
dollars, assuming a 5% discount rate, the Study Area housing resources equal $11 million, while
the nonhousing revenues equal $29 million.
Other Considerations
The Agency will need to consider the extent that eminent domain authority is needed in a
redevelopment plan for the Study Area. Eminent domain has typically been used in the City to
consolidate small parcels under mixed ownership; this circumstance is not evident in the Study
Area. Further, if low or moderate income housing units (i.e., the Cabrillo trailer park) are to be
subject to eminent domain, the Agency's plan adoption process would be required to include
formation and participation of an elected project area committee.
The role of a project area committee becomes more complex if the Study Area is amended to the
existing Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. The existing Project Area Committee
may be entitled to participate in such an amendment, even if no residential eminent domain
authority is proposed for the Study Area. (RSG suggests that Agency legal counsel opine
whether the existing Project Area Committee would participate in an amendment to include
Study Area properties.)
Conclusions
Based on the analysis contained in this feasibility study, RSG concludes that there is a basis to
incorporate the entire Study Area in a redevelopment project area. More specific conclusions are
itemized below:
• There is substantial evidence that the Study Area is both predominantly urbanized and
blighted to suggest proceeding with preparation of a redevelopment plan for the Study Area.
• Redevelopment will be largely sought to address hazardous cleanup of the historically
contaminated properties in the Study Area. Also, redevelopment can assist with the
economically viable reuse of obsolete Study Area properties.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 6 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October S, 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
G:\STEPAIEENTROJECI'S\SEcoa tRPA\Fews bitystudy.doc
0 0
• Dialogue between the City and Study Area property owners should continue in order to keep
the community informed of the redevelopment process, as well as the potential benefits and
purposes of implementing a redevelopment program in the Study Area.
Redevelopment Project Area Boundaries
The Study Area can be incorporated into the Agency's redevelopment program in one of three
ways:
1. Adopt a new redevelopment project area comprised of only Study Area properties,
2. Adopt a new redevelopment project area comprised of both the Study Area and the Holly-
Seacliff Industrial Area, or
3. Amend the merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area by adding Study Area
properties.
Commonly, redevelopment agencies choose the amendment alternative because of the greater
financial flexibility gained by having a consolidated project area where resources can be shifted
to address needs throughout the area. (Agencies are generally prohibited by Law from
transferring funds between separate project areas.) In the case here, however, this advantage
may not be realized, since the Study Area is neither a "cash cow" nor in dire need of
substantially more financial resources to redevelop its properties. Agency staff expects that
implementation of redevelopment projects in the Study Area will necessitate all available tax
increment revenues. At the same time, RSG does not foresee that redevelopment needs in the
Study Area are greater than those in downtown or Huntington Center, so resources from these
areas are not expected to be available for Study Area redevelopment.
Another factor in considering amending the existing Project Area is the requirement to involve
existing Project Area stakeholders in the process. By Law, all residents, business owners, and
property owners within both the existing Project Area and Study Area would be noticed. A
project area committee may need to be formed if residential uses are to be subject to eminent
domain. Also, the existing Project Area Committee, despite its relationship to downtown, could
be entitled to fully participate in any amendment to the existing Project Area for the next three
years. (RSG recommends that Agency legal counsel advise on the role of the PAC, if any, if the
existing Project Area is amended to include the Study Area.)
Alternatively, if the Agency adopts a second project area, then RSG advises that both the Study
Area and Holly Seacliff areas be combined into a single project area. Besides the greater
financial flexibility to move resources between the two areas, a single project area would be less
costly to adopt, because one set of documents would be prepared and one public hearing would
be conducted.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 7 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5, 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
G:ISTEPHEN\PROJECCS\SEc mtRPA\Fea ibltystudy.dm
TABLE 2
PROJECTED TAX INCREMENT REVENUES
SOUTHWEST COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Fiscal Year Secured Secured New Total Incremental Gross Statutory Housing Nonhousing
Growth Assessed Development Assessed Secured Tax Payments Fund Redevelopment
Rate 1/ Value 2/ Value 3/ Value Value Increment Fund
1998-99 98,685,729
BY 1999-00 1.91/6 100,514,376 <==Base Value 100,514,376
1 2000-01 2.0% 102,524,663 102,524,663 2,010,288
2 2001-02 2.0% 104,575,156 104,575,156 4,060,781 40,608 8,122 8,122 24,365
3 2002-03 2.00/6 106,666,659 106,666,659 6,152,284 61,523 12,305 12,305 36,914
4 2003-04 2.01/6 108,799,993 108,799,993 8,285,617 82,856 16,571 16,571 49,714
5 2004-05 2.0% 110,975,992 110,975,992 10,461,617 104,616 20,923 20,923 62,770
6 2005-06 2.0% 113,195,512 19,350,000 132,545,512 32,031,137 320,311 64,062 64,062 192,187
7 2006-07 2.0% 135,196,423 44,350,000 179,546,423 79,032,047 790,320 158,064 158,064 474,192
8 2007-08 2.0% 183.137,351 75,000,000 258,137,351 157,622,975 1,576,230 315,246 315,246 945,738
9 2008-09 2.0% 263,300,098 263,300,098 162,785,723 1,627,857 325,571 325,571 976,714
10 2009-10 2.0% 268,566,100 268,566,100 168,051,724 1,680,517 336,103 336,103 1,008,310
11 2010-11 2.0% 273,937,422 273,937,422 173,423,046 1,734,230 346,846 346,846 1,040,538
12 2011-12 2.0% 279,416,170 279,416,170 178,901,795 1,789,018 365,161 357,804 1,066,053
13 2012-13 2.0% 285,004,494 50,729,672 335,734,166 235,219,790 2,352,198 553,431 470,440 1,328,327
14 2013-14 2.0% 342,448,849 50,729,672 393,178,521 292,664,145 2,926,641 745,466 585,328 1,595,847
15 2014.15 2.0% 401,042,091 51,744,265 452,786,356 352,271,981 3,522,720 944,734 704,544 1,873,442
16 2015-16 2.0% 461,842,084 52,779,151 514,621,234 414,106,858 4,141,069 1,151,446 828,214 2,161,409
17 2016-17 2.0% 524,913,659 53,834,734 578,748,392 478,234,017 4,782,340 1,365,822 956,468 2,460,050
18 2017-18 2.0% 590,323,360 590,323,360 489,808,985 4,898,090 1,404,517 979,618 2,613,955
19 2018-19 2.0% 602,129,827 602,129,827 501,615,452 5,016,155 1,443,985 1,003,231 2,568,938
20 2019-20 2.0% 614,172,424 614,172,424 513,658,048 5,136,580 1,484,243 1,027,316 2,625,021
21 2020-21 2.0% 626,455,872 626,455,872 525,941,497 5,259,415 1,525,307 1,051,883 2,682,225
22 2021-22 2.0% 638,984,990 638,984,990 538,470,614 5,384,706 1,567,191 1,076,941 2,740,574
23 2022-23 2.0% 651,764,690 651,764,690 551,250,314 5,512,503 1,609,913 1,102,501 2,800,089
24 2023-24 2.09/6 664,799,983 664,799,983 564,285,608 5,642,856 1,653,490 1,128,571 2,860,795
25 2024-25 2.0% 678,095,983 678,095,983 577,581,607 5,775,816 1,697,938 1,155,163 2,922,715
26 2025-26 2.0% 691,657,903 691,657,903 591,143,527 5,911,435 1,743,275 1,182,287 2,985,873
27 2026-27 2.0% 705,491,061 705,491,061 604,976,685 6,049,767 1,789,519 1,209,953 3,050,294
28 2027-28 2.0% 719,600,882 719,600,882 619,086,506 6,190,865 1,836,688 1,238,173 3,116,004
29 2028-29 2.0% 733,992,900 733,992,900 633,478,524 6,334,785 1,884,800 1,266,957 3,183,028
30 2029-30 2.0% 748,672,758 748,672,758 648,158,382 6,481,584 1,933,875 1,296,317 3,251,392
31 2030-31 2.0% 763,646,213 763,646,213 663,131,837 6,631,318 1,983,931 1,326,264 3,321,124
32 2031-32 2.0% 778,919,137 778,919,137 678,404,761 6,784,048 2,048,662 1,356,810 3,378,576
33 2032-33 2.0% 794,497,520 794,497,520 693,983,144 6,939,831 2,114,688 1,387,966 3,437,178
34 2033-34 2.0% 810,387,470 810,387,470 709,873,095 7,098,731 2,182,034 1,419,746 3,496,951
35 2034-35 2.0% 826,595,220 826,595,220 726,080,844 7,260,808 2,250,727 1,452,162 3,557,920
36 2035-36 2.0% 843,127,124 843,127,124 742,612,748 7,426,127 2,320,794 1,485,225 3,620,108
37 2036-37 2.0% 859,989,666 859,989,666 759,475,291 7,594,753 2,392,262 1,518,951 3,683,540
38 2037-38 2.0% 877,189,460 877,189,460 776,675,084 7,766,751 2,465,160 1,553,350 3,748,240
39 2038-39 2.00/6 894,733,249 894,733,249 794,218,873 7,942,189 2,539,516 1,588,438 3,814,235
40 2039-40 2.0% 912,627,914 912,627,914 812,113,538 8,121,135 2,615,359 1,624,227 3,881,550
41 2040-41 2.0% 930,880,472 930,880,472 830,366,097 8,303,661 2,692,718 1,660,732 3,950,210
42 2041-42 2.0% 949,498,082 949,498,082 848,983,706 8,489,837 2,771,625 1,697,967 4,020,244
43 2042-43 2.0% 968,488,043 968,488,043 867,973,668 8,679,737 2.852,110 1,735,947 4,091,679
44 2043-44 2.0% 987,857,804 987,857,804 887,343,429 8,873,434 2,934,205 1,774,687 4,164,542
45 2044-45 2.0% 1,007,614,960 1,007,614,960 907,100,585 9,071,006 3 1
017,942 1,814,201 4,238,863
Cumulative Total 398,517 493 218,110,980 65.486,351 43,622,196 109,002,433
Net Present Value(5%) 58,581,733 15,964,807 11,158 425 28,668,894
1/Assumes Proposition 13 annual growth rate of 1.853%in FY 1999-00,and 2%thereafter.
2/ Estimated,based on 1998-99 secured values and the$96,000,000 purchase price of the AES Generating Plant in 1998.
3/ New development based on development assumptions per City General Plan(see Table 3)
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 8 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October S, 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
G:\STEPHEN\PROJECrS\SEwmtRPA\Fewibltystudy.doc
TABLE 3
NEW DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTHEAST COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Phase Land Use Description Number of Value Per Total Value Buildout Associated
Units Unit 1/ Timeframe Parcels
1 Industrial Multi-Tenant 215,000 $ 90 $ 19,350,000 2003-2004 148 011 07
148 011 08
2 Industrial Multi-Tenant 215,000 $ 90 $ 19,350,000 2004-2005
430,000 $ 38,700,000
1 Industrial Power Plant Renovations $ 25,000,000 2004-2005 114 150 16
2 Industrial Power Plant Renovations $ 75,000,000 2005-2006
$ 100,000,000
1 Residential Single Family Attached 51 $ 341,928 $ 17,438,325 2010-2011 114 150 78
Single Family Detached 51 $ 652,772 $ 33,291,347 114 150 79
114 150 80
2 Residential Single Family Attached 50 $ 348,766 $ 17,438,325 2011-2012
Single Family Detached 50 $ 665,827 $ 33,291,347
3 Residential Single Family Attached 50 $ 355,742 $ 17,787,091 2012-2013
Single Family Detached 50 $ 679,143 $ 33,957,174
4 Residential Single Family Attached 50 $ 362,857 $ 18,142,833 2013-2014
Single Family Detached 50 $ 692,726 $ 34,636,318
5 Residential Single Family Attached 50 $ 370,114 $ 18,505,690 2014-2015
Single Family Detached 50 $ 706,581 $ 35,329,044
502 $ 259,817,493
Total AV $ 537,217,493
1/ Adjusted for inflation at 2%annually.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 9 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
G:ISTEPE EN\PROJECTS\SEcoastRPA\Fewibltystudy.doc
U _
mmm-
® c
cc
Hamilton
E
part JNatpart
LJJJJJ-U
Not a part
A �
s�y9h
EXHIBIT A
STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES
SOUTHEAST COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Southeast Industrial Proj'e.Act
N
600 0 600 1200 Feet
• •
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A REDEVELOPMENT
SURVEY AREA FOR PROJECT AREA PURPOSES
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 5, 2001
RCA ATTAHMENT
STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attomey) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Attached
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
EXPLANATION[ FOR MIS '1`Na, ATT HMENT
REVIEWED RETURNED rC?R ARDED
Administrative Staff I laa-k-0
Assistant City Administrator Initial ( ) )
-City Administrator Initial
-City Clerk ( )
(Below Space For City Clerk's Use Only)
RCA Author: Gus Duran X1529
RSG , INC . 1-to uD ul tr •41 rvu .vio i .V.
v M
FROM THE [DESK OF FRANK SPEVACEK
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP , INC .
To: Ray Silver, City Administrator Date:February 5, 2001
City of Huntington Beach Transmitted Via:
;DECEIVED FROM n U.S. Mall Email
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT TV
COUNCIL MEETING OF— 'S"mil Ovemight 3 Page Fax
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK g
RE: Feasibility Report Items
The enclosed materials address the Items raised during this afternoon's conference call.
AES Plant acreage--When the Feasibility Study was prepared the sale was occurring between
Southern California Edison and AES. In October 1999 the assessor data did not reflect the new
AES ownership. Thus we made the assumption (in the Feasibility Study)that all of the property
would be under AES control and_designated it as such,
• Urbanized versus non-urbanized acreage — The accompanying map and table identifies the
property we classified as non-urbanized in the Feasibility Study. The parcels involve the
wetlands properties between Beach Boulevard and the Orange County Flood Control Channel
and the parcel south of the AES plant adjoining Magnolia Street, and a parcel in the Nesi
property. Confirming this acreage Indicates 32 acres of non-urbanized area versus the 30 acres
presented in the Feasibility Study. This results in an urbanized/non-urbanized mix of 88%
urbanized and 12% non-urbanized of the 266 acres analyzed In the Feasibility Study.
• Statutory limits on including agricultural and open space land within a project area — Section
33321.5 of the California Community Redevelopment Law states that agricultural and open-
space land that is enforceably restricted shall not be included within a project area. This section
defines "enforceably restricted" as that term that is defined in Sections 422 and 422.5 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code. Section 422 states that open-space land -is "enforceably
restricted" if it is subject to any of the following: (a) a contract, (b) an agreement, (c) a scenic
restriction entered into prior to January 1, 1975, (d) an open-space easement, or a wildlife habitat
contract.
Based upon the information we received from the City, this property does not have a contract,
agreement, scenic restriction, and open-space easement or wildlife contract. These properties
are designated OS-C, conservation and P, public in the General Plan and Coastal Conservation
and Coastal Conservation-Oil Overlay in the zoning ordinance. Our information indicates that
these designations do not constitute a contract, scenic restriction or easement
Please do not hesitate to contact me with additional questions or concerns.
540 North Gnldcn Circle,Suite 3U5 • Santa Am, CA 92705.3914 • Telrphonr 714.541.4505 • Fax 714.836.1748
Eau 1)icµn 760.967.6462 • I-Mall Address: rapcvacck@wchrsg.cnm j
FEB-05-2001 17:23 714 836 174E 94% P.01
m
c
m
ad
m z
lil r'3
m -- Oil ,O -
JG v. �•C D j
W ;. '
JLWAL
Ztv.1 C
r.uc y
.e = .a•. ac
�7 oc
et «-aa a0 Ul 43
Q 13
J& to raC.
CD
w
® Q .� ® N
!1 iC l..v K. .m.G 0 I O
MOBILE HOME PAws L _ ... "2.j• o
(NOT A PART) s.e.£. J. � CC,
1.8.E. 1 t8-l0-♦JAr-r
75
�. 76
rr
'fey IS.6ir tC. � .
J.J7� .IC. • C
11 t
AA�` OL7a+lvo . S. 74.rr,o.JJ �[. -
AAP
T U R.
�i '.a +s �
L
C
EXHIBIT A
� a
m STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES
N SOUTHEAST COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �
h
PfsrlVrrepdoc
K517 + 1Nl- . lU -. (14-dSJ0-1 (46 rLtl VD V1 1 ( •4 I4u .V10 r .V �
5UUTHEAST COASTAL,AREA FEASIBILITY ANAL IS
. Land Use Parrele Acreage Urbanl*Analysis
.0
M
bi
EEE �q z
Commercial 114150 26 1.75 1.75 1.76
Mobile Home Park 114 160 53 6.00 6.00 6.00
6.00
Refinery 148 011 02 4.06 - 4.06
148011 06 1.12 1.12 1.12
148 01107 4.06 4.68 4.66
148 01108 20.00 20.00 20.00
29.84
Power Plant 114 481 32 0.85 0.85 0.85
11416016 36.86 36.88 36.86
11415017 5.40 5.40 6.40
114 150 36 28.17 28.17 28.17
114 150 44 1 99 1.99 1.99
114 160 03 3.93 3.93 3.93
114 160 78 25.65 25.65 25.65
14812105 2.53 2.63 2.53
105.38
Flood Control 114 15028 0.66 0.66 0.66
114 1,6034 6.20 5,20 5.20
114 150 41 6.40 6.40 6.40
114 150 57 1.80 1.80 1.80
114 150 64 0.34 0.34 0.34
114 15074 1.30 1.30 1.30
14001103 2.42 2.42 242
148 011 04 0.28 0.28 0.28
18.40
Undeveloped-Superfund 114 15075 1.29 1.29 1.20
11415070 9.38 0.36 9.36
11415070 9.66 9.66
114100 80 16.15 16.15 16.15
36.45
Undeveloped-Wetlands 114 15051 19.40 19.40 19.40
114 150 55 0.37 0.37 0.37
11415068 3.10 - 3.10
114 15060 16.40 16.40 16.40
114 150 73 2.91 2.91 2.91
114 180 70 0.62 0.82 0.62
114 16076 1.39 1.39 1.39
114 160 83 0.02 0.02 0.02
114 160 64 0.04 0.04 0.04
114 160 85 10.33 - 10.33
148 011 01 5.26 - 5.26
69.84
Streets 8 Right of Way n/a 8.00 8.00 8.00
GRAND TOTAL w/MHP 265.66 154.75 78.61 233.26 88% 32.41 12%
Additional Right of Way 23.34 23.34 23.34
Updated Totals(2/2001) 289.00 256.60 89% 32.41 11%
UG Inc. PPPARC.+ds urbanlzatIon a.Land usa 215J01 5;01 PM Page 1 of 1
FED-05-2001 17:23 714 836 1748 95% P.03
• •
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
ID—ef Jr-4&1p7n tiliued to 1 2-" d�
❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied
-CityCle Signature
Council Meeting Date: November 20, 2000 Department ID Number: ED 00-46
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL-: ,
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMC
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.a000 - /nL OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DESIGNATING A
REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA FOR PROJECT STUDY
PURPOSES
IF-Statement of Issue,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has previously reviewed the Southeast
Coastal Industrial Area Redevelopment Feasibility Study report, dated October 5, 1999, in
which it was demonstrated that this area be designated as a new redevelopment project
area. Economic Development staff has prepared the necessary documents for the City
Council to adopt a resolution designating this "redevelopment survey area" as the first step
in considering establishment of the Southeast Coastal Project Area.
Funding Source: Not Applicable.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. a?"—i08 of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
designating a redevelopment survey area for project study purposes.
Alternative Action(s):
1. Do not adopt the resolution.
2. Provide staff with further direction.
*REQUEST FOR ACTION •
MEETING DATE: November 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 00-46
Analysis:
For the past several years, the City has been actively engaged in efforts to facilitate the
remediation and reuse of the contaminated ASCON Superfund property, at the southwest
corner of Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue. At the same time, surrounding properties,
including abandoned oil storage facilities and the AES generating plant, have shown an
increasing need for revitalization to mitigate their impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
These activities culminated in a proposal to have the City become more proactively
involved in these various initiatives and create a new redevelopment project area in the
vicinity of Beach Boulevard, Hamilton Avenue, Magnolia Street, and Pacific Coast
Highway. In August 1999, the Redevelopment Agency commissioned a redevelopment
feasibility study, which generally concluded that the area, with the exception of the
Huntington-by-the-Sea Mobilehome Park, would qualify and benefit from a potential
redevelopment project.
Staff is proposing that the City proceed with the steps necessary to consider the approval
of a redevelopment project area encompassing 266 acres. (The Huntington-by-the-Sea
Mobilehome Park would not be a part of the proposed project area.) Prior to initiating the
plan adoption process, California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et. M. requires that a survey area be established for study purposes.
The purpose of the survey area is to refine the boundaries of the proposed redevelopment
project area, prior to proceeding with redevelopment plan adoption activities.
The attached resolution designates the boundaries of the redevelopment survey area. If
the resolution is approved by the City Council, the first step in the plan adoption process
would involve preparation of a Preliminary Plan by the Planning Commission and
Redevelopment Agency. In addition, staff has had continuing discussions with affected
and adjacent property owners and homeowner associations regarding the City's activities
in this area, and anticipates several public workshops on the subject of redevelopment and
the overall revitalization program throughout the process. The first public workshop
occurred last week on Wednesday, November 15, 2000. Staff anticipates that a proposed
redevelopment plan could be completed and brought before the City Council and the
Redevelopment Agency at a joint public hearing in the June of 2001.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable at this time. However, if redevelopment plan adoption activities are initiated,
then a program environmental impact report would be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of Redevelopment Law and the California Environmental Quality Act
guidelines.
RCASouArea -2- 11/15/00 9:04 AM
*REQUEST FOR ACTION •
MEETING DATE: November 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 00-46
Attachment(s1:
NumberCity Clerk's
Page . Description
1. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
2. Southeast Coastal Industrial Area Redevelopment Feasibility
Study
RCA Author: Gus Duran X1529
RCASouArea -3- 11/15/00 9:04 AM
Resolution of the CitE Council of the City of Huntington Beach
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DESIGNATING A
REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA FOR
PROJECT STUDY PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beac "City Council") desires
to designate the area depicted on Exhibit"A"herewith to be studie as a redevelopment survey
area("Survey Area"); and
The purpose of the City Council in designating the S ey Area is to enable the City
Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hu ington Beach to proceed with studies
to determine the feasibility of potential redevelopment a ivities within the Survey Area; and
The California Community Redevelopment aw, Health and Safety Code Section 33000
et seq. ("Law"),provides that if directed by the Ci Council, the Planning Commission shall
select a project comprised of all or part of a red elopment Survey Area.
NOW, THEREFORE,the City Cou it of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
find, resolve and determine as follows:
1. That consideration of a edevelopment project within the said redevelopment
Survey Area is in the best interests o the City; and
2. That the City Cou cil directs the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach to select the boundaries r a redevelopment project area within the Survey Area and to
submit a preliminary plan for a redevelopment of such a proposed project area pursuant to
Sections 33334 and 33345 o the Law; and
PASSED AND OPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof n the 20th day of November 2000.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City le., City Attorney
1t- b 1 e-.,
11I717/d°o
REVIEWE AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
I
� y
� L -
Cib^dministrator Director of Economic Development
1
4/s:4-2000 Resolution:Project Study
RLS 2000-1065
11-3-00
EXHIBIT "A"
SURVEY AREA BOUNDARIES
F:4sg\hunthchlstaMeports&resokao-survryarea
Southeast Coastal Project
Legal Description
A parcel of land in the Rancho Las Bolsas, within Fractional Sections 13 and 24 of
Township 6 South, Range 11 West and Section 18 and Fractional Section 19 of Township
6 South, Range 10 West of the San Bernardino Base, in the City of Huntington Beach,
County of Orange, State of California,as per the map filed in Book 51,page 14 of
Miscellaneous Maps, in Records of said County, more specifically described as follows;
that parcel of land bounded on the south side by the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway
as shown on the State of California, Department of Transportation's Survey Control Map,
Map sheets ORA 001 —M 23.0 and ORA 001 —M 23.5 dated November 1988, on file at
the State of California, Department of Transportation's, Survey Section of the
Engineering Services Branch,Los Angeles, California;
said parcel of land being bounded on the east side by a line parallel with and 50.00 feet
easterly of the centerline of Magnolia Street as shown on the Street Improvement Plans,
titled Magnolia Street: Hamilton Avenue—Pacific Coast Highway, sheets one through
six of eleven inclusive, on file at the Public Works Department's,Engineering Division
at said city, and the northerly prolongation of said parallel line;
said parcel being bound on the north side by the following described line;
beginning at a point on the northerly prolongation of a line parallel with and 50.00 feet
easterly of the centerline of Magnolia Street as shown on the above said Street
Improvement Plans,titled Magnolia Street: Hamilton Avenue-Pacific Coast Highway,
at it's intersection with a line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly of the south line of
the northwest quarter of said Section 18,Township 6 South,Range 10 West, San
Bernardino Base as shown on the map filed for Tract 5201, in Book 193,pages 37 and
38 of Miscellaneous Maps, in Records,of said county; westerly, along last said parallel
line to a point on the west line of said Section 18,said point being 50.00 feet northerly of
the west quarter corner of said Section 18;
thence westerly, along a line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly of the south line of the
northeast quarter of said Fractional Section 13,Township 6 South, Range 11 West, San
Bernardino Base as shown on the map filed for Tract 6568, in Book 246,pages 4 and 5 of
Miscellaneous Maps, in Records of said county,to the southerly prolongation of the west
line of said Tract 6568, said west line being parallel with and 40.00 feet easterly of the
centerline of Newland Street, as shown on said map for Tract 6568,
thence northerly along said southerly prolongation and continuing along said west line to
the easterly prolongation of the south line of Tract 81Fas shown on the map filed in
Book 24,page 33, of Miscellaneous Maps,in Records,of said county; said south line
being parallel with and 660.00 feet northerly of the south line of the northwest quarter of
said Fractional Section 13,Township 6 South,Range 11 West, San Bernardino.Base;
PC Docs#35901 1 of 2
Southeast Coastal Project
Legal Description
thence westerly along said easterly prolongation, said south line and the westerly
prolongation of the same, of said Tract 811, to the southwest corner of Parcel 1 as shown
on Parcel Map 84-590 filed in Book 202, pages 48 through 50 inclusive, of Parcel Maps,
in Records, of said county, said southwest corner being 660.00 feet northerly of the south
line of the northwest quarter of said Fractional Section 13, and said southwest corner
being 88.00 feet easterly of the west line of said northwest quarter;
said parcel of land being bound on the west side by a line parallel with and 88.00 feet
easterly of the west line of Fractional Section 13, said parallel line being the east line of
State Highway 39 (Beach Boulevard), State Highway 39 being 138.00 feet in width,
88.00 feet easterly of and 50.00 feet westerly of the survey centerline (west line of said
Fractional Section 13), as per the as-built plans for said Highway 39, per contract number
53-7VC7,Document number 70001055, dated 10 March 1952, on file at the State of
California, Department of Transportation's, Survey Section of the Engineering Services
Branch, Los Angeles, California.
Excepting therefrom:
1) That land referred to as Parcel 2, granted to Marie L. Finocchio and Adrian Finocchio
Van Schiack,Trustees of the Marie N. Finocchio Living Trust,dated 1 January 1997,
as described in the document recorded on 18 December 1997 as Instrument number
19970651089 of official Records,in Records,of said county.
2) Also excepting therefrom that land described as Tract 9843,filed in Book 477,pages
43 and 44, of Miscellaneous Maps, in Records, of said county.
3) Also excepting therefrom that land described as Parcels 1 and 2, of the Parcel Map
Book 48,page 41 of Parcel Maps, in Records,of said county.
Sip SAND SU9
aFq!_
o� A CP
NO.W =
WZ 31 9lF ,� `Q�Uc/V Y
�F CALIF osep G. Derleth P.L.S. 7340 Date
registration expires 12/31/01
PC Docs#35901 2 of 2
a ®® WIM
Imv00
V
ca
m
m �I
® o
c�
Hamilton
a
Not a part Not part
Not a part
h�
Coastal ProjectSoutheast
N
600 0 600 1200 Feet
Southeast Coastal Industrial Area Redevelopment Feasibility
Stud
• •
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Southeast Coastal Industrial Area
Redevelopment Feasibility Study
OCTOBER 5, 1999
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
540 North Golden Circle,Suite 305
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 541-4585
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
SOUTHEAST COASTAL INDUSTRIAL AREA
RSG was retained to prepare a preliminary redevelopment feasibility study for a 266-acre area
located east of Pacific Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and Magnolia Street
("Southeast Coastal Study Area" or "Study Area"). The Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach commissioned this feasibility study to evaluate the legal and fiscal suitability
of pursuing a redevelopment project involving both the Study Area and the Holly Seacliff
Industrial Area. (The Holly Seacliff Area was previously reviewed in RSG's July 1, 1999
Redevelopment Feasibility Study.) This report presents our findings.
Existing Setting
The 266-acre Study Area is located in the southeast section of the City of Huntington Beach.
Major land uses include the 105-acre AES power generating plant, 60 acres of undeveloped
wetlands, the 36-acre Ascon Landfill, and the 20-acre Golden West refinery tank farm. Other
uses include County Flood Control property (18 acres), the 6-acre (47-coach) Cabrillo trailer
park, and a boat sales yard (2 acres). Surrounding land uses include residential single family to
the south, residential and industrial to the east, and developing tourist commercial to the north.
In addition, the Study Area envelopes the Huntington by the Sea mobile home park, though this
particular use is excluded from the Study Area because it is expected to be continued for the
foreseeable future.
A map depicting the boundaries of the Study Area is included as Exhibit A to this report.
Why Redevelopment is Being Considered
Based on RSG's discussions with Agency staff, a field inspection of the Study Area and review
of the economic opportunities in the area, redevelopment is being considered to achieve four
fundamental goals, as listed below:
1. To facilitate the modernization and reconstruction of a more efficient power generating plant
while mitigating impacts on adjoining neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas,
2. To advance the cleanup and ultimate development of the closed Ascon Landfill Superfund
site,
3. To encourage the economically feasible recycling of other Study Area properties, and
4. To assist in the protection and restoration of environmentally sensitive wetlands in
connection with the redevelopment of the area.
In general, this report concludes that the Agency can establish a redevelopment program in the
Study Area that achieves the four aforementioned goals. The legal and financial implications are
discussed below.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 1 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
\1HBTTFPS02\ECONDE V S TEPHENIPROJECTS 1SEcoastRPA\Feas ibl tys tudy.doc
• i
Legal Requirements
The California Community Redevelopment Law ("Law") requires that redevelopment project
areas must be both 1) predominantly urbanized, and 2) characterized by physical and economic
conditions that cannot be alleviated by the private sector, governmental action, or both, without
redevelopment.
Urbanization
Section 33320.1 of the Law mandates that not less than 80% of the land in a redevelopment
project area is urbanized. Urbanized properties are defined as developed(or formerly developed)
parcels, parcels of irregular form under mixed ownership, and properties that are an integral part
of an urban area(i.e. substantially surrounded by developed property).
Applying this criteria to the Study Area, RSG determined that the Study Area exceeds the 80%
urbanization threshold. RSG estimates that approximately 236 acres (89%) of the Study Area is
urbanized. This total includes approximately 146 acres of developed property and 90 acres of
property that is an integral part of an urban area, because it is substantially surrounded (on three
sides)by developed property.
Approximately 30 acres (II%) of the Study Area are considered nonurbanized. These areas,
scattered throughout the Study Area, are vacant properties that are not substantially surrounded
by developed properties.
Table 1 below summarizes the urbanized character of the Study Area:
TABLE 1
URBANIZATION ANALYSIS
SOUTHEAST COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Urbanization Studv Area
Category Ac. %
Developed Parcels 146 55%
Undeveloped-Integral Part 90 34%
of an Urban Area
Total Urbanized Areas 236 89%
Total Study Area 266 100%
It should be noted that if this Study Area was included with the Holly Seacliff Redevelopment
Study Area as a redevelopment project area, the urbanization requirement would apply to the
overall project area in aggregate, and not to the two noncontiguous areas separately. In our July
1999 Holly Seacliff Redevelopment Feasibility Study, RSG concluded that 91.81 acres (or 87%)
of the 105 acre Holly-Seacliff Redevelopment Study Area was urbanized. As this memorandum
indicates, since more than 80% of the Southeast Coastal Study Area is urbanized, a
redevelopment project area involving both Study Areas would meet the Law's urbanization test.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 2 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
\\BBITFPS02\ECONDEV\STEPB EN\PROJECTS\SEwastRPA\Feasibltystudy.do
Blighting Conditions
Pursuant to Section 33320.1 of the Law, redevelopment project areas must also be blighted. As
defined by Section 33031 of the Law, blight encompasses physical and economic conditions
such as unsafe or unhealthy buildings, factors hindering the economically viable use of buildings
or lots, incompatible uses, impaired investments, high crime rates, and other conditions.
RSG has identified both physical and economic blight within the Study Area that justify
proceeding with redevelopment. RSG estimates that approximately 170 acres (65%) of the
Study Area are characterized with one or more blighting conditions. In order to prepare and
adopt a redevelopment plan involving the Study Area, these blighting conditions will need to be
further documented, along with a more extensive analysis of their burden on the community and
the inability of the private sector or the City to alleviate these conditions. Nonetheless, the
following blighting conditions are evident at this time:
1. Impaired Investments Due to the Presence of Hazardous Contamination: The Study Area
includes the City's only federally-designated Superfund property, the 32-acre former Ascon
landfill, as well as other hazardous operations which are considered to be of "special
concern" in the City's General Plan. According to State Department of Toxic Substances
Control documents, the Ascon property was used to dispose of oil drilling wastes, sulfuric
acid, fuel oils, chromic acid, asphalt, metal and other materials between 1938 and 1984.
Since its closure in 1984, the property has gone through three different owners due to
separate bankruptcies in 1989 and 1993. The current owner, Signal Mortgage Company, has
already approached the Agency seeking financial assistance to facilitate site remediation,
even as the exact nature of cleanup activities is under review.
In addition to the Ascon site at Hamilton Avenue and Magnolia Street, other Study Area
properties are known, or suspected to contain hazardous materials. According to the City's
General Plan and the California Environmental Protection Agency, these include the closed
Golden West Refinery Tank Farm, Action Boat Brokers (at the corner of Beach Boulevard
and Pacific Coast Highway) and the AES generating plant. In total, as much as 159 acres
(53%) of the Study Area is known or suspected to contain hazardous contamination.
Because the Study Area both contains and/or adjoins environmentally sensitive uses
including City parks, wetlands, residential uses, a high school, Huntington State Beach and
the Pacific Ocean, the impact of any hazardous contamination in these areas is an acute
concern to the City as well as Study Area property owners. Acquisition and development of
properties that contain, or are suspected to contain, hazardous contamination has been
hindered by the strict liability assigned by State law. Under State law, any property owner or
operator, regardless of fault or contribution to a contamination problem, would become a
responsible party that could be pursued for cleanup. This applies to contamination that may
have migrated from one property to another; frequently, an innocent property owner or
operator with financial resources can be pursued in lieu of the actual perpetrator.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 3 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
\\FIDTTFPS02\ECONDEV\STEPHEN\PROJECTS\SEcoaq"A\Feasibltystudy-doc
0 •
The economic magnitude of this problem could be linked to bankruptcy of two former
property owners of the Ascon landfill. Unfortunately, according to city documents, none of
the city, state, or federal governments has pledged any funding to remediate toxic materials.
RSG estimates that cleanup costs could be in the multi-millions for the Ascon landfill alone,
burdening economically feasible development.
However, inclusion of the Study Area in a redevelopment project area would provide the
Agency useful redevelopment tools to eliminate this blighting influence. For example, many
redevelopment agencies have made extensive use of the Polanco Act, pursuant to Section
33459 of the Law. The Polanco Act allows redevelopment agencies to assume an active role
in site investigation and cleanup, as a regulatory agency, while providing for the transferable
assignment of immunity after cleanup is complete. In this way, redevelopment tools
including the Polanco Act could stimulate cleanup and investment in the Study Area.
2. Factors Hindering the Economically Viable Use of Buildings and Lots: As described above,
hazardous materials contamination hinders investment and use of Study Area properties.
Similarly, other factors negatively affect use of the Study Area, including the outmoded AES
generating facility and the presence of 60 acres of wetlands. According to discussions
between City staff and AES, the 44 year old generating plant is functionally obsolete and
operates at less than 50% of capacity. AES has indicated a desire to invest in a
reconstruction of the facility,which would result in a smaller,but more efficient plant.
Indeed, the AES plant is currently an eyesore and negatively affects property values of
nearby residential uses. (As an example, the median price of a single family detached home
immediately south of the AES plant is $320,000, or 23% less than similar units further from
the plant.) While reconstruction of the AES facilities would be welcomed by adjacent
residents, this project would surface many ancillary redevelopment concerns, including
buffering surrounding uses from the new facility, the disposition of remnant and potentially
contaminated parcels, and protection of wetlands to the east of the site. Indeed, it is not yet
known whether AES has the financial capacity to fully implement needed improvements.
This is particularly a concern given the fact that AES recently purchased the site (in
December 1998), and further capital outlays may need to be deferred. As a result, the timing
and extent of improvements are not assured.
Redevelopment can be used to assist in the mitigation of environmental impacts by assisting
in on- and off-site improvements related to the Study Area development.
3. Incompatible Uses: Many of the uses in the Study Area conflict with adjacent uses, both
inside and outside the Study Area. The overbuilt and obsolete generating plant, as well as the
contaminated Ascon landfill, adjoins a residential neighborhood to the south. Likewise,
older petroleum uses that have a history of contamination are located next to mobile home
parks and environmentally sensitive wetlands. These examples of land use incompatibilities
in the Study Area can be mitigated through implementation of a comprehensive
redevelopment program in the Study Area to facilitate reuse of obsolete and contaminated
properties, and improved buffering between incompatible uses.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 4 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
\\FIDTTFPS02\ECONDEV\STEPHEN\PROJECTS\SEcoastRPA\Feasibltyswdy.doc
•
Fiscal Implications
Redevelopment of the Study Area would be financed primarily through tax increment revenue, a
financing mechanism provided to redevelopment agencies in Section 33670 of the Law. This
report solely reviews the financial capacity of the Study Area. RSG's July 1999 Holly Seacliff
Redevelopment Feasibility Study concluded that the Holly Seacliff area generated sufficient tax
increment revenues to fund redevelopment projects in that area.
Tax Increment Projections
Table 2, located at the end of this report, presents tax increment revenue projections for the
Study Area. These projections incorporate the base year value, assessed value growth rates,
reassessment of the AES generating plant reassessment, and new development potential
assumptions as summarized below:
1. 1999-00 Base Year Value: The base year value is established by the County Auditor-
Controller; if the adopting ordinance is effective by August 20, 1999, the base year value of
the Study Area would be based on the 1999-00 equalized assessment roll. (This may not be
feasible, due to the 9-month process needed to adopt a redevelopment plan.) Nonetheless,
for consistency with RSG's Holly-Seacliff Study, we assumed the same 1999-00 base year
value for this Study Area. RSG estimated this value using the 1998-99 secured assessment
roll, and applying the 1.853% Proposition 13 inflationary adjustment. No unsecured or
nonunitary utility values were included in the base year values. The assumed 1999-00 base
year value also includes the local roll reassessment of the AES generating plant, as described
in item 3 below. For these projections, the assumed base year value is $104,310,091.
2. Assessed Value Growth Rates: RSG applied a conservative 2% assessed value growth rate to
estimate future assessed values. This is the same growth rate used in the tax increment
projections for the Holly Seacliff area.
3. Utility Reassessment: Pursuant to Rule 905 adopted by the State Board of Equalization in
July 1999, certain electrical generation facilities are to be reassessed on the local tax rolls
beginning in fiscal year 1999-00. As a result of this decision, the AES plant will be taxed as
secured real property, with the property taxes apportioned to the local affected taxing
agencies. (Previously, these utilities were taxed at the state level and taxes were shared on a
county wide basis.)
According to documents from the City, AES purchased the power plant for approximately
$96 million last December. Treated as secured real property, the Orange County Assessor
will reassess the utility on the local 1999-00 roll for $96 million, assuming the owners do not
appeal this assessment. It is RSG's understanding that this property will be subject to
Proposition 13 inflationary increases.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 5 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
\\HBITFPS02\ECONDEV\STEPHEN\PROJECTS\SEcoastRPA\Feasibltystudy.doc
• •
4. Development Potential: Based on a review of the City's General Plan and discussions with
the City's Planning and Economic Development Departments, RSG developed a phased
development calendar for redevelopment of certain properties in the Study Area. A summary
of these assumptions is included on Table 3. This development forecast includes $100
million of improvements to the AES plant, as well as additional redevelopment of
undeveloped and underdeveloped parcels in the Study Area.
Based on these assumptions, RSG estimates that the Study Area will generate approximately
$218 million in gross tax increment revenue over the 45-year collection period provided by Law.
The Law requires that not less than 20% of this tax increment revenue, or $44 million, be
deposited into the Agency's low and moderate income housing fund. Also, the Law stipulates
that another portion (approximately $65 million, or 30%) of the tax increment revenue is to be
distributed to the affected taxing agencies. The remaining tax increment revenue of$109 million
would be available to fund nonhousing programs for the redevelopment project area. In today's
dollars, assuming a 5% discount rate, the Study Area housing resources equal $11 million, while
the nonhousing revenues equal $29 million.
Other Considerations
The Agency will need to consider the extent that eminent domain authority is needed in a
redevelopment plan for the Study Area. Eminent domain has typically been used in the City to
consolidate small parcels under mixed ownership; this circumstance is not evident in the Study
Area. Further, if low or moderate income housing units (i.e., the Cabrillo trailer park) are to be
subject to eminent domain, the Agency's plan adoption process would be required to include
formation and participation of an elected project area committee.
The role of a project area committee becomes more complex if the Study Area is amended to the
existing Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. The existing Project Area Committee
may be entitled to participate in such an amendment, even if no residential eminent domain
authority is proposed for the Study Area. (RSG suggests that Agency legal counsel opine
whether the existing Project Area Committee would participate in an amendment to include
Study Area properties.)
Conclusions
Based on the analysis contained in this feasibility study, RSG concludes that there is a basis to
incorporate the entire Study Area in a redevelopment project area. More specific conclusions are
itemized below:
• There is substantial evidence that the Study Area is both predominantly urbanized and
blighted to suggest proceeding with preparation of a redevelopment plan for the Study Area.
• Redevelopment will be largely sought to address hazardous cleanup of the historically
contaminated properties in the Study Area. Also, redevelopment can assist with the
economically viable reuse of obsolete Study Area properties.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 6 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
\\HBTTFPS02\ECONDEV\STEPHEN\PROJECTS\SEcoastRPA\FeasiblTystudy.doc
• Dialogue between the City and Study Area property owners should continue in order to keep
the community informed of the redevelopment process, as well as the potential benefits and
purposes of implementing a redevelopment program in the Study Area.
Redevelopment Project Area Boundaries
The Study Area can be incorporated into the Agency's redevelopment program in one of three
ways:
1. Adopt a new redevelopment project area comprised of only Study Area properties,
2. Adopt a new redevelopment project area comprised of both the Study Area and the Holly-
Seacliff Industrial Area, or
3. Amend the merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area by adding Study Area
properties.
Commonly, redevelopment agencies choose the amendment alternative because of the greater
financial flexibility gained by having a consolidated project area where resources can be shifted
to address needs throughout the area. (Agencies are generally prohibited by Law from
transferring funds between separate project areas.) In the case here, however, this advantage
may not be realized, since the Study Area is neither a "cash cow" nor in dire need of
substantially more financial resources to redevelop its properties. Agency staff expects that
implementation of redevelopment projects in the Study Area will necessitate all available tax
increment revenues. At the same time, RSG does not foresee that redevelopment needs in the
Study Area are greater than those in downtown or Huntington Center, so resources from these
areas are not expected to be available for Study Area redevelopment.
Another factor in considering amending the existing Project Area is the requirement to involve
existing Project Area stakeholders in the process. By Law, all residents, business owners, and
property owners within both the existing Project Area and Study Area would be noticed. A
project area committee may need to be formed if residential uses are to be subject to eminent
domain. Also, the existing Project Area Committee, despite its relationship to downtown, could
be entitled to fully participate in any amendment to the existing Project Area for the next three
years. (RSG recommends that Agency legal counsel advise on the role of the PAC, if any, if the
existing Project Area is amended to include the Study Area.)
Alternatively, if the Agency adopts a second project area, then RSG advises that both the Study
Area and Holly Seacliff areas be combined into a single project area. Besides the greater
financial flexibility to move resources between the two areas, a single project area would be less
costly to adopt, because one set of documents would be prepared and one public hearing would
be conducted.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 7 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
\\HEITFPS02\ECONDEV\STEPHEN\PROJECTS\SEcoastUA\Feasibltystudy.doc
TABLE 2
PROJECTED TAX INCREMENT REVENUES
SOUTHWEST COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Fiscal Year Secured Secured New Total Incremental Gross Statutory Housing Nonhousing
Growth Assessed Development Assessed Secured Tax Payments Fund Redevelopment
Rate 1/ Value 2/ Value 3/ Value Value Increment Fund
1998-99 98,685,729
BY 1999-00 1.9% 100,514,376 <==Base Value 100,514,376
1 2000-01 2.0% 102,524,663 102,524,663 2,010,288 - - -
2 2001-02 2.0% 104,575,156 104,575,156 4,060,781 40,608 8,122 8,122 24,365
3 2002-03 2.0% 106,666,659 106,666,659 6,152,284 61,523 12,305 12,305 36,914
4 2003-04 2.0% 108,799,993 108,799,993 8,285,617 82,856 16,571 16,571 49,714
5 2004-05 2.0% 110,975,992 110,975,992 10,461,617 104,616 20,923 20,923 62,770
6 2005-06 2.0% 113,195,512 19,350,000 132,545,512 32,031.137 320,311 64,062 64,062 192,187
7 2006-07 2.0% 135.196,423 44,350,000 179,546,423 79.032,047 790,320 158,064 158,064 474,192
8 2007-08 2.0% 183,137,351 75,000,000 258,137,351 157,622,975 1,576,230 315,246 315,246 945,738
9 2008-09 2.0% 263,300,098 263,300,098 162,785,723 1,627,857 325,571 325,571 976,714
10 2009-10 2.0% 268.566,100 268,566,100 168,051,724 1,680,517 336,103 336,103 1,008,310
11 2010-11 2.0% 273,937,422 273,937,422 173,423,046 1,734,230 346,846 346,846 1,040,538
12 2011-12 2.0% 279,416,170 279,416,170 178,901,795 1,789,018 365,161 357,804 1,066,053
13 2012-13 2.0% 285,004,494 50,729,672 335,734,166 235,219,790 2,352,198 553,431 470,440 1,328,327
14 2013-14 2.0% 342,448,849 50,729,672 393,178,521 292,664,145 2,926,641 745,466 585,328 1,595,847
15 2014-15 2.0% 401,042.091 51,744,265 452,786,356 352,271,981 3.522,720 944,734 704,544 1,873,442
16 2015-16 2.0% 461,842,084 52,779,151 514,621,234 414,106,858 4,141,069 1,151,446 828,214 2,161,409
17 2016-17 2.0% 524,913,659 53,834,734 578,748,392 478,234,017 4,782,340 1,365,822 956,468 2,460,050
18 2017-18 2.0% 590,323,360 590,323,360 489,808,985 4,898,090 1,404,517 979,618 2,513,955
19 2018-19 2.0% 602,129,827 602,129,827 501,615,452 5,016,155 1,443,985 1,003,231 2,568,938
20 2019-20 2.0% 614,172,424 614,172,424 513,658,048 5,136,580 1,484,243 1,027,316 2,625,021
21 2020-21 2.0% 626,455,872 626,455,872 525,941,497 5,259,415 1,525,307 1,051,883 2,682,225
22 2021-22 2.0% 638,984,990 638,984,990 538,470,614 5,384,706 1,567,191 1,076,941 2,740,574
23 2022-23 2.0% 651,764,690 651,764,690 551,250,314 5,512,503 1,609,913 1,102,501 2,800,089
24 2023-24 2.0% 664,799,983 664,799,983 564,285,608 5,642,856 1,653,490 1,128,571 2,860,795
25 2024-25 2.0% 678,095,983 678,095,983 577,581,607 5,775,816 1,697,938 1,155,163 2,922,715
26 2025-26 2.0% 691,657,903 691,657,903 591,143,527 5,911.435 1,743,275 1,182,287 2,985,873
27 2026-27 2.0% 705,491,061 705,491,061 604,976,685 6,049,767 1,789,519 1,209,953 3,050,294
28 2027-28 2.0% 719,600,882 719,600,882 619,086,506 6,190,865 1,836,688 1,238,173 3.116,004
29 2028-29 2.0% 733,992,900 733,992,900 633,478,524 6,334,785 1,884,800 1,266,957 3.183,028
30 2029-30 2.0% 748,672,758 748,672,758 648,158,382 6,481,584 1,933,875 1,296,317 3,251,392
31 2030-31 2.0% 763,646,213 763,646,213 663,131,837 6,631,318 1,983,931 1,326,264 3,321,124
32 2031-32 2.0% 778,919,137 778,919,137 678,404,761 6,784,048 2,048,662 1,356,810 3,378,576
33 2032-33 2.0% 794,497,520 794,497,520 693,983,144 6,939,831 2,114,688 1,387,966 3,437,178
34 2033-34 2.0% 810,387,470 810,387,470 709,873,095 7,098,731 2,182,034 1,419,746 3,496,951
35 2034-35 2.0% 826,595,220 826,595,220 726,080,844 7,260,808 2,250,727 1,452,162 3,557,920
36 2035-36 2.0% 843,127,124 843,127,124 742,612,748 7,426,127 2,320,794 1,485,225 3,620,108
37 2036-37 2.0% 859,989,666 859,989,666 759,475,291 7,594,753 2,392,262 1,518,951 3,683,540
38 2037-38 2.0% 877,189,460 877,189,460 776,675,084 7,766,751 2,465,160 1,553,350 3,748,240
39 2038-39 2.0% 894,733,249 894,733,249 794,218,873 7,942,189 2,539,516 1,588,438 3,814,235
40 2039-40 2.0% 912,627,914 912,627,914 812,113,538 8,121,135 2,615,359 1,624,227 3,881,550
41 2040-41 2.0% 930,880,472 930,880,472 830,366,097 8,303,661 2,692,718 1,660,732 3,950,210
42 2041-42 2.0% 949,498,082 949,498,082 848,983,706 8,489,837 2,771,625 1,697,967 4,020,244
43 2042-43 2.0% 968,488,043 968,488,043 867,973,668 8,679,737 2,852,110 1,735,947 4,091,679
44 2043-44 2.0% 987,857,804 987,857,804 887,343,429 8,873,434 2,934,205 1,774,687 4,164,542
45 2044-05 2.0% 1 007 614 960 1 007 614 960 907 100 585 9,071,006 3,017,942 1,814 201 4,238,863
_ Cumulative Total 398,517,493 218,110,980 65 486,351 43,622,196 109 002,433
Net Present Value(5°/) 58 581,733 15 964.807 11,158,425 28,668,894
1/ Assumes Proposition 13 annual growth rate of 1.853%in FY 1999-00,and 2%thereafter.
2/ Estimated,based on 1998-99 secured values and the$96,000,000 purchase price of the AES Generating Plant in 1998.
3/ New development based on development assumptions per City General Plan(see Table 3)
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 8 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October S,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
\\BBITFPS02\ECONDEV\STEPHEN\PROJECTS\SEcoas"A\Feasibltystudy.doc
TABLE 3
NEW DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTHEAST COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Phase Land Use Description Number of Value Per Total Value Buildout Associated
Units Unit 1/ Timeframe Parcels
1 Industrial Multi-Tenant 215,000 $ 90 $ 19,350,000 2003-2004 148 011 07
148 011 08
2 Industrial Multi-Tenant 215,000 $ 90 $ 19,350,000 2004-2005
430,000 $ 38,700,000
1 Industrial Power Plant Renovations $ 25,000,000 2004-2005 114 150 16
2 Industrial Power Plant Renovations $ 75,000,000 2005-2006
$ 100,000,000
1 Residential Single Family Attached 51 $ 341,928 $ 17,438,325 2010-2011 114 150 78
Single Family Detached 51 $ 652,772 $ 33,291,347 114 150 79
114 150 80
2 Residential Single Family Attached 50 $ 348,766 $ 17,438,325 2011-2012
Single Family Detached 50 $ 665,827 $ 33,291,347
3 Residential Single Family Attached 50 $ 355,742 $ 17,787,091 2012-2013
Single Family Detached 50 $ 679,143 $ 33,957,174
4 Residential Single Family Attached 50 $ 362,857 $ 18,142,833 2013-2014
Single Family Detached 50 $ 692,726 $ 34,636,318
5 Residential Single Family Attached 50 $ 370,114 $ 18,505,690 2014-2015
Single Family Detached 50 $ 706,581 $ 35,329,044
502 $ 259,817,493
Total AV $ 537,217,493
1/ Adjusted for inflation at 2%annually.
Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. 9 Redevelopment Feasibility Study
October 5,1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
\\HBITFPS02\ECONDEV\STEPHEN\PROJECTS\SEcoastRPA\Feasibltystudy.doc
e Pam
\\\
®®
Cr--
U cm
®_
m ® ® ® co
® 01
CD
c�
Hamilton
Not a part Not part
Not a part
Adc,�c
lu
iLLLU
'Si9h \
�°L \ L J
i
I �
I �
I
I
I
i
Southeast Industrial Project
N
600 0 600 1200 Feet
11/07/2000 13:56 3104567432 GEORGE TOBERMAN PAGE 01
•
GEORGE TOBERMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
22241 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA, 90265
Tel- (310)456-3457 Fax: (310)456-7432
November 20, 2000
Mayor Dave Garofalo and
City Council Members
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Southeast Coastal Industrial Area
Reference # Item E-9
Lot 11, Tract 811, Parcel 4, 2.17 acres, described on the map as Parcel "A"just
north of the designated industrial area
Gentlemen:
We would like our parcel to be considered as part of the Southeast Coastal
Industrial Area and would like to develop our parcel so that it would complement
the industrial development. Our family has owned the property since 1952 and
we have been prevented from developing the property since 1969 by the City of
Huntington Beach due to the close proximity of the Tank Farm.
We would like to see the Southeast Coastal Industrial Area become a reality and
we will personally support it in any way we can.
Sincerely yours,
George Quirk Toberman
LLB L• . �' �� � '� L
�Ilu� I��� tulult � Ig1111iI1N1ll��-_� ��� �r
IHIUy1�i Ii01i11 Nlt a� !
1pum� l 1u111q d 111 I!llllr 47 , nl �a Southeast Coastal
LEE ( nr�If � 111M� �� ire 1!l�r
Il�;tl nittlll� ,��1��� '' �� �
l Al•,. �� �.. 1 11
Ilinnn url ni j �i° "11�iino5 md, Indu ` al ,
I1111111 1111111 _- '-Iw (TP, 11
Dal 1011111%
11�1r11y1111rr, equl +yumH ,1 Om
r11 p111�-,� � mnluHl1 mmm
all
1nii +• .1t� "' U1111l1111111I ''acity of Hun ngton B
` :IIIIItl11l�C, �trlt, y'tL •�
I Illl 'Clll II11111 �� "'4 41111111� �1
��;�1111�111t1��1� m� �' � ram:���•r■
f' 't NOR
x h,
Sout
J2 �k
y
t I 1 1
mtrijd Area
Not Included in lrda*W Am
o;
/ 2W 4W WO 1
a
k
A,
71/07/2000 13:56 3104567432 GEORGE TOBERMAN PAGE U1
GEORGE TOBERMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
22241 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Tel, (310)456-3457 Fax- (310)456-7432
November 20, 2000
Mayor Dave Garofalo and
City Council Members
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street `
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S r-
Re: Southeast Coastal Industrial Area
Reference # Item E-9
Lot 11, Tract 811, Parcel 4, 2.17 acres, described on the map as Parcel "A"just
north of the designated industrial area
Gentlemen:
We would like our parcel to be considered as part of the Southeast Coastal
Industrial Area and would like to develop our parcel so that it would complement
the industrial development. Our family has owned the property since 1952 and
we have been prevented from developing the property since 1969 by the City of
Huntington Beach due to the close proximity of the Tank Farm.
We would like to see the Southeast Coastal Industrial Area become a reality and
we will personally support it in any way we can.
Sincerely ours, RECEIVED FROM
AND MADE A PART OF THE R O AT HE
COUNCIL MEETING OF�
OFFICE OF THE CIT CL K
CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK
George Quirk Toberman
14 7E Gv� rr9
�nu� t� I- Rhin=lilliliilNl!'�T�' �
Wli., = �.I}I'I}}Illy►1.. ';� L;,r..:_�, +:n �; South
east
• I
IIIIIII1�Di;11111111� l- � =y le'Itl-
uu u.o,la Ipull il �n t1II1tl�1111U11l Fri� Indust
Area
M '.0 �'i.w'ir 1111 ly111Nq? ■■'
�,1114 s � iillrl ■•am 161oji Ira:"M .11�, ii1111H�111111 • •In Beach
mm,M .r +■ Illl�lllillllll
�-
61
—
r t■ ��� .Ir■: a
1
..
r ,fi,
f s
i
,,. ..,.�:-�.,._: •...a.. .... ,. ..r+..
.`I
1 1 Cojmxl IndtistrJ21
Not i
Included Q5
Arm ouva'da of IneW20ini Arcs
r
1 2oo 400 :11 Feet
P-%bts of Wiry
i'
�.ll
$;�: rS;�, � „