Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District 1 - Street Improvemt
D Recorded in Official Records, County of Orange Tom Daly, Clerk-Recorder 11111111111111 11111111111111111!!!11110111111111111111i11!111111111INO FEE OFFICIAL BUSINESS 2003001458184 08:22am 12/08103 Document entitled to free 214 190 R28 11 recording per Government 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Code Section 6103 Recording Requested by and When Recorded Mail to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: City Clerk Space above this line for recording use 1� MEMORANDUM OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 ESTABLISHING THE 1 v� HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT This Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 2002-59 Establishing the Holly- SeaciiffArea of Benefit District provides legal notice that the following parcels are subject to an Area of Benefit Charge, due and payable upon application for a building permit, of final subdivision map for the parcels, all as set forth in Resolution No. 2002-59, on file with the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach: Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 110-211-01 Ghodooshim, $1,702.50 Lot 60 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, Yousef Miscellaneous Maps ("M.M."), Orange County, CA 110-211-02 Borghetti, $1,702.50 Lot 59 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Ronald P. Orange County, CA 110-211-03 City of $3,405.00 Lots 57 & 58 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, Huntington M.M., Orange County, CA Beach 110-211-04 Ghodooshim, $1,702.50 Lot 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Yousef Orange County, CA 110-211-05 Ghodooshim, $11,917.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55 of Tract No. 62, Yousef Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. G:\FIELD\2003 Memos\Holly Seadiff.doc Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 110-220-02 Brindle, $22,473.00 The North half of the Northeast quarter of the Ronald I. Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA. 110-220-03 Brindle, $13,551.90 The South half of the Northeast quarter of the Ronald I. Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA. 110-220-04 Brindle, $8,784.90 The South 130.00 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Ronald 1. Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range I I West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-01 S & C Oil. Co. $8,989.20 Lot 20 in Block"F"of Garfield Street Addition to Inc. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-09 Thomas, John A. $7,967.70 Lot 13 in Block"F"of Garfield Street Addition to & Linda L. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., & Orange County, CA 111-120-30 Thomas, John A. Inc. above Lot 27 in Block"F" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff I Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-120-28 Weir Oil Co. $8,989.20 Lot 19 in Block"F" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach,Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-11 City of $8,376.30 North half of Lot 12 in Block"D" of Garfield Street Huntington Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, Beach M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-12 City of $4,903.20 South half of Lot 12 in Block"D" of Garfield Street Huntington Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, Beach M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-14 Williams, $5,992.80 Lot 13 in Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Bobbie G. Huntington Beach,Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-15 Renner, $9,874.50 Lot 14 in Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to George Robert Huntington Beach,Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 2 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-15 Galich, $6,469.50 Lot 1 in Block"E"of Garfield Street Addition to Jerry J. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-18 Mandic, $19,749.00 Lots 21 & 22 in Block"E"of Garfield Street Addition Robert P. Jr. & to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Constance Orange County, CA 111-110-19 Greer, $9,874.50 Lot 20 in Block"E" of Garfield Street Addition to Thomas I. Jr. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-20 Ramsey, $6,673.80 Lot 19 in Block"E"of the Garfield Street Addition to Michael L. the City of Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-21 Pedersen, $4,971.30 Lot 23 in Block"E" of Garfield Street Addition to Karen D. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA, excepting therefrom the south half of said Lot 23, above. 111-110-22 Pedersen, $4,971.30 South 72.5 feet of Lot 23 in Block"E" of Garfield Karen D. Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-18 J & K Gustafson $9,874.50 Lot 22 in Block"C" of the Garfield Street Addition to Family Trust, Huntington Beach,Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., John A. Orange County, CA Gustafson, Trustee and Kathy L. Gustafson, Trustee * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 3 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-21 Thomas, $1,362.00 Lot 24 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-22 Thomas, $8,512.50 Lot 24 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-23 Gardner, $9,874.50 An undivided 3/8`h interest in and to Lot 25 in Block Vera M. "C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-24 Thomas, $9,874.50 Lot 26 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-25 GARG-Oil $9,874.50 Lot 27 in Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Production LLC Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-27 Everroad Trust $5,992.80 Lot 28 in Block"C" of the Garfield Street Addition to Gary Everroad Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Debra Everroad, Orange County, CA Trustees 111-140-38 Thomas, $11,372.70 Lots 1 & 2 in Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-150-13 City of $13,279.50 Lot 12 in Block`B"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Beach Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 4 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-19 Arline Joan $6,469.50 Lot 18 in Block"B"of Garfield Street Addition to Robrecht, Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Trustee Orange County, CA 111-150-20 Arline Joan W469.50 Lot 19 in Block"B"of Garfield Street Addition to Robrecht, Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Trustee Orange County, CA 111-150-21 Burlingham, $6,469.50 North Half of Lot 20 in Block"B"of Garfield Street Marion Earl Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-150-24 Gergen Homes $13,688.10 Lot 21 in Block`B"of Garfield Street Addition to Inc. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 5 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-07 Thomas, John A. $10,215.00 Lots 10, 11, and 12 in Block"E" of Garfield Street & Linda L. Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-10 Thomas, John A. $3,405.00 Lot.6 in Block"E"of Garfield Street Addition to & Linda L. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-14 Taylor, $5,379.90 Lot 2 in Block"E", Garfield Street Addition to Christopher& Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Joseph Orange County, CA 111-120-12 Leckie, $2,587.80 Lot 11 in Block"F"of Garfield Street Addition to Bernard A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-13 Thomas, $3,405.00 Lot 10 in Block"F"of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 11 Y-120-14 Thomas, 13,405:00 --Lot 9,iri'Block`"F",of GarfieI&Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27-28,M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-15 Thomas, $3,405.00 Lot 8 in Block"F"of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-16 Thomas, $6,810.00 Lots 6 & 7 in Block"F" of Garfield Street Addition to John Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-17 John A. Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 5 in Block"F" of Garfield Street Addition to & Linda Thomas Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Family Trust, Orange County, CA. Linda L. Thomas, Trustee 111-120-18 John A. Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 4 in Block"F"of Garfield Street Addition to & Linda Thomas Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Family Trust, Orange County, CA. Linda L. Thomas, Trustee * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 6 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-120-19 Thomas, $3,405.00 Lot 3 in Block"I"'of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA. 111-120-20 Thomas, .$4,630.80 Lots 1 & 2 in Block"I"' of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA. 111-130-01 Weir Oil Co. Inc $1,225.80 Lot 1 in Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach,Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-02 Weir Oil Co. $5,107.50 Lot 2 with the east half of Lot 3 both in Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-05 Powell, Gary K. $3,405.00 Lot 5 in Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to & Virginia C. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-06 Petersen, Helen $3,405.00 Lot 6 in Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to V. & Huntington Beach,Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Winter, Carol Orange County, CA Ann 111-130-07 Leckie, $3,405.00 Lot 7 in Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Bernard A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-08 Leckie, $3,405.00 Lot 8 in Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Bernard A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-09 Williams, $6,810.00 Lots 9 & 10 in Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition Bobbie G. to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-26 Weir Oil Co. $5,107.50 Lot 4 together with the West one-half of Lot 3 in Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 7 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-02 Weir, Donald A. $1,702.50 East one-half of Lot 3 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-04 Thomas, John A. $3,405.00 Lot 5 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-05 Thomas, John A. $3,405.00 Lot 6 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-06 Thomas, John A. $6,810.00 Lots 7 & 8 in Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach,Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-07 Lingle, $6,810.00 Lots 9 & 10 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition Dolores K. to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-08 Thomas,John'A. $3,405.00 `Lot 11 iri Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-09 Loma Linda $1,225.80 Lot 12 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Univ. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-36 Weir, Donald A. $1,702.50 West one-half of Lot 3 in Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-37 Weir, Donald A. $3,405.00 Lot 4 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach,Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 159-281-03 Hassett, $3,405.00 Lot 7 in Block"A"of Garfield Street Addition to Gloria Bradeson Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 8 i Main Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-30 DLM Ventures $7,014.30 Lot 28 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Llc Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. CITY OF HUNTINGTON B CH By: City Engineer ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Assistant City Attorney SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 9 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of ef+h Fo&A.114 County of 0A4:N 6- ,P_ On j*" 0I iL$6�before me, , e. c , Date pit ' am and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane poe,Notary Public") personally appeared42( Name(s)of Signer(s) ��/(/ ,V Personally known to me-OR-El ~�G" to be the'persoa Us whose named is/arse subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/"ee r executed the same in his/her/ to authorized capacity ies),and that by his/her/tb.QjLsignatureLsj on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. KELLY LOUISE MANDIC Commission# 1372899 WITNESS my hand and official seal. Z ,-: Notary PubliC - California ; j Orange County My Comm,Expires Sep 1,2006 r/j Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: - 'ZEbe7 r Noll y-S2e,C it Document Date: Number of Pages:�O Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee INN ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator " ❑ Other: Top of thumb here ❑ Other: Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: 01994 National Notary Association-8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184-Canoga Park,CA 91309.7184 Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Tall-Free 1-800-876-6827 J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK November 21, 2003 Tom Daly County Clerk-Recorder P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Enclosed please find the Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 2002-59 Establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District to.be recorded and returned to the City of Huntington Beach, Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Please return a conformed copy of the Memorandum Deed when recorded to this office in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Enclosed is a copy of the Rejection letter—the requested corrections have been made. delv G ow.0 d(4/ Connie Brockway, CNIZE City Clerk Enclosures f/ G:/followup/deeds/deedletter1002.doc 1 Telephone:714-536.5227) d I� mCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 1, 2003 Tom Daly County Clerk-Recorder P. O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Enclosed please find Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 2002-59 Establishing The Holly-Seacliff Area Of Benefit District to be recorded and returned to the City of Huntington Beach, Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Please return a conformed copy of the Easement Deed when recorded to this office in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Enclosed is a copy or your Rejection Letter-the requested corrections have been made. d,&O . Connie Brockway, CrfC City Clerk CM:pe Enclosures /U a g:/followup/deeds/deed Ietter2000.doc (Telephone:714-536-5227) I • J� City of Huntington Beach j �:-- P.O. Box 190 - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us From the desk of: Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk Telephone: (714) 536-5404 Fax: (714) 374-1557 A17 A� F � RETURN ADDRESS:C � DATE Uq Pb Box 9 RET'0 OCT 10 2003 W o`FQ Regretfully your unrecorded `�YIe.Y►���" naming 'vGI•Y-m4o together with your remittance of $ �—;Ck. No. is being returned as your document is deficient in the area(s) indicated below: (1) The recorder can find no provision in.the law authorizing the recording of the enclosed document(s). (2) Recording cannot be performed in this county. Please forward your document to County Recorder. (3) For proper indexing: a. "Et al" is not acceptable; all parties must be named. b. The name of the company; corporation or partnership must be at the signature point. c. The trustee of a trust must be identified as such. d. The names in the caption, execution and notary acknowledgment must match. e. The caption of the document and signature point need to identify who the custodian/agent represents (4) The Documentary Transfer Tax declaration must be completed to show either the amount of tax due or an acceptable reason for exemption. (See enclosed bulletin.) If there is "No consideration," document must so state. (5) The city where the property is located.or"unincorporated area," is required on the deed and the tax declaration must indicate how the tax was computed. (6) The preliminary change of ownership report is required. Please complete or correct the areas marked in red. (7) The notary acknowledgment is incomplete (please see red mark) or is on an outdated form. A "General Acknowledgment"form is required. (See enclosed sample.) (8) ..The notary seal is illegible. You may have the notary restamp the document clearly or you may complete the enclosed certification under the penalty of perjury. Adding the "Penalty of Perjury" statement will increase the fee by$ (9) Portion(s) of the document are illegible.(please see red mark). You may execute and submit a new original, or complete the enclosed certification under penalty of perjury. Adding the "Penalty of Perjury" statement will increase the fee by$ (10) The legal description/exhibit has been omitted. All exhibits must be referenced in the body of the document and appropriately labeled. (11) Recording reference (date and document number or book and page) of the prior recorded document is incorrect or was omitted. (12) Abstracts of judgment must contain the address of the judgment creditor(s), the address of the judgment debtor(s) and the address at which the summons was served or mailed. (13) Pursuant to Government Code sections 27288.1 and 27201, all parties whose interest is affected must be named and identified,(i.e. owner etc.). (14) To properly perfect a security interest, this UCC-1 must be filed with the Secretary of State, Uniform Commercial Code Division, R.O. Box 1738, Sacramento, CA 95808, unless it.is a "fixture filing" pursuant to UCC section 9313. Any Financing Statement covering fixtures must include a statement that it is a fixture filing to be recorded in the real estate records, a. description of real property in Orange County and, if the debtor does not own the real property, the name of the owner. (15) We have received your check without a document or letter of instruction. We are unable.to determine-the intent of the fees. - (16 The correct fee is$ If an attachment is added-te th document, the fee will increase as stated on the attached fee schedule. (17) OTHER amt` Some,�fS '1'+lA, G�0 A40t 1 aW1 4+u,Tr v ci i S S,c.� rr°.d ✓�S, THANK YOU O YOU OOPERATION Please return to: TOM DALY, TY ERK-REC DER Tom Daly O.C. Clerk-Recorder BY P.O. Box 238 Deputy R order Santa Ana, CA 92702-0238 -o F066e-105(R12/02) (714) 834-2887 - OFFICIAL BUSINESS Document entitled to free recording per Government Code Section 6103 Recording Requested by and When Recorded Mail to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: City Clerk Space above this line for recording use 1Ns oftiment Is soNfy for VW otAoW buwftm of ft chy of Munonow MEMORANDUM OF CITY COUNCIL me°0n °ted u"der RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 ESTABLISHING THE f9wmOnt Code Sec.6103 and *&A be reamer tree aww". HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT ,,," i This Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 2002-59 Establishing the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit District provides legal notice that the following parcels are subject to an Area of Benefit Charge, due and payable upon application for a building permit, of final subdivision map for the parcels, all as set forth in Resolution Nu2002-59, on file with the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach: Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Des iption Charge* 110-211-01 Ghodooshim, $1,702.50 Lot 60tali Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, Yousef Misceous Maps ("M.M."), Orange County, CA 110-211-02 Borghetti, $1,702.50 Lo 59 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Ronald P. Orange County, CA 110-211-03 City of $3,405.00 Lots 57 & 58 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, Huntington M.M., Orange County, CA Beach 110-211-04 Ghodooshim, $1,702.50 Lot 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Yousef / Orange County, CA 110-211-05 Ghodooshim, $11,9,117.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55 of Tract No. 62, Yousef Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. GAFIELD\2003 Memos\Holly Seacliff.doc Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 110-220-02 Brindle, $22,473.00 The North half of the Northeast quarter of the Ronald I. Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA. 110-220-03 Brindle, $13,551.90 The South half of the Northeast quarter of the Ronald 1. Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, •an Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City o Huntington Beach, County of Orange, Sta of California as shown on the map record in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-220-04 Brindle, $8,784.90 The South 130.00 feet of the Ng heast quarter of the Ronald I. Southeast quarter of the Sout fast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 So h, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Me ian, in the City of Huntington Beach, Co ty of Orange, State of California as shown the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Or ge County, CA 111-120-01 S & C Oil. Co. $8,989.20 Lot 20 in Bloc `F"of Garfield Street Addition to Inc. Huntington B ach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Or/inn ty, CA 111-120-09 Thomas, John A. $7,967.70 Lock"F" of Garfield Street Addition to & Linda L. Hueach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., & Ory, CA 111-120-30 Thomas, John A. Inc. above Lack"F" of Garfield Street Addition to untington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., range County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 1 Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-120-28 Weir Oil Co. $8,989.20 Lot 19 in Block"F" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-11 City of $8,376.30 North half of Lot 12 in Block"D" of Garfield Street Huntington Addition to Huntington Beach, Book , Pages 27-28, Beach M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-12 City of $4,903.20 South half of Lot 12 in Block" " of Garfield Street Huntington Addition to Huntington Be , Book 7, Pages 27-28, Beach M.M., Orange County, C 111-130-14 Williams, $5,992.80 Lot 13 in Block"D" Garfield Street Addition to Bobbie G. Huntington Beach, ook 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, A 111-130-15 Renner, $9,874.50 Lot 14 in Blo "D" of Garfield Street Addition to George Robert Huntington each, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange C ty, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 2 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-15 Galich, $6,469.50 Lot 1 in Block"E"of Garfield Street Addition to Jerry J. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-18 Mandic, $19,749.00 Lots 21 & 22 in Block"E" of Garfield Street Addition Robert P. Jr. & to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27 28, M.M., Constance Orange County, CA 111-110-19 Greer, $9,874.50 Lot 20 in Block"E" of Garfield lStreet Addition to Thomas I. Jr. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-20 Ramsey, $6,673.80 Lot 19 in Block"E" of/eGairfield Street Addition to Michael L. the City of Huntingto Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange Co , CA 111-110-21- Pedersen, $4,971.30 Lot 23 in Block" " of Garfield Street Addition to Karen D. Huntington Be h, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange Coun , CA, excepting therefrom the south half of said of 23, above. 111-110-22 Pedersen, $4,971.30 South 72. feet of Lot 23 in Block"E" of Garfield Karen D. Street dition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M., Orange County, CA 111-140-18 • Gustafson J & K $9,874.50 Lot in Block"C" of the Garfield Street Addition to Trust H ington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Or ge County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 3 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-21 Thomas, $1,362.00 Lot 24 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-22 Thomas, $8,512.50 Lot 24 in Block"C"of Garfield Street dition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27 8, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-23 Gardner, $9,874.50 An undivided 3/8`h interest i and to Lot 25 in Block Vera M. "C"of Garfield Street Ad ' ion to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M , Orange County, CA 111-140-24 Thomas, $9,874.50 Lot 26 in Blo/, Book Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington B 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange Coun111-140-25 GARG-Oil $9,874.50 Lot 27 in Bl ck C of Garfield Street Addition to Production LLC Huntingto each, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange unty, CA 111-140-27 Everroad Trust $5,992.80 Lot 28 in Block"C"of the Garfield Street Addition to Gary Everroad Hunt' gton Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Debra Everroad, Or ge County, CA Trustees 111-140-38 Thomas, $11,372.70 Lots 1 & 2 in Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to John A. untington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-150-13 City of $13,279.50 Lot 12 in Block"B"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Huntington Beach,Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Beach Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escal tor. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 4 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-19 Arline Joan $6,469.50 Lot 18 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Robrecht, Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27zAddition Trustee Orange County, CA 111-150-20 Arline Joan $6,469.50 Lot 19 in Block"B" of Garfield Stre Robrecht, Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages"27-28, M.M., Trustee Orange County, CA 111-150-21 Burlingham, $6,469.50 North Half of Lot 20 in lock"B" of Garfield Street Marion Earl Addition to Huntingto each, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange Coun , CA 111-150-24 Gergen Homes $13,688.10 Lot 21 in BlocVch, " of Garfield Street Addition to Inc. Huntington Baj Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 5 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-07 Thomas, John A. $10,215.00 Lots 10, 11, and 12 in Block"E" of Garfield Street & Linda L. Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages,-27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-10 Thomas, John A. $3,405.00 Lot 6 in Block"E"of Garfield Street Addition to & Linda L. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 7-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-14 Taylor, $5,379.90 Lot 2 in Block"E", Garfie Street Addition to Christopher& Huntington Beach, Boo , Pages 27-28, M.M., Joseph Orange County, CA 111-120-12 Leckie, $2,587.80 Lot 11 in Block"F� of Garfield Street Addition to Bernard A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange Count , CA 111-120-13 Thomas, $3,405.00 Lot 10 in B ock"F" of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntingto Beach, Book 7, Page 27-28, M.M., Orange County, 6A 111-120-14 Thomas, $35405.00 Lot Yn Block"F"of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-15 Thomas, $35405.00 L`Ot 8 in Block"F"of Garfield Street Addition to I John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-16as, $6,810.00 Lots 6 & 7 in Block "F" of Garfield Street Addition to Jo f, 4Tte Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., nda �,Nda L.16 MO/ s Orange County, CA U 111-120-17 $3,405:00 Lot 5 in Block"F" of Garfield Street Addition to , Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA. 111-120-18 /LindaThomas $35,405.00 Lot 4 in Block"F" of Garfield Street Addition to Trust Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA. z * All charges are subject to an inflation' escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 6 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-120-19 Thomas, $3,405.00 Lot 3 in Block"F"of Garfield Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M. Orange County, CA. 111-120-20 Thomas, $4,630.80 Lots 1 & 2 in Block"F" of Garfie Street Addition to John A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pa 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA. 111-130-01 Weir Oil Co. Inc $1,225.80 Lot 1 in Block"D"of G field Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Bo 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-02 Weir Oil Co. $5,107.50 Lot/dee e t half of Lot 3 both in Block"D"of Gar Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, PagM., Orange County, CA 111-130-05 Powell, Gary K. $3,405.00 Lot "D"of Garfield Street Addition to &Virginia C. Hunach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orany, CA 111-130-06 Petersen, Helen $3,405.00 Lot "D"of Garfield Street Addition to V. & Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Winter, Carol O ange County, CA Ann 111-130-07 Leckie, $35405.00 Lot 7 in Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Bernard A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-08 Leckie, $3,405.00 Lot 8 in Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Bernard A. Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-09 Williams, $6,8510.00 Lots 9 & 10 in Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition Bobbie G. to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-26 Weir Oil Co. $55107.50 Lot 4 together with the West one-half of Lot 3 in Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 7 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-02 Weir, Donald A. $1,702.50 East one-half of Lot 3 in Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-04 Thomas, John A. $3,405.00 Lot 5 in Block"C"of Garfield StreetfAddition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 7-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-05 Thomas, John A. $3,405.00 Lot 6 in Block"C"of Garf d Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Boo , Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-06 Thomas, John A. $6,810.00 Lots 7 & 8 in Bloc "C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntingt/Bea Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange CA 111-140-07 Lingle, $6,810.00 Lots 9 & ck "C"of Garfield Street Addition Dolores K. toHuntinch, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange ounty, CA 111-140-08 Thomas, John A. $3,405.00 Lot 1 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Hu ington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Or ge County, CA 111-140-09 Loma Linda $1,225.80 of 12 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Univ. untington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-36 Weir, Donald A. $1,702.50 West one-half of Lot 3 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-37 Weir, Donald A. $3,405 0 Lot 4 in Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 159-281-03 Hassett, $37 05.00 Lot 7 in Block"A"of Garfield Street Addition to Gloria Bradeson Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflati n escalator. SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 8 Main Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-30 DLM Ventures $7,014.30 Lot 28 in Block`B" of Garfield Street Addition to Llc Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. CITY OF HUNTI, GTON B ACH By: l W City Engineer 1 ATTEST: - PROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Assistant City Attorney a s SF/g:03memo/Holly Seacliff 9 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California SS. County of Ora On J e before me, LC o- H il L ig al S:✓ g n dl G Date � JJ /J/� L Ar7!a and tle of Officer(e.g.,-Jane Doe Notary Public') personally appeared _N V ALL VV�i U CL91 /e Name(s)of Signer(s) Yp ersonally known to me -evedemse-. to be the person(s) whose name(s) i ar subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that heLsh2C5hxecuted the same in his/he e( authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/he signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. KELLY LOUISE MANDIC Commission# 1372899 WITNESS my hand and official seal. •-� Notary Public - California ' Orange County 4 49 My Comm.Expires Sep 1,2006 Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document R eS. A/c. a i9k S-9' Title or Type of Document: S 0 eae 1 i Document Date: Number o ages: Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: WIMI ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: 01999 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402•www.nationalnotary.org Prod.No.5907 Reorder.Call Toll-Free 1-B00-876-6827 RETURN A �DRE�SS C -E .�' RET D APR 09 200 f64_�,Ajm &tjLc.A qz4qe o�p0 Im.� Regretfully your unrecorded f -f,� " "7 g ` .�,v naming together with your remittance of $ C�_ , Ck. No. is being returned as your document is deficient in the area(s) indicated below: (1) The recorder can find no provision in the law authorizing the recording of the enclosed document(s). (2) Recording cannot be performed in this county. Please forward your document to County Recorder. (3) For proper indexing: a. "Et al" is not acceptable; all parties must be named. b. The name of the company, corporation or partnership must be at the signature point. c. The trustee of a trust must be identified as such. d. The names in the caption, execution and notary acknowledgment must match. e. The caption of the document and signature point need to identify who the custodian/agent represents (4) The Documentary Transfer Tax declaration must be completed to show either the amount of tax due or an acceptable reason for exemption. (See enclosed bulletin.) If there is "No consideration," document must so state. (5) The city where the property is located or"unincorporated area," is required on the deed and the tax declaration must indicate how the tax was computed. (6) The preliminary change of ownership report is required. Please complete or correct the areas marked in red. (7) The notary acknowledgment is incomplete (please see red mark) or is on an outdated form. A "General Acknowledgment" form is required. (See enclosed sample.) (8) The notary seal is illegible. You may have the notary restamp the document clearly or you may complete the enclosed certification under the penalty of perjury. Adding the "Penalty of Perjury" statement will increase the fee by $ (9) Portion(s) of the document are illegible (please see red mark). You may execute and submit a new original, or complete the enclosed certification under penalty of perjury. Adding the "Penalty of Perjury" statement will increase the fee by $ (10) The legal description/exhibit has been omitted. All exhibits must be referenced in the body of the document and appropriately labeled. (11) Recording reference (date and document number or book and page) of the prior recorded document is incorrect or was omitted. (12) Abstracts of judgment must contain the address of the judgment creditor(s), the address of the judgment debtor(s) and the address at which the summons was served or mailed. (13) Pursuant to Government Code sections 27288.1 and 27201, all parties whose interest is affected must be named and identified (i.e. owner etc.). (14) To properly perfect a security interest, this UCC-1 must be filed with the Secretary of State, Uniform Commercial Code Division, P.O. Box 1738, Sacramento, CA 95808, unless it is a "fixture filing" pursuant to UCC section 9313. Any Financing Statement covering fixtures must include a statement that it is a fixture filing to be recorded in the real estate records, a description of real property in Orange County and, if the debtor does not own the real property, the name of the owner. (15) We have received your check without a document or letter of instruction. We are unable to determine the intent of the fees. (16) The correct fee is $ If an attachment is added to the / document, the fee will increase as stated on the attached fee s�ch�eddule. ___L (17) OTHER: 06 W`(.�-�`' Coo a✓ bj4f IlD� THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION DARLENE LOOM, INTERIM COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER Please return to: Clerk-Recorder BY P.O. Box 238 er Deputy ecoryo Santa Ana, CA 92702-0238 -O F0662-105(R10/96) � V S" (714) 834-2887 "i, ` • • • - �`� Office of the City Clerk . . Key words=2002-59;Status=Active ID Alpha Catgy Entered Status Doc Type/No Expires Box Checkd Out ��0[� I 0 [ 1$449 HO350.30 04/10/2002 Active 0 12/18/20 2 � 3 j4/1/02: Holly Seacliff Area Benefit Dist 1 St Improvemts-Ord 3554-Denied-Ord 3564 �Broc ayC dl alb � Res 2002-25-Reimb-PLC Ellis/Goldenwest-Denied CM:4/15/02 Reconsidered 2 / l CM:5/6/02 & 6/17/02 & 7/1/02 Approved CM: 7/1/02 Ord 3564 approved CM: g1aysi 6/17/02 Res 002-59 approved ;,,,, __ � i Printout Filter: 18449 Glose Clear Filter - Filter Display ;J. City of huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us From the desk of: Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk Telephone: (714) 536-5404 Fax: (714) 74-1557 � C � + v yip-�3 APR 4 2003 G OFFICIAL BUSINESS Document entitled to free recording per Government Code Section 6103 Recording Requested by and When Recorded Mail to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street,P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: City Clerk Space above this line fo ecording use This document is solefy lbr the official business of the City MEMORANDUM OF CITY COUNCIL of Huntington Beach, as contem- RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 ESTABLISHING plated under Government Code HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT D RICT Sec. 8103 and should be recorded free of charge. This Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 002-59 Establishing the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit District provides legal notice the following parcels are subject to an Area of Benefit Charge, due and payable upon applic on for a building permit,of final subdivision map for the parcels,all as set forth in solution No.2002-59,on file with the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach: Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Char Lye* 110-211-01 Ghodooshim $1,70 . 0 Lot 60 of Tract No. 62, Book 10,Page 7, Miscellaneous Maps ("M.M."),Orange County,CA 110-211-02 Borghetti 1,702.50 Lot 59 of Tract No. 62, Book 10,Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-03 Marow $3,405.00 Lots 57 & 58 of Tract No. 62,Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-04 Gho db6shim $1,702.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-05 Ghodooshim $11,917.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10,Page 7, M.M., Orange County,CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 1 Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 110-220-02 Brindle $22,473.00 The North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA. 110-220-03 Brindle $13,551.90 The South half of the Northeast quarter e Southeast quarter of the Southeast er of said Section 34, Township 5 South, ge 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridi , in the City of Huntington Beach, Coun of Orange, State of California as shown o e map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Or ge County, CA. 110-220-04 Brindle $8,784.90 The South 13 . 0 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast arter of the Southeast quarter of said Section , Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bern ino Base and Meridian, in the City of H ngton Beach, County of Orange, State of C ifornia as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, age 13, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-01 S & C Oil. Co. $8,989.20 Lot 20, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, in the County of Orange, State of California, Book 7, Page 27, and 28, of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of county recorder of said county. 111-120-09, Thomas ✓ $,/,967.70 Lot 13 and 27, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to 111-120-30 Huntington Beach, except east 300 ft. Lot 27, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-11, Lingle/Leckie $5,516.10 Lots 11 & 12, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to 111-120-12 Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA d 111-120-28 Mitchell $8,989.20 Lot 19, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-11 City of H.B. $8,376.30 North half of Lot 12, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 2 Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-130-12 Leckie Trust / $4,903.20 South half of Lot 12, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-14 Williams $5,992.80 Lot 13, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to� Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M. , Orange County, CA 111-130-15 Renner $9,874.50 Lot 14, Block D of Garfield Street,, ddition to Huntington Beach,Book 7, P e 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Scacliff 3 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-15 Galich $6,469.50 Lot 1 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, as per map thereof recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Ma , in the records of the County Recorder of Or e County, State of California. 111-110-18 Mandic ' $19,749.00 Lots 21 and 22 in Block E of G field Street addition to Huntington Beach, as per ap thereof recorded in Book 7,pages 27 and 28 Miscellaneous Maps, in the records of the Co y Recorder of Orange County, State of California. 111-110-19 Greer $9,874.50 Lot 20 of Blo E, Garfield Street Addition, as shown Zsacell Map r orded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28, of eous Maps, in the Records of Orange Count , California. 111-110-20 Ramsey $6,673.80 L 19 of Block E,Tract 286, Garfield Street addition, the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 111-110-21 Pedersen $4,9 .30 Lot 23 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County. 111-110-22 Pedersen $4,971.30 Lot 23 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County. 111-140-18 Jones $9,874.50 Lot 22 in Block"C" of the Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 4 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-21 Thomas $1,362.00 Lot 24 in Block C of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-140-22 Thomas $8,512.50 Lot 24 in Block C of Garfield Street Ad ' ion to Huntington Beach, as shown on a m recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Misc aneous Maps, Records of Orange County, C ifornia. 111-140-23 Gardner $9,874.50 An undivided 3/8t' inter t in and to Lot 25 in Block C of Garfield Street Ad tion to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map r orded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneo aps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-140-24 Thomas $9,874.50 Lot 26 i lock C of Garfield Street addition to Huntin on Beach as shown on map thereof recorded in B k 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps in the ffice of the County Recorder of Orange County, lifornia. 111-140-25 GARG-Oil $9,874.50 Lot 27 in Block C of Garfield Street addition to Production LLC Huntington Beach, as per map recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 111-140-27 Everroad f $5/SI3.279.50 9.2.80 Lot 28, Block"C"of the Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach, as per map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 111-140-38 Telford372.70 Lots 1 & 2, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-150-13 City of Lot 12 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 5 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-19 Robrecht $6,469.50 Lot 18 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 111-150-20 Robrecht ,% $6,469.50 Lot 18 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Ad 'I, 'on to Huntington Beach, as shown on a ma corded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Misce eous Maps, in the office of the County Recor of Orange County, California. 111-150-21 Delgado $6,469.50 North Half of Lot 20 ' lock"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntin on Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Boo , Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Record of Orange County, California. 111-150-24 Elliott I $13,688.10 Lot 21 in lock"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntin on Beach, in the City of Huntington Beach, Cou y of Orange, State of California, as shown on the in recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of iscellaneous Maps, Records of said County. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 6 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-07 Burrows / $10,215.00 Lots 10, 11, 12, Block"E"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded-in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-10 Weaver $3,405.00 Lot 6, Block"E"of Garfield Street ition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a ap recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., O ge County, CA 111-110-14 Taylor tr' $5,379.90 Lot 2, Block E. Garfield treet addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a ap recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscell ous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-12 Leckie j $2,587.80 Lots 11 & 12 lock"F" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington each, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, ges 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-13 Thomas r� $33405.00 Lot 1 , Block F of Garfield Addition to Huntington Be h, Book 7, Page 27, 283 M.M., Orange County, 111-120-14 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 9, Block F of Garfield Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-15 Thomas $3,405 0 Lot 8 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-16 Thomas $ ,810.00 Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-17 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 5 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. 111-120-18 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 4 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 7 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-120-19 Thomas .' $3,405.00 Lot 3 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7;Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. 111-120-20 Thomas $4,630.80 Lots 1 and 2 of Block F, Garfield Street Add iti t0 Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27- 8 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange Counfy, CA. 111-130-01 Weir �� $1,225.80 Lots 1, 2, 3, &4, Block" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntingto each, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7 ages 27-28 of M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-02 Weir $5,107.50 Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Block"D" of Garfield Street H Additione o untington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange Courty, CA 111-130-05 Ashby $3,405.00 got 5, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-06 Petersen $3,405.00 Lot 6, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-07 Leckie $3,405.00 Lots 7 & 8, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-08 Leckie $3,405.00 Lots 7 & 8, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-09 Williams $6,810.00 Lots 9 & 10, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in / Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-26 Weir / $5,107.50 Lots 1, 2, 3, &4, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 8 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-02 Weir $1,702.50 Lots 3 &4, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-04 Weaver&MolaJ $3,405.00 Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27- 81,M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-05 Thomas $3,405.00 Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8, B ck"C"of Garfield Street Addition to H 'ngton Beach, as shown on a map recorded in ok 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, C 111-140-06 Weaver& Mola/$6,810.00 Lots , 6, 7, & 8, Block"C"of Garfield Street Ad ition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map r corded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-07 Lingle $6,810.00 Lots 9 & 10, Block "C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-08 Weaver& Mola $3,4 5.00 Lot 11, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-09 Loma Linda 1,225.80 Lot 12, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Univ. Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-36 Weir $1,702.50 Lots 3 &4, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-37 Weir r $3,405.00 Lots 3 &4, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 159-281-03 Hassett $3,405.00 Lot 7 of Block A of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 9 Main Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-30 Santiago,/ $7,014.30 Lot 28, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-150-36 Southridge $14,028.60 Lot 34, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Homes Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-150-37 Kelter $7,491.00 Lot 35, Block B of Garfield Street-Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown ,,on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 ofMiscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA / . 111-150-38 S Freddo / $7,218.60 Lot 36, Block B Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Be h, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Page§27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-150-39 Southridge $7,150.50 Lot 37 lock B of Garfield Street Addition to Homes Hun 'ngton Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Bo 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, ange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. CITY OF HUN GTON BEA By:� City Engineer ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1z�r City Clerk Assistant City Attorney SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 10 • A CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of 2 e q j County of opt? � On to Q� 1 h ey�efore me, �/l ��`e� ��� � Date , and Title of O �cer(e.g.,�ne Doe,NPbl " personally appeared Q'U� Md' Can;7��:9rulcCl&,01 Name(s of Signer(s)t(personally known to me—OR—❑proved tome on the basis of satis ctory evidence to be the perso gnt whose namgs i re ubscribed to the within instrum and acknowlTdge o me that he/sh hey xecuted the same in his/hell( eir uthorized capaci es),and thOed, his/her/their signa�Gr (ss n the instrument the perso or the entityupon beTialf of which the erso�(s'j�c P P V executed the instrument. KELLY LOUISE MANDIC Commission # 1372899 Z WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public - California Orange County • ) My Comm.Expires Sep 1,2006 00 Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL y' Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and odd prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Res,Title or Type of Document: 7 Document Date: Aumber of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Pa yj,d W&h Signer's Name: Coon, e, ❑ Individual �dividual El Corporate Officer [L'Corporate Off i er Title(s): Title+o: I ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee _ ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian orConservator . ❑ Guardian or Conservator VQther; of thumb here ❑ Other; Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: t � • 1 1 0 19 ) 01995 National Notary Association•8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184•Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 ` Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 J, City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us From the desk of. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk Telephone: (714)536-5404 Fax: (714) 374-1557 47- 1,,V0 - 4P .-. _ L CON 00 RETU 71 ADDRESS: D... c a main �Ua�-i►� ��� quP RED°D JAN. Q 7 2003 �y1,,,,,, Il.4ndu r✓t Did -c►c.� AM Regretfully your unrecorded , "l„� n'—) naming VaY M together with your remittance of $�� , Ck. No. C&_ is being returned as your document is deficient in the area(s) indicated below: (1) The recorder can find no provision in the law authorizing the recording of the enclosed document(s). (2) Recording cannot be performed in this county. Please forward your document to County Recorder. (3) For proper indexing: a. "Et al" is not acceptable; all parties must be named. b. The name of the company, corporation or partnership must be at the signature point. c. The trustee of a trust must be identified as such. d. The names in the caption, execution and notary acknowledgment must match. e. The caption of the document and signature point need to identify who the custodian/agent represents (4) The Documentary Transfer Tax declaration must be completed to show either the amount of tax due or an acceptable reason for exemption. (See enclosed bulletin.) If there is "No consideration," document must so state. (5) The city where the property is located or"unincorporated area," is required on the deed and the tax declaration must indicate how the tax was computed. (6) The preliminary change of ownership_ .report is required. Please complete or correct the areas marked in red. (7) The notary acknowledgment is incomplete (please see red mark) or is on an outdated form. A "General Acknowledgment" form is required. (See enclosed sample.) (8) The notary seal is illegible.You may have the notary restamp the document.clearly or you may complete the enclosed certification under the penalty of perjury. Adding the "Penalty of Perjury" statement will increase the fee by$ (9) Portion(s) of the document are illegible (please see red mark). You may execute and submit a new original, or complete the enclosed certification under penalty of perjury. Adding the "Penalty of Perjury" statement will increase the fee by $ (10) The legal description/exhibit has been omitted. All exhibits must be referenced in the body of the document and appropriately labeled. (11) Recording reference (date and document number or book and page) of the prior recorded document is incorrect or was omitted. . (12) Abstracts of judgment must contain the address of the judgment creditor(s), the address of the judgment debtor(s) and the address at which the summons was served or mailed. (13) Pursuant to Government Code sections 27288.1 and 27201, all parties whose interest is affected must be named and identified (i.e. owner etc.). (14) To properly perfect a security interest,this UCC-1 must be filed with the Secretary of State, Uniform Commercial Code Division,.P.O. Box 1738, Sacramento, CA 95808, unless it is a "fixture filing" pursuant to UCC section 9313. Any Financing Statement covering fixtures must include a statement that it is a fixture filing to be recorded in the real estate records, a description of real property in Orange County and, if the debtor does not own the real property, the name of the owner. (15) We have received your check without a document or letter of instruction. We are unable to determine the intent of the fees. (16) The correct fee is $ If an attachment is added to the document, the fee will increase Ctas.stated on the attached fee schedule. (17) OTHER � .12r D 'C �"►L�1 Is / to THANK.NU U FOR YOUR COOPERATION D oDftx— COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER Please return to: Clerk-Recorder BY P.O. Box 238 ..Dep ty Rec rder Santa Ana, CA 92702-0238 b F0662-105(R10/96) Sw o � (714) 834-2887 r ' ______------OFFICIAL BUSINESS Document entitled to free recording per Government Code Section 6103 Recording Requested by and When Recorded Mail to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: City Clerk Space above this line for recording use Th!s docurnent is solsly/�for the O�'i I iim �„..1 urlincezz of t76y s City - c:�.,,�;,,"3-,1�;, �`�, as corrtem- MEMORANDUM OF CITY COUNCIL Code RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 ESTABLISHING THE :,;,yuie1 be recorded HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT This Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 2002-59 Establishing the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit District provides legal notice.that the following parcels are subject town Area of Benefit Charge, due.and payable upon application for a building permit,of final subdivision map for the parcels, all as set forth in Resolution No. 2002-59, on file with the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach: Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 110-211-01 Ghodooshim $1,702.50 Lot 60 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, Miscellaneous Maps ("M.M."), Orange County,CA 110-211-02 Borghetti $1,702.50 Lot 59 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page-7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-03 Marow $3,405.00 Lots 57 & 58 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-04 Ghodooshim $1,702.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52; 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10,Page 7,M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-05 Ghodooshim $11,917.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 1 . . d6 -Zo — >e ��.� , PfW C ! OF HUNTINGTON BEACF �° - H.a sk I f44 MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 Council/Agency Meeting Held: 06-17-0-L Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied _ lbr� Cit Cle sSi nature -I �r rvrN tom: � VIA Council Meetin Date: o June 7, 002 3S6 Dto entl7 f�umber: o N CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH C_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ter.--- D > SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND .CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS o y o SUBMITTED,BY: RAY SILVER, City Administratorgwy D 0 PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works GA GAIL HUTTON, City Attorn2 SUBJECT: Adopt the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) r Statement of Issue: Should the City adopt the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Funding Source: The City has paid from the Traffic Impact Fee Fund $500,000 to PLC pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to the Development Agreement. An additional $50,000 has been paid to MuniFinancial in connection with District formation. In addition, several million dollars of Impact Fee credits were granted to PLC under the Development Agreement. If the Area of Benefit District is approved as proposed, the Traffic Impact Fee Fund would recover up to $275,000. Recommended Action: That the City Council: 1: Approve the First Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and Mutual General set;F11-6 Release with PLC, and authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest to the same. h fa 2. Introduce and adopt Ordinance No. entitled "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Regarding Area of Benefit Districts." 3. Conduct a public hearing to consider adopting the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. r -i Holly-SeaclM 4- 5/31/2002 10:56 AM . �� � , � � � � � � � �. �� ` � ,, � � �:�w „"i.- \� T r G RE_JEST FOR COUNCIL ACTTC. . MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 4. Receive and consider the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit Report, dated March 20, 2002, prepared by MuniFinancial. 5. Receive and consider the Analysis contained in this Request for Council Action. 6. Adopt Resolution No.2002-S entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing The Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District" that would levy a charge on new development within Holly-Seacliff intended to reimburse PLC and the City for the construction cost of widening Goldenwest, Garfield, Gothard and Main, plus the out- of-pocket costs of District formation. Alternative Action(s): 1. Do not establish the Area of Benefit District. Analysis: 1. Background: In .December 1990, the City and Pacific Coast Homes entered into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement. In May 1996, PLC, a California general partnership, purchased the Holly-Seacliff project, and assumed the obligations to construct the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. Pursuant to the Development Agreement, PLC installed in excess of $35,300,000 in street improvements and another $11,250,000 for the Edwards Reservoir. PLC contended that it was entitled to reimbursement for a significant portion of these costs. In support of its claim, PLC submitted the Waldron Report. In response, the City commissioned the Boyle Report, which contended that relatively little of the improvements represented excess capacity. PLC then demanded arbitration of its cost reimbursement as permitted under the Development Agreement. Before the arbitration commenced, the City and PLC entered into a Settlement Agreement on April 17, 2000 that provided as follows: a. PLC paid the City $850,000 for police facilities. b. PLC waived reimbursement for sewer lines, except that it was relieved of constructing the Stewart extension. Consequently, no property owner within Holly-Seacliff will be charged for these improvements. C. PLC received $538,000 in reimbursement for construction of master storm drain facilities from City storm drain fees. Consequently no property owner within Holly-Seacliff will be charged for these improvements. Holly-Seacllff2 6/3/2002 10:15 AM Z RE JEST FOR COUNCIL ACTT( MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 d. The City paid PLC approximately $3,700,000 as full reimbursement for water facilities. Again, there will be no property owner charge .for these improvements. e. PLC was to be paid $1,312,000 for street improvements, pursuant to the following schedule: (1) $250,000 upon City acceptance of Goldenwest between Ellis and Garfield. (2) $250,000 upon completion of Gothard between Garfield and Main. (3) $812,000 pursuant to a reimbursement district. (4) These amounts were in addition to the several million dollars in credits against traffic impact fees PLC received for constructing City streets within Holly-Seacliff. f. The City agreed to attempt to form a reimbursement district that would collect impact fees upon the development of properties abutting the streets PLC has widened (Garfield, Gothard, Goldenwest and Main). The Settlement Agreement provided that the amount of the fee would be based upon the cost of right-of-way ("ROW") acquisition and the cost of constructing curb, gutter, sidewalk and ten feet of street pavement adjacent to the benefiting properties. Any funds received in excess of$812,000 would be retained by the City. Under the Settlement Agreement, the City retained full discretion not to impose the fees. g. The Settlement Agreement resolved all disputes regarding public facilities. PLC has no obligation to construct any additional public facilities and the City cannot be required to provide further reimbursement. 2. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Concurrently with approving the Settlement Agreement, the Public Works Director hired MuniFinancial to study and make recommendations regarding a reimbursement district. The Final Report of MuniFinancial was written after a lengthy analysis. Initially, a draft report was circulated prior to a property owners' meeting held on June 7, 2001. Subsequently, individual property owners' meetings were conducted leading up to circulation of another draft report and another property owners' meeting on March 5, 2002. On March 20, 2002, the Final Report was issued, and mailed to the property owners on March 21 , 2002. The Final Report recommended that an Area of Benefit District be Holly-SeacliK 5/31/200210:56 AM RE JEST FOR COUNCIL ACTK MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 established to include only properties abutting Goldenwest, Gothard, Garfield and Main. The properties would be subject to a reimbursement charge comprising the following two items: • Roadway construction costs for a ten foot traffic lane allowing egress and ingress to the property, plus an eight-foot wide curb, gutter and sidewalk, and, • ROW acquisition payments to property owners, not exceeding 18 feet of frontage along arterial street, and to the center line on collector streets. The basis for imposing a charge on abutting property owners is that, absent PLC's construction of the streets, the property owners would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of development pursuant to Section 254.02 of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Further, the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code §§ 66485-66489) provides that if the City requires.a subdivider to install supplemental capacity in public improvements for the benefit of other property, the City shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with subdivider for the difference in costs. To pay the costs of reimbursement, the City may charge persons outside the subdivision for their use.of the supplemental capacity. In order to determine construction costs, PLC provided its payment history for roadway construction costs incurred between April 1997 and April 2000. MuniFinancial then used 1998 as the base year, and compared PLC's costs with independent estimates of comparable construction projects. As illustrated below, the comparable costs were greater than the actual costs provided by PLC: Comparative Roadway Construction Costs Cost per Linear Foot Improvement PLC City of Huntington Wilidan Beach 10 ft Asphalt Concrete Paving $ 25.00 $ 27.16 $ 25.45 Street Lighting Conduit, Boxes &Lights 22.00 30.28 33.61 2 ft. Curb &Gutter 11.70 14.65 14.65 6 ft. Sidewalk 9.40 9.77 14.41 Total Cost $ 68.10 $ 81.86 $ 88.12 Roadway improvements then were allocated based on each property's linear feet of frontage multiplied by PLC's cost per linear foot for construction. Property owners who installed roadway improvements at their own expense prior to PLC's installation of improvements were exempted. City Staff reviewed aerial photographs and other Holly-Se=02 4- 5/31/200210:56 AM REOEST FOR COUNCIL ACTT(.. . MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 In order to determine ROW acquisition costs, MuniFinancial reviewed all available checks, invoices and supporting documentation for all legal fees, right-of-way payments. Acquisition costs were then allocated to specific properties based on payments made to individual property owners or some reasonable allocation method. 3. April 1, 2002 Public Hearing. The City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 2002 to consider formation of the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District (the "District"). As proposed, the District would impose development charges totaling $455,350 for roadway improvements and $1,494,597 in ROW acquisition costs. After the close of the public hearing, the City Council rejected formation of the District. Subsequently, the Council voted to reconsider the matter on April 15, 2002. The proposal was to consider forming a District that would only impose charges for roadway improvements, but not for ROW acquisition. Further, PLC indicated that it would agree to amending the settlement agreement to provide that all charges would be split equally between the City and PLC. In effect, each party would receive approximately $225,000 (plus increases based upon a construction cost index). The request for reconsideration was approved, and the matter has been noticed for the June 17, 2002 agenda. 4. New District Proposal. Pursuant to Council direction, MuniFinancial has recalculated the charges to only recover the Roadway Improvement costs. It should be noted that the original MuniFinancial Report has not been revised in order to minimize consulting costs. Instead, only the table attached to the Resolution of District formation that allocates charges on a per parcel basis has been updated. This table includes Roadway Improvement costs, but no ROW acquisition costs. . Also based upon the Council's direction, the Staff has negotiated an amendment to the Settlement Agreement with PLC. The proposed First Amendment to the Settlement Agreement provides that the charges will be split equally between the City and PLC. It is recommended that the City Council approve both the Resolution of Formation and the First Amendment to the Settlement Agreement. Holly-Seacliff2 -6- 613/200211:01 AM RE%.,cJEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIG,. MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 5. Issues of Importance Staff has made several policy choices that the Council may wish to.further consider; a. Area of Benefit Districts. In 1993, shortly after the adoption of the Holly- Seacliff development agreement, the City Council adopted an Ordinance adding Chapter 17.68 to the Municipal Code authorizing the establishment of reimbursement districts. It was originally contemplated that any charges levied to property owners to repay the developer for master plan improvements would be established pursuant to this Code section. Staff now recommends that this Code section be revised to more closely follow the reimbursement methodology contained in the Government Code. For example, the Government Code specifically authorizes "area of benefit districts" as opposed to "cost reimbursement districts." As a practical matter, there is no substantive difference between the two approaches. b. Sunsetting the Area of Benefit District. The cost reimbursement district authorized in the Code in 1993 included a 20-year sunset clause. That is, after the reimbursement district had been formed, the Code provided that it would sunset after 20 years. It is recommended that the sunset clause be deleted and the proposed ordinance amendment would so provide. One problem with a sunset is that it encourages deferral of property development in order to avoid the charge. Further, the property owner has received the benefit of the improvements for many years and in fact the City will continue to maintain those improvements into the future. Consequently, Staff recommends removing the sunset clause. C. Recordation of the District Formation Resolution. One objection historically to the reimbursement district was that the original Ordinance provided that the notice of the charge would be recorded against the property, so that it could be identified on a title report. When Staff first proposed the Area of Benefit District at the April 1, 2002 Council.meeting, it was recommended that the recordation provision be deleted. However, in light of the fact that.the District itself would only recover$450,000, the administrative expenses associated with enforcing and collection the District charges for the relatively few number of parcels involved are too great compared to the amount of the charge. Consequently, it is no longer recommended that the recordation provision be deleted. By recording the notice of the charge on individual parcels, this insures that the fee will be paid at the time of development. Holly-Seacl&2 7T-_ 6/3/2002 11:01 AM RE%a(JEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIG.. MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 d. Driveway Relocation. One objection raised at the last property owners' meeting was that the driveway improvements PLC installed may not be used by the property owner at the time of development. Consequently, it is recommended and the amended ordinance and the resolution of formation so provide that at the time of payment of the reimbursement charge, the City Engineer will adjust the charge by the cost of any driveway relocation. Environmental Status: EIR 89-1 was approved for the Development Agreement. Attachment(s): DescriptionCity Clerk's i Page Number No. 1. Ordinance No. 356-11 entitled "A Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Regarding Area Benefit Districts." 2. Legislative Draft of Ch�appter 17.68 3. Resolution No. 6010 'entitled a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District 4. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit Report, dated 3/20/02, prepared by MuniFinancial PL 5. First Amendment to Settlement Agreement with PLC sm 600.io VWE RCA Author: S. Field Holly-Seacliff2 19- 6/3/2002 10:29 AM 7 (13) April 1, 2002 - Council/Agency Minutes - Page 13 In response to Councilmember Boardman's inquiry, Director Zelefsky stated that what the two public hearings relative to the Hospital Medical Complex accomplish are to bring the Zoning and the General Plan to be consistent and in conformance with one another. A motion was made by Bauer, second Dettloff to 1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 01-10 with Findings (*Attachment No. 1 — immediately following this set of minutes); and 2. Approve General Plan Amendment No 01-02 by adopting Resolution No. 2002-23—a resolution approving the redesignation of property at the southeast corner of Beach and Newman from Public to Commercial Office (Attachment No. 2) — "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Approving General Plan Amendment No. 01-02 Regarding the Redesignation of Certain Real Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Beach Boulevard and Newman Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Dettloff, Bauer, Cook, Houchen, Winchell, Boardman NOES: None ABSENT: None *Attachment No. 1 Suggested Findings of Approval Negative Declaration No. 01-10 Suggested Findings for Approval— Negative Declaration No. 01-10: 1. Negative Declaration No. 01-10 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. The Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration considered comments received during the comment period. 2. There is no.substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project will have a significant effect on the environment because the request consists only of an amendment to the land use designation of the hospital and medical office complex at the southeast corner of Beach and Newman. The proposed - designation of Commercial Office is compatible with and is an extension of the commercial character of the area. The project site is currently developed and located in a fully urbanized area. No new construction or any other physical changes are proposed with this request. (City Council) Public Hearing Held — Motion Denied to Establish Formation of the Holly- �, Seacliff Area (Ellis/Goldenwest) of Benefit District No.1 for Financing of Certain Street Improvements— Motion Denied to Approve MuniFinancial Benefit Report— Motion Failed to Approve Introduction of Ordinance No. 3554— Motion Failed to Adopt Resolution No. 2002-25 for Reimbursement to PLC (the Developer) for Portion of Costs for Widening of Go ldenwestlGarfield/Gothard/Main Streets (350.30) • �1 Mayor Cook announced that this was the time scheduled for a public hearing to consider 3 6 uI establishment of the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1, for the financing of certain op street improvements. The public hearing notice sets forth the following: Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit of District, and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of ,,P �,� the costs of providing street improvements which benefit your parcel of land. If, after the date of �(� formation of this District, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel or consolidation of ORDINANCE NO. 3564 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 17.68 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City Council previously added Chapter 17.68 to the Municipal Code establishing procedures for formation of"Cost Reimbursement Districts;" and The City Council finds that it is reasonable and necessary to amend Chapter 17.68 to establish procedures for formation of"Area of Benefit Districts." This amended Chapter more closely follows the reimbursement procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66485- 66489; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby amends Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chapter 17.68 AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation.of Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District 17.68.040 Application fee for formation of the 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District 17.68.080 Action by City Council 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge 17.68.100 Administrative Audit 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties 17.68.140 Challenges to District 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Development, a Developer may be required to install and dedicate Public Improvements which may contain supplemental size, capacity,number, or length for the benefit of property not within the Development. When such supplemental size, capacity, number, or length benefits property not within the Development, the City may enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the Supplemental Improvements through an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimburse the Developer, the City may: 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 1 Ord. No. 3564 (a) Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge for the use of Supplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within the Development Area. (b) Contribute to the Developer that part of the cost of the Public Improvements that benefit real property outside the Development Area and levy a charge upon the real property benefited to reimburse the Developer for such cost, together with interest thereon, if any. (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such charge from the property benefited. The charge collected shall be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. 17.68.020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or Estimated Costs of Public Improvements" means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district formation, right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceedings, environmental impact mitigation, plan check and permit fees, construction inspections,maintenance of Improvements, or any other expenses attributable to the construction of Public Improvements. If the scope of the Development is altered during construction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed during construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more than ten (10%) percent without notice to the affected property owners. (b) "Administrative Costs" shall be defined as costs for direct labor and employee benefits,outside consultants, direct materials, indirect costs, overhead costs and fixed assets or depreciation charges. (c) "Area of Benefit" means the entire area which receives a benefit from the Supplemental Improvements. The "Area of Benefit" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing, is determined to be the area benefited by the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. (d) `Benefited Property"is the parcel(s) that is benefited by the Supplemental Improvements and is included within the Area of Benefit. (e) "Charge" means the Excess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property. (f) "Developer" means the person who is responsible for constructing the Public Improvements. (g) "Development" means any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. (h) "Development Area" means the residential subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to be constructed by the Developer (i) "Excess Costs" means the costs attributable to that portion of Public Improvements which benefit areas outside the Development Area. Benefit may be determined by any commonly accepted method which fairly apportions the cost of the Improvements to the benefiting properties. 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 2 Ord. No. 3564 (j) "Public Improvements" means those improvements as set forth herein including,but not limited to, streets, bridges, traffic signals, street lights,drainage, flood control, water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, landscaping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities,relocation of utilities, other public facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations,police stations, and any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the Public Improvements. The term Public Improvements includes not only improvements that benefit the Development, but also those that benefit parcels outside the Development. "Public Improvements" shall also include any property or property interests reasonably necessary for the construction of the improvement. (k) "Substantial Completion of an Improvement" means completion of construction of a Public Improvement to the extent necessary to allow it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (1) "Supplemental Improvements" means Public Improvements which are: (1) required as a condition of approval of the Development which have a size, capacity, number, or length greater than necessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the Development; or (2) improvements which have been agreed upon between the City and Developer. 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District. Whenever a Developer elects, or is required by the City, to install or replace Supplemental Improvements, or whenever the City participates in the costs of Supplemental Improvements in advance of Development, and provided that the costs of such Supplemental Improvements are not financed by an assessment-district or similar proceeding, the Developer may submit an application for formation of an Area of Benefit District, or the City Council, on its own motion, may initiate the formation of the Area of Benefit District. The application of the Developer shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with a non-refundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the request to City Council. 17.68.040 Application Fee for Formation of the Area of Benefit District. Where the Developer has applied for formation of an Area of Benefit District,prior to the City Council authorizing the initiation of the formation of the Area of Benefit District, the Developer shall deposit with the City the following fees to cover various administration costs: (a) A non-refundable application fee will be required from the Developer prior to commencing any work on the Area of Benefit District. The amount of the application fee will be determined by the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general Area of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District formation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individual project to cover such expenses as the calculation of the Excess Costs of the Supplemental Improvements, determination of the Area of Benefit and determination of the apportionment of the Excess Costs to the benefiting parcels. District formation fees will also include publishing of all notices,mailing, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the Developer,the City Engineer 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 3 Ord. No. 3564 will process the Developer's request to City Council. The City Engineer may retain a qualified consultant to prepare the documents and estimates. This consultant shall have no business relationship with the Developer. The costs of any such engineering services shall be paid by the Developer. The City Council may treat such costs as an incidental cost of the Supplemental Improvements that may be recouped pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District. The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all Benefited Properties paying Area of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City and Developer for the cost of formation and monitoring the District. 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer: Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report containing the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit District which identifies all parcels within the District. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the Supplemental Improvements. (c) The proposed spread of the Excess Costs to the Area of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District. (a) Upon receiving the request from the City Engineer, the City Clerk shall set a noticed public hearing before the City Council. The City.Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following form, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach at least ten (10) days prior to such hearing: NOTICE OF HEARING The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing at on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 to consider the establishment of an Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the City. Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit District and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of. If, after the date of forming this District, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or apply for a building permit, the charge and inflation adjustment would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the District are more particularly described by Diagram No. which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said Public Improvements, the cost of said Public Improvements, the benefited area and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard at said hearing. 02ord/17-68 chap/6t602 4 Ord. No. 3564 (b) The City Engineer shall, at least fourteen(14) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied by a diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer describing the following: (1) A description of the Public Improvements and that portion considered to be in excess of the Developer's requirements. (2) The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the Public Improvements. (3) The actual or estimated costs of the Supplemental Improvements which are proposed to be charged against the benefiting property when such property is developed or redeveloped. (4) A diagram identifying the properties to be included within the District. 17.68.080 Action by City Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may, in its sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Developer to provide for the disbursements of the proceeds of the Area of Benefit District. (b) The resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the Benefited Properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers. (2) A diagram identifying the parcels included within the District. (3) An apportionment of the Excess Costs which represent the actual or estimated amount to be charged against each Benefited Property within the District. If the Costs are estimated, the resolution will indicate that the Charges are subject to re- computation by the City Engineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such Charges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicating that the Charges are subject to an interest or inflation charge, the terms of which shall be defined. (c) Once the Area of Benefit District has been approved by a resolution of the City Council, it shall establish a statement of charges due from the benefiting properties and their successors, heirs and assigns. (d) Unless directed otherwise by.the City Council at the time of the District formation, the City Clerk shall record-a certified copy of the Resolution establishing the District with the County Recorder. 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engineer shall reapportion the charge amounts after final costs have been calculated and verified by the City Engineer or his designee. All affected property owners shall be notified in writing of their charge amount. 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 5 Ord. No. 3564 17.68.100 Administrative Audit. The Finance officer shall prepare a report indicating the administrative costs incurred for each District on an annual basis. The report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February 15. 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge. (a) Payment of Charges shall be placed by the City in the appropriate fund account established by Council for each District. These funds will be established to reimburse the Developer for costs incurred for the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to the project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall be established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the Development of benefited properties or the utilization of the Public Improvement by such benefited properties provided (b) Following the formation of the District, if any person records a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or applies for a building permit on a parcel within a District in accordance with this Chapter, and such person or their predecessor in interest has not paid such charge to the City, the established charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parcel map or the issuance of the building permit. (c) All charges shall include a principal charge plus an interest or inflation charge calculated from the date of establishment of the District. The date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the Public Improvements by the City, or City .Council approval of the District, whichever occurs later. (d) Once a charge has been paid, the City Engineer shall cause a notice to be recorded with the County Recorder removing the parcel from the Area of Benefit District. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a) No Charge shall be required in connection with building permits described below: (1) Building alterations for non-residential uses which do not exceed a third(1/3) of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing building. (2) Building alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third (1/3)the.original area,provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. (5) Temporary uses as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. 02ord/17-68 chap'6,,6/02 6 Ord. No. 3564 (b) Any claim of exemption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the City Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. The City Council may create,pursuant to the resolution establishing an Area of Benefit District, a procedure for adjusting the Charge to Benefited Parcels. The procedure shall address the circumstance that the Supplemental Improvements will not benefit individual properties within the Area of Benefit due to the nature of development proposed on the property. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies. All monies collected under the provisions of this Chapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the appropriate fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. The City Treasurer shall pay annually all monies so collected to the Developer who paid for the Supplemental Improvements for which the charges were collected, or to their assignees. The City shall notify the Developer of the existence of monies deposited in said fund. No funds will be reimbursed to the Developer until all costs included in the District have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall be mailed to the address contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be required by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three (3) years after notice has been made as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties. Whenever a duty is delegated or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council,that official or employee may delegate all or a portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy, or other employee of the City. 17.68.140 Challenges to District. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, set aside, avoid, or review the decision of the City Council to establish an Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirement, or to decline to establish a District shall be brought by an interested person within ninety(90) days of formation of the District." This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of July , 2002. ATTEST: City Clerk d7-&3-d L Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Admil9strator City Attorney 6/may TED AND AP ROVED: Director of Public Works 02ord/17-68 chap/6/7/02 7 Ord. No. 3564 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June, 2002, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of July,2002, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Green,Dettloff, Cook,Houchen, Winchell,Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on 2002 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California ORDINANCE NO. �� LEGISLATIVE DRAFT "Chapter 17.68 AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS (3151-8/92, Correction 2/93) Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for iInstallation of}Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions 17.68.030 Application for Gest aa:,..,bufse er+Area of Benefit District _ 17.68.040 C-ests Application fee for formation of the rest D o_.. bufsefae.,t Area of Benefit District 17.68.o5o Recovering Costs for Formation and ffiMonitoring the G-est eifab efA Area of Benefit District 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Gent D e;. biffseme .t Area of Benefit District 17.68.080 Action by City Council 17.68.090 Re-computation of 4ee Charge 17.68.100 Administrative aAudit 17.68.110 T iFr ta4ie s ^ r-eimbu+semefft ag ee rt Establishment of Area of Benefit Char e 17.68.115 Ekemption from Charge 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. 17.68.120 Obligation of dDeveloper^r subdivider-to eClaim mNVlonies 17.68.130 Delegation of dDuties 17.68.140 Time 1;,.. i f" eChallenges to dDistrict 17.68.010 Requirement for}Installation of}Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Development, to a dDeveloper may be required to install and dedicate pPublic}Improvements theif „t,divi,^~ ^� develepment-which may contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or length for the benefit of property not within dw4 the subdivisien of dDevelopment. When such supplemental size,capacity, number, or length is benefits of property not within the sub ' ' ' evelopment,the develepel<City may fellew enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the Supplemental Improvements through of1-1- ^faro nee to est„bliss, a Gest an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimburse the Developer, the" ity may: (a)Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge for the use of Supppplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within theUevelopment Area. (b) Contribute to the Develo er that part of the cost of the Public Improvements that benefit real property outside the Development Area and levy a charge u on the real property benefited to reimburse the Developerlor such cost, together with interest thereon, if any. legisdrNmc17G8LD/5/30/02 1 (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such charge from the property benefited. The charge collected shall be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. - J to r-eeeive reimbur-sefnen . 17.68.020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or eEstimated eCosts of pPublic iImprovements" means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district formation, right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceedings, environmental impact mitigation;,plan check and permit fees, construction inspections, maintenance of iImprovements;, or any other expenses attributable to the construction of Public iImprovements. If the scope of the pr-ejeet Development is altered during construction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed during construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more than ten (10%)percent without notice to the affected property owners. (b)(k) "Substantial eCompletion of an€amity Improvement" sha4l be defined that e e means completion of construction of a faeilk:� Public Improvement wl h to the extent necessary to allow the 3:eility it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (c) "Area of Benefited-area" means the entire area which receives a benefit from the publie Supplemental iImprovements. The "Area of bBenefited yea" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council,upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing,is determined to be the area benefited by the construction of the pub4a Supplemental iImprovements. (d)"Benefited Property" is the parcel(s) that is benefited by the Supplemental Improvements and is included within the Area of Benefit. (e) "Charge" means the Excess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property. (4)( "Developer" means the person who is responsible for constructing the pPublic improvements. (g)"Development" means any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. (h)"Development Area means the residential.subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to be constructed by the Developer (e)(i) "Excess eCosts" means the costs attributable to that portion of Public iImprovements which benefit areas outside the dDevelopment aAeea. Benefit may, legisdrfr/mcI768LD/5/30/02 2 be determined by any commonly accepted method.which fairly apportions the cost of the iImprovements to the benefiting properties. (4)0) "Public iImprovements" means those improvements as set forth herein including, but not limited to, streets, bridges, traffic signals, street lights, drainage, flood control, water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, landscaping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities, relocation of utilities, other public facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations, police stations, and any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the pPublic iImprovements;. but Shall' elude an The term pPublic iImprovements•vv uzri-will includes not only improvements that benefit e*the dDevelopment, ' . but also those that benefit parcels outside the Development. "Public iImprovements shall also include any property or property interests reasonably necessary for the construction of the improvement. b ) 2R@4nbtffsemerA Distr-iet" mesas the benefited ffea within whieh pr-epei:ty shall bpurposeb (h)(1) "Supplemental ilmprovements"means those * pPublic iImprovements a,qd;;hWe are: (1) required as a condition of approval of the dDevelopment prejeet which have a size, capacity,number, or length greater than necessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the dDevelopment prejeet; and or (2) improvements which have been agreed upon between the City and dDeveloper. o4b) "Administrative eCosts" shall be defined as costs for direct labor and employee benefits, outside consultants tests, direct materials, allied indirect costs, overhead costs, A-4,104.1 aeae +^ and fixed assets;or depreciation charges. 17.68.030 Application for Cow R,- emeat Area of Benefit District. Whenever a dDeveloper elects,or is required by the City, to install or replaces upplemental iImprovements, or whenever the City participates in the costs of sSupplemental iImprovements in advance of dDevelopment;, and provided that the costs of such Supplemental iImprovements are not financed by an assessment-eFider7 district or similar proceeding, the dDeveloper may submit an application for formation of an eest Area of Benefit dDistrict, or the City Council, on its own motion, may initiate the formation of the eest r-ei ,burs°,,.,efA Area of Benefit dDistrict. The application of the dDeveloper shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with a non-refundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the request to City Council. 17.68.040 Eests ARplication Fee for Formation of the Gent n eimb:,_sem ei4 Area of ene tt District. Where the Developer has applied or f6rination of an Area o ene It District;-Pprior to the City Council authorizing the initiation of the formation of the Gest n e;.Y.b ufse,....e„t Area of Benefit District, the dDeveloper shall deposit with the City the following fees to cover various administration costs: (a) A non-refundable application fee will be required from the dDeveloper prior to commencing any work on the Gent n ei 1.,uise�e^*Area of Benefit District. The legisdrfdmc l 768LD/5/30/02 3 amount of the application fee will be determined by a r-esel tier eft e City Ge tined the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general City Rein}b a Area of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District formation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individual Rroject to cover such expenses as the calculation of the r-eimbufsemeHt Excess eCosts of the sSupplemental ilmprovements, determination of the bernefited eArea of Benefit and;determination of the apportionment of the eExcess eCosts to the benefiting parcels., and audk-time. District formation fees will also include publishing of all notices, mailing, Geant y D eee fdef fees, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the dDeveloper, the City Engineer will process the dDeveloper's request to City Council. The City Engineer may est:iat special,,.,�,,.,ea . - -lees b retained a qualified consultant to prepare the documents and estimates. This retained ea,%'Reffconsultant shall have no business relationship with the dDeveloper. The costs of any such engineering services shall be paid by the dDeveloper.- The City Council may treat such costs AP111-P eensii 'pe-ta as an incidental cost of the Supplemental }Improvements to that may be recouped pursuant to the provisions of this 04inanee Chapter. 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and na1Vlonitorin the C-est- Area of Benefit District ..le_ f fma b kerriftg&nd. D depleted, does net r-eplenish the �,,-�. +,-- A,g+,;,.+r. ;1-Jge ����a,r a The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all Benefited Properties paying Area of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City and Developer for the cost of formation and monitoring the District. 17.68.060 Report of the Cit�Engineer. Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report containing the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit dDistrict which identifies all parcels within the dDistrict. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the sSupplemental immprovements. (c) The proposed spread of the eExcess eCosts to the Area of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of rest D e,...,,..,•-se....e„+ Area of Bene rt District. (a) Upon receiving the request from the City Engineer, the City Clerk shall set a noticed public hearing before the City Council. The City Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following form,to be published once in a newspaper of legisdrft/mc 1768LD/5/31/02 4 general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach at least ten(10) days prior to such hearing: NOTICE OF HEARING The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing at_ on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 to consider the establishment of an GGst- Reimbl irseme+nt Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the City., ethoFwise knewFi-ast"t Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Sest- Deimhi ire•cm�nt Area of Benefit District and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of land ' ' If, within , t,.,e rt„ a ter the date of forming this dDistrict, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or apply for a building permit, the 4e.R charge and inflation adjustment would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the dDistrict are more particularly described by Diagram No. which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said PPublic !improvements, the cost of said public ilmprovements, the benefited area of and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard at said hearing. (b) The City Engineer shall, at least twe fourteen (3914) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied by a diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer describing the following: (1}A description of the pPublic ilmprovements and that portion considered to be in excess of the dDeveloper's requirements. (2)-The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the pPublic}Improvements. (3)-The actual or estimated costs of p4lAie the Supplemental lImprovements which are proposed to be hened charged against the benefiting property when such property is developed or redeveloped. (4)-k diagram ;i ie#irg the 1..�,•,..daf e� ��identifying the properties to be included with the dDistrict. 17.68.080 Action by City Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may, in its sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Celt D e:.r.biar-se,,,a„*Area of Benefit District and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the dDeveloper to provide for the disbursements of the proceeds of the Celt D e;r.bufseme Area of Benefit District. legisdrNmc 1768 LD/5/3 l/02 5 (b) The resolution establishing the Gent R eimbu-sement Area of Benefit District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the Benefited pProperties identified by assessor's parcel numbers (2) A diagram *e � ; identifying the parcels included within the istrict. (3) An apportionment of the eExcess eCosts which represent the actual or estimated amount to be levied charged against each pares Benefited Property within the dDistrict. If the eCosts are estimated, the resolution will indicate that the lip Charges are subject to re-computation by the City Engineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such '1e„ d eests Charges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicating that the liens Charges are subject to an interest or inflation charge,the terms of which shall be defined. (c) Once the Lest Re:,..,btir-se,... ea Area of Benefit District has been approved by a resolution of the City Council, it shall establish a statement of charges due from the ,, benefiting ,-epe,.«,�,,,,..,e,.s an the;,. siaeeesser-s, heirs e assigns f t e . par-eels properties and their successors, heirs and assigns. (d)Unless directed otherwise by the City Council at the time of the District formation, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of the Resolution establishing the District with the County Recorder. a pr-epefties. 17.68.090 Re-computation of lien Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engineer shall reapportion the 4ee charge amounts after final costs have been calculated and verified by the eCity Engineer or his designee., e„a shall eause All affected property owners shall be notified in writing of their€mil-lip charge amount. 17.68.100 Administrative aAudit. The Pir-eeter-ei Finance officer shall prepare a report indicating the administrative costs incurred for each District on an annual basis. The report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a Gestr- R eiinbu e-^e„* Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February 15. 17.68.110 T ���+�*;��� ,,.,.•.r�e,,.e.,+ e e er+ Establishment of Area of ene t Charge. legisdrft/mc 1768LD/5/30/02 6 (�}(a) interest SIMall.be P-Aya Payment of Charges shall be'placed by the City in the appropriate fund account established by Council for each dDistrict. These funds will be established to reimburse the dDeveloper for costs incurred for the construction of the Supplemental }Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to the project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall be established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the Oevelopment of benefited properties or the utilization of the pPublic ifmprovement by such benefited properties provided,hewe*p1•, di 4 the inmifflum tefm of any feimbufwmerA 0 (e)(b) , (Following the formation of the dDistrict, i any person records a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or applies for a building permit on a parcel f r-whieh a kee `r within a District in accordance with this eChapter, and such person or their predecessor in interest has not paid such lien charge to the City, the established 4ea charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parcel map or the issuance of the building permit.; , 5building., 5 b eeeupaney- (2) fire, eivil 7 7 area by Ffiefe than ., a thin-a (1,13)the er-iginal. (5) To aFy ase,inn_spensfied in the City of H+- 4i„gt9 lie r.h'c_nr--dinanee Ged A 4iSar elz 973. (d)(e) All 4efs charges shall include a principal charge plus an interest or inflation charge calculated from the date of establishment of lien the District. The date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the pPublic immprovements by the City, or City Council approval of the District, whichever occurs later. (d)Once a charge has been paid, the City Engineer shall cause a notice to be recorded with the County Recorder removing the parcel from the Area of Benefit District. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a)No Charge shall be required in connection with building permits described below: (1)Building alterations for non-residential uses which do not exceed a third (173) of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building leuisdrft/mc 1768LD/3/30/02 7 Code, and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing building. (2)Building alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units. (3)Fences and walls. (4)Repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third (1/3) the original area, provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. (5)Temjporary uses as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. (b)Any claim of exemption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the Ci Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.117 Ad'ustment of harize. The City Council may create, pursuant to Me resolution establishingan Area of Benefit District, a procedure for adjusting the Charge to enefited Parcels. The procedure shall address the circumstance that tle Supplemental Improvements will not benefit individual properties within the Area of Benefit due to the nature of development proposed on the property. 17.68.120 Obligation of dDeveloper to eClaim mMonies. All monies collected under the provisions of this eChapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the appropriate fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. The City Treasurer shall refund pay annually all monies so colleetea to the PR—12FSAA AV eHens Developer who paid for the sSupplemental Improvements for which tharges were collected, or to their assignees, a4l Eaenies se eelleeted. The City shall notify the dDeveloper of the existence of monies deposited in said fund. No funds will be reimbursed to the dDeveloper until all costs included in the dDistrict have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall be mailed to the address contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be required by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three(3) years after notice has been made as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of dDuties. Whenever a duty is delegated or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council, that official or employee may delegate all or a portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy,or other employee of the City. 17.68.140 Time l;.....it f f eChallenges to District. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, set aside,avoid, or review the decision of the City Council to establish an Gent Re__.,..,ufs meat Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirement, or to decline to establish a dDistrict shall be brought by an interested person legisdrfdmc l 768LD/5/30/02 8 within diii4y ninety(-38 90) days of the date e ft,. meer-datienfth r-eselutienf-t .r1..�,1-1e,.4 49&ne-formation of the District.' legisdrfdmc 1768LD/5/30/02 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Findings and Intent. The City Council finds as follows: A. In December 1990,the City of Huntington Beach approved Ordinance No. 3080, thereby entering into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement("Development Agreement")with Pacific Coast Homes. B. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project("Holly-SeacliffProject")on approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north,Huntington and Main Streets on the east,Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west("Holly-SeacliffProject Area"). C. The Development Agreement required that Pacific Coast Homes construct certain traffic.and circulation improvements within the Holly-Seacliff Project Area, specifically Main, Edwards, Goldemvest and Gothard Streets,and Garfield and Ellis Avenues(the"Arterials"). D. The Development Agreement also obliged the City to (1)determine the extent to which these Arterials resulted in street capacity in excess of the traffic demand the Holly-Seacliff Project created; and(2)reimburse Pacific Coast Homes for the excess street capacity from fees or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. E. In May 1996,the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly-Seacliff Project to PLC, a California general partnership,and the remainder to MS Vickers, II, a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer,PLC assumed the Pacific Coast Homes' obligation to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. F. The City and the PLC implemented the reimbursement obligation of Development Agreement through a Settlement Agreement, dated April 17,2000,that, among other things, limited the reimbursement obligation from property owners benefiting from the Arterials to those parcels immediately abutting.the Arterials. The amount of the reimbursement was specifically limited to the cost of ten (10) feet of pavement,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent PLC's construction of the Arterials pursuant to Chapter 255 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"), the abutting property owner would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of the development. Section 255.04(B) specifically requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impact/6/6/02 1 Res. No. 2002-59 to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section,curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further, HBZSO Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. G. The cost of ten(10) feet of pavement,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk has been analyzed in a report entitled"Holly-SeacliffArea of Benefit District Report," prepared by MuniFinancial and dated March 20, 2002("Area of Benefit Report"). The actual cost of constructing the ten(10) feet of roadway improvements,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk was determined to be $68.10 per linear foot of property frontage. The Area of Benefit Report then calculates the Area of Benefit Charge to be paid by property owners that benefit from the Arterials PLC installed. The Charge varies by property depending upon each parcel's street frontage. H. The City Council finds and declares that, in the absence of this Resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District(the"District"), existing and future sources of revenue will not be adequate to reimburse PLC for its construction of supplemental capacity in the Arterials. Failure to provide for reimbursement would violate Government Code Sections 66485-66489, and Section 254.18 of the HBZSO,both of which provide that when one developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity,the City Council shall enter into an agreement providing for reimbursement to the developer of the cost of constructing supplemental capacity, with the funding of the reimbursement derived from the levy and collection of a charge on the development of the properties benefiting from the supplemental capacity. SECTION 2: Report of the City Engineer. The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the City Engineer's Report regarding the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Said Report was prepared by a consultant,MuniFinancial,pursuant to Section 17.68.040(b) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. A copy of the Report is on file with the City Clerk. Said Report includes: A. The total cost of the Supplemental Improvements, including right of way acquisition, which amount is $1,949,948.40. B. The cost of the Roadway Improvement component of the Supplemental Improvements, which amount is$455,350.65. The City Council hereby further acknowledges receipt from the City Engineer of a diagram describing the boundaries of the District and identifying all parcels within the District. SECTION 3. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. A. Pursuant to Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington.Beach Municipal Code, there is hereby established the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. 02reso/Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact/6/6/02 2 "-e. No. 2002-59 B. Although the City Engineer Report recommends that the amount of Excess Costs are $1,949,948.40,the City Council finds and concludes that only the Roadway Improvement component of Excess Costs should spread as a charge to the Benefited Properties. C. A list of the properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers which are included within the District is set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit A. D. A diagram identifying the properties which are included within the District is attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit B. E. An apportionment of the Excess Costs for construction of the Arterials and the formation of the District,which represent the actual amount to be charged against each parcel within the District, is set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves the Charges set forth in Exhibit A. F. Such Charges are due and payable prior to the issuance of a final tract map, final parcel map,or the issuance of a building permit;provided,however, such shall not be due in connection with building permits issued in circumstances as described in Section 17.68.110(b)of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. G. The City Council finds that the Charges may be adjusted to the extent that the sidewalk,curb,gutter and driveway installed by the Developer when widening the arterials must be reconstructed in different locations at the time the Benefited Property obtains its building permit or final map. The owner of the Benefited Property may apply to the City Engineer for such an adjustment at the time the Charge is due. By way of example,if the owner of the Benefited Property must relocate the driveway the Developer installed pursuant to the final map, the City Engineer shall reduce the Charge by the reasonable cost of relocating the driveway. H. Commencing on July 1,2003, and annually thereafter,the Charges established by this Resolution shall be adjusted based upon the change in the construction cost index produced by Engineering News Record,published by McGraw- Hill ("Cost Index"), during the preceding year. The City Engineer shall then adjust the Charges set forth in Exhibit A by such percentage change. The adjusted Charge amount shall be rounded to the nearest cent, and this amount shall constitute the Charge authorized by Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and established by this Resolution. Should the cost index be revised or discontinued, the City Engineer shall use the revised or a comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of constructing traffic improvements. SECTION 4. California Environmental Qality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") under Section 15273(a)(4)of the California Code of Regulations, commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that this exemption applies because there is no reasonable 02reso/Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impacc/6/6/02 3 Res. No. 2002-59 possibility that the establishment of the Area of Benefit District could negatively affect the physical environment. To the contrary,the charge will be collected to mitigate the environmental impacts of new development on the City's surface transportation system. Any environmental impacts associated with specific projects that may be undertaken with charge proceeds will be assessed as each project is formulated. Further,the City Council finds that,based on Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b) and the fact that this Resolution implements the Circulation Element of the General Plan,which was analyzed pursuant to EIR 94-1, the Ordinance is currently exempt from further environmental assessment until individual traffic improvements are submitted for approval by the City. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force sixty (60) days from and after adoption thereof,which date is June 17, 2002 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June , 2002. ATTEST: dmw,� City Clerk 06-u -o2 Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AST FORM: City Adn nistrator Qty Attorney b-1 b-6-4Z ITIA D AND APP OVED: Director of Public Works 02reso/Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact/6/6/02 4 c Res. No. 2002-59 Ex. A Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner ft.) ments' Costs° Total Charge Goldenwest Street . 110-211-01 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 $ - $ 1,702.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 110-211-04 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-05 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 - 11,917.50 110-220-02 Brindle 330 22,473.00 - 22,473.00 110-220-03 Brindle 199 13,551.90 - 13,551.90 110-220-04 Brindle 129 8,784.90 - 8,784.90 111-120-01 S&C Oil Co. 132 8,989.20 - 8,989.20 111-120-063 Thomas NA - - 111-120-073 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-083 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-09 Thomas 117 7,967.70 - 7,967.70 111-120-11 Lingle/Leckie 81 5,516.10 - 5,516.10 111-120-273 Mitchell NA - - - 111-120-28 Mitchell 132 8,989.20 - 8,989.20 111-130-11 City of H.B. 123 8,376.30 - 8,376.30 111-130-12 City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 - 4,903.20 1.11-130-14 Williams 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 Gothard Street 111-110-15 Galich 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-110-18' - Mandic 290 19,749.00 - 19,749.00 111-110-19 Greer 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 98 6,673.80 - 6,673.80 111-110-21 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-22 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-383 Custer NA - - - 111-140-18 Jones 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-193 Gustafson NA - - - 111-140-21 Thomas 20 1,362.00 - 1,362.00 111-140-22 Thomas 125 8,512.50 - 8,512.50 111-140-23 Gardner 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-24 Thomas 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-25 Weaver 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-27 Everroad 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-140-38 Telford 167 11,372.70 - 11,372.70 111-150-13 City of H.B. 195 13,279.50 - 13,279.50 111-150-153 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum NA - - - 111-150-163 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum NA - - - 111-150-173 Scott NA - - - 111-150-19 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-20 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111=150-21 Delgado 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-24 Elliott 201 13,688.10 - 13,688.10 Res. No. 2002-59 Ex. A Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule (cont'd) Project Costs Front- oa way age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Costss Total Charge Garfield Avenue 111-110-07 Dunn 150 10,215.00 - 10,215.00 111-110-10 Roulette 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-110-14 Taylor 79 5,379.90 - 5,379.90 111-110-313 Boilman NA - - - 111-110-333 Weide NA - - - 111-110-363 Novak- NA - - - 111-110-373 Boodman-Gorndon NA - - 111-120-12 Leckie 38 2,587.80 - 2,587.80 111-120-13 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-14 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-15 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-16 Thomas 100 $ 6,810.00 $ - $ 6,810.00 111-120-17 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-18 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-19 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-20 Thomas 68 4,630.80 - 4,630.80 111-130-01 Weir 18 1,225.80 - 1,225.80 111-130-02 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-06 Petersen 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-07 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-08 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-130-26 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-140-02 Weir 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 18 1,225.80 1,225.80 111-140-36 Weir 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-37 Weir 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 3,405.00 Main Street 111-150-30 Santiago 103 7,014.30 - 7,014.30 111-150-36 Southridge Homes 206 14,028.60 - 14,028.60 111-150-37 Kelter 110 7,491.00 - 7,491.00 111-150-38 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - 7,218.60 111-150-39 Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 - 7,150.50 Total Amount 6,684 $455,180.40 $ - $ 455,180.40 Total Parcels Charged 70 ' PLC Land Company actual per foot roadway construction costs($68.10)multiplied by frontage. 2 Costs for contract professional services to calculate and document the charge. 3 No charge because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLC's improvements. °Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost Formation costs not included in charge. Sources:City of Huntington Beach:MuniFinancial. 1: 1 - 11 1 �� min�� ►i�.. —� -- IIII I � ��►�� ♦ MOM N, INN I. -® r Res. No. 2002-59 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 17th day of June, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Cook, Houchen, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: Dettloff ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and ex-officio Cferk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINAL REPORT MARCH 20, 2002 � !MuniFinancial A VVI LLDAN COMPANY Corporate Office Regional Office 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 450 Temecula, California 92590 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (800)755-MUNI(6864) Tel: (510)832-0899 Fax: (909)699.3460 wn•n.nn>ni.com Fax: (510)832-0898 TABLE /�� ���������������� m ���°��"~ ~=° CONTENTS ~�°� ° ~= EzccndvcSoozmun..............................--....................................................................................................... 1 Introduction................................................................... ................................................................. .................3 Development Agreement Background----------------------------.-----4 Tcvn| Box�-'—.....-~.....---.----.----,-.,.-....-..----_-.-.-----,--''6 _� Methodologyand Assumptions ......................................................................................................................9 General Descniption----------------_-_----.------------_.----9 RoadwayConstruction Costs...........................................................................................................lO Right-of-way Acquisition Payments-----------.------------------l1 NfiscclluocoosCosts........................................................................ ..................................................14 LegalCo -.----.--------_---_---------------_--..lS � Title Fees ...............................................................................................................................15 Estimation..........................................................................................................15 City Real Estate Services.....................................................................................................15 AreaoF Benefit Study..........................................................................................................15 . � ...�.—. ...............................................16 - �~��'--- ---r----- �'`--'----------'------' - � �Sche6u 17 ��---------_-.-----.------.------.-----___.____ - Future Charge Adjustments--------------.--_-_--------------_._-.%0 � � � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach, California ("City'D approve the formation of an area of benefit district establishing a charge to developers of new residential and non-residential projects within the Holly-Seacliff area of the City. Normally, the City requires as a condition of development that the owner widen the street to its-ultimate right of way, as shown in the Circulation Element of the City General Plan. However, pursuant to the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, the master developer, not the adjacent property owners,widened Goldenwest, Garfield, Gothard and Main Streets. The proposed Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District would charge the property owners adjacent to these streets a development impact fee equivalent to the cost the master developer paid to widen these streets. The proposed charge varies by property depending upon each propemy's actual share of total improvement costs. Total improvement costs are composed of sidewalk and roadway construction costs, and right-of-%vay acquisition payments to property owners. Charge revenues-will be deposited into a separate City account and used exclusively to first reimburse the master developer the costs it advanced for initially-widening these streets and then reimburse the Cin-for some of the costs it advanced to the master developer. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.,before an impact fee such as this area of benefit charge may be imposed, tie City must first establish a fair and reasonable relationship or"nexus"between the fee charged and the cost of the proposed public improvements. This report serves to document the nexus requirement between the fee proposed and the benefit received for the road and related improvements the master developer installed; Table 1 summarizes the results of our analysis by presenting total improvement costs, and the number of properties to which the fee applies. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 1 HOLLY-SEA CLIFF AREA OFBE:vEFITDISTRICTRzPORT CITS'OFHUNTING70NBE.4CH Table 1: Summary of Costs & Charges Total Roadway Improvements $ 455,180 Right-of-Way 2,090,286 Miscellaneous' Total Costs $ 2,545,466 Parcels Subject to Fee 83 ' It is recommended that miscellaneous costs for legal, title, appraisal, and real estate services incurred in order to acquire right-of-way be excluded from the charge because it was deemed unfair to charge property owners to reimburse these costs when they incurred similar costs on their own behalf. Costs associated with.producing this report are also excluded. Sources: Table 4; MuniFinancial. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 2O,2002 P.4GE 2 HOLLY-SEACUFF AREA OFBENEF?DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HU,\'TLVGTO\'BEACH INTRODUCTION This report calculates a Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District charge to be paid by property owners that abut and benefit from roadways improved by the developer, the PLC Land Company (PLC). The 1990 Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement required PLC to over-size certain road improvements otherwise needed to meet traffic demand resulting from the Holly--Seacliff Project. PLC installed four-lane and six-lane arterial roadways,which pass through Holly-Seacliff. However, the outer two lanes of these arterials do not benefit the Holly-Seacliff Project,but instead are needed to serve growth on abutting properties by providing access to those properties. The properties subject to the Charge (the "Local Area") includes those properties that abut the arterial improvements PLC constructed along Goldemvest Street, Gothard Street,'Garfield Avenue and Main Street(the "Arterials"). Only those properties that benefit from the improvements and have not otherwise implemented an alternative reimbursement mechanism would be subject to the Charge. The City will collect the charge from properties within the Local Area only when they develop. The charge would vary by property depending on each property's actual project costs subject to reimbursement. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH2O1 2002 PAGES HOLL}'.SEACLIFFAREAoFBENEFn =TREPORT CITY OFHUNTINGTONBEAcH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BACKGROUND In December 1990, the City and Pacific Coast Homes entered into the Holly-Seacliff Development agreement. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project of approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and plain Streets on the east, Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west ("Holly-Seacliff"). The agreement required (among other things) for the Developer to construct certain public facilities and pay certain public facility charges to the City. The Agreement also obliged the City to (1) determine the cost of the public facilities the Developer was required to construct that were in excess of those necessary to serve the Holly-Seacliff development; and (2) reimburse the Developer for these excess costs from charges or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacim In May 1996, the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly- Seacliff property to PLC, a California general partnership, and the remainder to MS Vickers, II, a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer, PLC agreed to assume the obligations to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. Simultaneously, PLC became the beneficiary of the City's obligations to cause the Developer to be reimbursed for the cost of excess capacity in the public facilities. Regarding traffic and circulation improvements, the Development Agreement provided that the Developer was to install the arterial road improvements, principally Main, Garfield, Edwards, Golderiwest, Ellis, and Gothard. The Development Agreement then provided that "upon acceptance of the improvements," the Developer was eligible for "Reimbursable Costs" pursuant to Section 2.2.11 of the Agreement. "Reimbursable Costs" were defined to mean those "improvements in excess of those required to service the proposed project." Reimbursement is due from subsequent development. Section 2.2.11 of the Development Agreement begins by stating that "when in the performance of this Agreement, Developer is eligible for Reimbursable Costs, the following procedures apply." Section 2.2.11(a) then continues, stating that "upon receipt of funds generated by charges or exactions from other developers served by excess capacity of public facilities paid for by Developer, City shall reimburse Developer its verified Reimbursable Costs." This Section requires the City to reimburse the Developer (i.e., PLC) from fees or exactions collected from other developers served by the excess capacity. i UNIFIVANCrAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 4 HOLLY-SEAC!!FFAREA OFBEVEF. TRICTREFORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA CH PLC installed in excess of $35,300,000 in roads and arterial improvements. PLC contended that it was entitled to reimbursement for a significant portion of these costs. PLC sought to arbitrate its cost reimbursement as permitted under the Development Agreement. Instead, the City*and PLC entered into a Settlement Agreement on April 17, 2000 that,among other things, authorized reimbursing PLC from property owners adjacent to the Arterials in the amount of the cost of pavement plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent PLC's construction of the arterials, these property owners would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of development pursuant to Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Consequently, the Settlement Agreement provides that these property owners would pay these costs as a condition of their development. More specifically, the first$812,000 the City receives from these property owners -will be paid to PLC. All further amounts will be retained by the City, in order to reimburse the City for (i) the S500,000 it has already paid PLC for the completion of Gothard between Garfield and Main, and the completion of Goldemvest between Garfield and Ellis, and (ii) the credits the City has extended PLC against its traffic impact fees for installing other street improvements within the Holly Seacliff area. MUVIFINANCIAL NLARCH20,2002 PAGES HOLLi--SE4CLIFFAREAoFBENEFr RICTREPORT CITYoFHUNTINGTONBEACH LEGAL BASIS The Subdivision Nclap Act (California Government Code §§ 66485-66489) provides that if the City requires a subdivider to install supplemental capacity in public improvements for the benefit of property not within the subdivision, the Cin• shall enter into an agreement with the subdivider for reimbursement of the difference in cost. To pay costs of reimbursement, the City may collect a reasonable charge from persons outside the subdivision for their use of the supplemental capacity. Such a charge may be through an area of benefit district, such as the one proposed in this Report. Whether such a charge must also comply with the reasonable relationship, or "nexus" requirement contained in The Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code § 66000 et seq.) is unclear. Regardless, the proposed Charge does comply with The Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act establishes ground rules for the imposition and ongoing administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January 1989 and requires local governments to make five findings when adopting an impact fee. These findings and their justification for this Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee are described below: 1. Identify the purpose of the charge. The purpose of the Charge is to reimburse the Holly-Seacliff Developer and the City for oversized roadway improvement projects made within Holly-Seacliff. 2. Identify the use of charge revenues. Charge revenues shall be used to reimburse the Developer and the City of Huntington Beach for actual costs incurred for oversizing arterials within Holly-Seacliff. 3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the charge's use and the type of development paying the charge. The developments paying the charge will be those benefiting from the oversized improvements. Absent the Developer having installed the improvement, the individual property owners would have been required to install the same improvements when they developed. Charge revenues will only be used to reimburse actual costs for installing the improvements the property owner otherwise would have installed. Mt:.vPx4NC1AL NIARCH20,2002 P.4GE6 HOLL}`S&ICLlFFAREiOFBENEf 'TRICTREPORT 0TY0FHUN7INGT0NBEACH 4. Determine a reasonable relationship benveen the need for the charge and the type of development paying the charge. Except for the fact that PLC was widening the arterials as part of the Holly-Seacliff project, the abutting property owners would be required to dedicate the right-of-way and widen the Arterials as a condition of their own development. This requirement is found at Government Code § 66475 and Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"),which require that the subdivider, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, to dedicate, or make an irrevocable offer to dedicate, all parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for required improvements,including access rights and abutters' rights. In addition, the subdivider shall construct or .agree to construct all required improvements in accord with Chapter 255 of the HBZSO. Section 255.04(B) then requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further, Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Finally, Section 254.18 of the HBZSO and Section 2.2.11 of the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement provide that when the Developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity, the City Council shall determine the method for payment of the costs required by a reimbursement agreement which may include but is not limited to the establishment and maintenance of local benefit districts for the levy and collection of such charge or costs from the property benefited. The need for the charge is also demonstrated by traffic analysis prepared in connection with the PLC development. That analysis showed that development on properties within the Holly-Seacliff area and included in the proposed Area of Benefit District would generate additional traffic and contribute to the need for the improvements constructed by PLC. Please see Appendix A for a copy of a briefing prepared by Boyle Engineering that summarized traffic modeling data on this issue. The last pages of that briefing show simplified cross-sections of streets in the area. For each street, the figure shows the additional traffic volumes generated by PLC (indicated as "developer") and other properties in the area (indicated as "HSO", or"Holly-Seacliff•Other"). For all street. sections "HSO" development contributes to the need for the additional capacity provided by the PLC improvements. MUNfFf\ANCIAL MARCH 2O,2002 P.4GE 7 HOLLY•SEACLIFFAREAOFBENEF17 RICTREFORT CITY OFHUNTINGTONBEAcif 3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the charge and the cost of the facility attributable to development paving the charge. Roadwav construction costs are allocated to applicable individual properties based on linear feet of frontage and the cost of one lane with curb,gutter, and sidewalk. Right-of-way acquisition costs are allocated based on the actual costs attributable to each property limited to a maximum width of one lane with curb,gutter, and sidewalk, or some reasonable allocation method if actual costs are not available (see Methodology and Assumptions section and Table 4). In sum, the charge is set equal to the cost of the improvements needed to accommodate the development paying the charge, and charge revenues would only be used to reimburse for those costs. ,W UNIRIVANCIAL MARCH 20,2CC2 PAGES HOUY-SEACLIFFAB84 OFBENEA rRICTAREPORT crry oFHuNrrNGmNBEAcH METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS This section describes the methodology and assumptions used to calculate the Charge. General Description Only properties abutting the oversized Arterials are subject to the Charge. These properties are all located on Goldenwest Street,Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue, and Main Street, and abut roadway improvements constructed by PLC. Total road-way improvement costs are composed of the following items: • Roadway construction costs for the outer lane abutting the property;and • Right-of-way acquisition payments to property owners for the outer lane abutting the property. Miscellaneous costs, including legal costs related to right-of-way acquisition, title fees, real estate appraisal fees, and reimbursement to the City for real estate services provided to PLC and for the cost of this study, are excluded from roadway improvement costs. The City provided copies of all -available checks, invoices and supporting documentation for all right-of-way payments incurred on behalf of the project and requested for reimbursement by PLC. These costs were allocated to specific properties based on parcel details stated on supporting documentation, primarily parcel and right-of-way acquisition descriptions from appraisal reports, or some reasonable allocation method. Costs incurred in construction of roadway improvements were provided by PLC in the form of a cost per linear toot. Each property's frontage distance after any acquisition required for the right-of-way provides the basis for allocating roadway improvements costs. The frontage distance of each property is also primarily based on the property descriptions in the appraisal reports mentioned above, plus the City's parcel maps and improvement plans. In accordance with their agreement, the City of Huntington Beach maintained-several bank accounts.on behalf of PLC. The balances in these accounts, along with additional deposits from PLC, were used to pay vendor invoices for the right-of-way payments. MCNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE HOLLY-SEACLIFFAREA OF BENEFIT. JcTREPORT CITY OF HUNTINCTONBEACH Roadway Construction Costs Roadway improvements were installed on portions of Golden West Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue and Main Street, all of which pass through the PLC development. Roadway improvements are composed of the following: • Minimum ten-foot traffic lanes composed of six-inch asphalt concrete paving over a 12-inch aggregate base (only the costs of the two outer lanes are being recovered through the Area of Benefit District); • Tmo-foot curb and gutter (eight-inches high); • Six-foot sidewalk; and • Street lights with minimum spacing of approximately 150 feet including the cost all necessary conduit, boxes, poles and installation. Specific costs incurred in construction of roadway improvements were provided by PLC in the form of a cost per linear foot. Payments for roadway construction costs occurred between April.1997 and April 2000. However, PLC and the City agreed to use 1998 as the base year for comparison of roadway construction.costs. We obtained independent estimates of comparable construction projects from the City of Huntington Beach and Willdan, a civil engineering firm located in California. These comparable costs were adjusted to 1998 dollars. its illustrated in Table 2, the comparable costs were greater than the actual cost provided by PLC. Roadway improvements were allocated based on each property's linear feet of frontage multiplied by PLC's cost per linear foot for construction. Frontage for corner properties located at the intersection of two Arterials included both frontages plus the radius of the corner. Frontage for corner properties located at the intersection of an Arterial and Collector street include onh_° the Arterial frontage and corner radius. All properties subject to the fee abut roads improved by PLC, thus providing a reasonable relationship between the impact fee charged for roadway improvements and benefits received by property owners paying the impact fee. Property owners who installed roadway improvements at their own expense prior to PLC's installation of improvements are exempt from this portion of the impact fee to avoid double charging these property owners for replacement of improvements already made.' City staff reviewed The parcels exempted from reimbursement of roadway impro%-ement costs include parcels 111-120-06, 111-120- F.111-120-08, 111-120-27, 111-110-38, 111-140-19,111-150-15,111-130-16,111-130-'17,111-110-31,111-110-33, 111-110-36,and 111-110-37. Al L'.4IFIVANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 10 HOLLY-SEACLIFF.-U?F-A OF BENEFi ;RrcT REPORT CITY OF HUNTIVCTON BEACH aerial photographs and other supporting documentation to confirm that these improvements existed prior to PLC's improvements. Table 2: Comparative Roadway Construction Costs Cost per Linear Foot City of Huntington Improvement PLC' Beach Willdan3 10 ft. Asphalt Concrete Paving' $ 25.00 $ 27.16 $ 25.45 Street Light Conduit, Boxes &Lights5 22.00 30.28 33.61 2 ft. Curb&Gutter (8 in. high) 11.70 14.65 14.65 6 ft. Sidewalk 9.40 9.77 14.41 Total Cost $ 68.10 $ 81.86 $ 88.12 Actual roadway improvement costs incurred by PLC Land company(1998 dollars). Z Roadway improvement costs estimated by the City of Huntington Beach based on actual City projects in 1999 (deflated to 1998 dollars). 3 Roadway improvement costs estimated by Willdan based on bids for recent comparative projects (adjusted to 1998 doilars). Assumes 10-foot wide lane with 6-inch asphalt concrete over 12-inch base. e Assumes 150-foot spacing of lights. Sources: PLC Land Company; City of Huntington Beach;Willdan. Right-of-way Acquisition Payments Portions of certain properties were acquired through either negotiation or condemnation proceedings. However, if that same property owner from whom the right-or-way was acquired, was instead subdividing or otherwise developing his property, Section 254.02 of the HBZSO would have required dedication of this same property. Consequently, pursuant to Section 254.18 requiring reimbursement for supplemental capacity, it is recommended that those property owners that have received compensation in the past for acquired land reimburse such payments. Description of Overall Approach To establish the reimbursement amount for acquisition, we reviewed copies of right-of-way checks paid to property owners, appraisals and title reports, and other legal documents where available. (If no right-of-way was acquired, then no reimbursement for this payment is required.) The reimbursement amount for right-of--war was calculated in the following manner: MC'ArFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PACE 11 HOLLY-SEACLIFFAREA oFBENEFn RICTREPORT CIrYOFHUNTINGTONBEACH • Payment records were used whenever available. If payment records were not available or incomplete for a particular parcel, then the appraised value from the appraisal report was used. • Payments for multiple properties were allocated based on the area acquired from each property. • The reimbursement amount was reduced to exclude significant portions of payments related to oil wells or other major improvements. • The reimbursement amount only included that portion of the acquisition represented for an 18-foot width for one lane plus curb,gutter, and sidewalk, based on the acquisition cost per square foot net of the above adjustments. The approach used to determine each parcel's right-of-way reimbursement component of the total Charge is detailed in Appendix B with supporting documentation. Specific Parcel Considerations The tee calculation for Five properties included credits for additional costs from realignment of Gothard Street that occurred after the roadway improvements were identified in the Development Agreement. The realignment caused an increase in the amount of right-of-way needed beyond that required for a travel lane. It is appropriate to delete the additional costs associated with this realignment from the Charge calculation to ensure that all properties are treated according to the same roadway improvement standards. This right-of-way credit affected the following properties: • One property (parcel numbers 111-150-15 and 16) was credited for a total of $292,039 associated with acquisition of 10-feet of right-of-way out of the 20-foot take needed for the Project. This credit was based on the ratio of the appraised value of land taken to the total appraised compensation amount applied to the total right-of-way payment, excluding the value of improvements. • Three properties (parcel numbers 111-150-17, 19-20 and 21) were credited amounts of $46,150, $31,576, and $18,600, respectively, associated with acquisition of 10-feet of right-of-way normally required out of the 20-feet actually taken. This credit was calculated by multiplying total acquisition costs by 10/20 (or 50 percent). • One property (parcel number 110-150-24), which was substantially reduced in size by the realignment because the roadway cut the MUNIFIN.4NCIAL PAGE 12 HOLLY-SEaCLIFF AREA OFBENEA RICTREPORT CITY OF HUNTING TONBEACH parcel into m-o pieces,'-was credited $211,188. The credit was based on the average cost per square foot for the acquisition (total acquired area divided by total acquisition costs). The average cost per square foot was multiplied by each of the following two area calculations to calculate the credit: The amount of right-of-way that would have been required if the roadway had not been realigned was deducted from the total acquired area to calculate the amount of area associated with the realignment.3 The area of the small section of the original parcel left .stranded and not developable by the realignment. In addition, the charge calculation includes credits for lost oil production. This right-of-way credit affects the following parcels: • One property(parcel number 111-120-01) was credited 585,215 for the appraised value of the oil well impacted by the right-of- take associated with this property. The resulting right-of-way acquisition charge is comparable on a per square foot basis for a similar property taken at apprommately the same time. • One property (parcel number 111-120-28) was credited $122,185 for the value of lost oil production from this property in the same ratio of the oil well credit to total right-of-way payment made for the previous parcel. Finally, several right-of-way payments were lumped together for multiple properties. In these instances, right-of-way reimbursements were based on appraised values or were allocated based on the ratio of linear feet associated with a specific property to total linear feet for all affected properties. This problem of allocation of lump-sum payments was particularly acute as to parcel numbers 111-220-02, -03, and -04 as well as parcel numbers 111-120-06, -07, -08 and -09 and 111-120-13 through -20. In both cases, the property owner of both these sets of parcels sued the Developer over the adoption of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. As part of the settlement of the litigation, both owners deeded right-of- way in exchange for$619,329 and 5813,000, respectively. It was then necessary to allocate this payment to the individual parcels that they owned along both Garfield and Goldenwest Streets to determine the 2 Toui original area of this property was 17,168 square feet. The right-of-way taken for the road realignment was 9 9 square feet and the area deemed not developable was 1,400 square feet. Remaining usable property was 5,831 sq,_re feet. T.:.unount of right-of--,vay that would have been required if the roadwav had not been realigned is estimated at 2,(1*6 square feet or.201 of front footage multiplied by 10 feet of right-of-way normally taken needed for the Pre'eer. MCxtFINANCIAL MARCX 10,2002 PAGE 13 HOLLY-SEACLIFFAREA oFBEva-w UCTREPORT 0TYoFHUN7INGTONBEACN fee. To determine the allocation, we relied upon the property appraisals that Mark Linnes prepared on behalf of the City in 1993. Although the Settlement Agreement (see Appendix C) likely reflects the fact that the owners successfully contended their property values were substantially more than the Mr. Linnes' appraisals, we have relied exclusively on the City's original appraisals to set the amount of reimbursement. The total.amount allocated to right-of-way cost to each of these parcels is $177,660 and $304,263 respectively, approximately $440-,000 and $510,000 less than the amount they were paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. In addition, incorporated as Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement is a letter from Mike Adams, then-Director of Community Development for the City, explaining that it vas anticipated in 1993 that these properties would be subject to the very impact fee that the City is now considering. The letter states that the City Code authorizes the creation of Cost Reimbursement Districts for the "purpose of reimbursing a Developer for the cost of public infrastructure constructed by Developer which benefit other property owners" and that such reimbursement would not be due and payable until the property owner "records a final map . . . or applies for a building permit." However, the fee would-not be payable in connection with building permits issues for minor improvements or repairs. The letter concludes by stating that the intent of cost reimbursement: "...is to impose the liened costs at such time as you record a final map or apply for a building permit in connection with your development of the . . . Property for a use which is different from or unrelated to the existing uses. Accordingly, the continuation or expansion of the existing uses of the . . . Property or the issuance of a building permit incident thereto will not require you to pay the liened costs." The Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District is consistent with this representation. The Charge will only be collected when these properties are developed with a new use or a tract map. Refer to Appendix C for full copy of the Settlement Agreement. Miscellaneous Costs Initially, miscellaneous costs were included in the Charge to reimburse PLC and the City for these costs. However, it was determined that it would not be fair to require property owners to reimburse these costs .1fGUIFGVANCIAL MARCF120,2002 PAGE 14 NOLL1'•5EaCLIFFARE4OFBENEF. TRIc7'REPORT C/TYOFHUNTLVCTONBEACH when they incurred similar costs on their own behalf for individual properties. Therefore, costs incurred for individual properties for these miscellaneous items are credited to each applicable property and are not included in the Charge. Miscellaneous costs are described in detail in the following subsections. Legal Costs Professional legal services were required in relation to property transfer, condemnation and other right-of-way acquisition matters. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Title Fees Title transfer costs were incurred in relation to parcel or portions of a parcel that was purchased as part of right-of-way acquisitions. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. 4 Appraisal/Estimation Real estate appraisal costs and equipment relocation estimation costs were incurred in relation to parcels, or portions of parcels that were purchased as part of right-of-way acquisitions. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. City Real Estate Services The City of Huntington Beach provided the use of its Real Estate Services Division in certain transactions relating to property purchased as part of roadway improvements. These costs represent the hourly payroll rate times the hours spent on each parcel, or portion of parcel, purchased as part of roadway improvements. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Area of Benefit Study The cost associated with conducting this Report was included as a reimbursable cost. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. h1UmFL\'ANCrAL MARCH20,2CO2 PACE 15 HOLLY-SEACLIFFAREAoFBENEFn ArCTRc''PORT CTTYoFHuvTINGTONBEACH Excluded Properties Eleven properties were.excluded from the Charge for the following reasons: • An alternate reimbursement mechanism has been established; • The property does not benefit from the improvements because it is an alley; or • The property does not benefit from the improvements because realignment of the roadway made the property* not developable. These properties and the reason for their exclusion are listed in Table 3. Table 3: Excluded.Properties Parcel No. Owner Reason For Exclusion 110-210-01 Landis Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-02 Dahl(Kubelka) Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-03 Niccole Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-06 Schuesler Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-07 Spelts Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-10 Niccole . Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-11 Fuller Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 111-150-25 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: used in right-of-way realignment. 111-120-30 Thomas Not developable: alleyway. 111-130-28 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: alleyway. 111-140-10 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: alleyway. 'These parcels are part of the Heritage Homes development that has a Community Facilities(Mello Roos)District responsible for reimbursing PLC for frontage improvements. Sources:City of Huntington Beach:MuniFinancial. .1ft'StFINANCIAL MARCH 20,202 PAGE 16 HOL:Y•SEACZ.IFF,ARL4OFBENE. 77Rrc7*REPOR7 CITY OFHUN7INGTONBL4CH CHARGE SCHEDULE Table 4 on the following pages shows the cost components and total charge for each property,included in the Local area and subject to the Charge, by parcel number. ML:NY LVANCIAL AIIARCH20,200? PAGE 17 HOLLY•SEACWF AREA OF BENEFl7. .RICT REPORT CITY OFHUN77NGTONBEACH Table 4: Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front. Roadway age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Right-of-Way2 laneous' Charge Goldenwest Street 110-211-018 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 $ 4.035.00 $ - $ 5,737.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 17,550.00 - 19,252.50 110-211-03 Marow, 5o 3,405.00 35,100.00 38.505.00 110-211-048 Ghodooshim 25 1.702.50 4,035.00 - 5,737.50 110-211-058 Ghodooshim 175 11.917.50 28,245.00 - 40,162.50 110-220-02' Brindle 330 22,473.00 89,100.00 - 111,573.00 110-220-03' Brindle 199 13,551.90 53.730.00 - 67,281.90 110-220-04' Brindle 129 8,784.90 34,830.00 43,614.90 111-120.016 S&C Oil Co. 132 8.989.20 48,780.00 - 57,769.20 111-120-064.1 Thomas 145 - 23,490.00 - 23,490.00 111-120-07"' Thomas 145 - 27.414.00 - 27,414.00 111-120-08''' Thomas 145 46,980.00 - 46,980.00 111-120-09' Thomas 117 7,967.70 37,908.00 - 45,875.70 111-120-11' Ungle/Leckie 113 7,695.30 34,391.94 - 42,087.24 111-120-271 Mitchell 290 - 45,640.00 - 45,640.00 111-120-28' Mitchell 102 6,912.15 62,607.63 - 69,519.78 111-130-11 City of H.B. 41 2,792.10 27.397.86 30,189.96 111-130-12' City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 26,745.14 31,648.34 111-130-14 Williams 88 5,992.80 19,638.00 25,630.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 32,226.00 - 42,100.50 Gothard Street 111-110-15 Galich 129 8,784.90 4,600.00 - 13,384.90 111-110-18i1 Mandic 290 19,749.00 - - 19,749.00 111-110.19" Greer 145 9,874.50 - - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 132 8,989.20 6,444.00 - 15.433.20 111-110-21" Pederson 73 4,971.30 - - 4,971.30 111-110-22" Pederson 73 4.971.30 - - 4,971.30 111-110-381.13 Custer 127 - - 111.140-18" Jones 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111=140-19'" Gustafson 145 - 111-140-21" Thomas 20 1,362.00 - - 1.362.00 111-140-22" Thomas 125 8,512.50 - 8,512.50 111-140-23" Gardner 145 9,874.50 - - 9,874.50 111-140-24" Thomas 145 9,874.50 - - 9,874.50 111-140-25" Weaver 145 9,874.50 - - 9,874.50 111-140-27" Everroad 88 5,992.80 - - 5,992.80 111-140-38' Telford 185 12,598.50 26,100.00 - 38,698.50 111-150-13 City of N.B. 113 7,695.30 60,352.43 - 68,047.73 111-150-155'1 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum 100 - 29,778.48 - 29,778.48 111-150-16`7 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum 100 - 29,778.48 - 29,778.48 111-150-17" Scott 200 46,150.00 46,150.00 111.150-19' Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15,788.03 - 22,257.53 111-150-20' Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15,788.03 - 22,257.53 111-150-21' Delgado 95 6,469.50 18,600.00 - 25.069.50 111.150-243 Elliott 201 13,688.10 13,812.02 - 27,500.12 Garffefd Avenue 111-110-07" Dunn 150 10.215.00 28,350.00 - 38,565.00 111-110-10 Roulette 5o 3,405.00 9,000.00 - 12.405.00 111-110-14 Taylor 50 3.405.00 11,327.70 - 14,732.70 111.110-31" Bollman 100 - 25,200.00 25,200.00 111-110-33'•t2 Weide 50 - - - 111-110-36'-12 Novak 75 - - 111-110-37'''2 Bondman-Gorndon 75 - - 111-120-128 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 - 18,622.67 111-120.13' Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 - 21.405.00 111-120-14' Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 - 21,405.00 111-120-W Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 - 21.405.00 ML-.vFrvA,vcrAL KIRCH20,2002 PACE 13 HOLL.-SL4cLIFFARLAOFBE.vEF. PRICTREPOR7, CITYOFHUNTINGTONBEACH Table 4: Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule(cont'd) Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft ments' Ri ht-of-Wa Z laneous3 Char e 111-120-164 Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 - 42,810.00 111-120-174 Thomas 50 3.405.00 18,000.00 - 21,405.00 111-120-18' Thomas 50 3.405.00 18,000.00 - 21,405.00 111-120-19' Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 - 21,405.00 111-120-20 Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 - 42,810.00 111-130-018 Weir 50 3,405.00 14,124.07 - 17,529.07 111-130-02' Weir 75 5,107.50 21,186.10 - 26,293.60 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3.405.00 5,000.00 - 8,405.00 111-130-06' Petersen 50 3.405.00 12,600.00 - 16,005.00 111-130-078 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 18,622.67 111-130-08a Leckie 50 3.405.00 15,217.67 - 18,622.67 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 25,903.93 - 32,713.93 111-130-26' Weir 75 5,107.50 21,186.10 - 26,293.60 111-140-02' Weir 25 1,702.50 6,637.54 - 8,340.04 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 - 12,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 6,810.00 18,000.00 - 24,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 27,016.07 - 33,826.07 111-140-08 Weaver&Mole 50 3.405.00 9,000.00 - 12,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 50 3.405.00 10,505.56 - 13,910.56 111-140-36a Weir 25 1,702.50 6,637.54 - 8,340.04 111-140-37' Weir 50 3.405.00 13,275.08 - 16,680.08 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 18,960.00 - 22,365.00 Main Street 111-150-3074 Santiago 103 7,014.30 - - 7,014.30 111-150-3614 Southridge Homes 206 14,028.60 - - 14,028.60 111-150-3714 Keller 110 7.491.00 - - 7,491.00 111-150-3814 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - - 7,218.60 111-150-3914 Southridge Homes 105 7.150.50 - - 7,150.50 Total 8,384 $455.350.65 $1,494,597.75 $ . - $1,949,948.40 Total Parcels 83 'Actual per foot roadway construction costs incurred by PLC Land Company multiplied by frontage amount($68.10 per foot,see Table 2). 2 Reflects Payments 1-116. 3 Miscellaneous costs include legal,real estate title,appraisal fees,City of Huntington Beach real estate services.and this study. These costs are not included in the Charge. 'ROW payments based an appraised values for parcel or like parcel. Per square foot values include: $14/sf for 111-110- 31 and 111-130-06; 514.50/sf for 111.140.38; $15isf for 110-220-02 through 110-220-04;$18/st for 111-120.06 through 111-120-09;and S20/sf for 111.120-13 through 111-120-20. 3 Parcels credited for extraordinary ROW acquisition required for realignment. Credit given for unusable parcel caused by realignment where applicable. °Parcel credited S85,215 for appraised value of oil well affected by ROW take. r Certain properties with no roadway improvement costs are no,charged because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLC's improvements. s Lump sum right-of-way payments for these parcels allocated proportionately based on square feet of take. 'Actual ROW payment is substantially more than appraised vawe. Parcel receives prorated credit of$122,185 for potential lost oil production based an like credit received for parcel 111.120-01. i0 Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost. "Excludes Weaver/Thomas tank costs associated with same parcel. 'z No ROW charge is applicable because ROW was dedicated. 13 No ROW charge is applicable because ROW take was on opposite(east)side of Gothard Street. t4 No ROW charge is applicable because no ROW was required an this street. Sources:Table 2:City of Huntington Beach;MuniFinancial. ,MUNIF.'NAVCIAL AMRCH2O,2CO2 PAGE 19 1fO1_LY.SE.4CL/FFAREAOFBENEFIT_ acTREPORT CITY OF I1UNTINGTONBE.4cX FUTURE CHARGE ADJUSTMENTS The City should identify the appropriate inflation irides in the proposed Area of Benefit District and adopt an automatic annual inflation adjustment. Typical sources for such an adjustment factor include the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Engineering News Records Construction Cost Index (CCI). Because the CPI includes non-construction industries, we recommend that the City adopt the CCI since the proposed fee supports road construction. Table 5 compares the effects of applying these two indices on the proposed charge for select properties annually through 2020, Actual increases in the proposed fee will vary from those shown in the table depending on the inflation index selected and the future performance of that index. Table 5:Comparison of Cost Indices on Select Properties 2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 Proposed Parcel No. . Fee CPI CCI CPI CCI CPI CCI CPI CCI 110-220-02 5 111,573.00 S 125.089.43 5117.953.53 $144,310.35 5 126,444.72 S 166.484.71 $135,547.18 5192,066.33 S 145,304.90 111-129-01 63,189.20 70,844.21 68,802.80 81,729.95 71.811.78 94.288.36 76,766.94 108,778.47 82,293.21 111.130-12 66,278.12 74,307.34 70,068.37 85.725.21 75,112.43 98.897.53 80,519.59 114,093.87 $6,316.01 111.130.15 63.584.50 71,287.40 67,220.71 82,241.24 72,059.77 94,878.22 77,247.18 109,456.98. 82.808.02 111-140-38 57,608.70 64,587.68 80.903.17 74,512.04 65,287.44 85,961.37 69,987.33 99.169.97 75.025.56 111-150-15 29.796.27 33,405.92 31.500.23 38.538.99 33.767.86 44,460.79 36,198.73 51.292.52 38,804.59 Notes:For,liustralive purposes.this companson assumes a Consumer Price Index far All Urban Consumers(CPI-U)of 2.9 percent and a Construction Cost Index(CCI)of 1.4 percent as of March 2001. Source: Table 4: U.S.Department of Labor, Engineering News Record: MuniFnancial. MUNIFLVASCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 20 ye - 4, - - - 4u - - - �.I' w"'iaNu.. sg Z r Ma M511 - �_ � N11 _ _ r __ mg��gNbb- 3 ru-.n. Ai,a run u mom:' . . "g 1 .4 o���+ c - c a m :4 �Y , g.o-m Z ���z L ■ �g9a � Q gppQpQ � ua �a3A9g4M 1g1pQn� ai Qa2o9 � R9f 6�� � � � q� � • Zo - �� � Y 3 �2 m � - �iy r A a p� HA Y - - � * o eV ess9a ss�ssssssaM"sssssas9ssusisisIss;Azl1ss�sisu 9tRxs es��r StiFF.naauc9u cs.-ca9a=- � ai95 8 M 3 � s a es � v m-w�E E p r R u1.m y, m u yuN F'mp �� P •pp� m -• G a$ §§.§Noo sa §§ N�a �$ou s. . . . � . . . N . � o� �m� „ � �;,IS8�� a�? 9 ¢ s u 8SS8u aainoc0000ui+.oa000 cu000 0000 08 o6fSs oISSiSSS15198 14 00$88 6000m co u8g8ss$6S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . „ n E 03 s mula�m4'm.opm�um'n'�u.�imom mmm'mmu i e= � � �.+� C � m SmY'b'S98$BSCaL°"t�$$o'SSSSB$588=� 8088 aSSR8mma8 $ 8 $8.m�8Y8888888888888 _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " r $ m'a_. oHpy. �j $,r"..�i¢ autsm��'�v� � go.S n:N mYg mm e e s kS$$$a $SYfs$SSS$YF; ti38$9$sssss 8� � 8088 .3�5!"+�$mL�f5oG35lSlS8� SSA lSoulS$8 lSSY$m8:�$8$og$$1S1S78•SSIS S p. m uId U's I Zia 4 Sy.wv WP ouPP. m . P. � . . . `�.`�-?. . . . . . . . . . m, m�. 1O !o. o, o� a �K1.$b$S$wo��B$`-'o�S ��s� �8o S S _ - 8 S ��588 'rm3 i RCA 11OUTING AEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: Adopt the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached 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 Attome Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) 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) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff L ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) City Administrator (initial) City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Space RCA Author: - ' £'CSFTR ��O,F s=U NTI1T1�1 z 8£ACH= s� a:r... PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a NOTICE OF resident of the County aforesaid; I am PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ,FORMTION OF over the age of eighteen years, and not a HOLLYASEACLIIFF AREA party to or interested in the below . D S TRICTFIT PLEASE TAKE NO- entitled matter. I am a. principal clerk of TICE that the City Coun- the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a ycilgtof the city Hunt- in on Beach willl hold a public hearing on June• newspaper of general circulation printed 17, 2002,at.7:00 p.m.at / the City Council and published in the City of Huntington Chambers, 200Street, Huntt Main ington Beach, ' County of Orange, State of Beach, California alias, to consider establish- California, and that attached Notice is a Seactliff Areahof B nlefit District for the financing true and complete copy as was printed of certain Public provements and related and published in the Huntington Beach faculties'within the City. The proposed bound- and Fountain Valley issues of said arias of the District are mdre particularly de- newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: scribed by the Seacliff Area of Benefit District Map, which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. .The property located within the proposed boundaries of the Dis- June 6 2002 Itrict may be subject to a charge to pay a portion Of the costs of providing I street improvements which benefit the samei property. If; after thel date of formation of the declare, under penalty of perjury, that District, the property, owner either files a final the foregoing is true and correct. map (subdivision, parcel:, or consolidation of prop- erty), or'applies for a building permit, a charge and an inflation adjust- ment will become due Executed on June 6 , 2002 :and pesons desiring to at Costa Mesa, California. ;testify with respect to: i the necessity of said Public Improvements, the cost of said Public Improvements, the ben- efited area and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard. The public hear- ing before the City Council will be on June 17, 2002. Published Huntington Signature Beach Independent June 6 2002 061-075 \ ' r t 4 MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 c DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REQUESTING: City Attorney Formation of Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District—�) 6r� r 4L TODAY'S DATE May 21, 2002 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: APPROVED BY: Ray Silver City Administrator 5/21/2002 4:58 PM [Published Notice] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FORMATION OF HOLLY-SEACLIFF . AREA BENEFIT DISTRICT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing on June 17, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648, to consider establishment of the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain Public Improvements and related facilities within the City. The proposed boundaries of the District are more particularly described by the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit District Map, which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk The property located within the proposed boundaries of the District may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the costs of providing street improvements which benefit the same property. If, after the date of formation of the District, the property owner either files a final map (subdivision, parcel or consolidation of property), or applies for a building permit, a charge and an inflation adjustment will become due and payable. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said Public Improvements, the cost of said Public Improvements, the benefited area and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard. The public hearing before the City Council will be on June 17, 2002. G:\Field\20020rdinance\Holly-Seacliff Yublished Hearing Notice 1 FOB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works DATE: June 3, 2002 SUBJECT: Holly-Seacliff/ Public Hearing The enclosed draft RCA was distributed to property owners as information pertaining to an upcoming Public Hearing set for June 17, 2002. RFB:cf Encl. 4 z c coCD r �. G0 = Cn n 1 council-holly seacliff.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FORMATION OF HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA BENEFIT DISTRICT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing on June 17, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, to consider establishment of the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain Public Improvements and related facilities within the City. Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit of District, and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the costs of providing street improvements which benefit your parcel of land. If, after the date of formation of the District, you either file a final map (subdivision; parcel or consolidation of property), or apply for a building permit, a charge and an inflation adjustment will become due and payable. The nature of the proposed District is more particularly described in the following enclosed materials: 1. Request for City Council Action recommending that the City Council establish the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. 2. Ordinance No. XX, amending Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, establishing the general procedures for formation of Area of Benefit Districts. G:\Field\20020rdinance\Holly-Seacliff Public Hearing Notice.doc-3 1 3. Resolution No. XX, establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Exhibit A to the Resolution lists the proposed charge to be levied against your parcel. The map setting forth the proposed boundaries of the District is attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution. 4. The Report of the MuniFinancial regarding the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District, dated March 20, 2002. The public hearing before the City Council will be on June 17, 2002. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said Public Improvements, the cost of said Public Improvements, the benefited area and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard. If you should have any questions, please call Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney, City of Huntington Beach(714) 536-5555. C:\Field\20020rdinance\Holly-Seacliff Public Hearing Notice.doc-3 2 RCA OUTING SliEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: Adopt the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached 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 Attorney 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) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable)_ Not Applicable: Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant Cit Administrator Initial City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: G. , Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACh MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: June 17, 2002 Department ID Number: CA-20 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney SUBJECT: Adopt the Holly-Seaciiff Area of Benefit District Statement of issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Should the City adopt the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Funding Source: The City has paid from the Traffic Impact Fee Fund $500,000 to PLC pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to the Development Agreement. An additional $50,000 has been paid to MuniFinancial in connection with District formation. In addition, several million dollars of Impact Fee credits were granted to PLC under the Development Agreement. If the Area of Benefit District is approved as proposed, the Traffic Impact Fee Fund would recover up to $275,000. Recommended Action: That the City Council: 1. Approve the First Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release with PLC, and authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest to the same. 2. Introduce and adopt Ordinance No. entitled "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach_ Municipal Code Regarding Area of Benefit Districts." 3. Conduct a public hearing to consider adopting the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Holly-Seacliff2 -2- 5/31/2002 10:56 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 4. Receive and consider the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit Report, dated March 20, 2002, prepared by MuniFinancial. 5. Receive and consider the Analysis contained in this Request for Council Action. 6. Adopt Resolution No. entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing The Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District" that would levy a charge on new development within Holly-Seacliff intended to reimburse PLC and the City for the construction cost of widening Goldenwest, Garfield, Gothard and Main, plus the out- of-pocket costs of District formation. Alternative Action(s): 1. Do not establish the Area of Benefit District. Analysis: 1. Background: In December 1990, the City and Pacific Coast Homes entered into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement. In May 1996, PLC, a California general partnership, purchased the Holly-Seacliff project, and assumed the obligations to construct the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. Pursuant to the Development Agreement, PLC installed in excess of$35,300,000 in street improvements and another $11,250,000 for the Edwards Reservoir. PLC contended that it was entitled to reimbursement for a significant portion of these costs. In support of its claim, PLC submitted the Waldron Report. In response, the City commissioned the Boyle Report, which contended that relatively little of the improvements represented excess capacity. PLC then demanded arbitration of its cost reimbursement as permitted under the Development Agreement. Before the arbitration commenced, the City and PLC entered into a Settlement Agreement on April 17, 2000 that provided as follows: a. PLC paid the City $850,000 for police facilities. b. PLC waived reimbursement for sewer lines, except that it was relieved of constructing the Stewart extension. Consequently, no property owner within. Holly-Seacliff will be charged for these improvements. C. PLC received $538,000 in reimbursement for construction of master storm drain facilities from City storm drain fees. Consequently no property owner within Holly-Seacliff will be charged for these improvements. Holly-SeaclM -3- 6/3/2002 10:15 AM REST FOR COUNCIL ACTIL,..4 MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 d. The City paid PLC approximately $3,700,000 as full reimbursement for water facilities. Again, there will be no property owner charge for these improvements. e. PLC was to be paid $1,312,000 for street improvements, pursuant to the following schedule: (1) $250,000 upon City acceptance of Goldenwest between Ellis and Garfield. (2) $250,000 upon completion of Gothard between Garfield and Main. (3) $812,000 pursuant to a reimbursement district. (4) These amounts were in addition to the several million dollars in credits against traffic impact fees PLC received for constructing City streets within Holly-Seacliff. f. The City agreed to attempt to form a reimbursement district that would collect impact fees upon the development of properties abutting the streets PLC has widened (Garfield, Gothard, Goldenwest and Main). The Settlement Agreement provided that the amount of the fee would be based upon the cost of right-of-way ("ROW") acquisition and the cost of constructing curb, gutter, sidewalk and ten feet of street pavement adjacent to the benefiting properties. Any funds received in excess of$812,000 would be retained by the City. Under the Settlement Agreement, the City retained full discretion not'to impose the fees. g. The Settlement Agreement resolved all disputes regarding public facilities. PLC has no obligation to construct any additional public facilities and the City cannot be required to provide further reimbursement. 2. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Concurrently with approving the Settlement Agreement, the Public Works Director hired MuniFinancial to study and make recommendations regarding a reimbursement district. The Final Report of MuniFinancial was written after a lengthy analysis. Initially, a draft report was circulated prior to a property owners' meeting held on June 7, 2001. Subsequently, individual property owners' meetings were conducted leading up to circulation of another draft report and another property owners' meeting on March 5, 2002. On March 20, 2002, the Final Report was issued, and mailed to the property owners on March 21, 2002. The Final Report recommended that an Area of Benefit District be Holly-Seacliff2 -4- 5/31/2002 10:56 AM RE..,JEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIL.. MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT 1D NUMBER: CA-20 established to include only properties abutting Goldenwest, Gothard, Garfield and Main. The properties would be subject to a reimbursement charge comprising the following two items: • Roadway construction costs for a ten foot traffic lane allowing egress and ingress to the property, plus an eight-foot wide curb, gutter and sidewalk, and, • ROW acquisition payments to property owners, not exceeding 18 feet of frontage along arterial street, and to the center line on collector streets. The basis for imposing a charge on abutting property owners is that, absent PLC's construction of the streets, the property owners would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of development pursuant to Section 254.02 of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Further, the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code §§ 66485-66489) provides that if the City requires a subdivider to install supplemental capacity in public improvements for the benefit of other property, the City shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with subdivider for the difference in costs. To pay the costs of reimbursement, the City may charge persons outside the subdivision for their use.of the supplemental capacity. In order to determine construction costs, PLC provided its payment history for roadway construction costs incurred between April 1997 and April 2000. MuniFinancial then used 1998 as the base year, and compared PLC's costs with independent estimates of comparable construction projects. As illustrated below, the comparable costs were greater than the actual costs provided by PLC: Comparative Roadway Construction Costs Cost per Linear Foot Improvement PLC City of Huntington Willdan Beach 10 ft. Asphalt Concrete Paving $ 25.00 $ 27.16 $ 25.45 Street Lighting Conduit, Boxes &Lights 22.00 30.28 33.61 2 ft. Curb &Gutter 11.70 14.65 14.65 6 ft. Sidewalk 9.40 9.77 -14.41 Total Cost $ 68.10 $ 81.86 $ 88.12 Roadway improvements then were allocated based on each property's linear feet of frontage multiplied by PLC's cost per linear foot for construction. Property owners who installed roadway improvements at their own expense prior to PLC's installation of improvements were exempted. City Staff reviewed aerial photographs and other Holly-Seacllff2 -5- 5/31/2002 10:56 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 In order to determine ROW acquisition costs, MuniFinancial reviewed all available checks, invoices and supporting documentation for all legal fees, right-of-way payments. Acquisition costs were then allocated to specific properties based on payments made to individual property owners or some reasonable allocation method. 3. April 1, 2002 Public Hearing. The City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 2002 to consider formation of the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District (the "District"). As proposed, the District would impose development charges totaling $455,350 for roadway improvements and $1,494,597 in ROW acquisition costs. After the close of the public hearing, the City Council rejected formation of the District. Subsequently, the Council voted to reconsider the matter on April 15, 2002. The proposal was to consider forming,a District that would only impose charges for roadway improvements, but not for ROW acquisition. Further, PLC indicated that it would agree to amending the settlement agreement to provide that all charges would be split equally between the City and PLC. In effect, each party would receive approximately $225,000 (plus increases based upon a construction cost index). The request for reconsideration was approved, and the matter has been noticed for the June 17, 2002 agenda. 4. New District Proposal. Pursuant to Council direction, MuniFinancial has recalculated the charges to only recover the Roadway Improvement costs. It should be noted that the original MuniFinancial Report has not been revised in order to minimize consulting costs. Instead, only the table attached to the Resolution of District formation that allocates charges on a per parcel basis has been updated. This table includes Roadway Improvement costs, but no ROW acquisition costs. Also based upon the Council's direction, the Staff has negotiated an amendment to the.Settlement Agreement with PLC. The proposed First Amendment to the Settlement Agreement provides that the charges will be split equally between the City and PLC. It is recommended that the City Council approve both the Resolution of Formation and the First Amendment to the Settlement Agreement. Holly-SeaclM -6- 6/3/2002 1 1:01'AM RE UEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 5. Issues of Importance Staff has made several policy choices that the Council may wish to further consider; a. Area of Benefit Districts. In 1993, shortly after the adoption of the Holly- Seacliff development agreement, the City Council adopted an Ordinance adding Chapter 17.68 to the Municipal Code authorizing the establishment of reimbursement districts. It was originally contemplated that any charges levied to property owners to repay the developer for master plan improvements would be established pursuant to this Code section. Staff now recommends that this Code section be revised to more closely follow the reimbursement methodology contained in the Government Code. For example, the Government Code specifically authorizes "area of benefit districts" as opposed to "cost reimbursement districts." As a practical matter, there is no substantive difference between the two approaches. b. Sunsetting the Area of Benefit District. The cost reimbursement district authorized in the Code in 1993 included a 20-year sunset clause. That is, after the reimbursement district had been formed, the Code provided that it would sunset after 20 years. It is recommended that the sunset clause be deleted and the proposed ordinance amendment would so provide. One problem with a sunset is that it encourages deferral of property development in order to avoid the charge. Further, the property owner has received the benefit of the improvements for many years and in fact the City will continue to maintain those improvements into the future. Consequently, Staff recommends removing the sunset clause. C. Recordation of the District Formation Resolution. One objection historically to the reimbursement district was that the original Ordinance provided that the notice of the charge would be recorded against the property, so that it could be identified on a title report. When Staff first proposed the Area of Benefit District at the April 1, 2002 Council meeting, it was recommended that the recordation provision be deleted. However, in light of the fact that the District itself would only recover$450,000, the administrative expenses associated with enforcing and collection the District charges for the relatively few number of parcels involved are too great compared to the amount of the charge. Consequently, it is no longer recommended that the recordation provision be deleted. By recording the notice of the charge on individual parcels,.this insures that the fee will be paid at the time of development. Holly-Seacliff2 -7- 6/3/2002 11:01 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 d. Driveway Relocation. One objection raised at the last property owners' meeting was that the driveway improvements PLC installed may not be used by the property owner at the time of development. Consequently, it is recommended and the amended ordinance and the resolution of formation so provide that at the time of payment of the reimbursement charge, the City Engineer will adjust the charge by the cost of any driveway relocation. Environmental Status: EIR 89-1 was approved for the Development Agreement. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Ordinance No. entitled "A Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Regarding Area Benefit Districts." 2. Legislative Draft of Chapter 17.68 3. Resolution No. entitled a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District 4. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit Report, dated 3/20/02, prepared by MuniFinancial 5. First Amendment to Settlement Agreement with PLC RCA Author: S. Field Holly-Seacliff2 -8- 613/2002 10:29 AM ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 17.68 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City Council previously added Chapter 17.68 to the Municipal Code establishing procedures for formation of"Cost Reimbursement Districts;" and The City Council finds that it is reasonable and necessary to amend Chapter 17.68 to establish procedures for formation of"Area of Benefit Districts." This amended Chapter more closely,follows the reimbursement procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66485- 66489; NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby amends Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chapter 17.68 AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions . 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District 17,68.040 Application fee for formation of the 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District 17.68.080 Action by City Council 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge 17.68.100 Administrative Audit 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies 17.68.130. Delegation of Duties 17.68.140 Challenges to District 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Development, a Developer may be required to install and dedicate Public Improvements which may contain supplemental size, capacity,number, or length for the benefit of property not within the Development. When such supplemental size, capacity, number, or length benefits property not within the Development,the City may enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the Supplemental Improvements through an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimburse the Developer, the City may: 02ord/17-68 chap/5/30/02 1 (a) Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge for the use of Supplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within the Development Area. (b) Contribute to the Developer that part of the cost of the Public Improvements that benefit real property outside the Development Area and levy a charge upon the real property benefited to reimburse the Developer for such cost, together with interest thereon, if any. (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such charge from the property benefited. The charge collected shall be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. 17.68,020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or Estimated Costs of Public Improvements" means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district formation,right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceedings, environmental impact mitigation, plan check and permit fees, construction inspections, maintenance of Improvements, or any other expenses attributable to the construction of Public Improvements. If the scope of the Development is altered during construction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed during construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more than ten(10%) percent without notice to the affected property owners. (b) "Administrative Costs" shall be defined as costs for direct labor and employee benefits, outside consultants, direct materials, indirect costs, overhead costs and fixed assets or depreciation charges. (c) "Area of Benefit" means the entire area which receives a benefit from the Supplemental Improvements. The "Area of Benefit" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council,upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing, is determined to be the area benefited by the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. (d) "Benefited Property" is the parcel(s) that is benefited by the Supplemental Improvements and is included within the Area of Benefit. (e) "Charge"means the Excess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property. (f) 'Developer" means the person who is responsible for constructing the Public Improvements. (g) "Development" means any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. , (h) 'Development Area" means the residential subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to be eonstructed by the Developer (i) "Excess Costs"means the costs attributable to that portion of Public Improvements which benefit areas outside the Development Area. Benefit may be determined by any commonly accepted method which fairly apportions the cost of the Improvements to the benefiting properties. 02ord/17-68 chap/5/30/02 2 (j) "Public Improvements" means those improvements as set forth herein including, but not limited to, streets, bridges, traffic signals, street lights, drainage, flood control, water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, landscaping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities, relocation of utilities, other public facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations, police stations, and any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the Public Improvements. -The term Public Improvements includes not only improvements that benefit the Development, but also those that benefit parcels outside.the Development. "Public Improvements" shall also include any property or property interests reasonably necessary for the construction of the improvement. (k) "Substantial Completion of an Improvement" means completion of construction of a Public Improvement to the extent necessary to allow it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (1) "Supplemental Improvements"means Public Improvements which are: (1) required as a condition of approval of the Development which have a size, capacity, number, or length greater than necessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the Development; or (2) improvements which have been agreed upon between the City and Developer. 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District. Whenever a Developer elects, or is required by the City, to install or replace Supplemental Improvements, or whenever the City participates in the costs of Supplemental Improvements in advance of Development, and provided that the costs of such Supplemental Improvements are not financed by an assessment-district or similar proceeding, the Developer may submit an application for formation of an Area of Benefit District, or the City Council, on its own motion,may initiate the formation of the Area of Benefit District. The application of the Developer shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with a non-refundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the request to City Council. 17.68.040 Application Fee for Formation of the Area of Benefit District. Where the Developer has applied for formation of an Area of Benefit District,prior to the City Council authorizing the initiation of the formation of the Area of Benefit District, the Developer shall deposit with the City the following fees to cover various administration costs: (a) A non-refundable application fee will be required from the Developer prior to commencing any work on the Area of Benefit District. The amount of the application fee will be determined by the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general Area of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District formation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individual project to cover such expenses as the calculation of the Excess Costs of the Supplemental Improvements, determination of the Area of Benefit and determination of the apportionment of the Excess Costs to the benefiting parcels. District formation fees will also include publishing of all notices, mailing, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the Developer, the City Engineer 02ord/17-68 chap/5/30/02 3 will process the Developer's request to City Council. The City Engineer may retain a qualified consultant to prepare the documents and estimates. This consultant shall have no business relationship with the Developer. The costs of any such engineering services shall be paid by the Developer. The City Council may treat such costs as an incidental cost of the Supplemental Improvements that may be recouped pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District. The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all Benefited Properties paying Area of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City and Developer for the cost of formation and monitoring the District. 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer. Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report containing the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit District which identifies all parcels within the District. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the Supplemental Improvements. (c) The proposed spread of the Excess Costs to the Area of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District. (a) Upon receiving the request from.the City Engineer,the City Clerk shall set a noticed public hearing before the City Council. The City Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following form, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach at least ten(10) days prior to such hearing: NOTICE OF HEARING The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing at on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 to consider the establishment of an Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the City. Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit District and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of. If, after the date of forming this District, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or apply for a building permit, the charge and inflation adjustment would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the District are more particularly described by Diagram No. which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said Public Improvements, the cost of said Public Improvements, the benefited area and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard. at said hearing. 02ord/17-68 chap/5/31/02 4 (b) The City Engineer shall, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied by a diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer describing the following: (1) A description of the Public Improvements and that portion considered to be in excess of the Developer's requirements. (2) The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the Public Improvements. (3) The actual or estimated costs of the Supplemental Improvements which are proposed to be charged against the benefiting property when such property is developed or redeveloped. (4) A diagram identifying the properties to be included within the District. 17.68.080 Action by City Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may,in its sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Developer to.provide for the disbursements of the proceeds of the Area of Benefit District. (b) The resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the Benefited Properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers. (2) A diagram identifying the parcels included within the District. (3) An apportionment of the Excess Costs which represent the actual or estimated amount to be charged against each Benefited Property within the District. If the Costs are estimated,the resolution will indicate that the Charges are subject to re- computation by the City Engineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such Charges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicating that the Charges are subject to an interest or inflation charge,the terms of which shall be defined. (c) Once the Area of Benefit District has been approved by a resolution of the City Council, it shall establish a statement of charges due from the benefiting properties and their successors,heirs and assigns. (d) Unless directed otherwise by the City Council at the time of the District formation, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of the Resolution establishing the District with the County Recorder. 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engineer shall reapportion the charge amounts.after final costs have been calculated and verified by the City Engineer or his designee. All affected property owners shall be notified in writing of their charge amount. 02ord/17-68 chap/5/30/02 5 . 17.68.100 Administrative Audit. The Finance officer shall prepare a report indicating the administrative costs incurred for each District on an annual basis. The report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February 15. 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge. (a) Payment of Charges shall be placed by the City in the appropriate fund account established by Council for each District. These funds will be established to reimburse the Developer for costs incurred for the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to the project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall be established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the Development of benefited properties or the utilization of the Public Improvement by such benefited properties provided (b) Following the formation of the District, if any person records a final map (subdivision,parcel, consolidation, etc.)or applies for a building permit on a parcel within a District in accordance with this Chapter, and such person or their predecessor in interest has-not paid such charge to the City, the established charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parcel map or the issuance of the building permit. (c) All charges shall include a principal charge plus an interest or inflation charge calculated from the date of establishment of the District. The-date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the Public Improvements by the City, or City Council approval of the District, whichever occurs later. (d) Once a charge has been paid, the City Engineer shall cause a notice to be recorded with the County Recorder removing the parcel from the Area of Benefit District. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a) No Charge shall be required in connection with building permits described below: (1) Building alterations for non-residential uses which do not exceed a third (1/3) of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing building. (2) Building alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third(1/3)the original area,provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. (5) Temporary uses as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. 02ord/17-68 chap/5/30/02 6 (b) Any claim of exemption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the City Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. The City Council may create, pursuant to the resolution establishing an Area of Benefit District, a procedure for adjusting the Charge to Benefited Parcels. The procedure shall address the circumstance that the Supplemental Improvements will not benefit individual properties within the Area of Benefit due to the nature of development proposed on the property. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies. All monies collected under the provisions of this Chapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the appropriate fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. The City Treasurer shall pay annually all monies so collected to the Developer who paid for the Supplemental Improvements for which the charges were collected,or to their assignees. The City shall notify the Developer of the existence of monies deposited in said fund. No funds will be reimbursed to the Developer until all costs included in the District have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall be mailed to the address contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be required by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three (3) years after notice has been made as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties. Whenever a duty is delegated or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council, that official or employee may delegate all or a portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy, or other employee of the City. 17.68.140 Challenges to District. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, set aside, avoid, or review the decision of the City Council to establish an Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirement, or to decline to establish a District shall be brought by an interested person within ninety(90)days of formation of the District." PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works 02ord/17-68 chap/5/30/02 7 ORDINANCE NO. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT "Chapter 17.68 COST MR4BURSEMENT AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS (3151-8/92, Correction 2/93) Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for}Installation of(Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions 17.68.030 Application for rest Reimbufsement Area of Benefit District 17.68.040 Eest's Application fee for formation of the rest Re:,..,biffse,..,e^* Area of Benefit District 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and mMonitoring the Lest R e;r..,bufsemei#Area of Benefit District after--fe ie 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Gest D eimbiffseme Area of Benefit District 17.68.080 Action by City Council 17.68.090 Re-computation of lieH Charge 17.68.100 Administrative aAudit 17.68.110 T :mitati_ _ on__nbufsef,er*-�gFeenwat Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. 17.68:120 Obligation of dDeveloper^Y s„ divide,.to eClaim mMonies 17.68.130 Delegation of dDuties 17.68.140 Time limit Challenges to dDistrict 17.68.010 Requirement for iInstallation of}Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Development,-A a dDeveloper may be required to install and dedicate pPublic}Improvements their-s,,bdiv;,i develepment-which may contain supplemental size, capacity,number, or length for the benefit of property not within*,&the subdivisien ef dDevelopment. When such supplemental size,capacity,number, or length is-selely-- _XW benefits e€property not within the subdivisien erdDevelopment, the devalepef City may€elle enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the Supplemental Improvements through e f this er-dina flee to establish a Gest an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimburse the Developer, the City may: (a)Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge for the use of Supplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within the" evelopment Area. (b) Contribute to the Developer that part of the cost of the Public Improvements that benefit real property outside the Development Area and levy a charge upon the real property benefited to reimburse the Developer for such cost, together with interest thereon, if any. legisdrNmel768LD/5/30/02 1 (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such charge from the property benefited. The charge collected shall be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. sefves pr-epefty within the City er-within the City's sphere ef influenee te allew the Gity- to-r-erreive Y-ei r-sement-- 17.68.020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or eEstimated Xosts of pPublic }Improvements" means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district formation, right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceedings, environmental impact mitigation;,plan check and permit fees, construction inspections,maintenance of }Improvements;, or any other expenses attributable to the construction of Public iImprovements. If the scope of the pr-ejeet Development is altered during construction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed during construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more than ten (10%)percent without notice to the affected property owners. (b)(k) "Substantial eCompletion of an faeilit Improvement" shall be defined as that eft means completion of constriction of a€aeik Public Improvement ���'�i�will to the extent necessary to allow tlility it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (c) "Area of Benefit" means the entire area which receives a benefit from the pW3-k Supplemental }Improvements. The "Area of bBenefited area" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing,is determined to be the.area benefited by the construction of the pWt 4e Supplemental iImprovements. (d)"Benefited Property" is the parcel(s) that is benefited by the Supplemental Improvements and is included within the Area of Benefit. (e) "Charge" means the Excess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property. (�( "Developer" means the person who is responsible for constructing the pPublic improvements. (g)"Development" means any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. (h)"Development Area" means the residential subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to be constructed by the Developer (e)(i) "Excess eCosts" means the costs attributable to that portion of Public iImprovements which benefit areas outside the dDevelopment eArea. Benefit may legisdrft/mc 17G8LD/5/30/02 2 be determined by any commonly accepted method which fairly apportions the cost of the ilmprovements to the benefiting properties. (4)0) "Public}Improvements" means those improvements as set forth herein including, but not limited to, streets,bridges, traffic signals, street lights, drainage, flood control, water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, landscaping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities,relocation of utilities, other public facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations, police stations, and any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the pPublic}Improvements;. bU4 shall setifielade The term pPublic}Improvements..,� will includes not only improvements that benefit efily the dDevelopment, in whieh they are leea4ea. but also those that benefit parcels outside the Development. "Public }Improvements" shall also include any property or property interests reasonably necessary for the construction of the improvement. (g) "Reimbufsement Dist-r-iet" means the benefited area within wl lieh pr-epeily shall N(1) "Supplemental}Improvements" means those ' pPublic}Improvements and which are: (1)'required as a condition of approval of the dDevelopment prefect which have a size, capacity, number, or length greater than necessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the dDevelopment prejec-t;and or (2) improvements which have been agreed upon between the City and dDeveloper. (i)(b) "Administrative ECosts" shall be defined as costs for direct labor and employee benefits, outside consultants eests, direct materials, allied indirect costs, overhead costs, ever-head +c and fixed assets;or depreciation charges. 17.68.030 Application for Cost n eimb fsen t#Area of Benefit District. Whenever a eveloper elects,or is required by the City, to install or replaces upplemental Improvements, or whenever the City participates in the costs of sSupplemental lmmprovements n4s in advance of dDevelopment;, and provided that the costs of such Supplemental iImprovements are not financed by an assessment-ander- district or similar proceeding, the dDeveloper may submit an application for formation of an eest,.e:...baFsom ent Area of Benefit dDistrict, or the City Council, on its own motion, may initiate the formation of the eest mifa fir-se.neat Area of Benefit dDistrict. The application of the dDeveloper shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with a non-refundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the request to City Council. 17.68.040 Gests ARRlication Fee for Formation of the Gent R eign,.,,fsef eat Area of ene tt District. Where the Developer has applied for formation of an Area of Bene it District,Pprior to the City Council authorizing the initiation of the formation of the Cost n o;.,,b ufsef e„+Area of Benefit District, the dDeveloper shall deposit with the City the following fees to cover various administration costs: (a) A non-refundable application fee will be required from the dDeveloper prior to commencing any work on the Gest n ei~,''ur-se ent Area of Benefit District. The legisdrft/mc l 768LD/5/30/02 3 amount of the application fee will be determined by a r-esel tieY1 ef the Gity Ge11~6il the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general Eest- ReimbufsemelA Area of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District formation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individual project to cover such expenses as the calculation of the Feimbufsem Excess eCosts of the sSupplemental}Improvements, determination of the helped Area of Benefit and;determination of the apportionment of the eExcess eCosts to the benefiting parcels., and audit *;r..e. District formation fees will also include publishing of all notices, mailing, reu+Ay R eeer- er fees, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the dDeveloper, the City Engineer will process the dDeveloper's request to City Council. The City Engineer may request that speei l enginararincsnnriees be retained a qualified consultant to prepare the documents and estimates. This retain en.rear Consultant shall have no business relationship with the dDeveloper. The costs of any such engineering services shall be paid by the dDeveloper.;however-, the The City Council may treat such costs shell be eeas;aerea as an incidental cost of the Supplemental }Improvements to that may be recouped pursuant to the provisions of this Or-diaaneChapter. 17.68.050 RecoverinZ Costs for Formation and MMonitorin the C-est:- D eiffibufse„ nt Area of Benefit District after--€efmatien. ..+; ea p b,lie hearing the Developer-will be required to rio«. sit fees fife ifie does net mplenish the b The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all Benefited Properties paying Area of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City and Developer for the cost of formation and monitoring the District. 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer. Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report containing the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit dDistrict which identifies all parcels within the dDistrict. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the sSupplemental ilmprovements. (e) The proposed spread of the eExcess eCosts to the beiiefiti b Area of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of rest D e;r~,l uFse..,ep* Area of Benefit District. (a) Upon receiving the request from the City Engineer, the City.Clerk shall set a noticed public hearing before the City Council. The City Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following form,to be published once in a newspaper of . legisdrft/mc 1768LD/5/31/02 4 general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach at least ten(10) days prior to such hearing: NOTICE OF HEARING The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing at_ on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, 1untington Beach, California 92648 to consider the establishment of an Osst oeim bi lr emem Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the City.,-etheFwise F;ewF; as t�- reest Re rnbwse eRt ^�FiGt Ne. . Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Sect Reimbl lmpmen+ Area of Benefit District and may be subject to a Iten charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of land . If, with' Ad a er the date of forming this dDistrict, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or a ply for a building permit, the 49A charge and inflation adjustment would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the dDistrict are more particularly described by Diagram No. I which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said pPublic +Improvements, the cost of said pPublic i1mprovements, the benefited area eF and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard at said hearing. (b) The City Engineer shall, at least twerp fourteen (2-A 14) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied by a diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer describing the following: (1)-A description of the pPublic iImprovements and that portion considered to be in excess of the dDeveloper's requirements. (2)-The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the pPublic iImprovements. (3)-The actual or estimated costs of a the Supplemental iImprovements which are proposed to be lied Charged against the benefiting property when such property is developed or redeveloped. (4)-A diagram ' identifying the properties to be included within the dDistrict. 17.68.080 Action by City Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may, in its sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Cost n eiinbufse...ent Area of Benefit District and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the dDeveloper to provide for the disbursements of the proceeds of the Gest D e;..,bur-se„ e t Area of Benefit District. legisdrfl/mc 17G8 LD/5/31/02 5 (b) The resolution establishing the Cost D ei- bur-seme t Area of Benefit District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the Benefited pProperties identified by assessor's parcel numbers (2) A diagram identi ying the parcels included within thelistrict. (3) An apportionment of the eExcess eCosts which represent the actual or estimated amount to be levied charged against each p�sel Benefited Property within the dDistrict. If the eCosts are estimated, the resolution will indicate that the lip Charges are subject to re-computation by the City Engineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such liened eets Charges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicating that the liters Charges are subject to an interest or inflation charge, the terms of which shall be defined. (c) Once the r,,.,+R e;,,,buffieme Area of Benefit District has been approved by a resolution of the City Council, it shall establish a statement of charges due from the benefiting , heirs er-assigns of the ;'enelis pq eels „r.._epe. the ir-benefited sharp „f.,,e,.,, lie ; .,e +s properties and their..successors, heirs and assigns. (d)Unless directed otherwise by the City Council at the time of the District formation, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of the Resolution establishing the District with the County Recorder. the City Engineer-sha4l eause to be filed a release ef lien upen the aff-eeted prepei4-y er- pr-epefties.- 17.68.090 Re-computation of liter Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engineer shall reapportion the lien charge amounts after final costs have been calculated and verified by the Xity Engineer or his designee.;and shall eause the lien r-all te be . All affected property owners shall be notified in writing of their wee c arge amount. 17.68.100 Administrative aAudit. The tee=Finance officer shall prepare a report indicating the administrative costs incurred for each District on an annual basis. The report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a C-ast- ufsefnerA Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February 15. 17.68.110 T ifnit t ens e a mb -semer* agfee= nt Establishment of Area*of Benefit Char2e. 5 the- Iegisdrft/mc 17G8LD/5/30/02 6 /b. (a) The mifnbufsefaent a em nt shall indieate that the liens afe subjeet t: an inter-est and shall be Payment of Charges shall be placed by the City in the appropriate fund account established by Council for each dDistrict. These funds will be established to reimburse the dDeveloper for costs incurred for the construction of the Supplemental }Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to the project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall be established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the dDevelopment of benefited properties or the utilization of the pPublic iImprovement by such benefited properties provided, , reimbufsement b fe") if duffing_the established ;;L2riJ;d r,e++e _eeea cea + .cv,+.. (79) years, fFollowing the formation of the dDistrict, if any person records a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or applies for a building permit on a parcel f,.., t.h e e lien within a District supplemental imprevements has been establish in accordance with this 6Chapter, and such person or their predecessor in interest has not paid such lien charge to the City, the established lip charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parcel map or the issuance of the building permit • ri ert hewe,rer__-c„eh-pa59 et-b e,t , eepneetieawith b, as defined in the Uai&Tm Building ees sy. than one thir-d (I�3)the efiginal. t ete 9 73 z-azr�tc�-rJ. (d)(e) All liens charges shall include a principal charge plus an interest or inflation charge calculated from the date of establishment of lien the District. The date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the pPublic}Improvements by the City, or City Council approval of the District, whichever occurs later. (d)Once a charge has been paid, the City Engineer shall cause a notice to be recorded with the County Recorder removing the parcel from the Area of Benefit District. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a)No Charge shall be required in connection with-building permits described below: (1)Building_alterations for non-residential uses which do not.exceed a third (1/3) of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building levisdrtl/mc 1768LD/5/30/02 7 Code, and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing building. (2)Building alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units. (3)Fences and walls. (4)Repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third (1/3) the original area, provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. (5)Temporary uses as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. (b)Any claim of exemption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the City Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.117 Ad'ustment of Charge. The City Council may create, pursuant to the resolution establishing an rea of Benefit District, a procedure for adjusting the Charge to Benefited Parcels.- The procedure shall address the circumstance that the Supplemental Improvements will-not benefit individual properties within the Area of Benefit due to the nature of development proposed on the property. 17.68.120 Obliization of dDeveloper sr-subdivider-to eClaim mMonies. All monies collected under the provisions of this eChapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the appropriate fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. The City Treasurer shall refund pay annually all monies so collected to the th�erserrs Developer who paid for the 6upplemental Improvements for which arges were collected, or to their assignees, all ^^ies se eelleeted. The City shall notify the dDeveloper of the existence of monies deposited in said fund. No funds will be reimbursed to the dDeveloper until all costs included in the dDistrict have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall.be mailed to the address contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be required by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three(3) years after notice has been made as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of dDuties. Whenever a duty is delegated or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council, that official or employee may delegate all or a portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy,.or other employee of the City. 17.68.140 Time life t f f eChallenges to District. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, set aside, avoid, or review the decision of the City Council to establish an rest v e;..,buHe,....e.,t Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirement, or to decline to establish a dDistrict shall be brought by an interested person legisdrft/mc 1768LD/5/30/02 8 within thk4y ninety (M 90) days of the a +e fthe_ ,,,.,aatiei e ft e r-eseltAiea e ft e City Geeneil deeisien with the B.-der-er-within ninp#,(90) days of the date-ef- the .,eeisie •whieheveF41; SA— formation of the District.' legisdrft/mc l7G8 LD/5/30/02 9 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Findings and Intent. The City Council finds as follows: A. In December 1990, the City of Huntington Beach approved Ordinance No. 3080, thereby entering into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement("Development Agreement")with Pacific Coast Homes, B. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project("Holly-Seacliff Project") on approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north,Huntington and Main Streets on the east,Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west("Holly-Seacliff Project Area"). C. The Development Agreement required that Pacific Coast Homes construct certain traffic and circulation improvements within-the Holly-Seacliff Project Area, specifically Main, Edwards, Goldenwest and Gothard Streets, and Garfield and Ellis Avenues(the"Arterials"). D. The Development Agreement also obliged the City to (1)determine the extent to which these Arterials resulted in street capacity in excess of the traffic demand the Holly-Seacliff Project created; and(2)reimburse Pacific Coast Homes for the excess street capacity from fees or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. E. In May 1996, the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly-Seacliff Project to PLC, a California general partnership,and the remainder to MS Vickers,U, a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer, PLC assumed the Pacific Coast Homes' obligation to install and pay for the public facilities requited under the Development Agreement. F. The City and the PLC implemented the reimbursement obligation of Development Agreement through a Settlement Agreement, dated April 17,2000,that, among other things, limited the reimbursement obligation from property owners benefiting from the Arterials to those parcels immediately abutting the Arterials. The amount of the reimbursement was specifically limited to the cost of ten(10) feet of pavement,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent PLC's construction of the Arterials pursuant to Chapter 255 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance("HBZSO"), the abutting property owner would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of the development. Section 255.04(B) specifically requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffie Impact/5/31/02 1 to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section,curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further, HBZSO Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. G. The cost of ten (10) feet of pavement,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk has been analyzed in a report entitled"Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Report," prepared by MuniFinancial and dated March 20, 2002 ("Area of Benefit Report"). The actual cost of constructing the ten (10) feet of roadway improvements,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk was determined to be $68.10 per linear foot of property frontage. The Area of Benefit Report then calculates the Area of Benefit Charge to be paid by property owners that benefit from the Arterials PLC installed. The Charge varies by property depending upon each parcel's street frontage. H. The City Council finds and declares that, in the absence of this Resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District(the "District"), existing and future sources of revenue will not be adequate to reimburse PLC for its construction of supplemental capacity in the Arterials. Failure to provide for reimbursement would violate Government Code Sections 66485-66489, and Section 254.18 of the HBZSO,both of which provide that when one developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity, the City Council shall enter into an agreement providing for reimbursement to the developer of the cost of constructing supplemental capacity, with the funding of the reimbursement.derived from the levy and collection of a charge on the development of the properties benefiting from the supplemental capacity. SECTION 2: Report of the City Engineer. The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the City Engineer's Report regarding the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Said Report was prepared by a consultant, MuniFinancial,pursuant to Section 17.68.040(b)of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. A copy of the Report is on file with the City Clerk. Said Report includes: A. The total cost of the Supplemental Improvements, including right of way acquisition, which amount is$1,949,948.40. B. The cost of the Roadway Improvement component of the Supplemental Improvements,which amount is$455,350.65. The City Council hereby further acknowledges receipt from the City Engineer of a diagram describing the boundaries of the District and identifying all parcels within the District. SECTION 3. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. A. Pursuant to Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code,there is hereby established the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impact/6/3/02 2 B. Although the City Engineer Report recommends that the amount of Excess Costs are $1,949,948.40, the City Council finds and concludes that only the Roadway Improvement component of Excess Costs should spread as a charge to the Benefited Properties. C. A list of the properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers which are included within the District is set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit A. D. A diagram identifying the properties which are included within the District is attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit B. E. An apportionment of the Excess Costs for construction of the Arterials and the formation of the District,which represent the actual amount to be charged against each parcel within the District, is set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves the Charges set forth in Exhibit A. F. Such Charges are due and payable prior to the issuance of a final tract map, final parcel map, or the issuance of a building permit;provided,however, such shall not be due in connection with building permits issued in circumstances as described in Section 17.68.110(b) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. G. The City Council finds that the Charges may be adjusted to the extent that the sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway installed by the Developer when widening the arterials must be reconstructed in different locations at the time the Benefited Property obtains its building permit or final map. The owner of the Benefited Property may apply to the City Engineer for such an adjustment at the time the Charge is due. By way of example, if the owner of the Benefited Property must relocate the driveway the Developer installed pursuant to the final map, the City Engineer shall reduce the Charge by the reasonable cost of relocating the driveway. H. Commencing on July 1, 2003, and annually thereafter,the Charges established by this Resolution shall be adjusted based upon the change in the construction cost index produced by Engineering News Record,published by McGraw- Hill ("Cost Index"), during the preceding year. The City Engineer shall then adjust the Charges set forth in Exhibit A by such percentage change. The adjusted Charge amount shall be rounded to the nearest cent, and this amount shall constitute the Charge authorized by Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and establishedby this Resolution. Should the cost index be revised or discontinued,the City Engineer shall use the revised or a comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of constructing traffic improvements. SECTION 4. California Environmental Qality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under Section 15273(a)(4) of the California Code of Regulations, commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that this exemption applies because there is no reasonable 02reso/Holly-Seacliff Traffic lmpact/6/3/02 3 possibility that the establishment of the Area of Benefit District could negatively affect the physical environment. To the contrary, the charge will be collected to mitigate the environmental impacts of new development on the City's surface transportation system. Any environmental impacts associated with specific projects that may be undertaken with charge proceeds will be assessed as each project is formulated. Further, the City Council finds that,based on Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b) and the fact that this Resolution implements the Circulation Element of the General Plan,which was analyzed pursuant to EIR 94-1, the Ordinance is currently exempt from further environmental assessment until individual traffic improvements are submitted for approval by the City. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force sixty (60)days from and after adoption thereof,which date is PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED. APPROVED AS TO FOR.Ml : City Administrator City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works . 02reso/Holly-Seacliff Traftic Impact/5/31/02 4 Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Costs5 Total Charge Goldenwest Street . 110-211-01 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 $ - $ 1,702.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 110-211-04 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-05 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 - 11,917.50 110-220-02 Brindle 330 22,473.00 - 22,473.00 110-220-03 Brindle 199 13,551.90 - 13,551.90 110-220-04 Brindle 129 8,784.90 - 8,784.90 111-120-01 S&C Oil Co. 132 8,989.20 - 8,989.20 111-120-063 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-073 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-083 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-09 Thomas 117 7,967.70 - 7,967.70 111-120-11 Lingle/Leckie 81 5,516.10 - 5,516.10 111-120-273 Mitchell NA - - - 111-120-28 Mitchell 132 .8,989.20 - 8,989.20 111-130-11 City of H.B. 123 8,376.30 - 8,376.30 111-130-12 City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 - 4,903.20 1.11-130-14 Williams 88 5,992.80 5,992.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 Gothard Street 111-110-15 Galich 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-110-184 Mandic 290 19,749.00 - 19,749.00 111-110-19 Greer 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 98 6,673.80 - 6,673.80 111-110-21 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110722 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-383 Custer NA - - - 111-140-18 Jones 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-193 Gustafson NA - - - 111-140-21 Thomas 20 1,362.00 - 1,362.00 111-140-22 Thomas 125 8,512.50 - 8,512.50 111-140-23 Gardner 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-24 Thomas 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-25 Weaver 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-27 Everroad 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-140-38 Telford. 167 11,372.70 - 11,372.70 111-150-13 City of H.B. 195 13,279.50 - 13,279.50 111-150-153 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum NA - - - 111-150-163 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum NA - - - 111-150-173 Scott NA - - - 111-150-19 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-20 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-21 Delgado 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-24 Elliott 201 13,688.10 - 13,688.10 Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule (cont'd) Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Costss Total Charge Garfield Avenue 111-110-07 Dunn 150 10,215.00 - 10,215.00 111-110-10 Roulette 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-110-14 Taylor 79 5,379.90 - 5,379.90 111-110-313 Bollman NA - - - 111-110-333 Weide NA - - - 111-110-363 Novak NA - - - 111-110-373 Boodman-Gorndon NA - - - 111-120-12 Leckie 38 2,587.80 - 2,587.80 111-120-13 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-14 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120=15 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-16 Thomas 100 $ 6,810.00 $ - $ 6,810.00 111-120-17 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-18 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3.405.00 111-120-19 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-20 Thomas 68 4,630.80 - 4,630.80 111-130-01 Weir 18 1,225.80 - 1,225.80 111-130-02 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-06 Petersen 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-07 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-08 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-130-26 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-140-02 Weir 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - . 3,405.00 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 18 1.225.80 - 1,225.80 111-140-36 Weir 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-37 Weir 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 Main Street 111-150-30 Santiago 103 7,014.30 - 7,014.30 111-150-36 Southridge Homes 206 14,028.60 - 14,028.60 111-150-37 Keller 110 7,491.00 - 7,491.00 111-150-38 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - 7,218.60 111-150-39 Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 - 7,150.50 Total Amount 6,684 $455,180.40 $ - $ 455,180.40 Total Parcels Charged 70 PLC Land Company actual per foot roadway construction costs($68.10)multiplied by frontage. 2 Costs for contract professional services to calculate and document the charge. 3 No charge because property owner Improvements were in place prior to PLC's improvements. ° Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost. s Formation costs not Included in charge. Sources:City of Huntington Beach;MuniFinancial. s �� TI--I EC�� �OsF HFL,I NTI'N�TU�1� B EA � H i t ■ r 4 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINAL REPORT MARCH 20, 2002 lam.!MuniFinancial �II� A WILLDAN COMPANY Corporate Office Regional Office 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 450 Temecula, California 92590 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (800)755-MUNI(6864) Tel: (510)832-0899. Fax: (909)699-3460 wiN-w.nuini.com Fax: (510)832-0898 TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummart........................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................3 Development Agreement Background...........................................................................................................4 LegalBasis..........................................................................................................................................................6 Methodologyand Assumptions ......................................................................................................................9 GeneralDescription............................................................................................................................9 RoadwayConstruction Costs...........................................................................................................10 Right-of-way Acquisition Payments.......................................... MiscellaneousCosts...........................................................................................................................14 LegalCosts............................................................................................................................15 TitleFees...............................................................................................................................15 Appraisal/Estimation..........................................................................................................15 CityReal Estate Services.....................................................................................................15 Areaof Benefit Study..........................................................................................................15 ExcludedProperties..........................................................................................................................16 Charge Schedule...........:.......... FutureCharge Adjustments...........................................................................................................................20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach, California ("City'D approve the formation of an area of benefit district establishing a charge to developers of new residential and non-residential projects within the Holly-Seacliff area of the City. Normally, the City requires as a condition of development that the owner widen the street to its ultimate right of way, as shown in the Circulation Element of the City General Plan. However, pursuant to the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, the master developer, not the adjacent property owners,widened Goldenwest, Garfield, Gothard and Main Streets. The proposed Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District would charge the property owners adjacent to these streets a development impact fee equivalent to the cost the master developer paid to widen these streets. The proposed charge varies by property depending upon each property I s actual share of total improvement costs. Total improvement costs are composed of sidewalk and roadway construction costs, and right-of-way acquisition payments to property owners. Charge revenues will be deposited into a separate City account and used exclusively to first reimburse the master developer the costs it advanced for initially widening these streets and then reimburse the City for some of the costs it advanced to the master developer. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.,before an impact fee such as this area of benefit charge may be imposed, the City must first establish a fair and reasonable relationship or"nexus" between the fee charged and the cost of the proposed public improvements. This report serves to document the nexus requirement between the fee proposed and the benefit received for the road and related improvements the master developer installed. Table 1 summarizes the results of our analysis by presenting total improvement costs, and the number of properties to which the fee applies. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE I HOLL Y-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT Crr),OF HUNTINGTO.v BEACH Table 1: Summary of Costs & Charges Total Roadway Improvements $ 455,180 Right-of-Way 2,090,286 Miscellaneous' - Total Costs $ 2,545,466 Parcels Subject to Fee 83 ' It is recommended that miscellaneous costs for legal, title, appraisal,and real estate services incurred in order to acquire right-of-way be excluded from the charge because it was deemed unfair to charge property owners to reimburse these costs when they incurred similar costs on their own behalf. Costs associated with producing this report are also excluded. Sources: Table 4; MuniFinancial. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PACE 2 HOLLY-SEAcLrFFAREA oF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY 0FHuAwNGTo.vBEACH INTRODUCTION This report calculates a Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District charge to be paid by property owners that abut and benefit from roadways improved by the developer, the PLC Land Company (PLC). The 1990 Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement required PLC to over-size certain road improvements otherwise needed to meet traffic demand resulting from the Holly-Seacliff Project. PLC installed four-lane and six-lane arterial roadways,which pass through Holly-Seacliff. However, the outer two lanes of these arterials do not benefit the Holly-Seacliff Project, but instead are needed to serve growth on abutting properties by providing access to those properties. The properties subject to the Charge (the "Local Area") includes those properties that abut the arterial improvements PLC constructed along Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue and`Nlain Street (the "Arterials"). Only those properties that benefit from the improvements and have not otherwise implemented an alternative reimbursement mechanism-,would be subject to the Charge. The City will collect the charge from properties within the Local Area only when they develop. The charge would vary by property depending on each property's actual project costs subject to reimbursement. MuNiFWANC[AL MAACH20,2002 PAGE3 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF ffWMNGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BACKGROUND In December 1990, the City and Pacific Coast Homes entered into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project of approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and Main Streets on the east, Yorktown and Clay avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west ("Holly-Seacliff"). The Agreement required (among other things) for the Developer to construct certain public facilities and pay certain public facility charges to the City. The Agreement also obliged the City to (1) determine the cost of the public facilities the Developer was required to construct that were in excess of those necessary to serve the Holly-Seacliff development; and (2) reimburse the Developer for these excess costs from charges or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. In May 1996, the Citv consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly- Seacliff property to PLC, a California general partnership, and the remainder to MS Vickers, II, a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer, PLC agreed to assume the obligations to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. Simultaneously, PLC became the beneficiary of the City's obligations to cause the Developer to be reimbursed for the cost of excess capacity in the public facilities. Regarding traffic and circulation improvements, the Development Agreement provided that the Developer was to install the arterial road improvements, principally Main, Garfield, Edwards, Goldenwest, Ellis, and Gothard. The Development Agreement then provided that "upon acceptance of the improvements," the Developer was eligible for "Reimbursable Costs" pursuant to Section 2.2.11 of the Agreement. "Reimbursable Costs" were defined to mean those "improvements in excess of those required to service the proposed project." Reimbursement is due from subsequent development. Section 2.2.11 of the Development Agreement begins by stating that "when in the performance of this Agreement, Developer is eligible for Reimbursable Costs, the following procedures apply." Section 2.2.11(a) then continues, stating that "upon receipt of funds generated by charges or exactions from other developers served by excess capacity of public facilities paid for by Developer, City shall reimburse Developer its verified Reimbursable Costs." This Section requires the City to reimburse the Developer (i.e., PLC) from fees or exactions collected from other developers served by the excess capacity. MUNIFIX-INCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 4 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OFBEVEFITDISTR/CT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH PLC installed in excess of 335,300,000 in roads and arterial improvements. PLC contended that it was entitled to reimbursement for a significant portion of these costs. PLC sought to arbitrate its cost reimbursement as permitted under the Development Agreement. Instead, the City and PLC entered into a Settlement Agreement on April 17, 2000 that, among other things, authorized reimbursing PLC from property owners adjacent to the Arterials in the amount of the cost of pavement plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent PLC's construction of the arterials, these property owners would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of development pursuant to Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and-Subdivision Ordinance. Consequently, the Settlement Agreement provides that these property owners would pay these costs as a condition of their development. More specifically, the first$812,000 the City receives from these property owners will be paid to PLC. All further amounts will be retained by the City, in order to reimburse the City for (i) the S500,000 it has already paid PLC for the completion of Gothard between Garfield and Main, and the completion of Goldenwest between Garfield and Ellis, and (ii) the credits the City has extended PLC against its traffic impact fees for installing other street improvements within the Holly Seacliff area. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 10,1001 PAGE 5 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL BASIS The Subdivision N-lap Act (California Government Code §§ 66485-66489) provides that if the City requires a subdivider to install supplemental capacity in public improvements for the benefit of property not within the subdivision, the City shall enter into an agreement with the subdivider for reimbursement of the difference in cost. To pay costs of reimbursement, the City may collect a reasonable charge from persons outside the subdivision for their use of the supplemental capacity. Such a charge may be through an area of benefit district, such as the one proposed in this Report. Whether such a charge must also comply with the reasonable relationship, or "nexus" requirement contained in The Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code § 66000 et seq.) is unclear. Regardless, the proposed Charge does comply with The Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act establishes ground rules for the imposition and ongoing administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January 1989 and requires local governments to make five findings when adopting an impact.fee. These findings and their justification for this Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee are described below: 1. Identify the purpose of the charge. The purpose of the Charge is to reimburse the Holly-Seacliff Developer and the Cite, for oversized roadway improvement projects made within Holly-Seacliff. 2. Identify the use of charge revenues. Charge revenues shall be used to reimburse the Developer and the City of Huntington Beach for actual costs incurred for oversizing arterials within Hollv-Seacliff. 3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the charge use and the type of development paying the charge. The developments paying the charge will be those benefiting from the oversized improvements. Absent the Developer having installed the improvement, the individual property owners would have been required to install the same improvements when they- developed. Charge revenues will only be used to reimburse actual costs for installing the improvements the property owner otherwise would have installed. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 6 HOLLI'-SMCLIFFAREA OFBENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OFHUNTINCTON BEACH 4. Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the charge and the type of development paying the charge. Except for the fact that PLC was widening the arterials as part of the Holly-Seacliff project, the abutting property owners would be required to dedicate the right-of-way and widen the Arterials as a condition of their own development. This requirement is found at Government Code § 66475 and Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"),which require that the subdivider, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, to dedicate, or make an irrevocable offer to dedicate, all parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for required improvements, including access rights and abutters' rights. In addition, the subdivider shall construct or agree to construct all required improvements in accord with Chapter 255 of the HBZSO. Section 255.04(B) then requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further,Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Finally, Section 254.18 of the HBZSO and Section 2.2.11 of the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement provide that when the Developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity, the City Council shall determine the method for payment of the costs required by a reimbursement agreement which may include but is not limited to the establishment and maintenance of local benefit districts for the levy and collection of such charge or costs from the property benefited. The need for the charge is also demonstrated by traffic analysis prepared in connection with the PLC development. That analysis showed that development on properties within the Holly-Seacliff area and included in the proposed Area of Benefit District would generate additional traffic and contribute to the need for the improvements constructed by PLC. Please see Appendix A for a copy of a briefing prepared by Boyle Engineering that summarized traffic modeling data on this issue. The last pages of that briefing show simplified cross-sections of streets in the area. For each street, the figure shows the additional traffic volumes generated by PLC (indicated as "developer") and other properties in the area (indicated as "HSO", or"Holly-Seacliff Other"). For all street sections "HSO" development contributes to the need for the additional capacity provided by the PLC improvements. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH2O,1002 PACE 7 HOLLY•SEACLIFF AREA OFBENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OFHUNTINCTON BEACH 5. Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the charge and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the charge. Roadway construction costs are allocated to applicable individual properties based on linear feet of frontage and the cost of one lane with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Right-of-way acquisition costs are allocated based on the actual costs attributable to each property limited to a maximum width of one lane with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, or some reasonable allocation method if actual costs are not available (see Methodology and Assumptions section and Table 4). In sum, the charge is set equal to the cost of the improvements needed to accommodate the development paying the charge, and charge revenues would only be used to reimburse for those costs. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PA GE 8 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS This section describes the methodology and assumptions used to calculate the Charge. General Description Only properties abutting the oversized arterials are subject to the Charge. These properties are all located on Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Garfield avenue, and Main Street, and abut roadway improvements constructed by PLC. Total roadway improvement costs are composed of the following items: • Roadway construction costs for the outer lane abutting the property, and • Right-of-way acquisition payments to property owners for the outer lane abutting the property. Miscellaneous costs, including legal costs related to right-of-way acquisition, title fees, real estate appraisal fees, and reimbursement to the Cin- for real estate services provided to PLC and for the cost of this stud•, are excluded from roadway improvement costs. The Cin• provided copies of all available checks, invoices and supporting documentation for all right-of-way payments incurred on behalf of the project and requested for reimbursement by PLC. These costs were allocated to specific properties based on parcel details stated on supporting documentation, primarily parcel and right-of-way acquisition descriptions from appraisal reports, or some reasonable allocation method. Costs incurred in construction of roadway improvements were provided by PLC in the form of a cost per linear foot. Each property's frontage distance after ant•acquisition required for the right-of-way provides the basis for allocating roadway improvements costs. The frontage distance of each property is also primarily based on the property descriptions in the appraisal reports mentioned above, plus the City's parcel maps and improvement plans. In accordance with their agreement, the City of Huntington Beach maintained several bank accounts on behalf of PLC. The balances in these accounts, along with additional deposits from PLC, were used to pay vendor invoices for the right-of-way payments. M .NONANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 9 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE.9 CH Roadway Construction Costs Roadway improvements were installed on portions of Golden West Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue and Main Street, all of which pass through the PLC development. Roadway improvements are composed of the following: • Minimum ten-foot traffic lanes composed of six-inch asphalt concrete paving over a 12-inch aggregate base (only the costs of the two outer lanes are being recovered through the Area of Benefit District); • T-wo-foot curb and gutter (eight-inches high); • Six-foot sidewalk; and • Street lights with minimum spacing of approximately 150 feet including the cost all necessary conduit, boxes, poles and installation. Specific costs incurred in construction of roadway improvements were provided by PLC in the form of a cost per linear foot. Payments for roadway construction costs occurred between April 1997 and April 2000. However, PLC and the City agreed to use 1998 as the base year for comparison of roadway construction costs. We obtained independent estimates of comparable construction projects from the City of Huntington Beach and Willdan, a civil engineering firm located in California. These comparable costs were adjusted to 1998 dollars. its illustrated in Table 2, the comparable costs were greater than the actual cost provided by PLC. Roadway improvements were allocated based on each property's linear feet of frontage multiplied by PLC's cost per linear foot for construction. Frontage for corner properties located at the intersection of two Arterials included both frontages plus the radius of the corner. Frontage for corner properties located at the intersection of an Arterial and Collector street include only the Arterial frontage and corner radius. All properties subject to the fee abut roads improved by PLC, thus providing a reasonable relationship between the impact fee charged for roadway improvements and benefits received by property owners paying the impact fee. Property owners who installed roadway improvements at their own expense prior to PLC's installation of improvements are exempt from this portion of the impact fee to avoid double charging these property owners for replacement of improvements already made.' City staff reviewed I The parcels exempted from reimbursement of roadway improvement costs include parcels 111-120-06, 111-120- 0-. 111-120-08, 111-120-27, 111-110-38, 111-140-19, 111-150-15,111-150-16,111-150-17,111-110-31,111-110-33, 111-110-36,and 111-110-37. A1C.vIFWANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 10 HOLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUN77NGTON BEACH aerial photographs and other supporting documentation to confirm that these improvements existed prior to PLC's improvements. Table 2: Comparative Roadway Construction Costs Cost per Linear Foot City o Huntington Improvement PLC' Beach Willdan3 10 ft. Asphalt Concrete Paving4 $ 25.00 $ 27.16 $ 25.45 Street Light Conduit, Boxes &Lights5 22.00 30.28 33.61 2 ft. Curb&Gutter(8 in. high) 11.70 14.65 14.65 6 ft. Sidewalk 9.40 9.77 14.41 Total Cost $ 68.10 $ 81.86 $ 88.12 'Actual roadway improvement costs incurred by PLC Land company(1998 dollars). 2 Roadway improvement costs estimated by the City of Huntington Beach based on actual City projects in 1999(deflated to 1998 dollars). 3 Roadway improvement costs estimated by Willdan based on bids for recent comparative projects (adjusted to 1998 dollars). 4 Assumes 10-foot wide lane with 6-inch asphalt concrete over 12-inch base. 5 Assumes 150-foot spacing of lights. Sources: PLC Land Company;City of Huntington Beach;Willdan. Right-of-way Acquisition Payments Portions of certain properties were acquired through either negotiation or condemnation proceedings. However, if that same property owner from whom the right-or-way was acquired, Nvas instead subdividing or otherwise developing his property, Section 254.02 of the HBZSO would have required dedication of this same property. Consequently, pursuant to Section 254.18 requiring reimbursement for supplemental capacity, it is recommended that those property owners that have received compensation in the past for acquired land reimburse such payments. Description of Overall Approach To establish the reimbursement amount for acquisition,we reviewed copies of right-of-way checks paid to property owners, appraisals and title reports, and other legal documents where available. (If no right-of-way was acquired, then no reimbursement for this payment is required.) The reimbursement amount for right-of-way was calculated in the following manner: MuszFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 11 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • Payment records were used whenever available. If payment records were not available or incomplete for a particular parcel, then the appraised value from the appraisal report was used. • Payments for multiple properties were allocated based on the area acquired from each property. • The reimbursement amount was reduced to exclude significant portions of payments related to oil wells or other major improvements. • The reimbursement amount only included that portion of the. acquisition represented for an 18-foot width for one lane plus curb, gutter, and sidewalk, based on the acquisition cost per square foot net of the above adjustments. The approach used to determine each parcel's right-of-way reimbursement component of the total Charge is detailed in Appendix B with supporting documentation. Specific Parcel Considerations The fee calculation for five properties included credits for additional costs from realignment of Gothard Street that occurred after the roadway improvements were identified in the Development Agreement. The realignment caused an increase in the amount of right-of-way needed beyond that required for a travel lane. It is appropriate to delete the additional costs associated with this realignment from the Charge calculation to ensure that all properties are treated according to the same roadway improvement standards. This right-of-way credit affected the following properties: • One property (parcel numbers 111-150-15 and 16) was credited for a total of $292,039 associated with acquisition of 10-Feet of right-of-way out of the 20-foot take needed for the Project. This credit was based on the ratio of the appraised value of land taken to the total appraised compensation amount applied to the total right-of-way payment, excluding the value of improvements. • Three properties (parcel numbers 111-150-17, 19-20 and 21) were credited amounts of $46,150, $31,576, and $18,600, respectively, associated with acquisition of 10-feet of right-of-way normally required out of the 20-feet actually taken. This credit was calculated by multiplying total acquisition costs by 10/20 (or 50 percent). • One property (parcel number 110-150-24), which was substantially reduced in size by.the realignment because the roadway cut the MumP.,,ANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PACE 12 HOLLY--SEiCLIFF AREA OFBENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OFHUNTINGTONBEACH parcel into two pieces,'was credited $211,188. The credit was based on the average cost per square foot for the acquisition (total acquired area divided by total acquisition costs). The average cost per square foot was multiplied by each of the following two area calculations to calculate the credit: — The amount of right-of-way that would have been required if the roadway had not been realigned was deducted from the total acquired area to calculate the amount of area associated ,with the realignment.' — The area of the small section of the original parcel left .stranded and not developable by the realignment. In addition, the charge calculation includes credits for lost oil production. This right-of-way credit affects the following parcels: • One property (parcel number 111-120-01) was credited $85,215 for the appraised value of the oil well impacted by the right-of- take associated with this property. The resulting right-of-way acquisition charge is comparable on a per square foot basis for a similar property taken at approximately the same time. • One property(parcel number 111-120-28) was credited $122,185 for the value of lost oil production from this property in the same ratio of the oil well credit to total right-of-way payment made for the previous parcel. Finally, several right-of-way payments were lumped together for multiple properties. In these instances, right-of-way reimbursements were based on appraised values or were allocated based on the ratio of linear feet associated with a specific property to total linear feet for all affected properties. This problem of allocation of lump-sum payments was particularly acute as to parcel numbers 111-220-02, -03, and -04 as well as parcel numbers 111-120-06, -07, -08 and -09 and 111-120-13 through -20. In both cases, the property owner of both these sets of parcels sued the Developer over the adoption of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. As part of the settlement of the litigation, both owners deeded right-of- way in exchange for$619,529 and $815,000, respectively. It was then necessary to allocate this payment to the individual parcels that they owned along both Garfield and Goldenwest Streets to determine the 2 Total original area of this property was 17,168 square feet. The right-of-way taken for the road realignment was 9,9 square feet and the area deemed not developable was 1,400 square feet. Remaining usable property was 5,831 squire teet. 3 T.:e amount of right-of-way that would have been required if the roadway had not been realigned is estimated at 2,0*0 square feet or 201 of front footage multiplied by 10 feet of right-of-way normally taken needed for the Pro ect. WmFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 13 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH fee. To determine the allocation, we relied upon the property appraisals that Mark Linnes prepared on behalf of the City in 1993. Although the Settlement Agreement (see Appendix C) likely reflects the fact that the owners successfully contended their property values were substantially more than the Mr. Linnes' appraisals, we have relied exclusively on the City's original appraisals to set the amount of reimbursement. The total amount allocated to right-of-way cost to each of these parcels is $177,660 and $304,263 respectively, approximately $440,000 and $510,000 less than the amount thev were paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. In addition, incorporated as Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement is a letter from Mike Adams, then-Director of Community Development for the City, explaining that it was anticipated in 1993 that these properties would be subject to the very impact fee that the City is now considering. The letter states that the City Code authorizes the creation of Cost Reimbursement Districts for the "purpose of reimbursing a Developer for the cost of public infrastructure constructed by Developer which benefit other property owners" and that such reimbursement would not be due and payable until the property owner "records a final map . . . or applies for a building permit." However, the fee would not be payable in connection with building permits issues for minor improvements or repairs. The letter concludes by stating that the intent of cost reimbursement: "...is to impose the liened costs at such time as you record a final map or apply- for a building permit in connection with your development of the . . . Property for a use which is different from or unrelated to the existing uses. Accordingly, the continuation or expansion of the existing uses of the . . . Property or the issuance of a building permit incident thereto will not require you to pay the liened costs." The Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District is consistent with this representation. The Charge will only be collected when these properties are developed with a new use or a tract map. Refer to Appendix C for full copy of the Settlement Agreement. Miscellaneous Costs Initially, miscellaneous costs were included in the Charge to reimburse PLC and the City for these costs. However, it was determined that it would not be fair to require property owners to reimburse these costs .11U.NriRvANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 14 HOLLY-SEaCLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH when they incurred similar costs on their own behalf for individual properties. Therefore, costs incurred for individual properties for these miscellaneous items are credited to each applicable property and are not included in the Charge. Miscellaneous costs are described in detail in the following subsections. Legal Costs Professional legal services were required in relation to property transfer, condemnation and other right-of-way acquisition matters. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Title Fees Title transfer costs were incurred in relation to parcel or portions of a parcel that was purchased as part of right-of-way acquisitions. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Appraisal/Estimation Real estate appraisal costs and equipment relocation estimation costs were incurred in relation to parcels, or portions of parcels that were purchased as part of right-of-way acquisitions. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. City Real Estate Services The City of Huntington Beach provided the use of its Real Estate Services Division in certain transactions relating to property purchased as part of roadway improvements. These costs represent the hourly payroll rate times the hours spent on each parcel, or portion of parcel, purchased as part of roadway improvements. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Area of Benefit Study The cost associated with conducting this Report was included as a reimbursable cost. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. MUNIFAANCIAL VIARCH20,2CO2 PAGE 15 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH Excluded Properties Eleven properties were excluded from the Charge for the following reasons: • An alternate reimbursement mechanism has been established; • The property does not benefit from the improvements because it is an alley; or • The property does not benefit from the improvements because realignment of the roadway made the property not developable. These properties and the reason for their exclusion are listed in Table 3. Table 3: Excluded Properties Parcel No. Owner Reason For Exclusion 110-210-01 Landis Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-02 Dahl (Kubelka) Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-03 Niccole Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-06 Schuesler Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-07 Spelts Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-10 Niccole Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-11 Fuller Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 111-150-25 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: used in right-of-way realignment. 111-120-30 Thomas Not developable: alleyway. 111-130-28 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: alleyway. 111-140-10 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: alleyway. 'These parcels are part of the Heritage Homes development that has a Community Facilities(Mello Roos)District responsible for reimbursing PLC for frontage improvements. Sources:City of Huntington Beach;MuniFinancial. ,WwrFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PACE 16 Hoz. Y-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUN77NGTON BENCH CHARGE SCHEDULE Table 4 on the following pages shows the cost components and total charge for each property included in the Local Area and subject to the Charge, by parcel number. Mu.NY vANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 17 ' HOLL Y-SEA CLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH Table 4:Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Mlscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Right-of-WaY2 laneous3 Charge Goldenwest Street 110-211-011 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 $ 4,035.00 $ $ 5,737.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 17,550.00 - 19,252.50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 35,100.00 38.505.00 110-211-048 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 4.035.00 5,737.50 110-211-051 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 28,245.00 - 40,162.50 110-220-024 Brindle 330 22,473.00 89,100.00 111,573.00 110-220-034 Brindle 199 13,551.90 53,730.00 67,281.90 110-220-044 Brindle 129 8,784.90 34,830.00 43,614.90 111-120.016 S&C Oil Co. 132 8,989.20 48,780.00 57,769.20 111-120-06'•' Thomas 145 - 23,490.00 23,490.00 111.120.074•' Thomas 145 27,414.00 27.414.00 111-120.08'•' Thomas 145 46,980.00 46,980.00 111-120-094 Thomas 117 7,967.70 37,908.00 - 45,875.70 ill-120-111 Lingle/Leckie 113 7,695.30 34.391.94 42.087.24 111-120-277 Mitchell 290 - 45,640.00 45,640.00 111-120-28' Mitchell 102 6,912.15 62,667.63 69,519.78 111-130-11 City of H.B. 41 2,792.10 27,397.86 30,189.96 111-130-12' City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 26,745.14 31,648.34 111-130-14 Williams 88 5,992.80 19,638.00 25,630.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 32,226.00 42,100.50 Gothard Street 111-110-15 Galich 129 8,784.90 4,600.00 13,384.90 111-110-1871 Mandic 290 19,749.00 1.9,749.00 111-110-19" Greer 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 132 8,989.20 6,444.00 15,433.20 111-110-21" Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-22" Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-38"13 Custer 127 - - 111-140-18" Jones 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-19''" Gustafson 145 111-140-21" Thomas 20 1,362.00 - 1,362.00 111-140-22" Thomas 125 8.512.50 8.512.50 111-140-23f3 Gardner 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-24" Thomas 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-25" Weaver 145 9.874.50 9,874.50 111-140-27" Everroad 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-140-38' Telford 185 12.598.50 26,100.00 38,698.50 111-150-13 City of H.B. 113 7,695.30 60,352.43 68,047.73 111-150-151-' Anderson/Gowdy/Gum 100 - 29,778.48 29,778.48 111-150-1651 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum 100 29,778.48 29,778.48 111-150-175•' Scott 200 46,150.00 46,150.00 111-150-195 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15,788.03 22,257.53 111-150-205 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15,788.03 - 22,257.53 111-150-215 Delgado 95 6,469.50 18,600.00 25,069.50 111-150-245 Elliott 201 13,688.10 13,812.02 27,500.12 Gartleld Avenue 111-110-07" Dunn 150 10,215.00 28,350.00 38,565,00 111-110-10 Roulette 50 3.405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 111-110-14 Taylor 50 3,405.00 11,327.70 14,732.70 111.110-314.' Bollman 100 - 25,200.00 25,200.00 111-110-33""Weide 50 - - 111-110-36"1 Novak 75 - 111-110-37"11 Boodman-Gomdon 75 - - - 111-120.128 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15.217.67 - 18.622.67 111-120-134 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21.405.00 111-120-144 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18.000.00 - 21,405.00 111-120-154 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 NfumFIVANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 18 HOLL:'-SE.a CLIFF AR£4 OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH Table 4: Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule(cont'd) Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Ri ht-of-Wa 2 laneous' Charge 111-120-164 Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 42,810.00 111-120-174 Thomas 50 3.405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-184 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-194 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-204 Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 - 42,810.00 111-130-018 Weir 50 3,405.00 14,124.07 17,529.07 111-130-028 Weir 75 5,107.50 21,186.10 - 26,293.60 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3.405.00 5,000.00 - 8,405.00 111-130-064 Petersen 50 3.405.00 12,600.00 16,005.00 111-130-078 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 18,622.67 111-130-088 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 - 18,622.67 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 25,903.93 32,713.93 111-130-268 Weir 75 5,107.50 21,186.10 26,293.60 111-140-02a Weir 25 1,702.50 6,637.54 8,340.04 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 6.810.00 18,000.00 - 24,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 27,016.07 - 33,826.07 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 - 12,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 50 3.405.00 10,505.56 - 13,910.56 111-140-368 Weir 25 1,702.50 6,637.54 - 8,340.04 111-140-378 Weir 50 3,405.00 13,275.08 - 16,680.08 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 18,960.00 - 22,365.00 Main Street 111-150-3014 Santiago 103 7,014.30 - - 7,014.30 111-150-3614 Southridge Homes 206 14,028.60 - 14,028.60 111-150-3774 Kelter 110 7.491.00 - 7,491.00 111-150-3814 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - 7,218.60 111-150-3914 Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 - 7,150.50 Total 8,384 $455.350.65 $1,494,597.75 $ $1,949,948.40 Total Parcels 83 Actual per foot roadway construction costs incurred by PLC Land Company multiplied by frontage amount($68.10 per foot,see Table 2). z Reflects Payments 1-116. 3 Miscellaneous costs include legal,real estate title,appraisal fees,City of Huntington Beach real estate services,and this study. These costs are not included in the Charge. 'ROW payments based on appraised values for parcel or like parcel. Per square foot values include: $14/sf for 111-110- 31 and 111-130-06; $14.50/sf for 111-140.38: $15/sf for 110-220-02 through 110-220-04;$18/sf for 111-120-06 through 111-120-09;and$20/sf for 111-120-13 through 111-120-20. 5 Parcels credited for extraordinary ROW acquisition required for realignment. Credit given for unusable parcel caused by realignment where applicable. °Parcel credited$85,215 for appraised value of oil well affected by ROW take. 'Certain properties with no roadway improvement costs are no:charged because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLC's improvements. a Lump sum right-of-way payments for these parcels allocated proportionately based on square feet of take. 9 Actual ROW payment is substantially more than appraised vawe. Parcel receives prorated credit of$122,185 for potential lost oil production based on like credit received for parcel 111-120-01. 0 Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost. "Excludes Weaver/Thomas tank costs associated with same parcel. 'Z No ROW charge is applicable because ROW was dedicated. "No ROW charge is applicable because ROW take was on opposite(east)side of Gothard Street. 16 No ROW charge is applicable because no ROW was required on this street. Sources:Table 2:City of Huntington Beach;MuniFinancial. MUNIF:\'ANCIAL /MARCH 20,2CO2 P.9 GE 19 HOLLY-S£ACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH FUTURE CHARGE ADJUSTMENTS .. The City should identify the appropriate inflation index in the proposed Area of Benefit District and adopt an automatic annual inflation adjustment. Typical sources for such an adjustment factor include the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (CCI). Because the CPI includes non-construction industries, we recommend that the City adopt the CCI since the proposed fee supports road construction. Table 5 compares the effects of applying these two indices on the proposed charge for select properties annually through 2020. Actual increases in the proposed fee will vary from those shown in the table depending on the inflation index selected and the future performance of that index. Table 5:Comparison of Cost Indices on Select Properties 2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 Proposed Parcel No. Fee CPl CCI CPI CCI CPI CCI CPI CCI 110-220.02 $111,573.00 $125,089.43 $117.953.53 $144,310.35 $126,444.72 $166,484.71 $135,547.18 $192,066.33 $145,304.90 111-120-01 63,189.20 70,944.21 66,802.80 81,729.95 71,611.78 94,288.36 76,766.94 108,776.47 82,293.21 111-130-12 66,278.12 74,307.34 70,068.37 85,725.21 75,112.43 98,897.53 80,519.59 114,093.87 86,316.01 111-130-15 63,584.50 71,287,40 67,220.71 -82,241.24 72,059.77 94,878.22 77,247.18 109,456.96 82,808.02 111-140-38 57,608.70 64,587.66 60,903.17 74,512.04 65,287.44 85,961.37 69,987.33 99,169.97 75,025.56 111-150-15 29,796.27 33,405.92 31,500.23 38,538.99 33,767.86 44,460.79 36,198.73 51,292.52 38,804.59 Notes: For illustrative purposes,this comparison assumes a Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers(CPI-U)of 2.9 percent and a Construction Cost Index(CCI)of 1.4 percent as of March 2001. Source: Table 4: U.S.Department of Labor. Engineering News Record: MuniFinancial. MuNIFINAAVAL MARCH 20,2002 PACE 20 o 888n 8 $ 'T8- rm mm8 0 7Q888 -88888�. s mt� ^oSiY1 �o^m6�� . . . . . . . . . o �- N o . . . . . • �So o° o ^mgeSg��M -m�=_ __ -- ---- - _ d s SiSi85i5i8$$R888�H8m$xSR $ SSH$R 53 St8St5iS53�:m .T�B� - a 8 8 .8 $8�8 e888888885$88�^a8a888^8St3B8 8$8851 �{ c2m �s a< m _mmmm m 88888888888888em�88 8 8 8::<80$80 88�8 ^ge888888.880�8$��'m�aS888^o.8.R7So8, gaa��m � .„������§§ m� Na$� �o� ar N w � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b $ a �asa�s�$a 12o 0 0000moo mm omeomoN a$ssa - o sY --- ---- --sassaa �seasa��aasissas�aa�as�assa�rvaasss��aa a�e�g � a g gg � * n m E d 22 €€ 2 E E IL = "a_"edaaada � - - 9 -__�_- V--- -------------------- g --_ ----_------ FIRST AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PLC This document will be available at the Council Meeting. Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Co ditionally Approved ❑ Denied MI.Oty Clerk' ignature Council Meeting Date: May 6, 2002 Department ID Number: PW 02-043 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION o SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS c N o--��,- SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator 00-:� _D 1 ,_ PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works I s r SUBJECT: REVISE SCHEDULE FOR PROPOSED HOLLY-SEACLIFF%PEA' BENEFIT DISTRICT MODIFICATIONS Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The City Council requested a revised proposal for the adoption of a Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District by the May 6, 2002 meeting. This time frame is insufficient to accomplish the necessary recalculations and public notification. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Direct staff to develop revised property owner cost spreadsheets and necessary amendments to any agreements between the City and PLC to provide for a 50-50 cost recovery agreement for street frontage improvements and present this item at the June 17, 2002 City Council meeting. Alternative Action(s): 1. Direct staff to develop revised property owner cost spreadsheets and necessary amendments to any agreements between the City and PLC to provide for an alternate, mutually agreeable, partial cost recovery formula for only street frontage improvements and/or a recovery of some fractional portion of right-of-way costs. 2. Direct staff to take no further action on this issue. - A REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 6, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 02-043 Analysis: At the April 1, 2002 City Council meeting, City Council reviewed the issue of the adoption of a Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District that would have provided for the reimbursement of costs to PLC and the City for necessary street right-of-way and frontage improvements from fronting property owners along said streets. After review and much discussion, City Council voted not to adopt such a district. At the April 15, 2002 City Council meeting, City Council Member Houchen introduced the concept of adopting a district that would recover only the cost of frontage improvements and sharing those funds equally with PLC. This proposal would be an alternative to recovering none of the costs. Council voted to reconsider the item at the next scheduled City Council meeting. However, the three weeks allotted is insufficient to process the required documents. Additional time is necessary to development an amendment to the PLC settlement agreement and prepare revised property owner cost tables. Additionally, a minimum of 24 days is required to publish and notify the public of the revised report and public hearing. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Attachment(s): None NumberCity Clerk's Page . Description RCA Author: DAMM G:\R C A\2002\02-043 May 6 Webb(Area of Benefit District).doc -2- 4/25/2002 8:45 AM RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUBJECT: Revise Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District Proposal COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 6, 2002 _-; RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS. Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorne Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomeyj Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement Unbud et, over$5,000 Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION POW MISSING ATTACHMENTS= REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED: Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM (Below • . • Only) RCA Author: Webb:jm SENT BY: ' 5- 6- 2 3:22PM 7143741557;* 1/ 5 e , LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS TELECOPIER (949) 851-1554 2803 MAIN STREET WRITER'S DIRECT (949) 851-3844 EAST TOWER — SUITE 1300 DIAL NUMBER (949) 757-1226 P.O. BOX 19712 (949) 1351-7323 (949) 851-2351 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-6228 md'angeloQptwww.com (949) 861-9400 x C c C FACSIMILE COVER SHEET -' M Date: May 6,2002 Time: 4:02 PM 1 Cr r- File Name: Thomas/Impact Fec File No.: 16193-027 ,- h_ To CITY CLERK Fax No. Telephone No. s City of Huntington .Beach (714) 374-1557 (714)536-5227 w D From: Michael L, D'Angelo TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS FORM IS: Message: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED. ORIGINAL WILL: BE SENT BY MAIL ( BE SENT BY FEDEXIOVERNIGHT COURIER BE SENT BY MESSENGER ED NOT BE SENT ri;1;3 BE SENT BY E-MAIL If all pages are not received,please call Chantal at 949 851-7206. THIS COVER SHEET AND ANY DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING IT ARB INTENDED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY SET FORTH AS THE ADDR88SEH, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF YOU ARE NOT %7HE INTENDEb RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING TILE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT, ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IB STRICTLY PROHIBITED, IF TOU HAVE RIECEIVED THIS CONNUNICATION IN ( ,t ERROR, PLBASS NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE $O THAT ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE FOR RETURNING THE ORIGINAL NESSAGS TO US. THANK YOU. L4-v C�MM�►r c i D N SEW BY 5- 6- 2 a 3:22PNI 7143741557;# 2/ 5 LAW nFFICLS PALM IE,RI, TY1.ER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON, LLP A IIMITED LIAr1IUTY PAUTNERSHI,'INCLUDIINI DROFEW6IONAL CONPORATIOW. 2603 MAIN 5- TItCtT ANGELO J. PAL14t.141(192G-1096) FA5T 1owCk—sun E I3oo P. O. BAIL 19712 HI)GERT F.WbLDRON(1y77-19961 IRVtNC.CA 9eC523-SJYIE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614.19228 ALAN H,WIENE4' GARY C.WLISBERC. ROOEI51 C. IHRKF.' VICWAEL H. LCIFEp 19�1`al B`S I-!34VU WRITER'S DIRECT JA14ES E. WILHELM' SCOT-r R.CARPCNTEO WWW.ptwww.L;orn DIAL NUMUER L1CNNiS C.. rYLER' RICHARD A.SAI.U7 (949) 651-7323 MICHAEL .1. GREENE' NOFIMAN J.ROUICH md'8ngelo�ptwww.com PRANK .^.. HHTHROCN' O.SV*AN WILL* NLNNIS W.GHAN' RONALD M. COLE May 6 2002 nAVID D. UARR' LIICCC S. KIkKA T I'ACSIM ILE (049) 13SI-I5:•;4 CHARLF5 1.1. AANTEH' r>AUL B.LA SCALA GEOOGI'J.WALL MIL;I/AEL L.UANGELO 1Aa4)BSI-36" L. RIr.HAHD RAWLS C14ARLES S. KROLIKOWU41 l:�ay1 757.12i� PATRICK A.HS"Mu.—LY DAROLYN Y. HAMADh D•JN FISHLR STFPHEN A.SCHECK URCGORY N.W'EILER HEATHL9 C.WHI'1MURE WARREN A.WILLIAM% ELISE L.ENOMMO JOHN R.LISTER HYAN M,MASTER REFER TH FILE NO. CYNIIIIA M.'A'CLCUTT URACE :.LE 16193-027 JOEL I•, KEW OAVID H. CULMER MICHEI LL M.FUJIMOTO Or Ci1Uv:n NaInN J.STEW VIA FACSIMILE and BY MESSENGER Mayor and Members of the City Council City Clerk's Office City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: "E-9" Item for May 6, 2002, City Council Meeting Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Item E-9 on the Agenda for tonight's City Council meeting is a proposal to direct City staff to make certain revisions to the proposed Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District and to report back to the City Council, after providing the appropriate public notices, on June 17, 2002. Based upon our understanding that any City Council action tonight will be limited to the foregoing, this office does not intend to personally appear at tonight's meeting. Nevertheless, enclosed is a copy of the firm's letter of April 15, 2002, setting forth our objections to the revised proposed Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District. We request that this letter be included within the administrative record for this agenda item. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949/851-7323. Since i a ' o MLD:cg Enclosure SENT BY: 5- 6- 2 ; 3:23PN9 y 7143741557;* 3/ 5 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP. A LIMITEO LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDIIIO PPR ESMQNAL CORPORAYIRN3 Z503 MAIN STREET ANGELO J.PALMIERI 119 2 5-199 6) EA5T TOWER-SUITE 1300 P.O.BOX 1971E ROBERT r.WALORON(1927-199E) IRVINE,CA 92623-9712 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92BIM6226 ALAN H,WIENER' GARY C,WEISBERG ROUERT C.IHRKC' MICHAEL H. LLIFER (949) 051-9a00 WRITER'S GIHECT JAMES I.WILHELM' SCOTT R.CARPENTER www.ptwww.com 9484}gOM13V!P94 DENNIS G.TYLER' RICHARD A.SALOS MICHAEL J.GREENE' NORMAN J. ROOICH mleiferapLWWW.Com FRANK C. ROVHROCK' D,SUSAN WIENS DENNIS W.OMAN' RONALD M. COLE April 15, 2002 OAVID D. PARR' LUCCE S. KIRKA rACSIMILE 19491 85I-1554 CFIARLES H. (ANTf.-' PAlI D.LA SCALA 19491 641-3044 GEORGE J.WALL MICHAEL L,O'AMGCLG L RIC.ARD RAWLS CHARLLS S. KNOUROWSKI 1949)757-12$13 pATRICK A. HENNESSEY DARDLYN Y.MAMADA - (9491 9s1-2351 PION PI=NER STEPHEN A. SCHECK - GREGORY N.WEILER HEATHER C.WHITMORE WARREN A.WILLIAMS EWbE L.ENOMOTO JOHN Q.LISTER RYAN M.EASTER REFER TO TILE NO. CYNTHIA M.WOLCOTT GRACE LEE 96193-027 JOEL P.KEW DAVID H. CULMER MICHELLE M.FUJIMOTO Or CouN[L MARTIN J.STEIN •A-001[SS-OKAl CORPQR 1.0N VIA PERSONAL SERVICE Mayor and Members of the City Council City Clerk's Office City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: "H" Item for April 15, 2002, City Council. Meeting - - Reconsideration of Denial of the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Today,. we received a copy of Council Member Houchen's April 12, 2002, request for reconsideration of the City council's denial of the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1. We understand this request to seek reconsideration of the proposed district only to the extent of the roadway improvement charges listed in Table 4 of the Munifinancial Final Report dated March 20, 2002. We request that this letter be included within the administrative record for this agenda item. For all of the reasons set forth in this firm's prior letter of April 1, 2002, the City council's prior decision to deny the proposed benefit district in its entirety was the correct one. Nevertheless, to the extent that the Council wishes to reconsider its decision with respect to the roadway improvements only, we request that the following refinements to the proposed district: SERT BY� 5- 6- 2 ; 3:23PNI y 7143741557:# 4/ S . • PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City council April 15, 2002 Page 2 1. Interest Should Not Be Charged on the Proposed Roadwa Improvement Fees Because the Public Will Have the 'Exclusive Benefit of Possession and Enjoyment of the Ymprovements Until the Properties Are Developed. The rejected district includes a provision for inflationary adjustments to the proposed fees, which adjustments will continue to be made until the properties in question are developed. Currently, those properties are not fully improved. The roadway improvements to be charged under the district were necessitated, . not by any current use of those properties but, rather, by PLC's Holly-Seacliff development and by the needs of the public as a whole. Until those properties are developed, the public as a whole will enjoy the exclusive use and benefit of the improvements. By definition, the affected property owners will not experience any benefit from the roadway improvements until their properties are developed. In the meantime, however, the improvements in question have been and will be used by the public as a whole. Such use, long before any of the adjacent properties are developed, is proof that the improvements were not for the exclusive benefit of a few property owners. This, along with the natural depreciation of the improvements that will occur over time, warrants a. reduction in the property owners' respective fees over time. At a minimum, the inflationary factor should be eliminated to offset the public's use of the roadway improvements during the interim period. 2. The Proposed Benefit District should Contain a "sunset Clause" That Will Terminate the District After 20 Years. The roadway improvement portion of the rejected district would charge property owners the roadway improvement fees, plus interest on those fees, .in perpetuity. Consequently, the fees will continue to grow even as the improvements deteriorate and, eventually, become obsolete. The affected owners will not receive any benefit from the improvements in question until they develop their properties. A sunset clause would ensure that owners pay a fair share for the improvements if that development occurs within a reasonable period of time after construction of the improvements. The 20 year time period represents that which was proposed in the City's 1993 ordinance. SENT BY, 5- 6- 2 ; 3:23PM ; 7143741557;# 5/ 5 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM 8, WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City council April 15, 2002 Page 3 3. The District Should Include a Provision That Reduces or Eliminates the Owners' Fees zu The Event of chanced Circumstances. _ The roadway improvement portion of the rejected district assumes that the affected owners will be required to construct these same roadway improvements when they develop their properties. Between the date of adoption of the district and the eventual development of those properties, however, changed circumstances could render those improvements ineffectual or obsolete. For example: the City might seek -to widen the road and impose additional charges on each property; the improvements could become obsolete; the improvements could be different from those contemplated by the development, necessitating the demolition of existing improvements and construction of new ones. In the event of any of the foregoing, the proposed fees should be reduced by an amount equivalent to offset the cost of these changed circumstances. In the event of a widening of the street in question, the proposed fees should be eliminated in their entirety. At a minimum, we request the City to incorporate these changes into the proposed benefit district. Additionally, given the short notice of this agenda item, we reserve the right to request additional revisions and/or assert objections to the _ proposed city Council action pending staff's presentation of the matter at the hearing. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949/851-7294. Very yus, M1c L fe MHL:cg cc: Scott F. Field (via facsimile © A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH o City Council Interoffice Communication T To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members) po=D . oM--From Pam Houchen, City Council Member @(� (V Date: April 12, 2002 ° 6 2aO2r�, Subject: "H"ITEM FOR APRIL 15, 2002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF THE HOLLY SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT STATEMENT OF ISSUE: I would like the City Council to reconsider their denial of the Holly Seacliff Area of Benefit District made at the April 1, 2002, City Council Meeting. The majority of the testimony from affected property owners indicated that they were not opposed to reasonable charges for roadway improvements, but took issue with proposed assessments for right of way acquisition. I would like the City Council to consider forming an Area of Benefit District that would impose charges only for the Roadway Improvements listed in Table 4 of the MuniFinancial Final Report dated March 20, 2002 (Pages D-4-49 and D-4-50 of the April 1, 2002 RCA) and delete any proposed charges for right of way acquisition. Further, in order to protect the City's infrastructure budget, I would propose that any fees collected from the District be split 50-50 with PLC, who constructed and paid for the roadway improvements and advanced all costs for City acquisition of right of way. PLC has indicated they are agreeable to amending the April 17, 2000 Settlement Agreement to this effect. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Vote to reconsider the matter described above and direct staff to return at a fattl MAI 6, 2o6Z Council Meeting. PH:cf xc: Ray Silver Connie Brockway Robert Beardsley Gail Hutton Bill Workman ''- HOLLY-SEACLFFAREAOFBENEr..DISTRICTREPORT CrTYOFHUNTINGTONBEACH Table 4:Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Right-of-Way' laneous' Charge Go/denwest Street 110-211-01' Ghodooshim.. 25 S 1.702.50 S 4,035.00 $ $ 5,737.50 110-211-02 Borghet5 25 1,702.50 17.550.00 - 19,252.50.. 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 35,160.00 - 38,505.00. 110-211-04' Ghodooshim 25 1.702.50 4,035.00 - 6.737.50 110-211-05' Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 28,245.00 - 40.162.50 110-220-02' Brindle 330 22.473.00 89.100.00 - 111.573.00 110-220-03' Brindle 199 13.551.90 53.730.00 - 67.281.90 110-220-044 .Brindle 129 8,784.90 34.830.00 - 43.614.90 111-120-01' S&C Od Co. 132 8,989.20 48,780.00 - 57,769.20 111-120-06" Thomas 145 - 23,490.00 - 23.490.00 111-120.07'•' Thomas 145 - 27.414.00 - 27.414.00 111-120-08'-' Thomas 145 - 46,980.00 - 46,980.00 111-120-09' Thomas 117 7,967.70 37,908.00 - 45.875.70 111-120-11' Lingle/Leckie 113 7,695.30 34,391.94 - 42,087.24 111-120-27' Mitchell 290 - 45,640.00 - 45,640.00 111-120-28' Mitchell 102 6.912.15 62,607.63 - 69,519.78 111-130-11 City of H.B. 41 2.792.10 27,397.86 - 30,189.96 111-130-12' City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 26,745.14 - 31.648.34 111-130-14 Williams 88 5.992.80 19,638.00 - 25.630.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 32,226.00 - 42,100.50 Gothard Street 111-110-15 Gaiich 129 8.784.90 4,600.00 - 13,384.90 111-110-18t0 Mandic 290 19,749.00 - - 19,749.00 111-110-1911 Greer 145 9.874.50 - - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 132 8,989.20 6.444.00 - 15,433.20 111-110-21" Pederson 73 - 4,971.30 - - 4.971.30 111-110-22" Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-38"" Custer 127 - - - - 111-140-18" Jones 145 9.874.50 - - 9,874.50 111-140-19'-" Gustafson 145 - - - - 111-140-21" Thomas 20 1,362.00 - - 1,362.00 111-140.22" Thomas 125 8,512.50 - - 8.512.50 111-140-23" Gardner 145 9,874.50 - - 9,874.50 111-140-24" Thomas 145 9,874.50 - - 9.874.50 111-140-25" Weaver 145 9.874.50 - - 9.874.50 111-140-2713 Everroad 88 5.992.80 - - 5,992.80 111-140-384 Telford 185 12.598.50 26.100.00 - 38,698.50 111-150-13 City of H.B. 113 7,695.30 60,352.43 - 68,047.73 111-150-15" AnderseNGowdy/Gum 100 - 29,778.48 - 29.778.48 111-150-16" AndersoNGowdy/Gum 100 - 29,778.48 - 29,778.48 111-150-17'" Scott 200 - 46,150.00 - 46.150.00 111-150-193 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15.788.03 - 22,257.53 111-150-201 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15,788.03 - .22,257.53 111-150-211 Delgado 95 6,469.50 18,600.00 - 25.069.50 111-150-245 ,Elliott 201 13.688.10 13,812.02 - 27.500.12 Garfield Avenue 111-110-07" Dunn 150 10.215.00 28.350.00 - 38,565.00 111-110-10 Roulette 50 3,405.00 9.000.00 - 12,405.00 111-110-14 Taylor 50 3,405.00 11.327.70 - 14.732.70 111-110-31'•' Boliman 100 - 25,200.00 - 25.200.00 111-110-33'•"Weide 50 - - - 111-110-36'-'2 Novak 75 - - - 111-110-37'•1= Boodman-Gomdon 75 - - - 111-120-12' Leckie 50 3.405.00 15,217.67 - 18.622.67 111-120-13' Thomas 50 3,405.00 18.000.00 - 21.405.00 111-120-14' Thomas 50 3.405.00 18,000.00 - 21.405.00 111-120-154 Thomas 501 3.405.00 18.000.00 - 21.405.00 i MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH2O,2002 PAGE18 i HOLLY-SEACLIFFAREAOFBE,Vn...DISTRICTREPORT CFTYOFHL.%77vCTO,VBEACH Table 4:Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule(cont'd) Project Costs Front- age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Right-of-Way' laneous' Charge 111-120-16` Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 - 42,810.00 111-120-17' Thomas 50 3.405.00 18,000.00 - 21.405.00 111-120-18` Thomas 50 3,405.00 18.000.00 - 21,405.00 111-120-194 Thomas 50 3.405.00 18.000.00 - 21.405.00 111-120-20' Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 - 42,810.00 111-130-01' Weir 50 3,405.00 14,124.07 - 17,529.07 111-130-02' Weir 75 5,107.50 21,186.10 - 26.293.60 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3,405.00 5,000.00 - 8.405.00 111-130-064 Petersen 50 3,405.00 12,600.00 - 16,005.00 111-130-078 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 - 18.622.67 111-130-08° Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 = 18.622.67 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 25,903:93 - 32.713.93 111-130-26' Weir 75 5,107.50 21.186.10 - 26.293.60 111-140-02' Weir 25 1,702.50 6,637.54 - 8.340.04 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 - 12,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3.405.00 9,000.00 - 12,405.00 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 6.810.00 18,000.00 - 24,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 27,016.07 - 33.826.07 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 - 12,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 50 3,405.00 10,505.56 - 13,910.56 111-140-36' Weir 25 1,702.50 6,637.54 - 8,340.04 111-140-37' Weir 50 3,405.00 13,275.08 - 16,680.08 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 18,960.00 - 22.365.00 Main Street 111-150-30" Santiago 103 7.014.30 - - 7.014.30 111-150-36" Southridge Homes 206 14.028.60 - - 14.026.60 111-150-37'4 Keller 110 7,491.00 - - 7,491.00 111-150-38" S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - - 7,218.60 111-150-39" Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 - - 7,150.50 Total 8,384 $455,350.65 $1,494,597.75 5 - $1,949,948.40 Total Parcels 83 'Actual per foot roadway construction costs incurred by PLC Land Company multiplied by frontage amount($68.10 per foot,see Table 2). 2 Reflects Payments 1-116. 3 Miscellaneous costs include legal,real estate title,appraisal fees.City of Huntington Beach rea'.estate services,and this study. These costs are not included in the Charge. `ROW payments based on appraised values for parcel or like parcel. Per square foot values inCude: $14/sf for 111-110- 31 and 111-130-06; $14.50/sf for 111-140-38; $15/sf for 110-220-02 through 110-220-04;$18/sf for 111-120-06 through 111-120-09;and$20/sf for 111-120.13 through 111.120-20. 'Parcels credited for extraordinary ROW acquisition required for realignment. Credit given for unusable parcel caused by realignment where applicable. Parcel credited$85,215 for appraised value of oil well affected by ROW take. 'Certain properties with no roadway improvement costs are not charged because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLC's improvements. 'Lump sum right-of-way payments for these parcels allocated proportionately based on square feet of take. a Actual ROW payment Is substantially more than appraised value. Parcel receives prorated credit of$122,185 for potential lost oil production based on like credit received for parcel 111-120-01. "Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost. "Excludes WeavedThomas tank costs associated with same parcel. 12 No ROW charge is applicable because ROW was dedicated. 12 No ROW charge Is applicable because ROW take was on opposite(east)side of Gothard Street 14 No ROW charge is applicable because no ROW was required on this street. 50 Sources:Table 2:City of Huntington Beach:MuniFinanciai. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PACE 19 t r J,REBEACH City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 -2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 HUNTINwww.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us From the desk of: Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk Telephone: (714) 536-54p4 Fax: (7-Vc4)�3744257 l a a -3 4-Av : O n tJ G�u�w G� f, l \ L� ETURJV ADDRESS-. ' � DATE a main fu,L�I W 6e"k qzj,q RETT JAN 0 7 2003 0rc1 iyLa_AL ✓ Regretfully your unrecorded ftmkodvm, hyk. f naming VIV V'M together with your remittance of $C�)— , Ck. No. C4— is being returned as your document is deficient in the area(s) indicated below: (1) The recorder can find no provision in the law authorizing the recording of the enclosed document(s). (2) Recording cannot be performed.in this county. Please forward your document to County Recorder. (3) For proper indexing: a. "Et al" is not acceptable; all parties must be named. b. The name of the company, corporation or partnership must be at the signature point. c. The trustee of a trust must be identified as such. d. The names in the caption, execution and notary acknowledgment must match. e. The caption of the document and signature point need to identify who the custodian/agent represents (4) The Documentary Transfer Tax declaration must be completed to show either the amount of tax due or an acceptable reason for exemption. (See enclosed bulletin.) If there is "No consideration," document must so state. (5) The city where the property is located or "unincorporated area," is required on the deed and the tax declaration must indicate how the tax was computed. (6) The preliminary change of ownership report is required. Please complete or correct the areas marked in red. (7) The notary acknowledgment is incomplete (please see red mark) or is on an outdated form. A "General Acknowledgment"form is required. (See enclosed sample.) (8) The notary seal is illegible. You may have the notary restamp the document clearly or you may complete the enclosed certification under the penalty of perjury. Adding the "Penalty of Perjury" statement will increase the fee by $ (9) Portion(s) of the document are illegible (please see red mark). You may execute and submit a new original, or complete the enclosed certification under penalty of perjury. Adding the "Penalty of Perjury" statement will increase the fee by $ (10) The legal description/exhibit has been omitted. All exhibits must be referenced in the body of the document and appropriately labeled. (11) Recording reference (date and document number or book and page) of the prior recorded document is incorrect or was omitted. (12) Abstracts of judgment must contain the address of the judgment creditor(s), the address of the judgment debtor(s) and the address at which the summons was served or mailed. (13) Pursuant to Government Code sections 27288.1 and 27201, all parties whose interest is affected must be named and identified (i.e. owner etc.). (14) To properly perfect a security interest, this UCC-1 must be filed with the Secretary of State, Uniform Commercial Code Division, P.O. Box 1738, Sacramento, CA 95808, unless it is a "fixture filing" pursuant to UCC section 9313. Any Financing Statement covering fixtures must include a statement that it is a fixture filing to be recorded in the real estate records, a description of real property in Orange County and, if the debtor does not own the real property, the name of the owner. - '(15)- `We have-received"your check withoufa document'-or-fetter of-instr(iction-We are unable-to---- - determine the intent of the fees. (16) The correct fee is $ If an attachment is added to the document, the fee will increase c'a,As-stated on the attached fee schedule. (17) OTHER: ��,os B � f 'C►te— /�1L1-� q:&L � d tnso i'.v+j n, aTc I lf4l W . sc:c_ rrA /Is THANK Y U FOR YOUR COOPERATION orH BY__� iy COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER Please return to: Clerk-Recorder BY 1�4;� P.O. Box 238 Dep ty Rec rder Santa Ana, CA 92702-0238 w F0662-105(R10/96) I�� ` L-fo� (714) 834-2887 w � t OFFICIAL BUSINESS r� Document entitled to free �1 ®, recording per Government Code Section 6103 Recording Requested by and JD � When Recorded Mail to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: City Clerk Space above this line for recording use Thbs document Is solely for the 0frp--1,a-.l bay hsets at the City as contem- MEMORANDUM OF CITY COUNCIL �e�t earo. rWY , . ;;; ;n:nent Code RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 ESTABLISHING THE ^•s:ro. C,e _;; ad be recorded HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT G r. This Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 2002-59 Establishing the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit District provides legal notice that the following parcels are subject to an Area of Benefit Charge, due and payable upon application for a building permit, of final subdivision map for the parcels, all as set forth in Resolution No. 2002-59, on file with the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach: Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 110-211-01 Ghodooshim $1,702.50 Lot 60 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, Miscellaneous Maps ("M.M."), Orange County, CA 110-211-02 Borghetti $1,702.50 Lot 59 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-03 Marow $3,405.00 Lots 57 & 58 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-04 Ghodooshim $1,702.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-05 Ghodooshim $11,917.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 1 Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 110-220-02 Brindle $22,473.00 The North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA. 110-220-03 Brindle $13,551.90 The South half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA. 110-220-04 Brindle $8,784.90 The South 130.00 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-01 S & C Oil. Co. $8,989.20 Lot 20, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, in the County of Orange, State of California, Book 7, Page 27, and 28, of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of county recorder of said county. 111-120-09, Thomas $7,967.70 Lot 13 and 27, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to 111-120-30 Huntington Beach, except east 300 ft. Lot 27, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-11, Lingle/Leckie $5,516.10 Lots 11 & 12, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to 111-120-12 Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-28 Mitchell $8,989.20 Lot 19, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-11 City of H.B. $8,376.30 North half of Lot 12, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 2 Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-130-12 Leckie Trust $4,903.20 South half of Lot 12, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7,Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-14 Williams $5,992.80 Lot 13, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-15 Renner $9,874.50 Lot 14, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach,Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 3 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-15 Galich $6,469.50 Lot 1 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, as per map thereof recorded in Book 7,pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the records of the County Recorder of Orange County, State of California. 111-110-18 Mandic $19,749.00 Lots 21 and 22 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, as per map thereof recorded in Book 7,pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the records of the County Recorder of Orange County, State of California. 111-110-19 Greer $9,874.50 Lot 20 of Block E, Garfield Street Addition, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Records of Orange County, California. 111-110-20 Ramsey $6,673.80, Lot 19 of Block E,Tract 286, Garfield Street addition, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 7)\) 111-110-21 Pedersen $4,971.30 Lot 23 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County. 111-110-22 Pedersen $4,971.30 Lot 23 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on a map recorded in Book 7,pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County. 111-140-18 Jones $9,874.50 Lot 22 in Block"C"of the Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 4 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-21 Thomas $1,362.00 Lot 24 in Block C of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-140-22 Thomas $8,512.50 Lot 24 in Block C of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-140-23 Gardner $9,874.50 An undivided 3/8`h interest in and to Lot 25 in Block C of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-140-24 Thomas $9,874.50 Lot 26 in Block C of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on map thereof recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 111-140-25 GARG-Oil $9,874.50 Lot 27 in Block C of Garfield Street addition to Production LLC Huntington Beach, as per map recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 111-140-27 Everroad $5,992.80 Lot 28, Block"C" of the Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach, as per map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 111-140-38 Telford $11,372.70 Lots 1 & 2, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-150-13 City of H.B. $13,279.50 Lot 12 in Block`B"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 5 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-19 Robrecht $6,469.50 Lot 18 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 111-150-20 Robrecht $6,469.50 Lot 18 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 111-150-21 Delgado $6,469.50 North Half of Lot 20 in Block "B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-150-24 Elliott $13,688.10 Lot 21 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on the map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of said County. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memo/Brockway-Holly Seacliff 6 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-07 Burrows $10,215.00 Lots 10, 11, 12, Block"E" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-10 Weaver $3,405.00 Lot 6, Block"E" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-14 Taylor $5,379.90 Lot 2, Block E, Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-12 Leckie $2,587.80 Lots 11 & 12, Block"F" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-13 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 10, Block F of Garfield Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-14 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 9, Block F of Garfield Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-15. Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 8 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-16 Thomas $6,810.00 Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-17 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 5 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. 111-120-18 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 4 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 7 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-120-19 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 3 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. 111-120-20 Thomas $4,630.80 Lots 1 and 2 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. 111-130-01 Weir $1,225.80 Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28 of M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-02 Weir $5,107.50 Lots 1, 2, 3, &4, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-05 Ashby $3,405.00 Lot 5, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-06 Petersen $3,405.00 Lot 6, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-07 Leckie $3,405.00 Lots 7 & 8, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-08 Leckie $3,405.00 Lots 7 & 8, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-09 Williams $6,810.00 Lots 9 & 10, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-26 Weir $5,107.50 Lots 1, 2, 3, &4, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 8 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-02 Weir $1,702.50 Lots 3 &4, Block "C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-04 Weaver& Mola $3,405.00 Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-05 Thomas $3,405.00 Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-06 Weaver& Mola $6,810.00 Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-07 Lingle $6,810.00 Lots 9 & 10, Block "C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-08 Weaver& Mola $3,405.00 Lot 11, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-09 Loma Linda $1,225.80 Lot 12, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Univ. Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-36 Weir $1,702.50 Lots 3 &4, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-37 Weir $3,405.00 Lots 3 &4, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 159-281-03 Hassett $3,405.00 Lot 7 of Block A of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seadiff 9 Main Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-30 Santiago $7,014.30 Lot 28, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 36 111-1 50-�d Southridge $14,028.60 Lot 34, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Homes Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-150 rV Kelter $7,491.00 Lot 35, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 3� 111-150--3,6 S Freddo $7,218.60 Lot 36, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111 150-� Southridge $7,150.50 Lot 37, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Homes Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE H By: :7DJ City Engineer ATTEST: .APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cyr 1-5s7' City if rYbaa�y SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 10 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Fojc,v4,4 County of E. On Q before me, Ke(/•/ �Oul S& /Y -C , Dat4F Name and Title ofOfficer(e.g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Public") personally appeared bui ib WEB8 C 0,1,016 J��eockivA y Name(s)of Signer(s) ❑personally known to me-OR-❑proved to.me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the perso s) whose naml0 is/@ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/executed the same in his/her/authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their signature soon the instrument the persoro or the entity upon behalf of which the persor(o acted, executed the instrument. KELLY LOUISE MANDIC Commission# 1372899 Z WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public - California Orange County • My Comm.Expires Sep 1,2006 11 Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: /YA9de4 nduh9 e P Cw,tc-G A s. A&- ;1003-Sp Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) ,0 1 Signer's Name: Z�►o L E SA3 Signer's Name: i � �ir��lcw.�✓ ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer X Corporate Officer Title(s): _ : Title(4 �ie 6*f El Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee _ El Guardian or Conservator - ❑ Guardian or Conservator ) Other: r,. V Top of thumb here ❑ Other: Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing:p Signer Is Representing: 0 1995 National Notary Association•8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184•Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1.800.876-6827 1 L I i 4 r x. Not,Compared with Uriginal OFFICIAL BUSINESS Document entitled to free recording per Government Code Section 6103 _Recording Requested by acid When Recorded Mail to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: City Clerk Tb $2 C16T Zirvhe-tSpace above this line for recording use MEMORANDUM OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 ESTABLISHING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT This Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 2002-59 Establishing the Holly- Seacliff Area.of Benefit District provides legal notice that the following parcels are subject to an Area of Benefit Charge, due and payable upon application for a building permit, of final subdivision map for the parcels, all as set forth in Resolution No. 2002-59, on file with"the City " Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach: Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 110-211-01 Ghodooshim $1,702.50 Lot 60 of Tract No. 62, Book 10,Page 7, Miscellaneous Maps ("M.M."), Orange County, CA 110-211-02 Borghetti $1,702.50 . Lot 59 of Tract No. 62,Book 10,Page 7,M.M., Orange.County, CA 110-211-03 Marow $3,405.00 Lots 57 & 58 of Tract No. 62,Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-04 Ghodooshim $1,702.50 . Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7,M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-05 Ghodooshim . $11,917.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7,M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff I Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 110-220-02 Brindle $22,473.00 The North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the.Southeast quarter of said Section 34,Township 5.South, Range 11 West,San . Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA. 110-220-03 Brindle $13,551.90 The South half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA. 110-220-04 Brindle $8,784.90 The South 130.00 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range.11 West_,_ San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach; County of Orange;State of . California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-01 S & C Oil. Co. $8,989.20 Lot 20, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, in the County of Orange, State of California, Book 7, Page 27, and 28, of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of county recorder of said county. 111-120-09, Thomas $7,967.70 Lot 13 and 27, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to 111-120-30 Huntington Beach, except east 300 ft. Lot 27, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120. 11, Lingle/Leckie $5,516.10 Lots 11 & 12, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to 111-120-12 Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-28 Mitchell $8,989.20 Lot 19, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-11 City of H.B. $8,376.30 North half of Lot 12, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges,are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/e:02memo/Brockway-Holly Seacliff 2 Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-130-12 Leckie Trust $4,903.20 South half of Lot 12, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M.,`Orange.County, CA 111-130-14 Williams $5,992.80 Lot 13, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7,Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-15 Renner $9,874.50 Lot 14, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7,Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 3 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-15 Galich $6,469.50 Lot 1 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington.Beach, as per map thereof recorded.in Book 7,pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in- the records of the County Recorder of Orange County, State of California. 111-110-18 Mandic $19,749.00 Lots 21 and 22 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, as per map thereof recorded in Book 7,pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the records of the County Recorder of Orange County, State of California. 111-110-19 Greer $9,874.50 Lot 20 of Block E, Garfield Street Addition, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Records of Orange County, California. 111-110-20 Ramsey $6,673.80 Lot 19 of Block E, Tract 286, Garfield Street addition, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps,in the.office . of the County Recorder of said County. 111-110-21 Pedersen $4,971.30 Lot 23 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on a map recorded in Book 7,pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County. 111-110-22 Pedersen $4,971.30 Lot 23 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on a map recorded in Book 7,pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County._. 111-140-18 Jones $9,874.50 Lot 22 in Block"C"of the Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 4 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-21 Thomas $1,362.00 Lot 24 in Block C of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington.Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book.7,Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, ' Records of Orange County, California. .i 111-140-22 Thomas $8,512.50 Lot 24 in Block C of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-140-23 Gardner $9,874.50 An undivided 3/8`h interest in and to Lot 25 in Block C of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-140-24 Thomas $9,874.50 Lot 26 in Block C of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on map thereof recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County,: California.. 111-140-25 GARG-Oil $9,874.50 Lot 27 in Block C of Garfield Street addition to Production LLC Huntington Beach, as per map recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 111-140-27 Everroad $5,992.80 Lot 28, Block"C" of the Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach, as per map recorded in Book 7,Pages 27-28, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 111-140-38 Telford $_11,372.70 Lots 1 &2,Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-150-13 City of H.B. $13,279.50 Lot 12 in Block`B"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 5 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-19 Robrecht $6,469.50 Lot 18 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded.in Book 7, Pages 27.and 28.of Miscellaneous Maps,in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 111-150-20 Robrecht $6,469.50 Lot 18 in Block`B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7,Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 111-150-21 Delgado $6,469.50 North Half of Lot 20 in Block`B"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-150-24 Elliott $13,688.10 Lot 21 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, in the City of Huntington Bea_eh, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on the map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of said County. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 6 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-07 Burrows $10,215.00 Lots 10, 11, 12, Block"E" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27=28, M.M.,.Orange County; CA 111-110-10 Weaver $3,405.00 Lot 6, Block"E"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-14 Taylor $5,379.90 Lot 2, Block E, Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28.of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-12 Leckie $2,587.80 Lots 11 & 12, Block"F" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-13 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 10, Block F of Garfield Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-14 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 9,Block F of Garfield Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-15 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 8 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-16 Thomas $6,810.00 Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120717 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 5 of Block F,Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7,Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. 111-120-18 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 4 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 7 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-120-19 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 3 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange.County, CA. 111-120-20 Thomas $4,630.80 Lots 1 and 2 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. 111-130-01 Weir $1,225.80 Lots 1, 2, 3, &4,Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28 of M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-02 Weir $5,107.50 Lots 1, 2, 3, &4, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-05 Ashby .$3,405.00 Lot 5; Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach,as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28,M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-06 Petersen $3,405.00 Lot 6, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-07 Leckie $3,405.00 Lots 7 & 8, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-08 Leckie $3,405.00 Lots 7 & 8, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in. Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-09 Williams $6,810.00 Lots 9 & 10, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-26 Weir $5,107.50 Lots 1, 2, 3, &4, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 8 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-02 Weir $1,702.50 Lots 3 & 4, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County,'CA.. 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola $3,405.00 Lots 516, 7, & 8, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-05 Thomas $3,405.00 Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-06 Weaver& Mola $6,810.00 Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-14.0-07 Lingle $6 810.00. Lots 9 & 10,Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to. Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola $3,405.00 Lot 11, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-09 Loma Linda $1,225.80 Lot 12, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Univ. Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-36 Weir $1,702.50 Lots 3 &4, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-37 Weir $3,405.00 Lots 3 &4, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 159-281-03 Hassett $3,405.00 Lot 7 of Block A of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7,Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memo/Broc"my-Holly Seacliff 9 Main Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-30 Santiago $7,014.30 Lot 28, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach,:as shown on a map recorded.in Book.7, Pages.27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-150-30 Southridge $14,028.60 Lot 34, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Homes Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7,Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-150-30 Kelter $7,491.00 Lot 35, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-150-30 S Freddo $7,218.60 Lot 36, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-150-30 Southridge $7,150.50 Lot 37, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Homes Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE H By: City Engineer. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: '155T.. malty ifrYbtr,�)' SF/.a:02memoBroc"-ay-Holly Seadiff 10 • CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of C&h Fa"#t4 County of F_ i) 0 On U['-- before me, 1.00,r L 2YAndi e I Name and Title ofOfficer(e.g.,"Jane Doe.Notary Public") personally appeared bassi t WEB 8 i9l2ad COIni E D�eockw/JL Y' ���II (, Name(s)of Signer(s) }t, (` ❑personally known to me-OR-❑proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persoro whose name] is/(9 subscribed to the within instrument (' and acknowledged to me that he/she/executed the K same in his/her/ Ioauthorized capacity(ies), and that by ) his/her/their signature s>on the instrument the persore) or the entity upon behalf of which the persono acted, ) ( executed the instrument. ( KELLY LOUISE MANDIC ,' (, Commission# 1372899 Z WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public - California > Orange County f (' My Comm.Evires Sep 1.2006 ) ( Signature of Notary Public I , ,i OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. ( Description of Attached Document ( ;I t� Title or Type of Document: / gniyo1*andyp,, dF C.6t- 'rant*L dpps. tia_ .100s-S2 ( Document Date: Number of Pages: ( Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: 1'_1 A,,rjc r'or�pf L'<f cY k Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) ( W s< o - (- Signer's Name: ��v.v Qd 4 Signer's Name. .���� ��lc�,.�.✓ ( ❑ Individual ❑ Individuals ( ❑ Corporate Officer X Corporate Officer ' Title(s): Title(-6}- C fY i!515 k ;. ❑ Partner—[I Limited - General ❑ Partner—ElLimited ❑ General. ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attorney-in-Fact s' ❑ Trustee El_ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator s Other: C, C pg!!5.,.f fP/' Top of thumb here ❑ Other: Top of thumb here r� 'S Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: 01995 National Notary Association•8236 Remmet=e..P.O.Box 7184•Canoga Park.CA 91309.7184 Prod.No.5907 Reorder.Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 PLEASE COMPLETE THIS INFORMATION RECORDING REQUESTED BY: AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: C,t of -} A7hq. 4vn flea-e C ) LA THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY TITLE OF DOCUMENT: 10 f 7V—) THIS PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION (Additional recording fee applies) b.059-TITLE PAGE(R7/95) ' Sea Ur�t�+nce 35G� 4 , RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT- THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Findines and Intent. The City Council finds as follows: A. In December 1990,the City of Huntington Beach approved Ordinance No. 3080, thereby entering into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement("Development Agreement")with Pacific Coast Homes. B. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project("Holly-SeacliffProject")on approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north,Huntington and Main Streets on the east, Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south,and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west("Holly-SeacliffProject Area"). C. The Development Agreement required that Pacific Coast Homes construct certain traffic and circulation improvements within the Holly-Seacliff Project Area, specifically plain,Edwards,Goldenwest and Gothard Streets, and Garfield and Ellis Avenues(the"Arterials"). D. The Development Agreement also obliged the City to(1)determine the extent to which these Arterials resulted in street capacity in excess of the traffic demand the Holly-Seacliff Project created; and(2)reimburse Pacific Coast Homes for the excess street capacity from fees or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. E. In May 1996,the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly-Seacliff Project to PLC,a California general partnership,and the remainder to MS Vickers, II, a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer,PLC assumed the Pacific Coast Homes' obligation to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. F. The City and the PLC implemented the reimbursement obligation of Development Agreement through a Settlement Agreement, dated April 17,2000, that, among other things,limited the reimbursement obligation from property owners benefiting from the Arterials to those parcels immediately abutting the Arterials. The amount of the reimbursement was specifically limited to the cost of ten(10) feet of pavement,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent PLC's construction of the Arterials pursuant to Chapter 255 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"), the abutting property owner would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of the development. Section 255.04(B) specifically requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impaca'6'602 1 Res. No. 2002-59 to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further, HBZSO Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. G. The cost of ten (10) feet of pavement,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk has been analyzed in a report entitled"Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Report," prepared by MuniFinancial and dated March 20, 2002 ("Area of Benefit Report"). The actual cost of constructing the ten(10) feet of roadway improvements,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk was determined to be $68.10 per linear foot of property frontage. The Area of Benefit Report then calculates the Area of Benefit Charge to be paid by property owners that benefit from the Arterials PLC installed. The Charge varies by property depending upon each parcel's street frontage. H. The City Council finds and declares that, in the absence of this Resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District(the"District"), existing and future sources of revenue will not be adequate to reimburse PLC for its construction of supplemental capacity in the Arterials. Failure to provide for reimbursement would violate Government Code Sections 66485-66489, and Section 254.18 of the HBZSO,both of which provide that when one developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity, the City Council shall enter into an agreement providing for reimbursement to the developer of the cost of constructing supplemental capacity, with the funding of the reimbursement derived from the levy and collection of a charge on the development of the properties benefiting from the supplemental capacity. SECTION 2: Report of the City Engineer. The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the City Engineer's Report regarding the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Said Report was prepared by a consultant, MuniFinancial,pursuant to Section 17.68.040(b) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. A copy of the Report is on file with the City Clerk. Said Report includes: A. The total cost of the Supplemental Improvements, including right of way acquisition, which amount is S 1,949,948.40. B. The cost of the Roadway Improvement component of the Supplemental Improvements, which amount is $455,350.65. The City Council hereby further acknowledges receipt from the City Engineer of a diagram describing the boundaries of the District and identifying all parcels within the District. SECTION 3. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. A. Pursuant to Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, there is hereby established the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. 02reso/Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact/6/6/02 2 Res. No. 2002-59 B. Although the City Engineer Report recommends that the amount of Excess Costs are $1,949,948.40, the City Council finds and concludes that only the Roadway Improvement component of Excess Costs should spread as a charge to the Benefited Properties. C. A list of the properties identified by assessor's'parcel numbers which are included. within the District is set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit A. D. A diagram identifying the properties which are included within the District is attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit B. E. An apportionment of the Excess Costs for construction of the Arterials and the formation of the District,which represent the actual amount to be charged against each parcel within the District, is set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves the Charges set forth in Exhibit A. F. Such Charges are due and payable prior to the issuance of a final tract map, final parcel map, or the issuance of a building permit; provided,however, such shall not be due in connection with building permits issued in circumstances as described in Section 17.68.110(b)of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. G. The City Council finds that the Charges may adjusted to the extent that the. sidewalk,curb, gutter and driveway installed by the Developer when widening the arterials must be reconstructed in different locations at the time the Benefited Property obtains its building permit or final map. The owner of the Benefited Property may apply to the City Engineer for such an adjustment at the time the Charge is due. By way of example, if the owner of the Benefited Property must relocate the driveway the Developer installed pursuant to the final map,the City Engineer shall reduce the Charge by the reasonable cost of relocating the driveway. H. Commencing on July 1, 2003, and annually thereafter,the Charges established by this Resolution shall be adjusted based upon the change in the construction cost index produced by Engineering News Record,published by McGraw-Hill ("Cost Index"), during the preceding year. The City Engineer shall then adjust the Charges set forth in Exhibit A by such percentage change. The adjusted Charge amount shall be rounded to the nearest cent, and this amount shall constitute the Charge authorized by . Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and established by this Resolution. Should the cost index be revised or discontinued, the City Engineer shall use the revised or a comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of constructing traffic improvements. SECTION 4. California Environmental Qality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") under Section 15273(a)(4)of the California Code of Regulations, commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that this exemption applies because there is no reasonable 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impacd6/6/02 3 Res. No. 2002-59 possibility that the establishment of the Area of Benefit District could negatively affect the physical environment. To the contrary, the charge will be collected to mitigate the environmental impacts of new development on the City's surface transportation system. Any environmental impacts associated with specific projects that may be undertaken with charge proceeds will be assessed as each project is formulated: Further,the City Council finds that,based on Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b) and the fact that this Resolution implements the Circulation Element of the General Plan,which was analyzed pursuant to EIR 94-1, the Ordinance is currently exempt from further environmental assessment until individual traffic improvements are submitted for approval by the City. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force sixty (60) days from and after adoption thereof, which date is ,rune 17, 2002 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June ,2002. ATTEST: City Clerk o6-2e -02 Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS FORM: City AdrifinIstrator Jgity Attorney rITIA/—( D AND APP OVED: Director of Public Works 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffiic Impact/6/6/02 4 Res. No. 2002-59 Ex. A Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner (ft.) ments' Costs° Total Charge Goldenwest Street 110-211-01 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 $ - $ 1,702.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 110-211-04 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-05 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 - 11,917.50 110-220-02 Brindle 330 22,473.00 - 22,473.00 110-220-03 Brindle 199 13,551.90 - 13,551.90 110-220-04 Brindle 129 8,784.90 - 8,784.90 111-120-01 S&C Oil Co. 132 8,989.20 - 8,989.20 111-120-063 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-073 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-083 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-09 Thomas 117 7,967.70 - 7,967.70 111-120-11 Lingle/Leckie 81 5,516.10 - 5,516.10 111-120-273 Mitchell NA - - - 111-120-28 Mitchell 132 8,989.20 - 8,989.20 111-130-11 City of H.B. 123 8,376.30 - 8,376.30 111-130-12 City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 - 4,903.20 1.11-130-14 Williams 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 Gothard Street 111-110-15 Galich 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-110-18' Mandic 290 19,749.00 - 19,749.00 111-110-19 Greer 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 98 6,673.80 - 6,673.80 111-110-21 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-22 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-383 Custer NA - - - 111-140-18 Jones 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-193 Gustafson NA - - - 111-140-21 Thomas 20 1,362.00 - 1,362.00 111-140-22 Thomas 125 8,512.50 - 8,512.50 111-140-23 Gardner 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-24 Thomas 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-25 Weaver 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-27 Everroad 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-140-38 Telford 167 11,372.70 - 11,372.70 111-150-13 City of H.B. 195 13,279.50 - 13,279.50 111-150-153 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum NA - - - 111-150-163 Anderson/GowdylGum NA - - 111-150-173 Scott NA - - - 111-150-19 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-20 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-21 Delgado 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-24 Elliott 201 13,688.10 - 13,688.10 Res. No. 2002-59 Ex. A Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule (cont'd) Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner (ft) ments' Costss Total Charge Garfield Avenue 111-110-07 Dunn 150 10,215.00 - 10,215.00 111-110-10 Roulette 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-110-14 Taylor 79 5,379.90 - 5,379.90 111-110-313 Boliman NA - - - 111-110-333 Weide NA - - - 111-110-363 Novak NA - - - 111-110-373 Boodman-Gomdon NA - - - 111-120-12 Leckie 38 2,587.80 - 2,587.80 111-120-13 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-14 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-15 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405,00 111-120-16 Thomas 100 S 6,810.00 $ - $ 6,810.00 111-120-17 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-18 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-19 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-20 Thomas 68 4,630.80 - 4,630.80 111-130-01 Weir 18 1,225.80 - 1,225.80 111-130-02 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-06 Petersen 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-07 Leckie 50 3,405.00 3,405.00 111-130-08 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 . 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-130-26 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-140-02 Weir 25 1,702,50 - 1,702.50 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 18 1,225.80 - 1,225.80 111-140-36 Weir 25 1.702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-37 Weir 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 Main Street 111-150-30 Santiago 103 7,014.30 - 7,014,30 111-150-36 Southridge Homes 206 14,028.60 - 14,028.60 111-150-37 Kelter 110 7,491.00 - 7,491.00 111-150-38 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - 7,218.60 111-150-39 Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 - 7,150.50 Total Amount 6,684 $455,180.40 $ - $ 455,180.40 Total Parcels Charged 70 'PLC Land Company actual per foot roadway construction costs($68.10)multiplied by frontage. 2 Costs for contract professional services to calculate and document the charge. 3 No charge because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLC's improvements. Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost s Formation costs not included in charge. Sources:City of Huntington Beach:MuniFinancial. r ®AIOO �■I■■� r; � �� �1111111111 ... �/ - ■11111111111 _ — -- ` � 01111■■WIN - ■�1s� III■I■III �- s: :,_, __ � � I : I / c t _ pp ` 1 I Res. No. 2002-59 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 17th day of June, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Cook, Houchen, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: Dettloff ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the The wegoing moumerit is a oorrect City Council of the City of cWy of the original on file in this office. Huntington Beach, California Aftem /8 200a Clerk o Council of the City of Huntington Beach. Calllorr l By Deputy PLEASE COMPLETE THIS INFORMATION RECORDING REQUESTED BY: AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: apb� rna►rl Stre-e-1- };�w�ir��n CA THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY TITLE OF DOCUMENT: THIS PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION (Additional recording fee applies) b.059•TITLE PAGE(R7/95) ,z� l�e�alufron �.ao�--s� ORDINANCE NO. 3564 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 17.68 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS WHEREAS,the City Council previously added Chapter 17.68 to the Municipal Code establishing procedures for formation of"Cost Reimbursement Districts;" and The City Council finds that it is reasonable and necessary to amend Chapter 17.68 to establish procedures for formation of"Area of Benefit Districts." This amended Chapter more closely follows the reimbursement procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66485- 66489; NOW,THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby amends Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chapter 17.68 AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District 17.68.040 Application fee for formation of the 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District 17.68.080 Action by City Council 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge 17.68.100 Administrative Audit 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties 17.68.140 Challenges to District 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Development, a Developer may be required to install and dedicate Public Improvements which may contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or length for the benefit of property not within the Development. When such supplemental size, capacity, number, or length benefits property not within the Development, the City may enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the Supplemental Improvements through an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimburse the Developer, the City may: 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 1 Ord. No. 3564 (a) Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge for the use of Supplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within the Development Area. (b) Contribute to the Developer that part of the cost of the Public Improvements that benefit real property outside the Development Area and levy a charge upon the real property benefited to reimburse the Developer for such cost, together with interest thereon, if any. (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such charge from the property benefited. The charge collected shall be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. 17.68.020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or Estimated Costs of Public Improvements" means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district formation, right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceedings, environmental impact mitigation, plan check and permit fees, construction inspections, maintenance of Improvements, or any other expenses attributable to the construction of Public Improvements. If the scope of the Development is altered during construction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed during construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more than ten (10%) percent without notice to the affected property owners. (b) "Administrative Costs" shall be defined as costs for direct labor and employee benefits, outside consultants, direct materials, indirect costs, overhead costs and fixed assets or depreciation charges. (c) "Area of Benefit" means the entire area which receives a benefit from the Supplemental Improvements. The "Area of Benefit" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing, is determined to be the area benefited by the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. (d) "Benefited Property" is the parcel(s) that is benefited by the Supplemental Improvements and is included within the Area of Benefit. (e) "Charge" means the Excess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property. (f) "Developer" means the person who is responsible for constructing the Public Improvements. (g) "Development" means any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. (h) "Development Area" means the residential subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to be constructed by the Developer (i) "Excess Costs" means the costs attributable to that portion of Public Improvements which benefit areas outside the Development Area. Benefit may be determined by any commonly accepted method which fairly apportions the cost of the Improvements to the benefiting properties. 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 2 Ord. No. 3564 (j) 'Public Improvements" means those improvements as set forth herein including,but not limited to, streets, bridges, traffic signals, street lights, drainage, flood control, water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, landscaping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities, relocation of utilities, other public facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations,police stations, and any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the.Public Improvements. The term Public Improvements includes not only improvements that benefit the Development, but also those that benefit parcels outside the Development. 'Public Improvements" shall also include any property or property interests reasonably necessary for the construction of the improvement. (k) "Substantial Completion of an Improvement" means completion of construction of a Public Improvement to the extent necessary to allow it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. ` (1) "Supplemental Improvements" means Public Improvements which are: (1) required as a condition of approval of the Development which have a size, capacity, number, or length greater than necessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the Development; or (2) improvements which have been agreed upon between the City and Developer. 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District. Whenever a Developer elects, or is required by the City, to install or replace Supplemental Improvements, or whenever the City participates in the costs of Supplemental Improvements in advance of Development, and provided that the costs of such Supplemental Improvements are not financed by an assessment-district or similar proceeding, the Developer may submit an application for formation of an Area of Benefit District, or the City Council, on its own motion, may initiate the formation of the Area of Benefit District. The application of the Developer shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with a non-refundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the request to City Council. 17.68.040 Application Fee for Formation of the Area of Benefit District. Where the Developer has applied for formation of an Area of Benefit District, prior to the City Council authorizing the initiation of the formation of the Area of Benefit District, the Developer shall deposit with the City the following fees to cover various administration costs. (a) A non-refundable application fee will be required from the Developer prior to commencing any work on the Area of Benefit District. The amount of the application fee will be determined by the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general Area of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District formation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individual project to cover such expenses as the calculation of the Excess Costs of the Supplemental Improvements, determination of the Area of Benefit and determination of the apportionment of the Excess Costs to the benefiting parcels. District formation fees will also include publishing of all notices,mailing, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the Developer, the City Engineer 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 3 y Ord. No. 3564 will process the Developer's request to City Council. The City Engineer may retain a qualified consultant to prepare the documents and estimates. This consultant shall have no business relationship with the Developer. The costs of any such engineering services shall be paid by the Developer. The City Council may treat such costs as an incidental cost of the Supplemental Improvements that may be recouped pursuant to the provisions of this:Chapter. 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District. The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all Benefited Properties paying Area of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City and Developer for the cost of formation and monitoring the District. 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer. Pursuant to the direction of the City Council,the City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report containing the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit District which identifies all parcels within the District. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the Supplemental Improvements. (c) The proposed spread of the Excess Costs to the Area of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District. (a) Upon receiving the request from the.City Engineer;the.City Clerk shall set.a noticed public hearing before the City Council: The City Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following form,to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach at least ten(10) days prior to such hearing: NOTICE OF HEARING The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing at on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 to consider the establishment of an Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the City. Your property is located within.the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit . District and may be subject.to a charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of. If, after the date of forming this District, you either.file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or apply for a building permit, the charge and inflation adjustment would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the District are more particularly described by Diagram No. which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said Public Improvements, the cost of said Public Improvements, the benefited area and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard at said hearing. 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 4 Ord. No. 3564 (b) The City Engineer shall, at least fourteen(14) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied by a diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer describing the following: . (1) A description ofthe Public Improvements and that portion considered to be.in excess of the Developer's requirements. (2) The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the Public Improvements. (3) The actual or estimated costs of the Supplemental Improvements which are proposed to be charged against the benefiting property when such property is developed or redeveloped. (4) A diagram identifying the properties to be included within the District. 17.68.080 Action by City Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may, in its sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Developer to provide for the disbursements of the proceeds of the Area of Benefit District. (b) The resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the Benefited Properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers. (2) A diagram identifying the parcels included within the District. (3) An apportionment of the Excess Costs which represent the actual or estimated amount to be charged against each Benefited Property within the District. If the Costs are estimated,the resolution will indicate that the Charges are subject to re- computation by the City Engineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such Charges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicating that the Charges are subject to an interest or inflation. charge, the terms of which shall be defined.: (c) Once the Area of Benefit District has been approved by a resolution of the City Council, it shall establish a statement of charges due from the benefiting properties and their successors,heirs and assigns. (d) Unless directed otherwise by the City Council at the time of the District formation, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of the Resolution establishing the District with the County Recorder. 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engineer shall reapportion the charge amounts after final costs have been calculated and verified by the City Engineer or his designee. All affected property owners shall be notified in writing of their charge amount. 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 5 Ord. No. 3564 17.68.100 Administrative Audit. The Finance officer shall prepare a report indicating the administrative costs incurred for each District on an annual basis. The report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February.15. 17.68.110._Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge. (a).Payment of Charges shall be placed by the City in the appropriate fund account established by Council for each District. These funds will be established to reimburse the Developer for costs incurred for the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to the project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall be established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the Development of benefited properties or the utilization of the Public Improvement by such benefited properties provided (b) Following the formation of the District, if any person records a final map (subdivision,parcel, consolidation, etc.) or applies for a building permit on a parcel within a District in accordance with this Chapter, and such person or their predecessor in interest has not paid such charge to the City, the established charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parcel map or the issuance of the building permit. (c) All charges shall include a principal charge plus an interest or inflation charge calculated from the date.of establishment of the District. The.date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the Public Improvements by the City;or City Council approval of the District,whichever occurs later. (d) Once a charge has been paid, the City Engineer shall cause a notice to be recorded with the County Recorder removing the parcel from the Area of Benefit District. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a) No Charge shall be required in connection with building permits described below: (1) Building alterations for non-residential uses which do not exceed a third (1/3) of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no additional vehicle trips will be produced.over and above those produced by the existing building. (2) Buildmi g alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third (1/3) the original area, provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. (5) Temporary uses as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. 02ord/17-68 chap/6'6%02 6 Ord. No. 3564 (b) Any claim of exemption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the City Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. The City Council may create, pursuant to the resolution establishing an Area of Benefit District, a procedure for adjusting the Charge to Benefited Parcels. The procedure shall address the circumstance that the Supplemental Improvements will not benefit individual properties within the Area of Benefit due to the nature of development proposed on the property. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies. All monies collected under the provisions of this Chapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the appropriate fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. The City Treasurer shall pay annually all monies so collected to the Developer who paid for the Supplemental Improvements for which the charges were collected, or to their assignees. The City shall notify the Developer of the existence of monies deposited in said fund. No funds will be reimbursed to the Developer until all costs included in the District have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall be mailed to the address contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be required by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three (3) years after notice has been made as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties. Whenever a duty is delegated or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council, that official or employee may delegate all or a.portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy,or other employee of the City. 17.68.140 Challenges to District. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, set aside, avoid, or review the decision of the City Council to establish an Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirement, or to decline to establish a District shall be brought by an interested person within ninety(90) days of formation of the District." This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of July , 2002. ATTEST: City Clerk 67-63-pz Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Adm' istrator City Attorney biz TED AND �AP OVED: Director of Public Works 02ord/17-68 chap/6/7/02 7 ol Ord. No. 3564 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June, 2002, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of July,2002, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Green, Dettloff, Cook,Houchen, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: None The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office. ABSTAIN: None Attest — / 200 A City Clark and Ex icio ClerkA the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California.I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of By � � Deputy Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on rw y I , 2002 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California -' s9llr� •• •• •• t� t■. ti t� I� Ellis Ave. IE9fl ■ n, I i HitchinaDcstclr. o�+ Ashley Dr. � �� HOLLY—SEACLIFF TRAFFIC IMPACT Sn I FEE DRAFT REPORT carrel cir. �j.110410w1o, c 110;2,1111 x:�:-ewe. J I F eel Dr. 1 Pa City of Huntington Beach shire Gr. Der Cir. s e D S sra : N a , Evening$OrrgOr �c Park CeetL bk Od A Mae ,rarer 17 .S 1 W E Cir. y 1o211 FOaboro Cir. �r Park Ba Dr. m � �� Park Field J Clr 111-120.01 Forest Glen Dr. Rockridge Dr. Rm o 11¢220-02 m C1 111-128d8 I a 0 200 400 600 Feet Ernest Ave. Perk Path Dr. 6r 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Miles 111-110.20 Ja 110.220-03 � 717-720.27 � •�roa 111-110-19 110-220-04 Ill A 5 111-120-0N 6 s 111-110-18 Prapect Dr,. m Llvin store dr. 111-120-07 r s 3 Specific Plan 4_ Ellis-Golden West c £ 111-120 oB 511-110-21 m Holly Seadifl } i 111-110-22 Q Traffic Impact Fee to all) TurfDr. ■ 111-120.08 11,"r�0"30 117-116-38 U Ba Dr. O Pamela charged O s ! Ocean Point Dr. se'-�`r Parcels not charged Outside of area rsG �; ai I lel Ave. Right-of-Way o Assessors Parcels 15&2abpj _ _FF _ } _ c _ Frontage Length - .,a,a 111-1 27, a wer...aaa•..ara 111-130.14111-150-15 111-130-15 111-140.25 111-150.58 I 111-140-24 111-150-17 �i y y o c 111-140.23 111-150- P I 1 1-1 111-150-19 x l Public Works Department 1 1-140. 111-150.20 I 1 36 111-140A9 iy 111-154 1 111-150 37. 111-140.18 111-150.3 = Surf City GIs c 11 -150-a 1t1-t5o 38 May 16,2001 11-160 �C I O $ Clay Ave. t TTEMS'��N� ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! t Ellis Ave. f �eal i *Hlti tCU. l0,21 1' ' Ashley Dr. � i; fl HOLLY-SEACLIFF TRAFFIC RVIPACT A ` ' FEE DRAFT REPORT U� HCir. 110,21a 0 t1a21M4 tsr +atrx-eeea. xa.,tssxx c ia2 J F est Dr. City of Huntington Beach -Shire Cir. Derby Cir, s e S �r SttelN�a i i N eRl�`�rlg O' Perk Cast Ln. I '� f 0 147M Cir. yb� ra � '4 W lr Park FmrAoro Cir. � ��� �,�; d,. 7� Park Fiala� Clr 111-120-01 Rockrid a Dr. Forest Glen Dr. 9 O �Rt ° 110-220-02 i 0 200 400 600 Feel C1 111-120.29 a la � Ernest Ave. Park Path Dr. ■ rn 0 — 0.05 0.1 0.15 Miles 111-110-20 110-22D-M 111-120-27 a��aClr ttt-t1a1s � � 110-220-0401 A 111-120-06 5 ¢ to 111-11a18 Prospect Dr. 6 111-120-07 Y 3 Specific Plan LEVI stop Dr 1 5 — — Ellis-Golden west 6 Ti .11120-06 111-110-21 m` Holly seacliff +� z t1t-11a22 Q Traffic Impact Fee $ m 1 1 CDParcels ttt-tna° 111-1t0�78 U rBe Dr. O Parcelsn°tacharged r� Turf Dr. ' 111-12D-09 0 Ocean Point Dr. OOutside Df area y _ P Y ra )6 5a ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! _ rm ,m Garfie! Ave. Rightor-Way w S Assessor's Parcels i 159-21ll-03 � r Frontage Length 111-130-14 ttt•uato 27 lit-15a15 mm.�..,roa rnaw.m 111-130-15 111-10-25 111-160-16 c . 11 t-14a24 111-1W17 N o 1= 117-10-23 l 111-150- - 4 N 1 t-1 111-150-19 seamier _ Public Works Department � 1-14a 111.16a 111-14a79 �~- - 111-15a 1 111-1 37, 4 111-140.18 111-1 =° Surf City GIs 11 -16a 4 111-150-39 May 16,2001 .ter-........--.....�.......�._ � � 11-150 2 �rII C Clay Ave. Brockway, Connie To: Field, Scott Awhile ago I sent you the CountyRecorder's return of your item regarding assessments on property to be recorded; that it could not because of exhibits that could not be read. You were going to get it fixed. I will file away until I hear from you. Connie [LA-30 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Le" 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK !�f DecemberO, 2002 County Clerk-Recorder P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, California 92702 Enclosed please find a Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 2002-59 Establishing the Holly-Sea cliff Area of Benefit District to be recorded. This document lists the parcels that are subject to charges along with a legal description of each parcel. The Memorandum should be recorded against each of these parcels. Also attached is a certified copy of Resolution No. 2002-59— `A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District,"adopted on June 17, 2002; Also enclosed is a certified copy of Ordinance No. 3564— `An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Regarding Area of Benefit Districts." Assistant City Attorney Scott Field has provided my office with a memorandum relative to this recording request. I am enclosing a copy of this memorandum dated November 14, 2002 in the event clarification is necessary. If this document is not in order to record, would you please advise my office at your earliest convenience. I have enclosed a copy to be"conformed"and a stamped self-addressed envelope for return to this office. Thank you. / Connie Brockway, CMC — City Clerk CB:cc Enclosures: Resolution No. 2002-59 (Certified) Ordinance No. 3564 (certified) Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 2002-59 establishing the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit District Memorandum from Assistant City Attorney Scott Field dated November 14, 2002 (Telephone:714536-5227) ORDINANCE NO. 3564 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 17.68 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City Council previously added Chapter 17.68 to the Municipal Code establishing procedures for formation of"Cost Reimbursement Districts;" and The City Council finds that it is reasonable and necessary to amend Chapter 17.68 to establish procedures for formation of"Area of Benefit Districts." This amended Chapter more closely follows the reimbursement procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66485- 66489; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby amends Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chapter 17.68 AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District 17.68.040 Application fee for formation of the 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District 17.68.080 Action by City Council 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge 17.68.100 Administrative Audit 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties 17.68.140 Challenges to District 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Development, a Developer may be required to install and dedicate Public Improvements which may contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or length for the benefit of property not within the Development. When such supplemental size, capacity, number, or length benefits property not within the Development, the City may enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the Supplemental Improvements through an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimburse the Developer, the City may: 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 1 t Ord. No. 3564 (a) Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge for the use of Supplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within the Development Area. (b) Contribute to the Developer that part of the cost of the Public Improvements that benefit real-property outside the Development Area and 4evy a_charge upon the real— property benefited to reimburse the Developer for such cost, together with interest thereon, if any. (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such charge from the property benefited. The charge collected shall be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. 17.68.020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or Estimated Costs of Public Improvements" means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district formation, right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceedings,environmental impact mitigation, plan check and permit fees, construction inspections, maintenance of Improvements, or any other expenses attributable to the construction of Public Improvements. If the scope of the Development is altered during construction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed during construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more than ten (10%)percent without notice to the affected property owners. (b) "Administrative Costs" shall be defined as costs for direct labor and employee benefits, outside consultants, direct materials, indirect costs, overhead costs and fixed assets or depreciation charges. (c) "Area of Benefit" means the entire area which receives a benefit from the Supplemental Improvements. The "Area of Benefit" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing, is determined to be the area benefited by the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. (d) "Benefited Property" is the parcel(s) that is benefited by the Supplemental Improvements and is included within the Area of Benefit. (e) "Charge" means the Excess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property. (f) "Developer" means the person who is responsible for constructing the Public Improvements. (g) "Development" means any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. (h) "Development Area" means the residential subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to be constructed by the Developer (i) "Excess Costs" means the costs attributable to that portion of Public Improvements which benefit areas outside the Development Area. Benefit may be determined by any commonly accepted method which fairly apportions the cost of the Improvements to the benefiting properties. Word,,17-68 chap/6/6/02 2 Ord. No. 3564 (j) "Public Improvements" means those improvements as set forth herein including, but not limited to, streets, bridges, traffic signals, street lights, drainage, flood control, water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, landscaping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities, relocation of utilities, other public facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations,police stations, and any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the-Public-Improvements. _The term Public Improvements includes not only improvements that benefit the Development, but also those that benefit parcels outside the Development. 'Public Improvements" shall also include any property or property interests reasonably necessary for the construction of the improvement. (k) "Substantial Completion of an Improvement" means completion of construction of a Public Improvement to the extent necessary to allow it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (1) "Supplemental Improvements" means Public Improvements which are: (1) required as a condition of approval of the Development which have a size, capacity,number, or length greater than necessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the Development; or (2) improvements which have been agreed upon between the City and Developer. 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District. Whenever a Developer elects, or is required by the City, to install.or replace Supplemental Improvements, or whenever the City participates in the costs of Supplemental Improvements in advance of Development, and provided that the costs of such Supplemental Improvements are not financed by an. assessment-district or similar proceeding, the Developer may submit an application for formation of an Area of Benefit District, or the City Council, on its own motion,may initiate the formation of the Area of Benefit District. The application of the Developer shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with a non-refundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the request to City Council. 17.68.040 Application Fee for Formation of the Area of Benefit District. Where the Developer has applied for formation of an Area of Benefit District,prior to the City Council authorizing the initiation of the formation of the Area of Benefit District, the Developer shall deposit with the City the following fees to cover various administration costs: (a) A non-refundable application fee will be required from the Developer prior to commencing any work on the Area of Benefit District. The amount of the application fee will be determined by the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general Area of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District formation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individual project to cover such expenses as the calculation of the Excess Costs of the Supplemental Improvements, determination of the Area of Benefit and determination of the apportionment of the Excess Costs to the benefiting parcels. District formation fees will also include publishing of all notices, mailing, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the Developer, the City Engineer 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 3 Ord. No. 3564 will process the Developer's request to City Council. The City Engineer may retain a qualified consultant to prepare the documents and estimates. This consultant shall have no business relationship with the Developer. The costs of any such engineering services shall be paid by the Developer. The City Council may treat such costs as an incidental cost of the Supplemental Improvements that may be recouped pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District. The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all Benefited Properties paying Area of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City and Developer for the cost of formation and monitoring the District. 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer. Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report containing the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit District which identifies all parcels within the District. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the Supplemental Improvements. (c) The proposed spread of the Excess Costs to the Area of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District. (a) Upon receiving the request from the City Engineer, the City Clerk shall set a noticed public hearing before the City Council. The City Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following form,to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach at least ten (10) days prior to such hearing: NOTICE OF HEARING The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing at on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 to consider the establishment of an Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the City. Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit District and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of. If, after the date of forming this District, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or apply for a building permit, the charge and inflation adjustment would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the District are more particularly described by Diagram No. which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said Public Improvements, the cost of said Public Improvements, the benefited area and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard at said hearing. 02ordl17-68 chap.6.'6/02 4 Ord. No. 3564 (b) The City Engineer shall, at least fourteen(14) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied by a diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer describing the following: (1) A description of the Public,Improvements and.that portion considered to be in excess of the Developer's requirements. (2) The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the Public Improvements. (3) The actual or estimated costs of the Supplemental Improvements which are proposed to be charged against the benefiting property when such property is developed or redeveloped. (4) A diagram identifying the properties to be included within the District. 17.68.080 Action by City Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may, in its sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Developer to provide for the disbursements of the proceeds of the Area of Benefit District. (b) The resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the Benefited Properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers. (2) A diagram identifying the parcels included within the District. (3) An apportionment of the Excess Costs which represent the actual or estimated amount to be charged against each Benefited Property within the District. If the Costs are estimated, the resolution will indicate that the Charges are subject to re- computation by the City Engineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such Charges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicating that the Charges are subject to an interest or inflation charge,the terms of which shall be defined. (c) Once the Area of Benefit District has been approved by a resolution of the City CounciI,.it shall establish a statement of charges due from the benefiting properties and their successors,heirs and assigns. (d) Unless directed otherwise by the City Council at the time of the District formation, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of the Resolution establishing the District with the County Recorder. 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engineer shall reapportion the charge amounts after final costs have been calculated and verified by the City Engineer or his designee. All affected property owners shall be notified in writing of their charge amount. 02ordl 17-68 chap/6/6/02 5 Ord. No. 3564 17.68.100 Administrative Audit. The Finance officer shall prepare a report indicating the administrative costs incurred for each District on an annual basis. The report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February 15. 17.68.110 Establishment of Area.of:Benefit Chkg. (a) Payment of Charges shall be placed by the City in the appropriate fund account established by Council for each District. These funds will be established to reimburse the Developer for costs incurred for the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to the project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall be established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the Development of benefited properties or the utilization of the Public Improvement by such benefited properties provided (b) Following the formation of the District, if any person records a final map (subdivision,parcel, consolidation, etc.)or applies for a building permit on a parcel within a District in accordance with this Chapter, and such person or their predecessor in interest has not paid such charge to the City, the established charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parcel map or the issuance of the building permit. (c) All charges shall include a principal charge plus an interest or inflation charge calculated from the date of establishment of the District. The date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the Public Improvements by the City, or City Council approval of the District, whichever occurs later. (d) Once a charge has been paid, the City Engineer shall cause a notice to be recorded with the County Recorder removing the parcel from the Area of Benefit District. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a) No Charge shall be required in connection with building permits described below: (1) Building alterations for non-residential uses which-do not exceed a third(1/3) of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing building. (2) Building alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third (1/3)the original area, provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. (5) Temporary uses as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. 02ord/17-68 chap'6/6/02 6 Ord. No. 3564 (b) Any claim of exemption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the City Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. The City Council may create, pursuant to the resolution establishing an Area of Benefit District, a procedure for adjusting the Charge to Benefited Parcels. The procedure shall address the circumstance that the Supplemental Improvements will not benefit individual properties within the Area of Benefit due to the nature of development proposed on the property. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies. All monies collected under the provisions of this Chapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the appropriate fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. The City Treasurer shall pay annually all monies so collected to the Developer who paid for the Supplemental Improvements for which the charges were collected, or to their assignees. The City shall notify the Developer of the existence of monies deposited in said fund. No funds will be reimbursed to the Developer until all costs included in the District have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall be mailed to the address contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be required by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three (3) years after notice has been made as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties. Whenever a duty is delegated or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council, that official or employee may delegate all or a portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy, or other employee of the City. 17.68.140 Challenges to District. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, set aside, avoid, or review the decision of the City Council to establish an Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirement, or to decline to establish a District shall be brought by an interested person within ninety(90) days of formation of the District." This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of July , 2002. ATTEST: dmw-� — bJ4,a 64,k, City Clerk 67-63-dt Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Adm' strator City Attorney, 6% z TED AND AP OVED: Director of Public Works Ell 02ord/17-68 chap/6/7/02 7 e Ord. No. 3564 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June, 2002, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of July,2002, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Green, Dettloff, Cook,Houchen, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on 2002 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officlo Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk of the City Council of the City De Duty City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California + ff MINE -SEIVA 7L Ear AREA BENEFTI7 DISTRICT ONE City ofHuntington Beach ♦ �� �. ��. _ _.. ►, soon z s moll 0 D.05 A 0.!Is Mil" `an��► i�ii - speoft Pun � • j r •��Dn� - e Emu , - fitArmo -- -fl :. Ps . _ _ . [MIN lmwrAmg Am Lanp � Pa rM - :I:as II ► ANSOLV7AL._ . v Res. No. 2002-59 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 17th day of June, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Cook, Houchen, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: Dettloff ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California . , See Urc61n4nGt 35L� RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Findings and Intent. The City Council finds as follows: A. In December 1990,the City of Huntington Beach approved Ordinance No. 3080, thereby entering into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement("Development Agreement")with Pacific Coast Homes. B. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project("Holly-Seacliff Project")on approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north,Huntington and Main Streets on the east,Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south,and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west("Holly-Seacliff Project Area"). C. The Development Agreement required that Pacific Coast Homes construct certain traffic and circulation improvements within the Holly-Seacliff Project Area, specifically Main,Edwards,Goldenwest and Gothard Streets,and Garfield and Ellis Avenues(the"Arterials"). D. The Development Agreement also obliged the City to(1)determine the extent to which these Arterials resulted in street capacity in excess of the traffic demand the Holly-Seacliff Project created; and(2)reimburse Pacific Coast Homes for the excess street capacity from fees or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. E. In May 1996, the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly-Seacliff Project to PLC, a California general partnership,and the remainder to MS Vickers, II,a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer,PLC assumed the Pacific Coast Homes' obligation to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. F. The City and the PLC implemented the reimbursement obligation of Development Agreement through a Settlement Agreement,dated April 17,2000,that,among other things,limited the reimbursement obligation from property owners benefiting from the Arterials to those parcels immediately abutting the Arterials. The amount of the reimbursement was specifically limited to the cost of ten(10)feet of pavement,plus curb;gutter and sidewalk,and related acquisition costs. Absent PLC's construction of the Arterials pursuant to Chapter 255 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"),the abutting property owner would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of the development. Section 255.04(B)specifically requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impacrl6/6/02 1 Res. No. 2002-59 to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section,curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further, HBZSO Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. G. The cost often-(10) feet of pavement,..plus curb, gutter,and sidewalk has been.--- . analyzed in a report entitled"Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Report," prepared by MuniFinancial and dated March 20, 2002 ("Area of Benefit Report"). The actual cost of constructing the ten(10) feet of roadway improvements,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk was determined to be $68.10 per linear foot of property frontage. The Area of Benefit Report then calculates the Area of Benefit Charge to be paid by property owners that benefit from the Arterials PLC installed. The Charge varies by property depending upon each parcel's street frontage. H. The City Council finds and declares that, in the absence of this Resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District(the "District"), existing and future sources of revenue will not be adequate to reimburse PLC for its construction of supplemental capacity in the Arterials. Failure to provide for reimbursement would violate Government Code Sections 66485-66489, and Section 254.18 of the HBZSO,both of which provide that when one developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity,the City Council shall enter into an agreement providing for reimbursement to the developer of the cost of constructing supplemental capacity, with the funding of the reimbursement derived from the levy and collection of a charge on the development of the properties benefiting from the supplemental capacity. SECTION 2: Report of the City Engineer. The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the City Engineer's Report regarding the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Said Report was prepared by a consultant, MuniFinancial,pursuant to Section 17.68.040(b) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. A copy of the Report is on file with the City Clerk. Said Report includes: A. The total cost of the Supplemental Improvements, including right of way acquisition, which amount is$1,949,948.40. B. The cost of the Roadway Improvement component of the Supplemental Improvements,which amount is $455,350.65. The City Council hereby further acknowledges receipt from the City Engineer of a diagram describing the boundaries of the District and identifying all parcels within the District. SECTION 3. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. A. Pursuant to Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, there is hereby established the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impacd6/6/02 2 Res. No. 2002-59 B. Although the City Engineer Report recommends that the amount of Excess Costs are $1,949,948.40, the City Council finds and concludes that only the Roadway Improvement component of Excess Costs should spread as a charge to the Benefited Properties. C.. A list of the properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers which are included within the District is set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit A. D. A diagram identifying the properties which are included within the District is attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit B. E. An apportionment of the Excess Costs for construction of the Arterials and the formation of the District,which represent the actual amount to be charged against each parcel within the District,is set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves the Charges set forth in Exhibit A. F. Such Charges are due and payable prior to the issuance of a final tract map, final parcel map,or the issuance of a building permit;provided,however, such shall not be due in connection with building permits issued in circumstances as described in Section 17.68.110(b)of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. G. The City Council finds that the Charges may be adjusted to the extent that the sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway installed by the Developer when widening the arterials must be reconstructed in different locations at the time the Benefited Property obtains its building permit or final map. The owner of the Benefited Property may apply to the City Engineer for such an adjustment at the time the Charge is due. By way of example, if the owner of the Benefited Property must relocate the driveway the Developer installed pursuant to the final map,the City Engineer shall reduce the Charge by the reasonable cost of relocating the driveway. H. Commencing on July 1, 2003,and annually thereafter, the Charges established by this Resolution shall be adjusted based upon the change in the construction cost index produced by Engineering News Record,published by McGraw-Hill ("Cost Index"), during the preceding year. The City Engineer shall then adjust the Charges set forth in Exhibit A by such percentage change. The adjusted Charge amount shall be rounded to the nearest cent, and this amount shall constitute the Charge authorized by Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and established by this Resolution. Should the cost index be revised or discontinued, the City Engineer shall use the revised or a comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of constructing traffic improvements. SECTION 4. California Environmental Oality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") under Section 15273(a)(4)of the California Code of Regulations,commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that this exemption applies because there is no reasonable 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impact/6/6/02 3 Res. No. 2002-59 possibility that the establishment of the Area of Benefit District could negatively affect the physical environment. To the contrary, the charge will be collected to mitigate the environmental impacts of new development on the City's surface transportation system. Any environmental impacts associated with specific projects that may be undertaken with charge proceeds will be assessed as each project is formulated. Further, the City Council finds that,based on Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b)and the fact that this Resolution implements the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which was analyzed pursuant to EIR 94-1, the Ordinance is currently exempt from further environmental assessment until individual traffic improvements are submitted for approval by the City. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force sixty (60) days from and after adoption thereof, which date is June 17. 2002 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June , 2002. ATTEST: e� oa6e(416117 City Clerk o6-U -o2 Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS FORM: �� S :I r City Adnfinistrator City Attorney b-6—OZ- ITIA D AND APP OVED: Director,of Public Works 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impact6.6/02 4 Res. No. 2002-59 Ex. A Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front. Roadway age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner (ft.) ments' Costs° Total Charge Go/denwesCStreet . 110-211-01 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 S - $ 1,702.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 110-211-04 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-05 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 - 11,917.50 110-220-02 Brindle 330 22,473.00 - 22,473.00 110-220-03 Brindle 199 13,551.90 - 13,551.90 110-220-04 Brindle 129 8,784.90 - 8,784.90 111-120-01 S&C Oil Co. 132 8,989.20 - 8,98920 111-120-063 Thomas NA - - 111-120-073 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-083 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-09 Thomas 117 7,967.70 - 7,967.70 111-120-11 Lingle/Leckie 81 5,516.10 - 5,516.10 111-120-273 Mitchell NA - - - 111-120-28 Mitchell 132 8,989.20 - 8,98920 111-130-11 City of H.B. 123 8,376.30 - 8,376.30 111-130-12 City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 - 4,903.20 111-130-14 Williams 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 Gothard Street - 111-110-15 Galich 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-110-184 Mandic 290 _ 19,749.00 - 19,749.00 111-110-19 Greer 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 98 6,673.80 - 6,673.80 111-110-21 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-22 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-383 Custer NA - - - 111-140-18 Jones 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-193 Gustafson NA - - - 111-140-21 Thomas 20 1,362.00 - 1,362.00 111-140-22 Thomas 125 8,512.50 - 8,512.50 111-140-23 Gardner 145 9.874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-24 Thomas 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-25 Weaver 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-27 Everroad 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-140-38 Telford 167 11,372.70 - 11,372.70 111-150-13 City of H.B. 195 .13,279.5-0 - 13,279.50 111-150-153 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum NA - - - 111-150-163 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum NA - - 111-150-173 Scott NA - - - 111-150-19 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-20 Robrecht 95 6,4E9.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-21 Delgado 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-24 Elliott 201 13,668.10 - 13,688.10 Res. No. 2002-59 Ex. A Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule (cont'd) Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner ft.) ments' Costss Total Charge Garfield Avenue 111-110-07 Dunn 150 10,215.00 - 10,215.00 111-110-10 Roulette 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-110-14 Taylor 79 5.379.90 - 5,379.90 111-110-313 Bollman NA - - - 111-110-333 Weida NA - - - 111-110-363 Novak NA - - - 111-110-373 Boodman-Gomdon NA - 111-120-12 Leckie 38 2,587.80 - 2,587.80 111-120-13 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-14 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-15 Thomas SO 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-16 Thomas 100 $ 6,810.00 $ - $ 6,810.00 111-120-17 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3.405.00 111-120-18 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-19 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-20 Thomas 68 4,630.80 - 4,630.80 111-130-01 Weir 18 1,225.80 - 1,225.80 111-130-02 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-06 Petersen 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-07 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-08 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-130-26 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-140-02 Weir 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3.405.00 3,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 13,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 18 1,225.80 - 1,225.80 111-140-36 Weir 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-37 Weir 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 3,405.00 Main Street 111-150-30 Santiago 103 7.014.30 - 7,014.30 111-150-36 Southridge Homes 206 14.028.60 - 14,028.60 111-150-37 Kelter 110 7,491.00` - 7,491.00 111-150-38 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - 7,218:60 111-150-39 Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 - 7,150.50 Total Amount 6,684 $455,180.40 $ - 5 455,180.40 Total Parcels Charged 70 'PLC Land Company actual per foot roadway construction costs(568.10)multiplied by frontage. Costs for contract professional services to calculate and document the charge. 3 No charge because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLC's improvements. 4 Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost 5 Formation costs not included in charge. Sources:City of Huntington Beach:MuniFinancial. OFFICIAL BUSINESS Document entitled to free recording per Government Code Section 6103 Recording Requested by and When Recorded Mail to: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: City Clerk Space above this line for recording use `. MEMORANDUM OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 ESTABLISHING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT This Memorandum of City Council Resolution No. 2002-59 Establishing the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit District provides legal notice that the following parcels are subject to an Area of Benefit Charge, due and payable upon application for a building permit, of final subdivision map for the parcels, all as set forth in Resolution No. 2002-59, on file with the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach: Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 110-211-01 Ghodooshim $1,702.50 Lot 60 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, Miscellaneous Maps ("M.M."), Orange County, CA 110-211-02 Borghetti $1,702.50 Lot 59 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA - 110-211-03 Marow $3,405.00 Lots 57 & 58 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-04 Ghodooshim $1,702.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA 110-211-05 Ghodooshim $11,917.50 Lots 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of Tract No. 62, Book 10, Page 7, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memo/Brockway-Holly Seacliff 1 Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description _ Charge* 110-220-02 Brindle $22,473.00 The North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA. 110-220-03 Brindle $13,551.90 The South half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said t Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA. 110-220-04 Brindle $8,784.90 The South 130.00 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 34, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-01 S & C Oil. Co. $8,989.20 Lot 20, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, in the County of Orange, State of California, Book 7, Page 27, and 28, of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of county recorder of said county. 111-120-09, Thomas $7,967.70 Lot 13 and 27, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to 111-120-30 Huntington Beach, except east 300 ft. Lot 27, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-11, Lingle/Leckie $5,516.10 Lots 11 & 12, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to 111-120-12 Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-28 Mitchell $8,989.20 Lot 19, Block F of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-11 City of H.B. $8,376.30 North half of Lot 12, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 2 Goldenwest Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-130-12 Leckie Trust $4,903.20 South half of Lot 12, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7,Page 27, 28, M.M.,Orange County, CA 111-130-14 Williams $5,992.80 Lot 13, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-15 Renner $9,874.50 Lot 14, Block D of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28,M.M., Orange County, CA ` * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/s:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 3 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-15 Galich $6,469.50 Lot 1 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to - Huntington Beach, as permap thereof recorded in Book 7,pages 27.and:28 of Miscellaneous Maps;in ' the records of the County Recorder of Orange County, State of California. 111-110-18 Mandic $19,749.00 Lots 21 and 22 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, as per map thereof recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the records of the County Recorder of Orange County, State of California. 111-110-19 Greer $9,874.50 Lot 20 of Block E, Garfield Street Addition, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Records of Orange County, California. 111-110-20 Ramsey $6,673.80 Lot 19 of Block E, Tract 286, Garfield Street addition, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as.pet map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, inahe office of the County Recorder of said County. 111-110-21 Pedersen $4,971.30 Lot 23 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on a map recorded in Book 7,pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County. 111-110-22 Pedersen $4,971.30 Lot 23 in Block E of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on a map recorded in Book 7,pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County._ 111-140-18 Jones $9,874.50 Lot 22 in Block"C"of the Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7. Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the county . recorder of said county. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/.a:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 4 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-21 Thomas $1,362.00 Lot 24 in Block C of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on.a. map.recorded in Book 7,Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County,California. 111-140-22 Thomas $8,512.50 Lot 24 in Block C of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-140-23 Gardner $9,874.50 An undivided 3/8t' interest in and to Lot 25 in Block C ` of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-140-24 Thomas $9,874.50 Lot 26 in Block C of Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach as shown on map thereof recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 111-140-25 GARG-Oil $9,874.50 Lot 27 in Block C of Garfield Street addition to Production LLC Huntington Beach, as per map recorded in Book 7, pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 111-140-27 Everroad $5,992.80 Lot 28, Block"C"of the Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach, as per map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 111-140'-38 Telford $11,372.70 Lots 1 &2, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28,M.M., Orange County, CA 111-150-13 City of H.B. $13,279.50 Lot 12 in Block`B"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7,Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 5 Gothard Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-19 Robrecht $6,469.50 Lot 18 in Block`B"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded.in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 111-150-20 Robrecht $6,469.50 Lot 18 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 111-150-21 Delgado $6,469.50 North Half of Lot 20 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 111-150-24 . Elliott $13,688.10. Lot 21 in Block"B" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach,.in the City of Huntington Beach,. County of Orange, State of California, as shown on the map recorded in Book 7,Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps,Records of said County. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seadiff 6 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-110-07 Burrows $10,215.00 Lots 10, 11, 12, Block"E" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages.27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA. 111-110-10 Weaver $3,405.00 Lot 6, Block"E"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-110-14 Taylor $5,379.90 Lot 2, Block E, Garfield Street addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-12 Leckie $2,587.80 Lots 11 & 12, Block"F" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-13 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 10, Block F of Garfield Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-14 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 9; Block F of Garfield Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Page 27, 28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-120-15 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 8 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-16 Thomas $6,810.00 Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-120-17 Thomas . $3,405.00 Lot 5 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. 111-120-18 Thomas $3,405.00 Lot 4 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 7 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-120-19 Thomas $3,405.00. Lot 3 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28.of .Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. 111-120-20 Thomas $4,630.80 Lots 1 and 2 of Block F, Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, Book 7, Pages 27-28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA. 111-130-01 Weir $1,225.80 Lots 1, 2, 3, &4,Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28 of M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-02 Weir $5,107.50 Lots 1, 2, 3, &4, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-OS Ashby $3,405.00 Lot 5,.Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-06 Petersen $3,405.00 Lot 6, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-07 Leckie $3,405.00 Lots•7 & 8, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-08 Leckie $3,405.00 Lots 7 & 8, Block"D" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-09 Williams $6,810.00 Lots 9 & 10, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-130-26 Weir $5,107.50 Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4, Block"D"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 8 Garfield Avenue Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-140-02 Weir $1,702.50 Lots 3 & 4, Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County,CA 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola $3,405.00 Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8,Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-05 Thomas $3,405.00 Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8,Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola $6,810.0.0 Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8,Block"C" of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7,Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-07 Lingle. $6,810.00 Lots 9& 10, Block"C"_of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola $3,405.00 Lot 11, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-09 Loma Linda $1,225.80 Lot 12, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Univ. Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-36 Weir $1,702.50 Lots 3 &4, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 111-140-37 Weir $3,405.00 Lots 3 & 4, Block"C"of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27-28, M.M., Orange County, CA 159-281-03 Hassett $3,405.00 Lot 7 of Block A of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 9 Main Street Parcel No. Owner Total Legal Description Charge* 111-150-30 Santiago $7,014.30 Lot 28, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 an&28 of Miscellaneous Maps,. Orange County, CA 111-150-30 Southridge $14,028.60 Lot 34, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Homes Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-150-30 Kelter $7,491.00 Lot 35, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA 111-150-30 S Freddo $7,218.60 Lot 36, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County;CA 111-150-30 Southridge $7J 50.50 Lot 37, Block B of Garfield Street Addition to Homes Huntington Beach, as shown on a map recorded in Book 7, Pages 27 and 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, Orange County, CA * All charges are subject to an inflation escalator. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE H By:. City Engineer ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SF/g:02memoBrockway-Holly Seacliff 10 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT I` State of _A-h Fonl:.u1A County of E_ ( ' On before me, K-el / . 4zysSiL Audi C. (, DaW Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,'Jane Doe,Notary Public) I personally appeared r1 j D WEB e L 049 16 J�ieockw�4 � I (, Name(s)of Signer(s) ❑personally known to me-OR-❑proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the perso s) whose name] is/(9 subscribed to the within instrument (' and acknowledged to me that he/she/i eDexecuted the I same in his/her/authorized capacity(ies),and that by I his/her/their signature soon the instrument the persono ( or the entity upon behalf of which the persor(o acted, ( executed the instrument. ( KELLY LOUISE MANDIC (, Commission# 1372899 Z WITNESS my hand and official seal. „ Notary Public - California ; Orange County My Comm.Expires Sep 1.2006 ( Signature of Notary Public ( OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent I, fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document ( . Title or Type of Document: RAzwrAoidahy eF wlc•L AM. tio_ 200-2-S2 I Document Date: Number of Pages: �•' Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: 4 ON&.CA xegc..Oe C-f,�lYa+g- �+ Ca acit ies Claimed b Signer(s) ) P Y� ) Y I (, Signer's Name: Z4v.o L. E a S Signer's Name: 4 pee to..*4 t ❑ Individual _ Individual I ❑ Corporate Officer X Corporate Officer ) ( Title(s): Title(} C. iY LAvt , 1 ❑ Partner—❑ Limited. El General ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General_ (' ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee _ - Trustee _ ) El Guardian or Conservator '- - Guardian or Conservator --- Other: ('.�!l Top of thumb here Other: Top of thumb here l Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: K of .r -! 0 1995 National Notary Association•8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184•Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 Prod.No.5907 Reorder.Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 • VIV CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Scott Field,Assistant City Attorney DATE: November 14,2002 SUBJECT: Holly Seacliff-Area Benefit District Ordinance No. 3564 amended the Municipal Code to add Chapter 17.68 regarding Area of Benefit Districts. Section 17.68.080(d) of the Code requires that the City Clerk record a certified copy of the Area of Benefit Resolution with the County Recorder. In this case,the Area of Benefit was established pursuant to Resolution 2002-59. The properties that are subject to the Resolution are listed in Exhibit A to the Resolution according to their Assessor Parcel numbers. In.addition,.a number of parcels are listed on the Resolution that will not.be subject to.any charge. Consequently,there is no reason to record the Resolution against.those parcels._ After discussing the matter with Chicago Title, I believe that the Recorder will require a legal description of the parcels subject to the Area of Benefit Resolution. Consequently, instead of recording the Resolution itself, attached please find a recordable "Memorandum of Aiea of Benefit Resolution." It lists the parcels that are subject to charges along with a legal description of each parcel. The Memorandum should be recorded against each of these parcels. Please let me know if the County Recorder will record the Memorandum. Scott Field Assistant City Attorney Attachments cc: David Webb, City Engineer Bob Stachelski,Transportation Manager Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning GAFIELD'2002 Nfemos\Brockway-Holly Seacliffdoc Brockway, Connie From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 12:00 PM To: Webb, David Cc: Ehring, Liz Dave, I will need to have your signature notarized on this Area of Benefit District that Scott Field has prepared for recordation. Would you call me at x5404 and let me know when a good time is for you to come up and Kelly Mandic can notarize. Thank you, Connie -� 1 Brockway, Connie To: Field, Scott Subject: area of benefit district I am sending off the Area of Benefit District to the Recorder. I attached a Standard Acknowledgement Form for Kelly Mandic to notarize my signature and David Webb, City Engineer signature. I this is not appropriate please advise. I'm writing this Saturday and the document will be mailed Monday. Connie • 1 `.xo l�e�vl�ftori �.aos.-may ORDINANCE NO. 3564 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 17.68 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the City Council previously added Chapter 17.68 to the Municipal Code establishing procedures for formation of"Cost Reimbursement Districts;" and The City Council finds that it is reasonable and necessary to amend Chapter 17.68 to establish procedures for formation of"Area of Benefit Districts." This amended Chapter more closely follows the reimbursement procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66485- 66489; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby amends Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chapter 17.68 AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District 17.68.040 Application fee for formation of the 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District 17.68.080 Action by City Council 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge 17.68.100 Administrative Audit 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties 17.68.140 Challenges to District 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Development, a Developer may be required to install and dedicate Public Improvements which may contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or length for the benefit of property not within the Development. When such supplemental size, capacity, number, or length benefits property not within the Development, the City may enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the Supplemental Improvements through an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimburse the Developer, the City may: 02ord/17-68 chapi6/6/02 1 Ord. No. 3564 (a) Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge for the use of Supplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within the Development Area. (b) Contribute to the Developer that part of the cost of the Public Improvements that benefit.real property outside the Development Area-and levy.:a-.charge upon the-real property benefited to reimburse the Developer for such cost, together with interest thereon, if any. (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such- charge from the property benefited. The charge collected shall be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. 17.68.020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or Estimated Costs of Public Improvements" means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district formation, right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceedings, environmental impact mitigation, plan check and permit fees, construction inspections, maintenance of Improvements, or any other expenses attributable to the construction of Public Improvements. If the scope of the Development is altered during construction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed during construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more than ten (10%)percent without notice to the affected property owners. (b) "Administrative Costs" shall be defined as costs for direct labor and employee benefits, outside consultants, direct materials, indirect costs, overhead costs and fixed assets or depreciation charges. (c) "Area of Benefit" means the entire area which receives a benefit from the Supplemental Improvements. The "Area of Benefit" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council,upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing, is determined to be the area benefited by the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. (d) `Benefited Property" is the parcel(s) that is benefited by.the Supplemental Improvements and is included within the Area of Benefit. (e) "Charge" means the Excess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property. (f) "Developer" means the person who is responsible for constructing the Public Improvements. (g) "Development" means any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. (h) "Development Area" means the residential subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to be constructed by the Developer (i) "Excess Costs" means the costs attributable to that portion of Public Improvements which benefit areas outside the Development Area. Benefit may be determined by any commonly accepted method which fairly apportions the cost of the Improvements to the benefiting properties. 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 2 ` 1 Ord. No. 3564 (j) "Public Improvements" means those improvements as set forth herein including,but not limited to, streets, bridges, traffic signals, street lights, drainage, flood control, water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, landscaping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities, relocation of utilities, other public facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations, police stations, and any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the:PublicJmprovemenm-The term . Public Improvements includes not only improvements that benefit the Development, but also those that benefit parcels outside the Development. "Public Improvements" shall also include any property or property interests reasonably necessary for the construction of the improvement. (k) "Substantial Completion of an Improvement" means completion of construction of a Public Improvement to the extent necessary to allow it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (1) "Supplemental Improvements" means Public Improvements which are: (1) required as a condition of approval of the Development which have a size, capacity,number, or length greater than necessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the Development; or (2) improvements which have been agreed upon between the City and Developer. 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District. Whenever a Developer elects, or is required by the City, to install or replace Supplemental Improvements, or whenever the City participates in the costs of Supplemental Improvements in advance of Development, and provided that the costs of such Supplemental Improvements are not financed by an assessment-district or similar proceeding, the Developer may submit an application for formation of an Area of Benefit District, or the City Council, on its own motion, may initiate the formation of the Area of Benefit District. The application of the Developer shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with a non-refundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the request to City Council. 17.68.040 Application Fee for Formation of the Area of Benefit District. Where the Developer has applied for formation of an Area of Benefit District,prior to the City Council authorizing the initiation of the formation of the Area of Benefit District, the Developer shall deposit with the City the following fees to cover various administration costs: (a) A non-refundable application fee will be required from the Developer prior to commencing any work on the Area of Benefit District. The amount of the application fee will be determined by the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general Area of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District formation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individual project to cover such expenses as the calculation of the Excess Costs of the Supplemental Improvements, determination of the Area of Benefit and determination of the apportionment of the Excess Costs to the benefiting parcels. District formation fees will also include publishing of all notices, mailing, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the Developer, the City Engineer 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 3 Ord. No. 3564 will process the Developer's request to City Council. The City Engineer may retain a qualified consultant to prepare the documents and estimates. This consultant shall have no business relationship with the Developer. The costs of any such engineering services shall be paid by the Developer. The City Council may treat such costs as an incidental cost of the Supplemental Improvements that may be recouped pursuant to the.provisions of this Chapter. 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District. The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all Benefited Properties paying Area of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City and Developer for the cost of formation and monitoring the District. 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer. Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report containing the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit District which identifies all parcels within the District. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the Supplemental Improvements. (c) The proposed spread of the Excess Costs to the Area of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District. (a) Upon receiving the request from the City Engineer, the City Clerk shall set a noticed public hearing before the City Council. The City Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following form, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach at least ten (10) days prior to such hearing: NOTICE OF HEARING The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing at on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 to consider the establishment of an Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain public-facilities and related improvements within the City. Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit District and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of. If, after the date of forming this District, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or apply for a building permit, the charge and inflation adjustment would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the District are more particularly described by Diagram No. which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said Public Improvements, the cost of said Public Improvements, the benefited area and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard at said hearing. 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 4 Ord. No. 3564 (b) The City Engineer shall, at least fourteen(14) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied by a diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer describing the following: (1) A description of the•Public_Improvements and that.portion considered to be in excess of the Developer's requirements. (2) The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the Public Improvements. (3) The actual or estimated costs of the Supplemental Improvements which are proposed to be charged against the benefiting property when such property is developed or redeveloped. (4) A diagram identifying the properties to be included within the District. 17.68.080 Action by City Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may, in its sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Developer to provide for the disbursements of the proceeds of the Area of Benefit District. (b) The resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the Benefited Properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers. (2) A diagram identifying the parcels included within the District. (3) An apportionment of the Excess Costs which represent the actual or estimated amount to be charged against each Benefited Property within the District. If the Costs are estimated, the resolution will indicate that the Charges are subject to re- computation by the City Engineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such Charges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicating that the Charges are subject to an interest or inflation charge, the terms of which shall be defined. (c) Once the Area of Benefit District has been approved by a resolution of the City Council, it shall establish a statement of charges due from the benefiting properties and their successors, heirs and assigns. (d) Unless directed otherwise by the City Council at the time of the District formation, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of the Resolution establishing the District with the County Recorder. 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engineer shall reapportion the charge amounts after final costs have been calculated and verified by the City Engineer or his designee. All affected property owners shall be notified in writing of their charge amount. 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 5 Ord. No. 3564 17.68.100 Administrative Audit. The Finance officer shall prepare a report indicating the administrative costs incurred for each District on an annual basis. The report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February 15. 17.68.110 Establishment of Area=of Benefit Charge. (a) Payment of Charges shall be placed by the City in the appropriate fund account established by Council for each District. These funds will be established to reimburse the Developer for costs incurred for the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to the project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall be established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the Development of benefited properties or the utilization of the Public Improvement by such benefited properties provided (b) Following the formation of the District, if any person records a final map (subdivision,parcel, consolidation, etc.) or applies for a building permit on a parcel within a District in accordance with this Chapter, and such person or their predecessor in interest has not paid such charge to the City, the established charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parcel map or the issuance of the building permit. (c) All charges shall include a principal charge plus an interest or inflation charge calculated from the date of establishment of the District. The date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the Public Improvements by the City, or City Council approval of the District,whichever occurs later. (d) Once a charge has been paid, the City Engineer shall cause a notice to be recorded with the County Recorder removing the parcel from the Area of Benefit District. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a) No Charge shall be required in connection with building permits described below: (1) Building alterations for non-residential uses which do not exceed a third(1/3) of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing building. (2) Building alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third(1/3)the original area,provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. (5) Temporary uses as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. 02urd/17-68 chap/6/6/02 6 Ord. No. 3564 (b) Any claim of exemption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the City Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. The City Council may create,pursuant to the resolution establishing an Area of Benefit District, a procedure for adjusting the Charge to Benefited Parcels. The procedure.shall address the circumstance that the Supplemental Improvements will not benefit individual properties within the Area of Benefit due to the nature of development proposed on the property. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies. All monies collected under the provisions of this Chapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the appropriate fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. The City Treasurer shall pay annually all monies so collected to the Developer who paid for the Supplemental Improvements for which the charges were collected, or to their assignees. The City shall notify the Developer of the existence of monies deposited in said fund. No funds will be reimbursed to the Developer until all costs included in the District have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall be mailed to the address contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be required by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three(3) years after notice has been made as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties. Whenever a duty is delegated or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council,that official or employee may delegate all or a portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy, or other employee of the City. 17.68.140 Challenges to District. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, set aside, avoid, or review the decision of the City Council to establish an Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirement, or to decline to establish a District shall be brought by an interested person within ninety(90) days of formation of the District." This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of July , 2002. ATTEST: City Clerk 67-+8-a2 Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Adm' istrator City Attorney 6� 7-6z. 7/ ' ED AND AP OVED: Director of Public Works 02ord/17-68 chap/6/7/02 7 Ord. No. 3564 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June, 2002, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of July, 2002, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Green, Dettloff, Cook,Houchen, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on rda y /, 2002 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockway,City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California w ♦� � I� � ' fir,- �' � ' �� �� ►♦ ♦ Ill �ml► � '-' _ � �.� � ♦ ,. Ill Olnft ; - ♦ - �� IVA Alp WE oil MAIN 8,AV,PAN F,a I WAV ,� I ;% /� : Res. No. 2002-59 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 17th day of June, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Cook, Houchen, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: Dettloff ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California see 0r,4(r4V1Ce 356� RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Findings and Intent. The City Council finds as follows: A. In December 1990, the City of Huntington Beach approved Ordinance No. 3080, thereby entering into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement("Development Agreement")with Pacific Coast Homes. B. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project ("Holly-SeacliffProject")on approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north,Huntington and Main Streets on the east,Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west("Holly-Seacliff Project Area"). C. The Development Agreement required.that Pacific Coast Homes construct certain traffic and circulation improvements within the Holly-Seacliff Project Area, specifically Main,Edwards,Goldenwest and Gothard Streets,and Garfield and Ellis Avenues (the"Arterials"). D. The Development Agreement also obliged the City to(1)determine the extent to which these Arterials resulted in street capacity in excess of the traffic demand the Holly-Seacliff Project created;and(2)reimburse Pacific Coast Homes for the excess street capacity from fees or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. E. In May 1996, the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly-Seacliff Project to PLC, a California general partnership,and the remainder to MS Vickers, II,a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer,PLC assumed the Pacific Coast Homes' obligation to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. F. The City and the PLC implemented the reimbursement obligation of Development Agreement through a Settlement Agreement,dated April 17,2000,that, among other things, limited the reimbursement obligation from property owners benefiting from the Arterials to those parcels immediately abutting the Arterials. The amount of the reimbursement was specifically limited to the cost of ten(10) feet of pavement,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk,and related acquisition costs. Absent PLC's construction of the Arterials pursuant to Chapter 255 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance("HBZSO"),the abutting property owner would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of the development. Section 255.04(B) specifically requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved 02reso/Holly-SeaclitTTraffic Impact'6'6/02 1 e Res. No. 2002-59 to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further, HBZSO Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. G. The cost of ten (10) feet-of pavement,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk has..been _. analyzed in a report entitled"Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Report," prepared by MuniFinancial and dated March 20, 2002 ("Area of Benefit Report"). The actual cost of constructing the ten (10) feet of roadway improvements,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk was determined to be $68.10 per linear foot of property frontage. The Area of Benefit Report then calculates the Area of Benefit Charge to be paid by property owners that benefit from the Arterials PLC installed. The Charge varies by property depending upon each parcel's street frontage. H. The City Council finds and declares that, in the absence of this Resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District (the"District"), existing and future sources of revenue will not be adequate to reimburse PLC for its construction of supplemental capacity in the Arterials. Failure to provide for reimbursement would violate Government Code Sections 66485-66489, and Section 254.18 of the HBZSO,both of which provide that when one developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity, the City Council shall enter into an agreement providing for reimbursement to the developer of the cost of constructing supplemental capacity, with the funding of the reimbursement derived from the levy and collection of a charge on the development of the properties benefiting from the supplemental capacity. SECTION 2: Report of the City Engineer. The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the City Engineer's Report regarding the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Said Report was prepared by a consultant,MuniFinancial,pursuant to Section 17.68.040(b) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. A copy of the Report is on file with the City Clerk. Said Report includes: A. The total cost of the Supplemental Improvements, including right of way acquisition, which amount is $1,949,948.40. B. The cost of the Roadway Improvement component of the Supplemental Improvements,which amount is $455,350.65. The City Council hereby further acknowledges receipt from the City Engineer of a diagram describing the boundaries of the District and identifying all parcels within the District. SECTION 3. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. A. Pursuant to Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, there is hereby established the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. 02reso Holly-SeacliffTraftic Impact/6/6/02 2 Res. No. 2002-59 B. Although the City Engineer Report recommends that the amount of Excess Costs are $1,949,948.40,the City Council finds and concludes that only the Roadway Improvement component of Excess Costs should spread as a charge to the Benefited Properties. C. A list of the properties-identified by assessor's.parcel numbers which are-included within the District is set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit A. D. A diagram identifying the properties which are included within the District is attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit B. E. An apportionment of the Excess Costs for construction of the Arterials and the formation of the District,which represent the actual amount to be charged against each parcel within the District,is set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves the Charges set forth in Exhibit A. F. Such Charges are due and payable prior to the issuance of a final tract map, final parcel map, or the issuance of a building permit; provided,however, such shall not be due in connection with building permits issued in circumstances as described in Section 17.68.110(b)of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. G. The City Council finds that the Charges may be adjusted to the extent that the sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway installed by the Developer when widening the arterials must be reconstructed in different locations at the time the Benefited Property obtains its building permit or final map. The owner of the Benefited Property may apply to the City Engineer for such an adjustment at the time the Charge is due. By way of example,if the owner of the Benefited Property must relocate the driveway the Developer installed pursuant to the final map, the City Engineer shall reduce the Charge by the reasonable cost of relocating the driveway. H. Commencing on July 1,2003, and annually thereafter,the Charges established by this Resolution shall be adjusted based upon the change in the construction cost index produced by Engineering News Record, published by McGraw-Hill ("Cost Index"), during the preceding year. The City Engineer shall then adjust the Charges set forth in Exhibit A by such percentage change. The adjusted Charge amount shall be rounded to the nearest cent,and this amount shall constitute the Charge authorized by Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and established by this Resolution. Should the cost index be revised or discontinued, the City Engineer shall use the revised or a comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations-in the cost of constructing traffic improvements. SECTION 4. California Environmental Oality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") under Section 15273(a)(4)of the California Code of Regulations, commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that this exemption applies because there is no reasonable . 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impacd6/6/02 3 Res. No. 2002-59 possibility that the establishment of the Area of Benefit District could negatively affect the physical environment. To the contrary, the charge will be collected to mitigate the environmental impacts of new development on the City's surface transportation system. Any environmental impacts associated with specific projects that may be undertaken with charge proceeds will be assessed as each project is formulated. Further,the City Council finds that, based on Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b)and the fact that this Resolution implements the Circulation Element of the General Plan,which was analyzed pursuant to EIR 94-1, the Ordinance is currently exempt from further environmental assessment until individual traffic improvements are submitted for approval by the City. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force sixty (60) days from and after adoption thereof,which date is June 17, 2002 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June , 2002. ATTEST: d-J 9V� City Clerk a-Ze -02 f Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS FORM: City AdnffiKistrator Attorney 11 ITIA tD AND APP OVED: Director of Public Works 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impact/6/6./02 4 • Res. No. 2002-59 Ex. A Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front. Roadway age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner (ft.) ments' Costss Total Charge Goldenwest Street . 110-21141 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 S - $ 1,702.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 - 1,70Z50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 110-211-04 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-05 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 - 11,917.50 110-220-02 Brindle 330 . 22,473.00 - 22,473.00 110-220-03 Brindle 199 13,551.90 - 13,551.90 110-220-04 Brindle 129 8,784.90 - 8,784.90 111-120-01 S&C Oil Co. 132 8,989.20 - 8,98920 111-120-063 Thomas NA - - 111-120-073 Thomas NA - - - 111.120-083 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-09 Thomas 117 7,967.70 - 7,967.70 111-120-11 Lingle/Leckie 81 5,516.10 - 5,516.10 111-120_273 Mitchell NA - - - 111-120-28 Mitchell 132 8,989.20 - 8,989.20 111-130-11 City of H.B. 123 8,376.30 - 8,376.30 111-130-12 City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 - 4,903.20 1.11-130-14 Williams 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 Gothard Street 111-110-15 Galich 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111_110-184 Mandic 290 19,749.00 - 19,749.00 111-110-19 Greer 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 98 6,673.80 - 6,673.80 111-110-21 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-22 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-383 Custer NA - - 111-140-18 Jones 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-193 Gustafson -NA - - - 111-140-21 Thomas 20 1,362.00 - 1,362.00 111-140-22 Thomas 125 8,512.50 - 8,512.50 111-140-23 Gardner 145 9.874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-24 Thomas 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-25 Weaver 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-27 Everroad 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-140-38 Telford 167 11,372.70 - 11.372.70 111-150-13 City of H.B. 195 13,279.50 - 13,279.50 111-150_153 Anderson/GowdylGum NA - - - 111-150-163 Anderson/GowdylGum NA - - - 111-150-173 Scott NA - - - 111=150-19 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-20 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-21 Delgado 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-24 Elliott 201 13,668.10 - 13,688.10 Res. No. 2002-59 Ex. A Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule (cont'd) Project Costs Front- Roadway age improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner (it) ments' Costss Total Charge Garfield Avenue 111-110-07.. Dunn 150 10,215.00 " - 10,215.00 111-110=10 Roulette 50 3,405.00 ' - 3,405.00 111-110-14 Taylor 79 5,379.90 - 5,379.90 111-110-313 Bollman NA - - - 111-110-333 Weide NA - - - 111-110-363 Novak NA - - - 111-110-373 Boodman-Gomdon NA - - - 111-120-12 Leckie 38 2,587.80 - 2,587.80 111-120-13 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-14 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3.405.00 111-120-15 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-16 Thomas 100 $ 6,810.00 $ - S 6,810.00 111-120-17 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-18 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-19 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-20 Thomas 68 4,630.80 - 4,630.80 111-130-01 Weir 18 1,225.80 - 1,225.80 111-130-02 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-06 Petersen 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-07 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-08 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-130-26 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-140-02 Weir 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3.405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 6,810.00 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 18 1,225.80 - 1,225.80 111-140-36 Weir 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-37 Weir 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3.405.00 3,405.00 Main Street 111-150-30 Santiago 103 7,014.30 - 7,014.30 111-150-36 Southridge Homes 206 14,028.60 - 14,028.60 111-150-37 Keller 110 7,491.00 - 7,491.00 111-150-38 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - 7,218.60 111-150-39 Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 - 7,150.50 Total Amount 6,684 $45-3,180.40 $ - $ 455,180.40 Total Parcels Charged 70 PLC Land Company actual per foot roadway construction costs(568.10)multiplied by frontage. 2 Costs for contract professional services to calculate and document the charge. 3 No charge because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLC's improvements. ` Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost s Formation costs not included In charge. Sources:City of Huntington Beach:Munfinancial. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Findings and Intent. The City Council finds as follows: A. In December 1990,the City of Huntington Beach approved Ordinance No. 3080, thereby entering into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement("Development Agreement")with Pacific Coast Homes. B. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project("Holly-SeacliffProject")on approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north,Huntington and Main Streets on the east,Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south,and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west("Holly-SeacliffProject Area"). C. The Development Agreement required that Pacific Coast Homes construct certain �I. traffic and circulation improvements within the Holly-Seacliff Project Area, specifically Main,Edwards, Goldenwest and Gothard Streets,and Garfield and Ellis Avenues(the"Arterials"). D. The Development Agreement also obliged the City to(1)determine the extent to which these Arterials resulted in street capacity in excess of the traffic demand the Holly-Seacliff Project created; and(2)reimburse Pacific Coast Homes for the excess street capacity from fees or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. E. In May 1996,the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly-Seacliff Project to PLC, a California general partnership,and the remainder to MS Vickers, 11,a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer,PLC assumed the Pacific Coast Homes' obligation to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. F. The City and the PLC implemented the reimbursement obligation of Development Agreement through a Settlement Agreement, dated April 17,2000,that, among other things,limited the reimbursement obligation from property owners benefiting from the Arterials to those parcels immediately abutting the Arterials. The amount of the reimbursement was specifically limited to the cost of ten(10)feet of pavement,plus curb,gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent PLC's construction of the Arterials pursuant to Chapter 255 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"),the abutting property owner would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of the development. Section 255.04(B)specifically requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic ImpactV6102 l Res. No. 2002-59 to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further, HBZSO Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. G. The cost of ten(10) feet of pavement,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk has been analyzed in a report entitled"Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Report," prepared by MuniFinancial and dated March 20, 2002 ("Area of Benefit Report"). The actual cost of constructing the ten(10) feet of roadway improvements,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk was determined to be $68.10 per linear foot of property frontage. The Area of Benefit Report then calculates the Area of Benefit Charge to be paid by property owners that benefit from the Arterials PLC installed. The Charge varies by property depending upon each parcel's street frontage. H. The City Council finds and declares that, in the absence of this Resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District(the"District"), existing and future sources of revenue will not be adequate to reimburse PLC for its construction of supplemental capacity in the Arterials. Failure to provide for reimbursement would violate Government Code Sections 66485-66489, and Section 254.18 of the HBZSO,both of which provide that when one developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity,the City Council shall enter into an agreement providing for reimbursement to the developer of the cost of constructing supplemental capacity, with the funding of the reimbursement derived from the levy and collection of a charge on the development of the properties benefiting from the supplemental capacity. SECTION 2: Report of the City Engineer. The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the City Engineer's Report regarding the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Said Report was prepared by a consultant,MuniFinancial,pursuant to Section 17.68.040(b)of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. A copy of the Report is on file with the City Clerk. Said Report includes: A. The total cost of the Supplemental Improvements, including right of way acquisition, which amount is$1,949,948.40. B. The cost of the Roadway Improvement component of the Supplemental. Improvements,.which amount is S455,350.65. The City Council hereby further acknowledges receipt from the City Engineer of a diagram describing the boundaries of the District and identifying all parcels within the District. SECTION 3. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. A. Pursuant to Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, there is hereby established the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. 02reso/Holly-Seaclitf Traffic lmpacd6/6/02 2 Res. No. 2002-59 B. Although the City Engineer Report recommends that the amount of Excess Costs are S 1,949,948.40,the City Council finds and concludes that only the Roadway Improvement component of Excess Costs should spread as a charge to the Benefited Properties. C. A list of the properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers which are-included within the District is set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit A. D. A diagram identifying the properties which are included within the District is attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit B. E. An apportionment of the Excess Costs for construction of the Arterials and the formation of the District,which represent the actual amount to be charged against each parcel within the District, is set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves.the Charges set forth in Exhibit A. F. Such Charges are due and payable prior to the issuance of a final tract map, final parcel map,or the issuance of a building permit; provided,however, such shall not be due in connection with building permits issued in circumstances as described in Section 17,68.110(b)of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. G. The City Council finds that the Charges may be adjusted to the extent that the sidewalk,curb,gutter and driveway installed by the Developer when widening the arterials must be reconstructed in different locations at the time the Benefited Property obtains its building permit or final map. The owner of the Benefited Property may apply to the City Engineer for such an adjustment at the time the Charge is due. By way of example, if the owner of the Benefited Property must relocate the driveway the Developer installed pursuant to the final map,the City Engineer shall reduce the Charge by the reasonable cost of relocating the driveway. H. Commencing on July 1, 2003, and annually thereafter,the Charges established by this Resolution shall be adjusted based upon the change in the construction cost index produced by Engineering News Record,published by McGraw-Hill ("Cost Index"), during the preceding year. The City Engineer shall then adjust the Charges set forth in Exhibit A by such percentage change. The adjusted Charge amount shall be rounded to the nearest cent, and this amount shall constitute the Charge authorized by Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and established by this Resolution. Should the cost index be revised or discontinued, the City Engineer shall use the revised or a comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of constructing traffic improvements. SECTION 4. California Environmental Qality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") under Section 15273(a)(4)of the California Code of Regulations, commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that this exemption applies because there is no reasonable 02reso%Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact-6 6 02 3 Res. No. 2002-59 possibility that the establishment of the Area of Benefit District could negatively affect the physical environment. To the contrary, the charge will be collected to mitigate the environmental impacts of new development on the City's surface transportation system. Any environmental impacts associated with specific projects that may be undertaken with charge proceeds will be assessed as each project is formulated. Further, the City Council finds that,based on Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b)and the fact that this Resolution implements the Circulation Element of the General Plan,which was analyzed pursuant to EIR 94-1,the Ordinance is currently exempt from further environmental assessment until individual traffic improvements are submitted for approval by the City. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force sixty (60) days from and after adoption thereof,which date is June 17, 2002 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June ,2002. ATTEST: 7 � � City Clerk 06-to -02 Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS FORM: City Adnaistrator Jgity Attorney ITIA kDANDAPP OVED: Director of Public Works 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impact/6/6/02 4 Res. No. 2002-59 Ex. A Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front. Roadway age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner (ft.) ments' Costs° Total Charge Goldenwest Street. 110-211-01 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 S - $ 1,702.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 110-21144 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 110-211-05 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 - 11,917.50 110-220-02 Brindle 330 22,473.00 - 22,473.00 110-220-03 Brindle 199 13,551 90 - 13,551.90 110-2.20-04 Brindle 129 8,784.90 - 8,784.90 111-120-01 S&C Oil Co. 132 8,989.20 - 8,98920 111-120-063 Thomas NA - 111-120-073 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-083 Thomas NA - - - 111-120-09 Thomas 117 7,967.70 - 7,967.70 111-120-11 Lingle/Leckie 81 5,516.10 - 5,516.10 111-120-273 Mitchell NA - - - 111-120-28 Mitchell 132 8,989.20 - 8,98920 111-130-11 City of H.B. 123 8,376.30 - 8,376.30 111-130-12 City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 - 4,903.20 1.11-130-14 Williams _ 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 - 9,874'50 Gothard Street 111-110-15 Galich 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-110-184 Mandic 290 19,749.00 - 19,749.00 111-110-19 Greer 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 98 6.673.80 - 6,673.80 111-110-21 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-22 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-383 Custer NA - - 111-140-18 Jones 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-193 Gustafson NA - - - 111-140-21 Thomas 20 1,362.00 - 1,362.00 111-140-22 Thomas 125 8,512.50 - 8,512.50 111-140-23 Gardner 145 9.874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-24 Thomas 145 9,874.50 - _ 9,874.50 111-140-25 Weaver 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-27 Everroad 88 5.992.80 - 5.992.80 111-140-38 Telford 167 11,372.70 - 11,372.70 111-150-13 City of H.B. 195 13,279.50 - 13,279.50 111-150-153 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum NA - - - 111-150-163 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum NA - - - 111-150-173 Scott NA - - - 11 I'll 50-19 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-20 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 - 6,469.50 111-150-21 Delgado 95 6,469.50 - 6.469.50 111-150-24 Elliott 201 13,688.10 - 13,688.10 Res. No. 2002-59 Ex. A Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule(cont'd) Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Formation Parcel Number Owner ft.) ments' Costss Total Charge Garfield Avenue 111-110-07 Dunn 150 10,215.00 - 10,215.00 111-110-10 Roulette 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-110-14 Taylor 79 5,379.90 - 5,379.90 111-110-313 Bollman NA - - - 111-110-333 Weide NA - - - 111-110-363 Novak NA - - - 111-110-373 Boodman-Gomdon NA - - - 111-120-12 Leckie 38 2,587.80 - 2,587.80 111-120-13 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-14 Thomas 50 3.405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-15 Thomas 50 3.405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-16 Thomas 100 S 6.810.00 $ - $ 6,810.00 111-120-17 Thomas 50 3,405.00- - 3,405.00 111-120-18 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-19 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-120-20 Thomas 68 4,630.80 - 4,630.80 111-130-01 Weir 18 1,225.80 - 1,225.80 111-130-02 Weir 75 5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-06 Petersen 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-13047 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,406.00 i . 111-130-08 Leckie 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-130-26 Weir 75 -5,107.50 - 5,107.50 111-140-02 Weir 25 1,702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 - 6,810.00 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00- - 3,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 18 1,225.80 - 1,225.80 111-140-36 Weir 25 1.702.50 - 1,702.50 111-140-37 Weir 50 3,405.00 - 3,405.00 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 3.405.00 Main Street 111-150-30 Santiago 103 7.014.30 - 7.014.30 111-150-36 Southridge Homes 206 14,028.60 - 14,028.60 111-150-37 Keller 110 7,491.00 - 7,491.00 111-150-38 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - 7,218.60 111-150-39 Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 - 7,150.50 TotalAmount 6,684 $455.180.40 $ - S 455,180.40 Total Parcels Charged 70 'PLC Land Company actual per foot roadway construction costs(568.10)multiplied by frontage. 2 Costs for contract professional services to calculate and document the charge. 3 No charge because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLCs improvements. Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost s Formation costs not included in charge. Sources:City of Huntington Beach:MuniFinancial. - L I� •��� :'ram C o III 111111►� PM _ PubHe . .. .: rrrnr �' ' :r GIs Res. No. 2002-59 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 17th day of June, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Cook, Houchen, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: Dettloff ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and ex-officio derk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California • VU3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Scott Field,Assistant City Attorney DATE: November 14, 2002 SUBJECT: Holly Seacliff-Area Benefit District Ordinance No. 3564 amended the.Municipal Code to add Chapter 17.68 regarding Area of Benefit Districts. Section 17.68.080(d) of the Code requires that the City Clerk record a certified copy of the Area of Benefit Resolution with the County Recorder. In this case, the Area of Benefit was established pursuant to Resolution 2002-59. The properties that are subject to the Resolution are listed in Exhibit A to the Resolution according to their Assessor Parcel numbers. In addition, a number of parcels are listed on the Resolution that will not be subject to any charge. Consequently, there is no reason to record the Resolution against those parcels. After discussing the matter with Chicago Title, I believe that the Recorder will require a legal description of the parcels subject to the Area of Benefit Resolution. Consequently, instead of recording the Resolution itself, attached please find a recordable "Memorandum of Area of Benefit Resolution." It lists the parcels that are subject to charges along with a legal description of each parcel. The Memorandum should be recorded against each of these parcels. Please let me know if the County Recorder Recorder will record the Memorandum. Fr'c°1 Scott Field Assistant City Attorney Attachments cc: David Webb, City Engineer Bob Stachelski, Transportation Manager Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning ti GAFIELD\2002 Memos\Brockway-Holly Seacliff.doc ORDINANCE NO. 3564 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 17.68 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City Council previously added Chapter 17.68 to the Municipal Code establishing procedures for formation of"Cost Reimbursement Districts;" and The City Council finds that it is reasonable and necessary to amend Chapter 17.68 to establish procedures for formation of"Area of Benefit Districts." This amended Chapter more closely follows the reimbursement procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66485- 66489; NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby amends Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chapter 17.68 AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District 17.68.040 Application fee for formation of the. 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District 17.68.080 Action by City Council 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge 17.68.100 Administrative Audit 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties 17.68.140 Challenges to District 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Development, a Developer may be required to install and dedicate Public Improvements which may contain supplemental size, capacity,number, or length for the benefit of property not within the Development. When such supplemental size, capacity, number, or length benefits property not within the Development, the City may enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the Supplemental Improvements through an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimburse the Developer, the City may: A7—i/17.69 chnn.'6/6/02 1 Ord. No. 3564 (a) Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge for the use of Supplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within the Development Area. (b) Contribute to the Developer that part of the cost of the Public Improvements that benefit real property outside the Development Area and levy a charge upon the real property benefited to reimburse the Developer for such cost, together with interest thereon,if any. (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such charge from the property benefited. The charge collected shall be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. 17.68.020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or Estimated Costs of Public Improvements" means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district formation, right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceedings, environmental impact mitigation, plan check and permit fees,construction inspections,maintenance of Improvements, or any other expenses attributable to the construction of Public Improvements. If the scope of the Development is altered during construction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed during construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more than ten (10%)percent without notice to the {- affected property owners. (b) "Administrative Costs" shall be defined as costs for direct labor and employee benefits, outside consultants, direct materials, indirect costs, overhead costs and fixed assets or depreciation charges. (c) "Area of Benefit"means the entire area which receives a benefit from the Supplemental Improvements. The "Area of Benefit" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council,upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing, is determined to be the area benefited by the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. (d) `Benefited Property"is the parcel(s) that is benefited by the Supplemental Improvements and is included within the Area of Benefit. (e) "Charge" means the Excess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property: (f) "Developer" means the person who is responsible for constructing the Public Improvements. (g) "Development" means any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. (h) "Development Area" means the residential subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to be constructed by the Developer (i) "Excess Costs"means the costs attributable to that portion of Public Improvements which benefit areas outside the Development Area. Benefit may be determined by any commonly accepted method which fairly apportions the cost of the Improvements to the benefiting properties. 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 2 Ord. No. 3564 (j) "Public Improvements" means those improvements as set forth herein including, but not limited to, streets, bridges, traffic signals, street lights, drainage, flood control, water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities,landscaping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities, relocation of utilities, other public. facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations, police stations, and any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the Public Improvements. The term Public Improvements includes not only improvements that benefit the Development, but also those that benefit parcels outside the Development. "Public Improvements" shall also include any property or property interests reasonably necessary for the construction of the improvement. (k) "Substantial Completion of an Improvement" means completion of construction of a Public Improvement to the extent necessary to allow it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (1) "Supplemental Improvements" means Public Improvements which are: (1) required as a condition of approval of the Development which have a size, capacity,number, or length greater than necessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the Development; or (2) improvements which have been agreed upon between the City and Developer. 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District. Whenever a Developer elects, or is required by the City,to install or replace Supplemental Improvements, or whenever the City participates in the costs of Supplemental Improvements in advance of Development, and provided that the costs of such Supplemental Improvements are not financed by an assessment-district or similar proceeding, the Developer may submit an application for formation of an Area of Benefit District, or the City Council, on its own motion,may initiate the formation of the Area of Benefit District. The application of the Developer shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with a non-refundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the request to City Council. 17.68.040 Application Fee for Formation of the Area of Benefit District. Where the Developer has applied for formation of an Area of Benefit District,prior to the City Council authorizing the initiation of the formation of the Area of Benefit District, the Developer shall deposit with the City the following fees to cover various administration costs: (a) A non-refundable application fee will be required from the Developer prior to commencing any work on the Area of Benefit District. The amount of the application fee will be determined by the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general Area of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District formation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individual project to cover such expenses as the calculation of the Excess Costs of the Supplemental Improvements, determination of the Area of Benefit and determination of the apportionment of the Excess Costs to the benefiting parcels. District formation fees will also include publishing of all notices, mailing, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the Developer,the City Engineer 02ord/17-68 chap'6/6/02 3 Ord. No. 3564 will process the Developer's request to City Council. The City Engineer may retain a qualified consultant to prepare the documents and estimates. This consultant shall have no business relationship with the Developer. The costs of any such engineering services shall be paid by the.Developer. The City Council may treat such costs as an incidental cost of the Supplemental Improvements that may be recouped pursuant'to the provisions of this Chapter. 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District. The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all Benefited Properties paying Area of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City and Developer for the cost of formation and monitoring the District. 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer. Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report containing-the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit District which identifies all parcels within the District. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the Supplemental Improvements. (c) The proposed spread of the Excess Costs to the Area of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Area of Benefit District. (a) Upon receiving the request from the City Engineer, the City Clerk shall set a noticed public hearing before the City Council. The City Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following form,to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach at least ten (10) days prior to such hearing: NOTICE OF HEARING The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing at on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 to consider the establishment of an Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the City. Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit District and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of. If, after the date of forming this District, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.)or apply for a building permit, the charge and inflation adjustment would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the District are more particularly described by Diagram No. which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said Public Improvements, the cost of said Public Improvements, the benefited area and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard at said hearing. 02ord/17-68 chap/6.16/02 4 Ord. No. 3564 (b) The City Engineer shall, at least fourteen(14) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied by a diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer_ describing the following: (1) A description of the Public Improvements and that portion considered to be in excess of the Developer's requirements. (2) The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the Public Improvements. (3) The actual or estimated costs of the Supplemental Improvements which are proposed to be charged against the benefiting property when such property is developed or redeveloped. (4) A diagram identifying the properties to be included within the District. 17.68.080 Action by City Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may, in its sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Developer to provide for the disbursements of the proceeds of the Area of Benefit District. (b) The resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the Benefited Properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers. (2) A diagram identifying the parcels included within the District. (3) An apportionment of the Excess Costs which represent the actual or estimated amount to be charged against each Benefited Property within the District. If the Costs are estimated,the resolution will indicate that the Charges are subject to re- computation by the City Engineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such Charges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicating that the Charges are subject to an interest or inflation charge, the terms of which shall be defined. (c) Once the Area of Benefit District has been approved by a resolution of the City Council, it shall establish a statement of charges due from the benefiting properties and their successors,heirs and assigns. (d) Unless directed otherwise by the City Council at the time of the District formation, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of the Resolution establishing the District with the County Recorder. 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engineer shall reapportion the charge amounts after final costs have been calculated and verified by the City Engineer or his designee. All affected property owners shall be notified in writing of their charge amount. 02ord/17-68 chap,'6!6/02 5 4 Ord. No. 3564 17.68.100 Administrative Audit. The Finance officer shall prepare a report indicating the administrative costs incurred for each District on an annual basis. The report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February 15. 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge. (a) Payment of Charges shall be placed by the City in the appropriate fund account established by Council for each District. These funds will be established to reimburse the Developer for costs incurred for the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to the project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall be established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the Development of benefited properties or the utilization of the Public Improvement by such benefited properties provided (b) Following the formation of the District, if any person records a final map (subdivision,parcel, consolidation, etc.) or applies for a building permit on a parcel within a District in accordance with this Chapter, and such person or their predecessor in interest has not paid such charge to the City, the established charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parcel map or the issuance of the building permit. (c) All charges shall include a principal charge plus an interest or inflation charge calculated from the date of establishment of the District. The date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the Public Improvements by the City, or City Council approval of the District,whichever occurs later. (d) Once a charge has been paid, the City Engineer shall cause a notice to be recorded with the County Recorder removing the parcel from the Area of Benefit District. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a) No Charge shall be required in connection with building permits described below: (1) Building alterations for non-residential uses which do not exceed a third (1/3)of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by.the existing building. (2) Building alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third(1/3)the original area,provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. (5) Temporary uses as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. 02ord/17-68 chap/6/6/02 6 Ord. No. 3564 (b) Any claim of exemption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the City Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. The City Council may create,pursuant to the resolution. establishing an Area of Benefit District, a procedure for adjusting the Charge to Benefited Parcels. The procedure shall address the circumstance that the Supplemental Improvements will not benefit individual properties within the Area of Benefit due to the nature of development proposed on the property. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies. All monies collected under the provisions of this Chapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the appropriate fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. The City Treasurer shall pay annually all monies so collected to the Developer who paid for the Supplemental Improvements for which the charges were collected, or to their assignees. The City shall notify the Developer of the existence of monies deposited in said fund. No funds will be reimbursed to the Developer until all costs included in the District have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall be mailed to the address contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be required by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three (3) years after notice has been made as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties. Whenever a duty is delegated or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council,that official or employee may delegate all or a portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy, or other employee of the City. 17.68.140 Challenges to District. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, set aside, avoid, or review the decision of the City Council to establish an Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirement, or to decline to establish a District shall be brought by an interested person within ninety(90) days of formation of the District." This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of July 2002. ATTEST: -dmz� W� b, City Clerk 67-•3-Oz Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Admiristrator City Attorney11 /7 TED AND�AP OVED: Director of Public Works 02ord/17-68 chap!6/7/02 7 Ord. No. 3564 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a re ular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June,2002, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of July,2002, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Green,Dettloff, Cook,Houchen, Winchell,Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City 1 Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this i ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on 04, ,2002 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: April 1, 2002 DE I ARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 Council/Agency Meeting Held: 04-61—m Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionall Approved ❑ Denied pp v6i Clerk' Si nature Counci *et ing ate: pril�1, 0 � ` Department ID Number: CA-20 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CO NCIL MEMBERS ti SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator < PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works T,o-_�. AIL HUTTON, City Attorney yy�e 'r /Vo, 3 Sb` � 'Al), Zoo Z-2Sr SUBJECT: 3 Adopt a Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District '" n Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) went of Issue:Should the City adopt the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: That the City Council: 2, Conduct a public hearing for considering the adoption of the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. . 4. Adept Resolution Ner-4Wa�--��en'.Jted „ a ehaFge on new development within I 'elly-Geseliff that would FeiffibUFse P6G and the Gity Holly-Seacliff = 3/22/2002 5:31 PM / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 1, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 ow (�37 �Alternative Actlon(s): Do not establish the Area of Benefit'Distrlct. Analysis: 1. Background: In December 1990, the City and Pacific Coast Homes entered into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project of approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and Main Streets on the east, Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west ("Holly-Seacliff'). The Agreement required the Developer to construct certain public facilities. The Agreement also obliged the City to (1) determine the extent the public facilities were oversized beyond the needs of the Holly-Seacliff development; and (2) reimburse the Developer for this excess capacity from other developments served by the excess capacity. In May 1996, PLC, a California general partnership, purchased the Holly-Seacliff project, and assumed the obligations to construct the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. Pursuant to the Development Agreement, PLC installed in excess of$35,300,000 in street improvements and another $11,250,000 for the Edwards Reservoir. PLC contended that it was entitled to reimbursement for a significant portion of these costs. In support of its claim, PLC submitted the Waldron Report. In response, the City commissioned the Boyle Report, which contended that relatively little of the improvements represented excess capacity. PLC then demanded arbitration of its cost reimbursement as permitted under the Development Agreement. Before the arbitration commenced, the City and PLC entered into a Settlement Agreement on April 17, 2000 that provided as follows: a. PLC paid the City $850,000 for police facilities. b. PLC waived reimbursement for sewer lines, except that it was relieved of constructing the Stewart extension. Consequently, no property owner within Holly-Seacliff will be charged for these improvements. C. PLC received $538,000 in reimbursement for construction of master storm drain facilities from City storm drain fees. Consequently no property owner within Holly-Seacliff will be charged for these improvements. d. The City paid PLC approximately $3,700,000 as full reimbursement for water facilities. Again, there will be no property owner charge for these improvements. e. PLC was to be paid $1,312,000 for street improvements, pursuant to the following schedule: Holly-Seacliff -3- 3/18/2002 4:31 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 1, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 (1) $250,000 upon City acceptance of Goldenwest between Ellis and Garfield. (2) $250,000 upon completion of Gothard between Garfield and Main. (3) $812,000 pursuant to a reimbursement district. (4) These amounts were in addition to the several million dollars in credits against traffic impact fees PLC received for constructing City streets within Holly-Seacliff. f. The City agreed to attempt to form a reimbursement district that will collect impact fees upon the development of properties abutting streets PLC has widened (Garfield, Gothard, Goldenwest and Main). The Settlement Agreement provided that the amount of the fee would be based upon the cost of right-of-way acquisition and the cost of constructing curb, gutter, sidewalk and ten feet of street pavement adjacent to the benefiting properties. Any funds received in excess of $812,000 will be retained by the City to reimburse the City for expenditures pursuant to Section 5, above. Under the Settlement Agreement, the City retains full discretion not to impose the fees. Failure to impose the fee will merely result in the City not receiving charges in excess of $812,000. g. The Settlement Agreement resolved all disputes regarding public facilities. PLC has no obligation to construct any additional public facilities and the City cannot be required to provide further reimbursement. The basis for imposing a charge on abutting property owners is that, absent PLC's construction of the streets, the property owners would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of development pursuant to Section 254.02 of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Further, the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code §§ 66485-66489) provides that if the City requires a subdivider to install supplemental capacity in public improvements for the benefit of other property, the City shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with subdivider for the difference in costs. To pay the costs of reimbursement, the City may charge persons outside the subdivision for their use of the supplemental capacity. Such a charge may be through an area of benefit district. 2. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Concurrently with approving the Settlement Agreement, the Public Works Director hired MuniFinancial to recommend to Council the form of a reimbursement district. The Final Report of MuniFinancial was written after a lengthy analysis. A draft report was circulated prior to a property owners' meeting held on June 7, 2001. Subsequently, individual property owners' meetings were conducted leading up to circulation of the'final Holly-Seacliff 4 K 3/20/2002 6:18 PM 13 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 1, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 draft report and another property owners' meeting on March 5, 2002. On March 20, 2002, the Final Report was issued, and mailed to the property owners on March 21, 2002. The Final Report recommends that an Area of Benefit District be established to include only properties abutting Goldenwest, Gothard, Garfield and Main. The properties would be subject to a reimbursement charge comprising the following two items: • Roadway construction costs for a ten foot traffic lane allowing egress and ingress to the property, plus an eight-foot wide curb, gutter and sidewalk, and, • Right-of-way (ROW) acquisition payments to property owners, not exceeding 18 feet of frontage along arterial street, and to the center line on collector streets. In order to determine construction costs, PLC provided its payment history for roadway construction costs incurred between April 1997 and April 2000. PLC and the City agreed to use 1998 as the base year for comparison of roadway construction costs. MuniFinancial obtained independent estimates of comparable construction projects from the City of Huntington Beach and Willdan, a civil engineering firm located in California. These comparable costs were adjusted to 1998 dollars. As illustrated below, the comparable costs were greater than the actual costs provided by PLC: Comparative Roadway Construction Costs Cost per Linear Foot Improvement PLC City of Huntington Willdan Beach 10 ft. Asphalt Concrete Paving $ 25.00 $ 27.16 $ 25.45 Street Lighting Conduit, Boxes & Lights 22.00 30.28 33.61 2 ft. Curb&Gutter 11.70 14.65 14.65 6 ft. Sidewalk 9.40 9.77 14.41 Total Cost $ 68.10 $ 81.86 $ 88.12 Roadway improvements then were allocated based on each property's linear feet of frontage multiplied by PLC's cost per linear foot for construction. Property owners who installed roadway improvements at their own expense prior to PLC's installation of improvements are exempt from this portion of the impact fee to avoid double charging these property owners for replacement of improvements already made. City staff reviewed aerial photographs and other supporting documentation to confirm that these improvements existed prior to PLC's improvements. Holly-Seacliff -_ 3/20/2002 12:10 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 1, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 In order to determine right-of-way (ROW) acquisition costs, MuniFinancial reviewed all available checks, invoices and supporting documentation for all legal fees, right-of-way payments. Acquisition costs were then allocated to specific properties based on payments made to individual property owners or some reasonable allocation method. 3. Outstanding Issues. The MuniFinancial Report provides detail on the cost allocation procedures that were followed to reach an equitable allocation of reimbursement charges on a per parcel basis. For example, ROW payments for property south of Garfield and east of Gothard are not recommended for full recovery due to the fact that the street was realigned to the east and 20 feet of right-of-way was taken in order to accomplish such realignment. To treat these properties equitably, only 10 feet of right-of-way acquisition payments are recommended for reimbursement. Many policy decisions were made in allocating reimbursement charges. While Staff recommends following the methodology that MuniFinancial sets forth in its Report, ultimately, these are policy choices the City Council can instruct Staff to address differently. These issues are as follows: a. Legal Fees and Miscellaneous Costs. The City incurred considerable legal fees, title fees, appraisal fees and other costs related to the right-of-way acquisition. The initial draft of the MuniFinancial report recommended including these costs. After the first property owners' meeting in June 2001, it was decided to delete these costs. It is still within the Council's discretion to include these costs as part of the reimbursement charge. b. Sunsetting the Area of Benefit District. The Ordinance adopted in 1993 included a 20-year sunset clause. That is, after the reimbursement district had been formed, the Ordinance provided that it would sunset after 20 years. It is recommended that the sunset clause be deleted and the proposed ordinance amendment would so provide. One problem with a sunset is that it encourages deferral of property development in order to avoid the charge. Further, the property owner has received the benefit of the improvements for many years and in fact the City will continue to maintain those improvements into the future. Consequently, Staff recommends against a sunset clause. C. Propertv Liens. One objection historically to the reimbursement district was that the original Ordinance provided that the charge would be identified on the property tax roll. This provision is proposed to be deleted in the amended ordinance. The area of benefit district simply would be equivalent to any other impact fee that the City collects, such as traffic impact fees, library impact fees and storm drain fees. Holly-Seadiff -8- 3/18/2002 4:31 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 1, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA-20 d. Driveway Relocation. One objection raised at the most recent property owners' meeting was that the driveway improvements PLC installed may not be used by the property owner at the time of development. Consequently, it is recommended and the amended ordinance so provides that at the time of payment of the reimbursement charge, the City Engineer will adjust the charge by the cost of any driveway relocation. Environmental Status: EIR 89-1 was approved for the Development Agreement. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Ordinance No. entitled "A Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Regarding Area Benefit Districts." 2. Legislative Draft of Chappter 17.68 3 . Resolution No. entitled a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District, including Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit Report, dated 3/20/02, prepared by MuniFinancial as Exhibit A 4 • Appendix A to MuniFinancial Report �/�i°�endices A Ql e C-r� Orn i A-- Appendix B to MuniFinancial Report J u6/.� _,oe;pv1 ,u ih 6. Appendix C to MuniFinancial Report GLr/c;s RCA Author: S. Field Holly-Seacliff 3/22/2002 5:28 PM �v Olt? 6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 17.68 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEAC MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AREA OF BENEFIT DIST CTS WHEREAS, the City Council previously added Chapter 17.68 t he Municipal Code establishing procedures for formation of"Cost Reimbursement Distric ;" and The City Council finds that it is reasonable and necessary t amend Chapter 17.68 to establish procedures for formation of"Area of Benefit Districts." This amended Chapter more closely follows the reimbursement procedures set forth in Gov nment Code Section 66485- 66489. The amended Chapter further removes the provision at the reimbursement charge would be a lien against the benefited property, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the C' y of Huntington Beach hereby amends Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Co e to read as follows: Chapter 17. 8 AREA OF BENEF DISTRICTS Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for Installati n of Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions 17.68.030 Application for Area of enefit District 17.68.040 Application fee for fo ation of the 17.68.050 Recovering Costs,fo ormation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District 17.68.060 Report of the City ngineer 17.68.070 Notice and heari g on establishment of Cost Reimbursement District 17.68.080 Action by City ouncil 17.68.090 Re-computati of Charge 17.68.100 Administrati e Audit 17.68.110 Establishm t of Area of Benefit Charge 17.68.115 Exemptio from Charge 17.68.117 Adjustm t of Charge. 17.68.120 Obligat' n of Developer to Claim Monies 17.68.130 Deleg ion of Duties - 17.68.140 Chal nges to District 17.68.010 Re u. ement for Installation of Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Developmen a Developer may be required to install and dedicate Public Improvemen which may contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or length for the benefit of property not within the Development. When such supplemental size, capacity, number, or length benefits property not within the Development, the City may enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the - 02ord/17-68 chap/3/19/02 1 Supplemental Improvements through an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimbu e the Developer, the City may: (a) Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge r the use of Supplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within the De elopment Area. (b) Contribute to the Developer that part of the cost of the Public Impro ements that benefit real property outside the Development Area and levy a ch a upon the real property benefited to reimburse the Developer for such cost, toge er with interest thereon, if any. (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such charge from the property benefited. The charge collected all be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. 17.68.020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or Estimated Costs of Public Improvement means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district ormation, right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceeding environmental impact mitigation, plan check and permit fees, construction inspec ons, maintenance of Improvements, or any other expenses attributable to the const ction of Public Improvements. If the scope of the Development is altered during c nstruction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed durin construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more th n ten (10%)percent without notice to the affected property owners. i (b) "Administrative Costs" shall be define as costs for direct labor and employee benefits, outside consultants, direct aterials, indirect costs, overhead costs and fixed assets or depreciation charges. (c) "Area of Benefit" means the enti area which receives a benefit from the Supplemental Improvements. T e "Area of Benefit" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council, u n the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing, is d ermined to be the area benefited by the construction of the Supplemental Improve nts. (d) `Benefited Property" is t parcel(s) that is benefited by the supplemental improvements and is inc ded within the Area of Benefit. (e) "Charge" means the E cess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property. (f) "Developer" means a person who is responsible for constructing the Public Improvements. - (g) "Development" eans any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. (h) "Developme t Area" means the residential subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to a constructed by the Developer (i) "Excess osts" means the costs attributable to that portion of Public Improvements which b nefit areas outside the Development Area. Benefit may be determined by 02ord/17-68 chap/3/19/02 2 any commonly accepted method which fairly apportions the cost of the Im ovements to the benefiting properties. (j) "Public Improvements" means those improvements as set forth herei ncluding,but not limited to, streets,bridges, traffic signals, street lights, drainage, ood control, water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, lands ping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities, relocation of utilities, ther public facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations, police stations, d any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the Public Im ovements. The term Public Improvements includes not only improvements that nefit the Development, but also those that benefit parcels outside the Developmen . "Public Improvements" shall also include any property or property interests reaso ably necessary for the construction of the improvement. (k) "Substantial Completion of an Improvement" means ompletion of construction of a Public Improvement to the extent necessary to allo it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (1) "Supplemental Improvements" means Public I provements which are: (1) required as a condition of approval of th evelopment which have a size, capacity, number, or length greater tha ecessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the Development; or (2) improvements which have been agr ed upon between the City and Developer. 17.68.030 Application for Area of Bene t District. Whenever a Developer elects, or is required by the City, to install or replac Supplemental Improvements, or whenever the City participates in the cos/estto ppl ental Improvements in advance of Development;, and provided that the costsh S plemental Improvements are not financed by an assessment-district or simie ing, the Developer may submit an application for formation of an Area of Bi trict, or the City Council, on its own motion, may initiate the formation of thf Benefit District. The application of the Devshall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with efundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the to City Council. 17.68.040 A lication Fermation of the Area of Benefit District. Where the Developer has applied for formation of an Area of Benefit District, prior to the City _ Council authorizing the jbitiation of the formation of the Area of Benefit District, the Developer shall deposi ith the City the following fees to cover various administration costs: (a) A non-refundab application fee will be required from the Developer prior to - commencing work on the Area of Benefit District. The amount of the application fee will be de rmined by the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general Ar of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District rmation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individ al project to cover such expenses as the calculation of the Excess Costs of the Sup p mental Improvements, determination of the Area of Benefit and, determination oft apportionment of the Excess Costs to the benefiting parcels;. District 02ord/17-68 chap/3/19/02 3 formation fees will also include publishing of all notices, mailing, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the Develop , the City Engineer will process the Developer's request to City Council. The City Engineer may retain a qualified consultant to prepare the documents and estima s. This consultant shall have no business relationship with the Developer. The c is of any such engineering services shall be paid by the Developer; however, the sts shall be considered an incidental cost of the Supplemental Improvements to be couped pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. 17.68.050 RecoveringCosts for Formation and Monitoringthe Area of nefit District. The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all properties paying ea of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City for the cost of formation and ni, ng the District. 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer. Pursuant to the direction f the City Council, the City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report ontaining the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit strict which identifies all parcels within the District. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the Supplement Improvements. (c) The proposed spread of the Excess Costs to the a of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of ost Reimbursement District. (a) Upon receiving the request from the C/on eer, the City Clerk shall set a noticed public hearing before the City Councilty Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntieach at least ten(10) days prior to such hearing: NOTIC OF HEARING The City Council of the City of ntington Beach will hold a public hearing at on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 2648 to consider the establishment of an Area of Benefit District for the fina cing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the Cit _ Your property is located w hin the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit District and may be subj t to a charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilitie which benefit your parcel of. If, after the date of forming this District, yo either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or pply for a building permit, the charge and inflation adjustment would be ome due and payable. The proposed bou daries of the District are more particularly described by Diagram No. which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desirin o testify with respect to: the necessity of said Public Improvements, a cost of said Public Improvements, the benefited area and the amount of he costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard at said hearing. 02ord/17-68 chap/3/19/02 4 (b) The City Engineer shall, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited% area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied b a diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer describing the following: 1. A description of the Public Improvements and that portion considere to be in excess of the Developer's requirements. 2. The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the Public Im rovements. 3. The actual or estimated costs of the Supplemental Improve nts which are proposed to be charged against the benefiting property wh such property is developed or redeveloped. 4. A diagram identifying the properties to be included w' in the District. 17.68.080 Action by Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may, in it sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Area of Benefit Distric and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Developer to rovide for the disbursements of proceeds of the Area of Benefit District. (b) The resolution establishing the Area of Ben it District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the Benefited Properties ide tified by assessor's parcel numbers. (2) A diagram included within the Di rict. (3) An apportionment of the Exces Costs which represent the actual or estimated amount to be charged against ach Benefited Property within the District. If the Costs are estimated, the reso tion will indicate that the Charges are subject to re- computation by the City En ineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such Ch ges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicatin that the Charges are subject to an interest or inflation charge, the terms of hi shall be defined. (c) Once the Area of Ben it District has been approved by a resolution of the City Council, it shall esta ish a statement of charges due from the benefiting properties. 17.68.090 Re-com ut tion of Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engine shall reapportion the charge amounts after final costs have been calculated and ve d by the City Engineer or his designee. All affected property owners shall be no fied in writing of their charge amount. 17.68.100 Adm* istrative Audit. The Director of Finance shall prepare a report indicating the ministrative costs incurred for each District on an annual basis. The 02ord/17-68 chap/3/19/02 5 report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February 15. 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge. (a) Payment of Charges shall be placed by the City in the appropriate fund acc nt established by Council for each District. These funds will be established reimburse the Developer for costs incurred for the construction of the Supplement Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to a project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall b established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the De elopment of benefited properties or the utilization of the Public Improvement y such benefited properties provided (b) Following the formation of the District, if any person recor a final map (subdivision, parcel,consolidation, etc.) or applies for a b ' ding permit on a parcel within a District in accordance with this Chapter, and su person or their predecessor in interest has not paid such charge to the City, the esta ished charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parc map or the issuance of the building permit. (c) All charges shall include a principal charge plus interest or inflation charge calculated from the date of establishment of the istrict. The date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the Public I rovements by the City, or City Council approval of the District, whichever o curs later. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a) No Charge shall be required in connect' n with building permits described below: (1) Building alterations for non-resi ntial uses which do not exceed a third (1/3) of the value of a building, as defined i the Uniform Building Code, and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no a itional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existi building. (2) Building alterations or ad tions for residential use which add no residential units. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Repair of constructio defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any _ other destructive act f nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third (1/3 the original area, provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over nd above those produced by the original use of the land. (5) Temporary use as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. (b) Any claim of e emption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the ity Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each applic on shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.117 Ad' stment of Charge. The City Council may create, pursuant to the resolution establishing n Area of Benefit District, a procedure for adjusting the Charge to Benefited 02opd/17-68 chap/3/19/02 6 Parcels. The procedure shall address the possibility that the Supplemental Improvements 11 not benefit the properties within the Area of Benefit. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies. All monies collected under th provisions of this Chapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the approp . to fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. T City Treasurer shall pay annually all monies so collected to the Developer who paid or the Supplemental Improvements for which the charges were collected, or to their ssignees. The City shall notify the Developer of the existence of monies deposited in aid fund. No funds will be reimbursed to the Developer until all costs included in the strict have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall be mailed to the ad ess contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be requi ed by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being clai ed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three (3) years after notice has been de as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall e transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties. Whenever a duty is delega d or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council, that official employee may delegate all or a.portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy, or othe employee of the City. 17.68.140 Challenges to District. Any action or proce ding to challenge, attack, set aside, avoid, or review the decision of the City Counc' to establish an Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirem t, or to decline to establish a District shall be brought by an interested person w' in ninety(90) days of formation of the District. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Cit Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the y of 52002. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND ZA 13 ROV APPROVED AS TO FORM: wom*n City Administrator City Attorney 3-122-`6;?,C c!1 IAT D AND APP OVED: Director of Public Works 02ord/17-68 chap/3/19/02 7 ORDINANCE NO. �� LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Chapter 17.68 COST REIMBURSEME-N-T AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS (3151-8/92, Correction 2/93) Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for iInstallation of}Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions 17.68.030 Application for Celt R o:..,bufsem ent Area of Benefit District 17.68.040 C-ests Application fee for formation of the C st n e:.Y.bur-sement Area of Benefit District 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and mMonitoring the Cost Reimbursement Area of Benefit District after f f ati 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Cost Reimbursement District 17.68.080 Action by City Council 17.68.090 Re-computation of lien Charge 17.68.100 Administrative aAudit 17.68.11 o Limitations an feimbufsement agreement Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge 17.68.117 Adjustment of Charge. 17.68.120 Obligation of dDeveloper or-su dividef to eClaim mMonies 17.68.130 Delegation of dDuties 17.68.140 Time 'imi* Challenges to dDistrict 17.68.010 Requirement for iInstallation of}Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Development,A a dDeveloper may be required to install and dedicate pPublic}Improvements as a eendifien of appfeva thei.subd vi* developmePA-which may contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or length for the benefit of property not within Oteif the subdivision E)T dDevelopment. When such supplemental size, capacity, number, or length ' benefits of property not within the subdivision evelopment, the develepef City may fellow enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the Supplemental Improvements through of this or-din „ee to establish a Gent Do:�.",•.seme„t an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimburse the Developer, the ity may: (a)Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge for the use of Supplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within the-Development Area. (b) Contribute to the Developer that part of the cost of the Public Improvements that benefit real property outside the Development Area and levy a charge upon the real property benefited to reimburse the Developer for such cost, together with interest thereon, if any. legisdrft/mc 1768LD/3/15/02 1 (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such charge from the property benefited. The charge collected shall be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. devia4e ffem this Fequir-ement. Pr-evisions ef this ehaptef may be invoked by the City whenever-the City installs impr-evements in advanee of development whieh h-i-NaPe-fitus-ef serves pr-epei4y within the City er-within the City's sphere ef influenee te allew the Cit�- toTeeeivefeimbufsement. - 17.68.020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or eEstimated eCosts of pPublic}Improvements" means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district formation, right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceedings, environmental impact mitigation;, plan check and permit fees, construction inspections, maintenance of iImprovements;, or any other expenses attributable to the construction of Public iImprovements. If the scope of the pr-ejeet Development is altered during construction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed during construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more than ten (10%)percent without notice to the affected property owners. (b)(k) "Substantial eCompletion of an €aei145 Improvement" shall be defined as tha4 eft means completion of construction of a€aeility Public Improvement Whieh to the extent necessary to allow the faEik y it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (c) "Area of Benefited-yea" means the entire area which receives a benefit from the p Supplemental iImprovements. The "Area of bBenefited afea" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing, is determined to be the area benefited by the construction of the publie Supplemental iImprovements. (d)"Benefited Property" is the parcel(s) that is benefited by the supplemental improvements and is included within the Area of Benefit. (e) "Charge" means the Excess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property. (d)( "Developer" means the person who is responsible for constructing the pPublic i mprovements. (g)"Development" means any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. (h)"Development Area" means the residential subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to be constructed by the Developer (O(i) 'Excess eCosts" means the costs attributable to that portion of Public iImprovements which benefit areas outside the dDevelopment aArea. Benefit may be determined by any commonly accepted method which fairly apportions the cost of the iImprovements to the benefiting properties. legisdrfdmc 1768LD/3/15/02 2 (4)0) "Public iImprovements" means those improvements as set forth herein including, but not limited to, streets, bridges, traffic signals, street lights, drainage, flood control, water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, landscaping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities, relocation of utilities, other public facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations,police stations, and any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the pPublic}Improvements;.but shall inel„de any The term pPublic}Improvements whieh will includes not only improvements that benefit e*the dDevelopment, in . but also those that benefit parcels outside the Development. "Public iImprovements" shall also include any property or property interests reasonably necessary for the construction of the improvement. (g) "Reimbur-sement Distr-iet" means the benefited area within whieh pfepeAy shall be- "Supplemental iImprovements" means those is whieh afe pPublic iImprovements and which are: (1) required as a condition of approval of the dDevelopment pre}eet which have a size, capacity, number, or length greater than necessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the dDevelopment prejeet; and or (2) improvements which have been agreed upon between the City and dDeveloper. (O(b) "Administrative eCosts" shall be defined as costs for direct labor and employee benefits, outside consultants eects, direct materials, allied indirect costs, overhead costs, eve fhea and fixed assets;or depreciation charges. 17.68.030 Application for Cost Reimbufseme t Area of Benefit District. Whenever a dDeveloper elects, or is required by the City, to install or replaces upplemental iImprovements, or whenever the City participates in the costs of sSupplemental iImprovements in advance of dDevelopment;, and provided that the costs of such Supplemental iImprovements are not financed by an assessment der- district or similar proceeding, the dDeveloper may submit an application for formation of an eest ..e;.,,>,.,,..,ement Area of Benefit dDistrict, or the City Council, on its own motion, may initiate the formation of the eest reimbursement Area of Benefit dDistrict. The application of the dDeveloper shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with a non-refundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the request to City Council. 17.68.040 Costs AIRplication Fee for Formation of the Gest n o"...1.ur-so... e t Area of Benefit District. Where the Developer has applied for formation of an Area o ene it District, Pprior to the City Council authorizing the initiation of the formation of the C D st eimbu-sement Area of�Benefit District, the dDeveloper shall deposit with the City the following fees to cover various administration costs: (a) A non-refundable application fee will be required from the dDeveloper prior to commencing any work on the Cost>Dei-„ ur-cement Area of Benefit District. The amount of the application fee will be determined by the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general C-est IegisdrR/me I768LD/3/15/02 3 Ro:.r.bur-se. ent Area of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District formation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individual pproject to cover such expenses as the calculation of the.-eiffi.ur-so.,..e„* Excess individual of the sSupplemental}Improvements, determination of the bid aArea of Benefit and, determination of the apportionment of the eExcess eCosts to the benefiting parcels, and audit ti . District formation fees will also include publishing of all notices,mailing, County Reee,.ae,. fees, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the dDeveloper, the City Engineer will process the dDeveloper's request to City Council. The City Engineer may retained a qualified consultant to prepare the documents and estimates. This retained eng consultant shall have no business relationship with the dDeveloper. The costs of any such engineering services shall be paid by the dDeveloper; however, the costs shall be considered an incidental cost of the Supplemental iImprovements to be recouped pursuant to the provisions of this^Chapter. 17.68.050 Recovering, Costs for Formation and mMonitorin the Cost- .�.Do: bur-senDe„t.Area oene rt District after-f fma4i netieed publie hearing the Developer-will be required to dep-esit. _fvee�_ i_�Ae a speeifie niter-ing fund. Pf:ejeet monitoring fees for-eaeb distfiet,�h,ill be determined by-a- of the City Couneil. if the distfie-t is ed by the City Couneil, this fee be expended to eever-the administr-ative easts of annually fneniter-ing the Distriet. if ffind beeemes depleted, the dDeveieper-will be required to replenish the flind in meer-danee with the above mentioned r-eseltitien ef the City Getineil. if the dDeveleper- does not replenish the meniter-ing fundwithin one h after-written netiee from the rye Aiq he-abandoned—The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all properties paying Area of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City for the cost of formation and monitoring the District. 17.68.060 Report of the CitEngineer. Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report containing the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit dDistrict which identifies all parcels within the dDistrict. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the sSupplemental iImprovements. (c) The proposed spread of the eExcess eCosts to the Area of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Cost Reimbursement District. (a) Upon receiving the request from the City Engineer, the City Clerk shall set a noticed public hearing before the City Council. The City Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following form, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach at least ten(10) days prior to such hearing: legisdrfi/mc 1768 LD/3/15/02 4 NOTICE OF HEARING The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing at_ on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 to consider the establishment of an Cost Reimb Urcement Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the City.,ethepNise knewn as t Gest Re;Fnb lraement r 'stria+ Ne Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Gest Reimbursement Area of Benefit District and may be subject to a 4ea charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of land If, a ter the date of forming this dDistrict, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) cr ap ply for a building permit, the lier-► charge and aGGUmulated in+ores+ inflation adjustment would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the dDistrict are more particularly described by Diagram No. which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said pPublic ilmprovements, the cost of said pPublic ilmprovements, the benefited area of and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard at said hearing. (b) The City Engineer shall, at least tweet fourteen (2-0 14) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied by a diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer describing the following: 1. A description of the pPublic}Improvements and that portion considered to be in excess of the dDeveloper's requirements. 2. The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the pPublic}Improvements. 3. The actual or estimated costs of publie the Supplemental i1mprovements which are proposed to be lied charged against the benefiting property when such property is developed or redeveloped. 4. A diagram ' identifying the properties to be included within the dDistrict. 17.68.080 Action by City Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may, in its sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Cost Reimbursement Area of Benefit District and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the dDeveloper to provide for the D disbursements of proceeds of the Cost ei"''�-r-se e-L Area of Benefit District. legisdrfdmc 1768LD/3/15/02 5 (b) The resolution establishing the rest R o;mbo-so.. ent Area of Benefit District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the Benefited pProperties identified by assessor's parcel numbers whieh are ineluded within the distr-iet boundaries. (2) A diagram indieafinlg the bei+ndar-ies of the distfiet and identif�xiflg the pro. tobed included within the District. (3) An apportionment of the eExcess eCosts which represent the actual or estimated amount to be levied charged against each parcel Benefited Property within the dDistrict. If the eCosts are estimated, the resolution will indicate that the liens Charges are subject to re-computation by the City Engineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such liened Bests Charges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicating that the liens Charges are subject to an interest Or inflation charge, the terms of which shall be defined. (c) Once the Cost Reimbursement Area of Benefit District has been approved by a resolution of the City Council, it shall establish a statement of charges due from the benefiting , properties. (d) The City Engineer-shall r-eeefd a eepy of the Couneil r-eseltition With the GE)URty Reeerder. Upon paygment of the-am d ., 'he o ...,tie fthe aZiet the City Engineer- shall eause to be filed a fele-asse. r-:f- hen upen the affeeted pfepefty-ef- prepertes. 17.68.090 Re-computation of lien Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engineer shall reapportion the lien charge amounts after final costs have been calculated and verified by the eCity Engineer or his designee.; and shall eause the lien r-ell to be appr-emiately medified. All affected property owners shall be notified in writing of their final lien Charge amount. 17.68.100 Administrative aAudit. The Director of Finance shall prepare a report indicating the administrative costs incurred for each District on an annual basis. The report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a Cost- Reimbursement Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February 15. 17.68.110 Lifnitatiens on reimbursement aefeement Establishment of Area of Benefit Char2e. dDevelepef when 1i afer-eeeived-.— (b)(a) T e „a.q entg- Payment of Charges shall be placed by the City in the appropriate fund account established by Council for each dDistrict. These funds will be established to reimburse the dDeveloper for costs incurred for the construction of the legisdrft/mc 1768LD/3/15/02 6 Supplemental }Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to the project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall be established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the dDevelopment of benefited properties or the utilization of the pPublic iImprovement by such benefited properties provided, , r-eimbur-sement agr-eement shall be for-a per-ied of twenty(20) years. (e)(b) 7f dur-in,the established pe ,.a� net t o ee twenty rem ,oafs-, €Following the formation of the dDistrict, if any person records a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or applies for a building permit on a parcel f--_•.h ieh ., lie f" within a District supplementai impfevements has been established in accordance with this eChapter, and such person or their predecessor in interest has not paid such lien charge to the City, the established lien charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parcel map or the issuance of the building permit.; , of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and whieh effeet ne ehange in eel (2) Beilding alterations or-additions for-residential use whieh add no residential units. (4) Repair-of eenstfuefien defeets or-damage due to fire, eivil unfest, flood of any than one third (P3) the or-iginal. (5) Temper-ar-y uses as speeified in the City of Huntington Beaeb's Ofdinanee Cede—, ten. (d)(C) All liens Charges shall include a principal charge plus an interest Or inflation charge calculated from the date of establishment of lien the District. The date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the pPublic iImprovements by the City, or City Council approval of the District, whichever occurs later. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a)No Charge shall be required in connection with building permits described below: (1)Building alterations for non-residential uses which do not exceed a third (113) of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code: and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing building. (2)Building alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units. (3)Fences and walls. legisdrfdmc 1768LD/3/15/02 7 (4)Repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third (1/3) the original area, provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. (5)Temporary uses as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. (b)Any claim of exemption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the City Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.117 Ad'ustment of Char e. The City Council may create, pursuant to t e reso ution establishingan rea of Benefit District, a procedure for adjusting the Charge to enefited Parcels. The procedure shall address the possibility that the supplemental Improvements will not benefit the properties within the Area of Benefit. 17.68.120 Obligation of dDeveloper or- divider to eClaim fnMonies. All monies collected under the provisions of this eChapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the appropriate fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. The City Treasurer shall r-e€und pay annually all monies so collected to the Developer who paid for the sSupplemental Improvements for which the 1i�rts c arges were collected, or to their assignees, all monies so eelleete . The City shall notify the dDeveloper of the existence of monies deposited in said fund. No funds will be reimbursed to the dDeveloper until all costs included in the dDistrict have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall be mailed to the address contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be required by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three (3) years after notice has been made as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of dDuties. Whenever a duty is delegated or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council, that official or employee may delegate all or a portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy, or other employee of the City. 17.68.140 Time limit for-eChallenges to District. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, set aside, avoid, or review the decision of the City Council to establish an Cost Reim ufsement Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirement, or to decline to establish a dDistrict shall be brought by an interested person within Ikij4y ninety (30 90) days of the date of the r-eeefdeAien e fthe re ^lute" of the City Couneil deeisien with the Getinty Reee—rdeff er-within ninety(96) days ef the da the aeeisi,,. .,1..ieheve,. seenet:formation of the District. legisdrft/mc 1768LD/3/19/02 8 �0DoZ — sX RESOLUTION NO. ,- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE / CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE / HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOE HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Findings and Intent. The City Council finds as foll s: A. In December 1990, the City of Huntington Beach appr ved Ordinance No. 3080, thereby entering into the Holly-Seacliff Developme t Agreement("Development Agreement")with Pacific Coast Homes (the "Deu Loper"). B. The Development Agreement provided for the�development of a residential and commercial project("Holly-Seacliff Project'{) on approximately 545 acres bounded i generally by Central Park and Ellis Aven e on the north, Huntington and Main Streets on the east, Yorktown and Clay venues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on t e west("Holly-Seacliff Project Area"). C. The Development Agreement req fired that the Developer construct certain traffic and circulation improvements withi the Holly-Seacliff Project Area, specifically Main, Edwards, Goldenwest Streets, othard and Garfield and Ellis Avenues (the "Arterials"). D. The Development Agree ent also obliged the City to (1) determine the extent to which these Arterials resulted in street capacity in excess of the traffic demand the ! Holly-Seacliff Project reated; and(2)reimburse the Developer for the excess street i capacity from fees o exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. E. In May 1996, th City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly-Seacliff Project to PLC, a Calif rnia general partnership, and the remainder to MS Vickers, II, a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer, PLC assumed the Developer's bligation to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. F. /efiting !/and the Developer implemented the reimbursement obligation of ment Agreement through a Settlement Agreement, dated April 17, 2000,that, ther things, limited the reimbursement obligation from property owners from the Arterials to those parcels immediately abutting the Arterials. The f the reimbursement was specifically limited to cost often(10) feet of t,plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent the Developer's construction of the Arterials, the abutting property owners would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of development. This requirement is found at Government Code §66475 and Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"), which require that 02reso/Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact/3/19/02 1 any subdivider, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, dedicate, or make an irrevocable offer to dedicate, all parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for improving the street to the ultimate right-of-way as established in e Circulation Element to the City General Plan. In addition,the subdivider shall nstruct or agree to construct all required street improvements to the ultimate right f-way in accord with Chapter 255 of the HBZSO. Section 255.04(B) specifical requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved to its ultimate adopted g metric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks,drivew approaches and transitions. Further, Section 250.04 requires that all land e developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circul ion Element of the General Plan. G. The cost of ten (10) feet of pavement,plus curb, tter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs of each property adjacent to th Arterials in the Holly-Seacliff Project Area has been analyzed in a report ent' ed"Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District Report,"prepared by MuniFinancia nd dated February 8, 2002 ("Area of Benefit Report"). The Area of Benefit Re rt calculates the Area of Benefit Charge to be paid by property owners that benef from the Arterials the developer installed. The Charge varies by property dependi g upon each parcel's street frontage and cost of land acquisition. Two primary fac rs that dictate the amount of the Area of Benefit Charge: (1)the actual cost constructing the ten (10) feet of roadway improvements,plus curb, gutter a sidewalk,which was determined to be $68.10 per linear foot of property fronta e; (2) the cost to the City to acquire a right-of-way from various property owners b way of agreement or condemnation. Normally, right-of-way would be dedica d to the City upon the development of the property. Consequently, when the par is subject to the Charge develop and pay the Area of Benefit Charge,the Charg will include the right-of-way acquisition payments these same property owners re ived. H. The City Council find and declares that, in the absence of this Resolution improving the Holly-Seacliff A a of Benefit District, existing and future sources of revenue will not be adequat to reimburse PLC for its construction of supplement capacity in the Arterials. Fai re to provide for reimbursement would violate Government Code Sections 66485- 6489, Section 254.18 of the HBZSO and Section 2.2.11 of the Holly-Seacliff evelopment Agreement, all which provide that when one developer installs impro ements with supplemental capacity, the City Council shall enter into an agreeme providing for reimbursement to the Developer of the cost of constructi supplemental capacity,with the funding of the reimbursement derived from the evy and collection of a charge on the development of the properties benefit* g from the supplemental capacity. SECTION Report of the City Engineer. The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the City Engine is Report regarding the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefits District. Said Report was prepared by a co actor,MuniFinancial,pursuant to Section 17.68.040(b) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Cod . A copy of the Report is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Said Report includes: A. The total cost of the Supplemental Improvements, which amount is $2,545.466.63. 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impact/3/22/02 2 B. The spread of the Excess Costs to each parcel in the District subject to a c rge. Said spread is set forth at Table 4 of the Report. The City Council hereby further acknowledges receipt from the City Engin r of a diagram describing the boundaries of the Area of Benefit District and identifying all parce within the District. A copy of the diagram is attached as Exhibit B. SECTION 3. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. A. Pursuant to Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Mu cipal Code, there is hereby established the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District e "District"). B. A list of the properties identified by assessor's parc numbers which are included within the District is set forth at Table 4 to the M iFinancial Report,which is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. The C' Council hereby approves Exhibit A. C. A diagram identifying the properties which re included within the District is attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution. he City Council hereby approves Exhibit B. D. An apportionment of the Excess Cos for acquisition and construction of the Arterials which represent the actual mount to be charged against each parcel within the District is set forth in Exhibit . The City Council hereby approves the Charges set forth in Exhibit A. E. Such Charges are due and pay ble prior to the issuance of a final tract map, final parcel map, or the issuance a building permit; provided, however, such shall not be due in connection with buil ing permits issued in circumstances as described in Section 17.68.110(b) of a. Huntington Beach Municipal Code. F. The City Council finds at the Charges may be adjusted to the extent that the sidewalk,curb, gutter nd driveway installed by the Developer when widening the arterials must be rec structed in different locations at the time the Benefited Property obtains its uilding permit or final map. The owner of the Benefited Property may app to the City Engineer for such an adjustment at the time the Charge is due. way of example, if the owner of the Benefited Property must relocate the dri way the Developer installed pursuant to the final map, the City Engineer shal educe the Charge by the reasonable cost of relocating the driveway. G. Commend g on July 1, 2003, and annually thereafter, the Charges established by this Resolutio shall be adjusted based upon the change in the construction cost index produce by Engineering News Record,published by McGraw- Hill ("Cost Index"), during a preceding year. The City Engineer shall then adjust the Charges set forth in T le 4 by such percentage change. The adjusted Charge amount shall be rounded to t e nearest cent, and this amount shall constitute the Charge authorized by Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and established by this Resolution. Should the cost index be revised or discontinued, the City Engineer shall use the 02reso/Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact/3/19/02 3 revised or a comparable index as approved by the City Coun/ebha determining fluctuations in the cost of constructing traffic improvements SECTION 4. California Environmental Oality Act. The City Coueby fi s that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Qct(" EQA") under Section 15273(a)(4) of the California Code of Regulations, commonln the CEQAGuidelines. The City Council finds that this exemption applies because theeasonablepossibility that the establishment of the Area of Benefit District could negatfect the physicalenvironment. To the contrary, the charge will be collected to mitigate the eental impacts of new development on the City's surface transportation system. Any environimpacts associated with specific projects that may be undertaken with charge proceeds will b d as each project is formulated. Further, the City Council finds that, based/en Resour es Code Section 21083.3(b) and the fact that this Resolution implements the Circulent o the General Plan,which was analyzed pursuant to EIR 94-1, the Ordinance is cem from further environmental assessment until individual traffic improvements ate for approval by the City. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resol1 take effect and be in full force sixty (60) days from and after adoption thereof, which dPASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Cohe City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 200_ ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND A R V APPROVED AS TO FORM: N,�&M City Administrator LqA 125 City Attomey3— A.;, .QZ,co-444 Z 3rl qID ITIA D AND APP ED: Director of Public Works 02reso/Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impact/3/19/62 4 Ilk. HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINAL REPORT MARCH 20, 2002 v MuniFinancial A W 1 LLDAN COMPANY Corporate Office Regional Office 28765 Single Oak Drive,Suite 200 1736 Franklin Street,Suite 450 Temecula,California 92590 Oakland,CA 94612 Tel: (800)755-MUNI (6864) Tel: (510)832-0899 Fax: (909)699-3460 www.muni.com Fax: (510)832-0898 TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................3 Development Agreement Background...........................................................................................................4 LegalBasis..........................................................................................................................................................6 Methodologyand Assumptions ......................................................................................................................9 GeneralDescription............................................................................................................................9 RoadwayConstruction Costs...........................................................................................................10 Right-of-way Acquisition Payments................................................................................................11 MiscellaneousCosts...........................................................................................................................14 LegalCosts............................................................................................................................15 TitleFees...............................................................................................................................15 Appraisal/Estimation..........................................................................................................15 CityReal Estate Services.....................................................................................................15 Areaof Benefit Study..........................................................................................................15 ExcludedProperties..........................................................................................................................16 .Charge Schedule ..............................................................................................................................................17 FutureCharge Adjustments...........................................................................................................................20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach, California ("City") approve the formation of an area of benefit district establishing a charge to developers of new residential and non-residential projects within the Holly-Seacliff area of the City. Normally, the City requires as a condition of development that the owner widen the street to its ultimate right of way, as shown in the Circulation Element of the City General Plan. However, pursuant to the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, the master developer, not the adjacent property owners,widened Goldenwest, Garfield, Gothard and Main Streets. The proposed Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District would charge the property owners adjacent to these streets a development impact fee equivalent to the cost the master developer paid to widen these streets. The proposed charge varies by property depending upon each property's actual share of total improvement costs. Total improvement costs are composed of sidewalk and roadway construction costs, and right-of-way acquisition payments to property owners. Charge revenues will be deposited into a separate Cite account and used exclusively to first reimburse the master developer the costs it advanced for initially widening these streets and then reimburse the City for some of the costs it advanced to the master developer. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., before an impact fee such as this area of benefit charge may be imposed, the City must first establish a fair and reasonable relationship or "nexus" between the fee charged and the cost of the proposed public improvements. This report serves to document the nexus requirement between the fee proposed and the benefit received for the road and related improvements the master developer installed. Table 1 summarizes the results of our analysis by presenting total improvement costs, and the number of properties to which the fee applies. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 1 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT C/TY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH Table 1: Summary of Costs & Charges Total Roadway Improvements $ 455,180 Right-of-Way 2,090,286 Miscellaneous' - Total Costs $ 2,545,466 Parcels Subject to Fee 83 ' It is recommended that miscellaneous costs for legal, title,appraisal,and real estate services incurred in order to acquire right-of-way be excluded from the charge because it was deemed unfair to charge property owners to reimburse these costs when they incurred similar costs on their own behalf. Costs associated with producing this report are also excluded. Sources: Table 4; MuniFinancial. MUNIFMANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 2 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNT/NGTON BEACH INTRODUCTION This report calculates a Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District charge to be paid by property owners that abut and benefit from roadways improved by the developer, the PLC Land Company (PLC). The 1990 Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement required PLC to over-size certain road improvements otherwise needed to meet traffic demand resulting from the Holly-Seacliff Project. PLC installed four-lane and six-lane arterial roadways, which pass through Holly-Seacliff. However, the outer two lanes of these arterials do not benefit the Holly-Seacliff Project, but instead are needed to serve growth on abutting properties by providing access to those properties. The properties subject to the Charge (the "Local Area") includes those properties that abut the arterial improvements PLC constructed along Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue and plain Street (the "Arterials"). Only those properties that benefit from the improvements and have not otherwise implemented an alternative reimbursement mechanism would be subject to the Charge. The City will collect the charge from properties within the Local Area only when they develop. The charge would vary by property depending on each property's actual project costs subject to reimbursement. MUN/FINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE3 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BACKGROUND In December 1990, the City and Pacific Coast Homes entered into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project of approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and Main Streets on the east, Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west ("Holly-Seacliff"). The Agreement required (among other things) for the Developer to construct certain public facilities and pay certain public facility charges to the City. The Agreement also obliged the City to (1) determine the cost of the public facilities the Developer was required to construct that were in excess of those necessary to serve the Holly-Seacliff development; and (2) reimburse the Developer for these excess costs from charges or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. In May 1996, the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly- Seacliff property to PLC, a California general partnership, and the remainder to MS Vickers, II, a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer, PLC agreed to assume the obligations to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. Simultaneously, PLC became the beneficiary of the City's obligations to cause the Developer to be reimbursed for the cost of excess capacity in the public facilities. Regarding traffic and circulation improvements, the Development Agreement provided that the Developer was to install the arterial road improvements, principally Main, Garfield, Edwards, Goldenwest, Ellis, and Gothard. The Development Agreement then provided that "upon acceptance of the improvements," the Developer was eligible for "Reimbursable Costs" pursuant to Section 2.2.11 of the Agreement. "Reimbursable Costs" were defined to mean those "improvements in excess of those required to service the proposed project." Reimbursement is due from subsequent development. Section 2.2.11 of the Development Agreement begins by stating that "when in the performance of this Agreement, Developer is eligible for Reimbursable Costs, the following procedures apple." Section 2.2.11(a) then continues, stating that "upon receipt of funds generated by charges or exactions from other developers served by excess capacity of public facilities paid for by Developer, City shall reimburse Developer its verified Reimbursable Costs." This Section requires the City to reimburse the Developer (i.e., PLC) from fees or exactions collected from other developers served by the excess capacity. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 4 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPOR T CITY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH PLC installed in excess of $35,300,000 in roads and arterial improvements. PLC contended that it was entitled to reimbursement for a significant portion of these costs. PLC sought to arbitrate its cost reimbursement as permitted under the Development agreement. Instead, the City and PLC entered into a Settlement Agreement on April 17, 2000 that, among other things, authorized reimbursing PLC from property owners adjacent to the Arterials in the amount of the cost of pavement plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent PLC's construction of the arterials, these property owners would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of development pursuant to Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Consequently, the Settlement Agreement provides that these property owners would pay these costs as a condition of their development. More specifically, the first $812,000 the City receives from these property owners will be paid to PLC. All further amounts will be retained by the City, in order to reimburse the City for (i) the $500,000 it has already paid PLC for the completion of Gothard between Garfield and Main, and the completion-of-Goldenwest between Garfield and Ellis, and (ii) the credits the City has extended PLC against its traffic impact fees for installing other street improvements within the Holly Seacliff area. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 5 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPOR T CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL BASIS The Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code 44 66485-66489) provides that if the City requires a subdivider to install supplemental capacity in public improvements for the benefit of property not within the subdivision, the City shall enter into an agreement with the subdivider for reimbursement of the difference in cost. To pay costs of reimbursement, the Cite may collect a reasonable charge from persons outside the subdivision for their use of the supplemental capacity. Such a charge may be through an area of benefit district, such as the one proposed in this Report. Whether such a charge must also comply with the reasonable relationship, or "nexus" requirement contained in The Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code § 66000 et seq.) is unclear. Regardless, the proposed Charge does comply with The Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act establishes ground rules for the imposition and ongoing administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January 1989 and requires local governments to make five findings when adopting an impact fee. These findings and their justification for this Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee are described below: 1. Identify the purpose of the charge. The purpose of the Charge is to reimburse the Holly-Seacliff Developer and the City for oversized roadway improvement projects made within Holly-Seacliff. 2. Identify the use of charge revenues. Charge revenues shall be used to reimburse the Developer and the City of Huntington Beach for actual costs incurred for oversizing arterials within Holly-Seacliff. 3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the charge's use and the type of development paying the charge. The developments paying the charge will be those benefiting from the oversized improvements. Absent the Developer having installed the improvement, the individual property owners would have been required to install the same improvements when they developed. Charge revenues will only be used to reimburse actual costs for installing the improvements the property owner otherwise would have installed. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 6 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4. Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the charge and the type of development paying the charge. Except for the fact that PLC was widening the arterials as part of the Holly-Seacliff project, the abutting property owners would be required to dedicate the right-of-way and widen the Arterials as a condition of their own development. This requirement is found at Government Code § 66475 and Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"), which require that the subdivider, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, to dedicate, or make an irrevocable offer to dedicate, all parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for required improvements, including access rights and abutters' rights. In addition, the subdivider shall construct or agree to construct all required improvements in accord with Chapter 255 of the HBZSO. Section 255.04(B) then requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further, Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Finally, Section 254.18 of the HBZSO and Section 2.2.11 of the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement provide that when the Developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity, the City Council shall determine the method for payment of the costs required by a reimbursement agreement which may include but is not-limited to the establishment and maintenance of local benefit districts for the levy and collection of such charge or costs from the property benefited. The need for the charge is also demonstrated by traffic analvsis prepared in connection with the PLC development. That analysis showed that development on properties within the Holly-Seacliff area and included in the proposed Area of Benefit District would generate additional traffic and contribute to the need for the improvements constructed by PLC. Please see Appendix A for a copy of a briefing prepared by Boyle Engineering that summarized traffic modeling data on this issue. The last pages of that briefing show simplified cross-sections of streets in the area. For each street, the figure shows the additional traffic volumes generated by PLC (indicated as "developer") and other properties in the area (indicated as "HSO", or "Holly-Seacliff Other"). For all street sections "HSO" development contributes to the need for the additional capacity provided by the PLC improvements. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 7 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT D/STRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 5. Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the charge and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the charge. Roadway construction costs are allocated to applicable individual properties based on linear feet of frontage and the cost of one lane with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Right-of-way acquisition costs are allocated based on the actual costs attributable to each property limited to a maximum width of one lane with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, or some reasonable allocation method if actual costs are not available (see Methodology and Assumptions section and Table 4). In sum, the charge is set equal to the cost of the improvements needed to accommodate the development paying the charge, and charge revenues would only be used to reimburse for those costs. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE8 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPOR T CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS This section describes the methodology and assumptions used to calculate the Charge. General Description ------ - Only properties abutting the oversized Arterials are subject to the Charge. These properties are all located on Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue, and plain Street, and abut roadway improvements constructed by PLC. Total roadway improvement costs are composed of the following items: • Roadway construction costs for the outer lane abutting the property, and • Right-of-way acquisition payments to property owners for the outer lane abutting the property. Miscellaneous costs, including legal costs related to right-of-way acquisition, title fees, real estate appraisal fees, and reimbursement to the City for real estate services provided to PLC and for the cost of this study, are excluded from roadway improvement costs. The City provided copies of all available checks, invoices and supporting documentation for all right-of-way payments incurred on behalf of the project and requested for reimbursement by PLC. These costs were allocated to specific properties based on parcel details stated on supporting documentation, primarily parcel and right-of-way acquisition descriptions from appraisal reports, or some reasonable allocation method. Costs incurred in construction of roadway improvements were provided by PLC in the form of a cost per linear foot. Each property's frontage distance after any acquisition required for the right-of-way provides the basis for allocating roadway improvements costs. The frontage distance of each property is also primarily based on the property descriptions in the appraisal reports mentioned above, plus the City's parcel maps and improvement plans. In accordance with their agreement, the City of Huntington Beach maintained several bank accounts on behalf of PLC. The balances in these accounts, along with additional deposits from PLC, were used to pay vendor invoices for the right-of-way payments. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PACE 9 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (� Roadway Construction Costs__i Roadway improvements were installed on portions of Golden West Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue and Main Street, all of which pass through the PLC development. Roadway improvements are composed of the following: • Minimum ten-foot traffic lanes composed of six-inch asphalt concrete paving over a 12-inch aggregate base (only the costs of the two outer lanes are being recovered through the area of Benefit District); • Two-foot curb and gutter (eight-inches high); • Six-foot sidewalk; and • Street lights with minimum spacing of approximately 150 feet including the cost all necessary conduit, boxes, poles and installation. Specific costs incurred in construction of roadway improvements were provided by PLC in the form of a cost per linear foot. Payments for roadway construction costs occurred between April 1997 and April 2000. However, PLC and the City agreed to use 1998 as the base year for comparison of roadway construction costs. We obtained independent estimates of comparable construction projects from the City of Huntington Beach and Willdan, a civil engineering firm located in California. These comparable costs were adjusted to 1998 dollars. As illustrated in Table 2, the comparable costs were greater than the actual cost provided by PLC. Roadway improvements were allocated based on each property's linear feet of frontage multiplied by PLC's cost per linear foot for construction. Frontage for corner properties located at the intersection of two Arterials included both frontages plus the radius of the corner. Frontage for corner properties located at the intersection of an Arterial and Collector street include only the Arterial frontage and corner radius. All properties subject to the fee abut roads improved by PLC, thus providing a reasonable relationship between the impact fee charged for roadway improvements and benefits received by property owners paying the impact fee. Property owners who installed roadway improvements at their own expense prior to PLC's installation of improvements are exempt from this portion of the impact fee to avoid double charging these property owners for replacement of improvements already made.' City staff reviewed I The parcels exempted from reimbursement of roadway improvement costs include parcels 111-120-06, 111-120- 07,111-120-08,111-120-27,111-110-38,111-140-19,111-150-15, 111-150-16,111-150-17,111-110-31,111-110-33, 111-110-36,and 111-110-37. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 10 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH aerial photographs and other supporting documentation to confirm that these improvements existed prior to PLC's improvements. Table 2: Comparative Roadway Construction Costs Cost per Linear Foot City o Huntington Improvement PLC' Beach Willdan3 10 ft.Asphalt Concrete Paving° $ 25.00 $ 27.16 $ 25.45 Street Light Conduit, Boxes& Lights5 22.00 30.28 33.61 2 ft. Curb&Gutter(8 in. high) 11.70 14.65 14.65 6 ft. Sidewalk 9.40 9.77 14.41 Total Cost $ 68.10 $ 81.86 $ 88.12 'Actual roadway improvement costs incurred by PLC Land company(1998 dollars). 2 Roadway improvement costs estimated by the City of Huntington Beach based on actual City projects in 1999(deflated to 1998 dollars). 3 Roadway improvement costs estimated by Willdan based on bids for recent comparative projects (adjusted to 1998 dollars). Assumes 10-foot wide lane with 6-inch asphalt concrete over 12-inch base. 5 Assumes 150-foot spacing of lights. Sources: PLC Land Company; City of Huntington Beach;Willdan. + Right-of-way Acquisition Payments Portions of certain properties were acquired through either negotiation or condemnation proceedings. However, if that same property owner from whom the right-or-way was acquired, was instead subdividing or otherwise developing his property, Section 254.02 of the HBZSO would have required dedication of this same property. Consequently, pursuant to Section 254.18 requiring reimbursement for supplemental capacity, it is recommended that those property owners that have received compensation in the past for acquired land reimburse such payments. Description of Overall Approach To establish the reimbursement amount for acquisition,we reviewed copies of right-of-way checks paid to property owners, appraisals and title reports, and other legal documents where available. (If no right-of-way was acquired, then no reimbursement for this payment is required.) The reimbursement amount for right-of-way was calculated in the following manner: MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 11 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • Payment records were used whenever available. If payment records were not available or incomplete for a particular parcel, then the appraised value from the appraisal report was used. • Payments for multiple properties were allocated based on the area acquired from each property. • The reimbursement amount was reduced to exclude significant portions of payments related to oil wells or other major improvements. • The reimbursement amount only included that portion of the acquisition represented for an 18-foot width for one lane plus curb, gutter, and sidewalk, based on the acquisition cost per square foot net of the above adjustments. The approach used to determine each parcel's right-of-way reimbursement component of the total Charge is detailed in Appendix B with supporting documentation. Specific Parcel Considerations The fee calculation for five properties included credits for additional costs from realignment of Gothard Street that occurred after the roadway improvements were identified in the Development Agreement. The realignment caused an increase in the amount of right-of-way needed beyond that required for a travel lane. It is appropriate to delete the additional costs associated with this realignment from the Charge calculation to ensure that all properties are treated according to the same roadway improvement standards. This right-of-way credit affected the following properties: • One property (parcel numbers 111-150-15 and 16) was credited for a total of $292,039 associated with acquisition of 10-feet of right-of-way out of the 20-foot take needed for the Project. This credit was based on the ratio of the appraised value of land taken to the total appraised compensation amount applied to the total right-of-way payment, excluding the value of improvements. • Three properties (parcel numbers 111-150-17, 19-20 and'21) were credited amounts of $46,150, 331,576, and $18,600, respectively, associated with acquisition of 10-feet of right-of-way normally required out of the 20-feet actually taken. This credit was calculated by multiplying total acquisition costs by 10/20 (or 50 percent). • One property (parcel number 110-150-24), which was substantially reduced in size by the realignment because the roadway cut the MumFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 12 HOLLY•SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH parcel into two pieces,' vas credited $211,188. The credit was based on the average cost per square foot for the acquisition (total acquired area divided by total acquisition costs). The average cost per square foot was multiplied by each of the following two area calculations to calculate the credit: — The amount of right-of-way that would have been required if the roadway had not been realigned was deducted from the total acquired area to calculate the amount of area associated with the realignment.3 — The area of the small section of the original parcel left stranded and not developable by the realignment. In addition, the charge calculation includes credits for lost oil production. This right-of-way credit affects the following parcels: • One property (parcel number 111-120-01) was credited $85,215 for the appraised value of the oil well impacted by the right-of- take associated with this property. The resulting right-of-way acquisition charge is comparable on a per square foot basis for a similar property taken at approximately the same time. • One property (parcel number 111-120-28) was credited $122,185 for the value of lost oil production from this property in the same ratio of the oil well credit to total right-of-way payment made for the previous parcel. Finally, several right-of-way payments were lumped together for multiple properties. In these instances, right-of-sway reimbursements were based on appraised values or were allocated based on the ratio of linear feet associated with a specific property to total linear feet for all affected properties. This problem of allocation of lump-sum payments was particularly acute as to parcel numbers 111-220-02, -03, and -04 as well as parcel numbers 111-120-06, -07, -08 and -09 and 111-120-13 through -20. In both cases, the property owner of both these sets of parcels sued the Developer over the adoption of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. As part of the settlement of the litigation, both owners deeded right-of- way in exchange for $619,529 and $815,000, respectively. It was then necessary to allocate this payment to the individual parcels that they owned along both Garfield and Goldenwest Streets to determine the 2 Total original area of this property was 17,168 square feet. The right-of-way taken for the road realignment was 9,937 square feet and the area deemed not developable was 1,400 square feet. Remaining usable property was 5,831 square feet. s The amount of right-of-way that would have been required if the roadway had not been realigned is estimated at 2,010 square feet or 201 of front footage multiplied by 10 feet of right-of-way normally taken needed for the Project. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 13 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH fee. To determine the allocation, we relied upon the property appraisals that Mark Linnes prepared on behalf of the City in 1993. Although the Settlement Agreement (see Appendix Q likely reflects the fact that the owners successfully contended their property values were substantially more than the Mr. Linnes' appraisals, we have relied exclusively on the City's original appraisals to set the amount of reimbursement. The total amount allocated to right-of-way cost to each of these parcels is $177,660 and $304,263 respectively, approximately $440,000 and $510,000 less than the amount they were paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. In addition, incorporated as Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement is a letter from Mike Adams, then-Director of Community Development for the City, explaining that it was anticipated in 1993 that these properties would be subject to the-very impact fee that the City is now considering. The letter states that the City Code authorizes the creation of Cost Reimbursement Districts for the "purpose of reimbursing a Developer for the cost of public infrastructure constructed by Developer which benefit other property owners" and that such reimbursement would not be due and payable until the Property owner "records a final map . . . or applies for a building permit." However, the fee would not be payable in connection with building permits issues for minor improvements or repairs. The letter concludes by stating that the intent of cost reimbursement: "...is to impose the liened costs at such time as you record a final map or apply for a building permit in connection with your development of the . . . Property for a use which is different from or unrelated to the existing uses. Accordingly, the continuation or expansion of the existing uses of the . . . Property or the issuance of a building permit incident thereto will not require you to pay the liened costs." The Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District is consistent with this representation. The Charge will only be collected when these properties are developed with a new use or a tract map. Refer to Appendix C for full copy of the Settlement Agreement. Miscellaneous Costs Initially, miscellaneous costs were included in the Charge to reimburse PLC and the City for these costs. However, it was determined that it would not be fair to require property owners to reimburse these costs MumFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PACE 14 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUN77NGTON BEACH when they incurred similar costs on their own behalf for individual properties. Therefore, costs incurred for individual properties for these miscellaneous items are credited to each applicable property and are not included in the Charge. Miscellaneous costs are described in detail in the following subsections. Legal Costs Professional legal services were required in relation to property transfer, condemnation and other right-of-way acquisition matters. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Title Fees Title transfer costs were incurred in relation to parcel or portions of a parcel that was purchased as part of right-of-way acquisitions. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Appraisal/Estimation Real estate appraisal costs and equipment relocation estimation costs were incurred in relation to parcels, or portions of parcels that were purchased as part of right-of-way acquisitions. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. City Real Estate Services The City of Huntington Beach provided the use of its Real Estate Services Division in certain transactions relating to property purchased as part of roadway improvements. These costs represent the hourly payroll rate times the hours spent on each parcel, or portion of parcel, purchased as part of roadway improvements. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Area of Benefit Study The cost associated with conducting this Report was included as a reimbursable cost. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 15 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Excluded Properties Eleven properties were excluded from the Charge for the following reasons: • An alternate reimbursement mechanism has been established;" • The property does not benefit from the improvements because it is an alley; or • The property does not benefit from the improvements because realignment of the roadway made the property not developable. These properties and the reason for their exclusion are listed in Table 3. Table 3: Excluded Properties Parcel No. Owner Reason For Exclusion 110-210-01 Landis Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-02 Dahl (Kubelka) Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-03 Niccole Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-06 Schuesler Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-07 Spelts Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-10 Niccole Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-11 Fuller Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 111-150-25 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: used in right-of-way realignment. 111-120-30 Thomas Not developable: alleyway. 111-130-28 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: alleyway. 111-140-10 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: alleyway. These parcels are part of the Heritage Homes development that has a Community Facilities(Mello Roos)District responsible for reimbursing PLC for frontage improvements. Sources:City of Huntington Beach;MuniFinancial. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 16 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CHARGE SCHEDULE Table 4 on the following pages shows the cost components and total charge for each property included in the Local Area and subject to the Charge, by parcel number. MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 17 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNT7NGTON BEACH Table 4:Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Right-of-Way2 laneous' Charge Go/denwest Street 110-211-018 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 $ 4,035.00 $ $ 5,737.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 17,550.00 19,252.50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 35,100.00 38,505.00 110-211-048 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 4,035.00 5,737.50 110-211-058 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 28,245.00 40,162.50 110-220-024 Brindle 330 22,473.00 89,100.00 111.573.00 110-220-034 Brindle 199 13,551.90 53,730.00 67,281.90 110-220-044 Brindle 129 8,784.90 34,830.00 43,614.90 111-120-016 S&C Oil Co. 132 8,989.20 48,780.00 57,769.20 111-120-064' Thomas 145 - 23,490.00 23,490.00 111-120-0747 Thomas 145 27,414.00 27,414.00 111-120-084.7 Thomas 145 46,980.00 46,980.00 111-120-094 Thomas 117 7,967.70 37,908.00 45,875.70 111-120-118 Lingle/Leckie 113 7,695.30 34,391.94 42,087.24 111-120-277 Mitchell 290 - 45,640.00 45,640.00 111-120-289 Mitchell 102 6,912.15 62,607.63 69,519.78 111-130-11 City of H.B. 41 2,792.10 27,397.86 30,189.96 111-130-128 City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 26,745.14 31,648.34 111-130-14 Williams 88 5,992.80 19,638.00 25,630.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 32,226.00 42,100.50 Gothard Street 111-110-15 Galich 129 8,784.90 4,600.00 13,384.90 111-110-1810 Mandic 290 19,749.00 - 19,749.00 111-110-1913 Greer 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 132 8,989.20 6,444.00 15,433.20 111-110-2113 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-2273 Pederson 73 4,971.30 4,971.30 111-110-387.13 Custer 127 - - 111-140-1813 Jones 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-197.13 Gustafson 145 - - 111-140-2113 Thomas 20 1,362.00 1,362.00 111-140-2273 Thomas 125 8,512.50 8,512.50 111-140-2373 Gardner 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-2413 Thomas 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-2573 Weaver 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-2713 Everroad 88 5,992.80 5,992.80 111-140-381 Telford 185 12,598.50 26,100.00 38,698.50 111-150-13 City of H.B. 113 7,695.30 60,352.43 68,047.73 111-150-155.7 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum 100 - 29,778.48 29,778.48 111-150-161.7 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum 100 29,778.48 29,778.48 111-150-1757 Scott 200 46,150.00 46,150.00 111-150-195 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15,788.03 22,257.53 111-150-205 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15,788.03 22,257.53 111-150-215 Delgado 95 6,469.50 18,600.00 25,069.50 111-150-245 Elliott 201 13,688.10 13,812.02 27,500.12 Garfield Avenue 111-110-0711 Dunn 150 10,215.00 28,350.00 38,565.00 111-110-10 Roulette 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 111-110-14 Taylor 50 3,405.00 11,327.70 14,732.70 111-110-314.7 Boliman 100 - 25,200.00 25,200.00 111-110-337.12 Weide 50 - - 111-110-367,12 Novak 75 111-110-377 12 Boodman-Gorndon 75 - - - 111-120-128 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 18,622.67 111-120-134 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-144 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-154 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 18 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Table 4:Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule(cont'd) Project Costs Front- oa way age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Right-of-Ways laneous3 Charge 111-120-164 Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 42,810.00 111-120-174 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-184 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-194 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-204 Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 42,810.00 111-130-01" Weir 50 3,405.00 14,124.07 17,529.07 111-130-028 Weir 75 5,107.50 21,186.10 26,293.60 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3,405.00 5,000.00 8,405.00 111-130-064 Petersen 50 3,405.00 12,600.00 16,005.00 111-130-078 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 18,622.67 111-130-08" Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 18,622.67 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 25,903.93 32,713.93 111-130-268 Weir 75 5,107.50 21,186.10 - 26,293.60 111-140-028 Weir 25 1,702.50 6,637.54 8,340.04 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 6,810.00 18,000.00 24,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 27,016.07 - 33,826.07 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 50 3,405.00 10,505.56 13,910.56 111-140-368 Weir 25 1,702.50 6,637.54 8,340.04 111-140-378 Weir 50 3,405.00 13,275.08 16,680.08 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 18,960.00 22,365.00 Main Street 111-150-3014 Santiago 103 7,014.30 - 7,014.30 111-150-3614 Southridge Homes 206 14,028.60 14,028.60 111-150-3714 Kelter 110 7,491.00 - 7,491.00 111-150-3814 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - 7,218.60 111-150-3914 Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 - 7,150.50 Total 8,384 $455,350.65 $1,494,597.75 $ $1,949,948.40 Total Parcels 83 Actual per foot roadway construction costs incurred by PLC Land Company multiplied by frontage amount($68.10 per foot,see Table 2). Y Reflects Payments 1-116. 3 Miscellaneous costs include legal,real estate title,appraisal fees,City of Huntington Beach real estate services,and this study. These costs are not included in the Charge. "ROW payments based on appraised values for parcel or like parcel. Per square foot values include: $14/sf for 111-110- 31 and 111-130-06; $14.50/sf for 111-140-38; $15/sf for 110-220-02 through 110-220-04:$18/sf for 111-120-06 through 111-120-09;and$20/sf for 111-120-13 through 111-120-20. 5 Parcels credited for extraordinary ROW acquisition required for realignment. Credit given for unusable parcel caused by realignment where applicable. 6 Parcel credited$85,215 for appraised value of oil well affected by ROW take. 'Certain properties with no roadway improvement costs are not charged because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLC's improvements. e Lump sum right-of-way payments for these parcels allocated proportionately based on square feet of take. 'Actual ROW payment is substantially more than appraised value. Parcel receives prorated credit of$122,185 for potential lost oil production based on like credit received for parcel 111-120-01. 10 Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost. 71 Excludes Weaver/Thomas tank costs associated with same parcel. 12 No ROW charge is applicable because ROW was dedicated. 13 No ROW charge is applicable because ROW take was on opposite(east)side of Gothard Street. 14 No ROW charge is applicable because no ROW was required on this street. Sources:Table 2;City of Huntington Beach;MuniFinancial. MUNIFnvANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 19 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FUTURE CHARGE ADJUSTMENTS The City should identify the appropriate inflation index in the proposed Area of Benefit District and adopt an automatic annual inflation adjustment. Typical sources for such an adjustment factor include the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (CCI). Because the CPI includes non-construction industries,we recommend that the City adopt the CCI since the proposed fee supports road construction. Table 5 compares the effects of applying these two indices on the proposed charge for select properties annually through 2020. Actual increases in the proposed fee will Nary from those shown in the table depending on the inflation index selected and the future performance of that index. Table 5:Comparison of Cost Indices on Select Properties 2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 Proposed Parcel No. Fee CPI CCI CPI CCI CPI CCI CPI CCI 110-220-02 $111,573.00 $125,089.43 $117,953.53 $144,310.35 $126.444.72 $166,484.71 $135,547.18 $192,066.33 $145,304.90 111-120-01 63,189.20 70,844.21 66,802.80 81,729.95 71,611.78 94,288.36 76,766.94 108,776.47 82,293.21 111-130-12 66,278.12 74,307.34 70,068.37 85,725.21 75,112.43 98,897.53 80,519.59 114,093.87 86,316.01 111-130-15 63,584.50 71,287.40 67,220.71 82,241.24 72,059.77 94,878.22 77,247.18 109,456.96 82,808.02 111-140-38 57,608.70 64,587.66 60,903.17 74,512.04 65,287.44 85,961.37 69,987.33 99,169.97 75,025.56 111-150-15 29,796.27 33,405.92 31,500.23 38,538.99 33,767.86 44,460.79 36,198.73 51,292.52 38,804.59 Notes: For illustrative purposes,this comparison assumes a Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers(CPI-U)of 2.9 percent and a Construction Cost Index(CCI)of 1.4 percent as of March 2001. Source:Table 4; U.S.Department of Labor; Engineering News Record; MuniFinancial. MumFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 20 000S R �. v8 a _�" P� �'n -d �NNNNNNHN' z - a� _a W� - ' 'PP44P44'P44P� 4w�4444P4PPP444P4444eP P4P44PP44P44P4P- 4P444N44N44N 3 ; ag a a a N3e $ i'k � f p Doc g r -1 Nmm = „ 51 �g � = a 'gg = mp$Qg� m 66m E8",z 4Z o 3 10 8`d��„fS£588'dESN.1$9f5f59 8888f5 a s 8 8 NN$NH���N�oo �sB�,ZU�HH�`� HNB�� ion y N -maa NmmO m - 'ff N ss8sx oo«000000—0000—0000000000 008 sass oss8sss8 s osos88 8soo� o0 os$8888ss -:smmmmmmmN �- m 8Hm }�83888SCmS8��88oS88 . �m�mo m N . . mtl mY$ s� H , , . . . . , . . , g ' � o t m=ma.Ns " x w �a 888888� �8 88a258T.8888888988888 v gma a eE a N . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "s ° L m$m8� ---- n 3 s e u� 5 a�o� oam 8o S �N �S �m ,"8N �0e�om ?o�N o � a 9mmma omma �titi mmm000m000N , s �. N�mm:�. �m � � m��� » s - 888sx 88$E8�888$88' ' 888$88888888° 8988 NsC 8�m�8sfSSdd$ ' s woo888 82leR 8ao8888888gs88 s , . . . . 8 :8w888s9e88=a�o BmNm 88mas 8' 8 H8$9 3 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT :p FINAL REPORT APPENDIX A: HOLLY-SEACLIFF COST REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXCESS CAPACITY, PREPARED BY BOYLE ENGINEERING, OCTOBER 8, 1998, (APPENDIX F ONLY, HOLLY-SEACLIFF BRIEFING #3) FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MARCH 20, 2002 ®-� MuniFinancial A W I LLDAN C O M PA N Y 4 Corporate Office Regional Office 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200 1736 Franklin Street,Suite 450 Temecula, California 92590 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (800)755-MUNI (6864) Tel: (510)832-0899 Fax: (909)699-3460 www.muni.com Fax: (510)832-0898 APPENDIX A IS ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT FINAL REPORT APPENDIX B: DETAILED RIGHT-OF-WAY CHARGE CALCULATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MARCH 20, 2002 ®- -Muni Fin ancia I a- - A WILLDAN COMPANY Corporate Office Regional Office 28765 Single Oak Drive,Suite 200 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 450 Temecula, California 92590 Oakland,CA 94612 Tel: (800)755-MUNI (6864) Tel: (510)832-0899 Fax: (909)699-3460 www.muni.com Fax: (510)832-0898 APPENDIX B IS ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT FINAL REPORT APPENDIX C: THOMAS-BRINDLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MARCH 20, 2002 6��MuniFin ancial A W 1 LLDAN COMPANY Corporate Office Regional Office 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200 1736 Franklin Street,Suite 450 Temecula,California 92590 Oakland,CA 94612 Tel: (800)755-MUNI (6864) Tel: (510)832-0899 Fax: (909)699-3460 www.muni.com Fax: (510)832-0898 APPENDIX C IS ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK �tleCorrie fo � NTi#NG"WDN`} BEACH: 4 = Map on File with , City Clerk SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:33PNI 7143741557;: 2/19 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI. 7 'LER. WIENER. NVILHELM & `1'ALDRON LLP ♦1a 1TED UAB:UTf PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL=CR?ORATIONS 2803 MAIN STREET . ANGELO J.PA:MIEHI(1926-:99SI EAST TOWS:-SUITE 130C - P. O. BOX 11;1712 ROLIERT F.WAI ORON (1927.1296) !PVINC. CA 92623•G712 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 02SW <`28 ALAN H.WIENER' GART C. WEISOI_RG ROBERT C.)HAKE* MICHACL 11. LEIFER (44QI 8S1-Q4C0 WRITER'S OIRLCI .IAME5 C'!N'_H ELM a ',COTT R. CARRFNTEO www.ptwv�:•1.com (gQg)B3"la9'P84 DENNIS G.TYLLH' HICHARD A.Sa_US MIC14AFL J.GaEENE' NORMAN J.RCO'CH mteifer(Mptwww.com FRANK C. RQT-/.ROCK' D. SL5AN WIENS /� nENNIS W. GHAN' RONALD M. COLL April 1, 2002 OAVIO O, -.RR- LOCEE S. KIRKA FACSIMILE (9401 R91•ItS54 CHARLEES H,KANTER• PAVI. S. LA SCAL4 GEORGE J.WALL MICHAEL L. OANGELO „,� ./�L�,►, /�r. Le��'e�c (��y1 AKI.39�1'. L RICIiARO RAWLS CHARLES S. KROLIKOWSK- LG� ��{///•��/ ppr���A w f9y�J) 751.1239 PATRICK A.HENNESSO OAROLYN Y.HAHAOA F&CENANDW CAP/�'S•\/r `J r�_f— (9-9) e51-E3til CUN FISHER STEPHE.V A. SCHECK &wwnNG0F N N� GRfGORY H.WEILER HEATHCR C.WHI/MORE aTM JOHNow WARCIFN A.WILLIAMS ELSE L EASTFQ AV, JUHN R. LISTER R`.'AN M.EASTE4 i REFER TO FILL' M0. ('YNTHIA M.WOLCOTT GRACE LEE 1$193•027 JOCL D. KEW OAVIO H. CULMCR !/ MICMLLLE M. FUJIMOTO ffEM OF COUNSE MARTIN J. STEIN 'a�wOIL55.OMal COwwy11A�N• VIA PERSONAL SERVICE Mayor and Members of the City Council =; City Clerk's Office City of Huntington Beach =- 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Objections to Proposed Holly-Seacliff Area of .District No. 1 c C-J r7 ✓` Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter sets -forth our objections, on behalf of all interested property owners, to Agenda Item No. D-4, the proposed resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of District No. 1 (the 'District") . We request that this letter, as well as the documents and files referenced .herein, be included within the administrative record for this item. First, the City Council must recognize the following: • The proposed District amounts to a tax on the property owners listed within Munifinancial's report. • That tax is being imposed on property owners whose only reason for being on the list is because they had property taken -and- were injured by street projects made necessary by the Holly Seacliff development project. • The tax is being imposed only after the amount of compensation for the taking and injury was conclusively established. • The tax is being imposed in spite of representations by the city, in public records and/or in courts of law, SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 : 3:36PNI : 7143741557;�-, 3/1S� PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & IVALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 2 that all issues pertaining to the acquisition of the properties in question had been resolved. 1. SUMMARY OP*OBJECTIONS As set forth more fully below, we object to the proposed District on each of the following grounds: ® The Constitution Requires That An Exaction of Private Property Be Proportional To the Proposed Development; Since the city's Statute Does Not, It Is Unlawful. The City cannot establish that the prior acquisition and improvement of the properties constitutes a "benefit" to their owners because the presumed dedication requirement amounts to an unconstitutional exaction of private property. Huntington Beach zoning and Subdivision Ordinance section 255.04 (8) mandates the dedication of property and construction of street improvements without regard for the proportionality of that dedication to the likely impacts of development of that property. This is in direct violation of the U.S. and California Constitutions. (Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Ehrlich v. City of Culver city (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854. ) • If the Ci y's Statute Is Lawful, the City Either Waived Its Enforcement In the Acquisitions or the City Did Not Compensate Owners for the Frontage. The proposed right of way acquisition fees erroneously and illegally assume that the properties in question would have been required to be dedicated. In acquiring and/or condemning portions of those properties, however, the City either (a) determined that the dedication was required and paid for the property accordingly or (b) determined that no dedication was required. In either case, the City is barred from attempting to extract an additional dedication and/or assuming a position contradictory to that which it assumed in settling the prior eminent domain proceedings or acquisitions. • The Fee Schedule Is Wrong. The proposed acquisition fees in the Munifinancial report, allegedly representing only the amounts that owners were paid for 18 feet of frontage for right of way, overstate the actual amounts that many of the owners received for the frontage. Payments to the property owners included compensation for items that the City's staff SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 3:56PM : 7143741557:f 4/13 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHEUM & N�ALDHUN LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 3 and counsel at the public workshop and otherwise stated will not be included within the proposed fees, such as compensation for slope and construction easements, improvements, severance damages, business goodwill, interest, litigation expenses, costs, etc. No effort was made to exclude those amounts from the total compensation upon which the fees were calculated. e Interest May Not Be and Should Not Be Charged, As the Public Has the Benefit of Possession of This Right of Way. The proposed fee schedule includes a provision for interest on the total fee amount, and it contains no sunset provision limiting the time in which those fees must be reimbursed. Consequently, the property owners' fees for improvements will increase annually even as the condition and utility of those improvements deteriorates; the owners' fees will still be increasing long after the improvements have become obsolete. This causes a penalty on those owners that do not rush to develop their properties. Moreover, the provision for interest on the "value" of the right of way, even though the City is in possession of the property and enjoys all of the benefits of such possession, is contrary to law. (Code Civ. Proc. , S 1268.330.) • Munifinancial Has Amended Its Calculations countless Times, But Substantial Problems Persist In the Manner In Which Fees Were Assigned for the Individual Parcels. The problems include, but are not limited to: development fees for properties that the City maintains are not developable; acquisition fees for properties where no records of any such acquisition can be found; fees for specifically identified properties based upon the appraisals of other properties; fees for the cost of improvements that (a) will not be suitable for the ultimate development of the property and/or (b) will have to be replaced by the owners at the time of development; payments for the settlement of a .CEQA lawsuit; charges to properties that were not appraised; etc. Any one of the foregoing objections could form the basis of a protracted legal challenge to the constitutionality/legality of the District in the event that the City Council votes to approve this measure. The City Council should deny the proposed District. Efforts to extract fees and/or additional dedications from property owners should be considered on a case by case basis SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 : 3:56PNI y 7143741357:�M 5'1� PALMIERI, TYLER, VvIENEH, WILHELM & 1i'ALDHON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 4 only, as the properties develop, in light of the proportionality of the fees and/or dedications to the proposed development. 2. BACKGROUND The proposed District has its origins in a 1990 Development Agreement between the City and Pacific Coast Homes, a California corporation, and Garfield Partners, a California general partnership (hereinafter collectively referred to, along with their successor(s) in interest, as the "Developer") . The Developer, as owner of a sizable area of property within the City, wished to commence what it believed would be a very lucrative development venture. The Developer proposed, and the City approved, a massive project that would substantially impact the appearance and make-up of a significant portion of Huntington Beach, attracting new home buyers, generating new traffic, etc. , all of which required additions to and/or modifications of the City's existing infrastructure. As a condition of that approval, the City required the Developer to construct any infrastructure . needed as a result of the development, which included the widening of portions of Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, and Garfield Avenue to their ultimate geometric sections. The Developer never challenged the conditions imposed by the City. There was a CEQA challenge to the project. In order to settle that lawsuit based upon the Developer's use of an old or stale Environmental Impact Report, the Developer made payments to the CEQA challengers. The development process has gone forward. In the recent real estate market upswing, the Developer presumably pocketed substantial sums from its project. Nevertheless, the Developer seeks to further increase its profitability by passing off some of its development costs onto other property owners in the area. The City currently is considering whether to increase the Developer's profit. As set forth below, however, that District or tax is rife with problems and will, if adopted, subject the City to protracted litigation concerning its constitutionality/legality. In an April 17, 2000, settlement agreement with the Developer, the City promised that it would "in good faith . . . attempt" to establish a program to reimburse the Developer $812,000 in so-called "reimbursable costs. " That settlement agreement does not compel the City's adoption of this or any other reimbursement program that does not meet with the City council's approval. If, after due consideration, the City Council elects not to adopt this District, the City is under no SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 3:57PM 7143741537;" 6/19 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & W.UDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 5 obligation to reimburse the Developer for the $812,000 identified in the settlement agreement. The Council should not adopt this program. 3. THE CITY CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT ANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN QUESTION RECEIVED A "BENEFIT" FROM THE DEVELOPER'S PROJECT; THE YROP08ED DISTRICT AMOUNTS TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EXACTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. After the City determined that no excess capacity was created by the Developer's improvements, the claimed legal authority for the District is Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision ordinance sections 254.02 and 255.04 (B) . These ordinances purport to require any developer of property within the City to improve and dedicate the adjoining right of way to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc. At the time of the Development Agreement, the City determined that the improvement and dedication of the Goldenwest, Gothard, and Garfield rights of way to their ultimate width was necessitated by the Developer's project. The City conditioned its approval of the project upon such completion of that infrastructure, and the Developer never objected to or otherwise challenged that condition. The City has never determined, and does not now contend, that any of these improvements by the Developer generated excess capacity beyond what was necessary for the project. At the March 4, 2002, public workshop on this matter, City Attorney Scott Field repeatedly emphasized that the fees in question are not based upon a determination that the Developer constructed improvements having "supplemental capacity." Nevertheless, Munifinancial's report references "oversized improvements" and Government Code section 66485 as providing justification for the District. In fact, Section 66485 only authorizes the collection of a "reasonable charge" from persons outside of a subdivision for their use of supplemental capacity created by the subdivision. That section does not apply where, as here, no supplemental capacity has been created. The City now seeks to require other property owners within the affected area to enhance the Developer's profit associated with the project. The City's claimed justification is that, absent the Developer's project, the other property owners would have been required to improve and dedicate their properties pursuant to sections 254.02 and 255.04(B) . The sole basis for the alleged "benefit" giving rise to the District is the presumed SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 3:57PN1 7143741557:# 71/15 PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM WALDRON LI.P Mayor and Members of the City Council. April 1, 2002 Page 6 improvement and dedication of private property by operation of those local ordinances. In order to establish that the proposed District is legal, the City necessarily must first demonstrate that the dedication upon which it is based could be exacted. Dedication of private property can only be required when there is a "rough proportionality" between the impacts of the proposed development and the required dedication. (Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854. ) The burden of proving this rough proportionality is on the public entity attempting to exact the dedication. (Ehrlich, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 883. ) Here, the City's only "support" for its dedication requirement is the presumed operation of sections 254.02 and 255.04 (B) . Few, if any, of the properties in question are in the process of development, however, so the City has no "proposed development" with which to compare the burden of the required dedication. Consequently, the City could not have performed the "rough proportionality" analysis. Lacking such information, the City cannot establish that the owners in question could be required to make those dedications. Moreover, to the extent that they purport to require a dedication of private property without regard to the impacts of any proposed development of the property, sections 254.02 and 255.04 (B) are unconstitutional.. Unable to demonstrate that the individual property owners could be required to improve and dedicate the streets in question in the exact manner as called for in the project, the City cannot establish that any of the properties would be required to comply with sections 254.02 and 255. 04 (B) and, therefore, received a "benefit" from the Developer's project. The City should and must take the proportionality determination on a case by case basis. 4. THE ISSUE OF DEDICATION WAS RAISED AND DETERMINED. CONCLUSIVELY, AT THE TIME THE CITY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTIES; THE CITY CANNQT "RELITIGATE" THE ISSUE NOW AFTER THE ACQUISITIONS ARE RESOLVED. Whether by condemnation or by acquisition under threat of condemnation, the City lent its eminent domain power, on behalf of the Developer, to acquire portions of most of the properties against which it now seeks to impose the District. In advance of those acquisitions, the City through its appraiser, staff, and the Developer's hand-picked outside counsel considered the possibility of future dedications and, finding such dedications likely, valued the properties accordingly. Where the City SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 3:57PM 7143741557:T 8/10 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 7 determined that future development of the parcel would require dedication, the City's appraiser assigned nominal value to the frontage taken. For example: • APN 110-211-04, -05 (Ghodooshim - encyclopedia lots) : The City's appraiser, Mark Linnes, MAI, determined that, absent any dedication requirement, this property would have a value of $7/sq. ft. But Mr. Linnes also determined that "the proposed street widening would be a required dedication to the city in order to obtain permits for development" of these parcels. Consequently, Mr. Linnes assigned a nominal value of 100 for the entire 4,000 s.f. taking from this property. (Based upon Mr. Linnes' conclusions, the value of the part taken without the d?dication requirement would have been $28, 000.) Based on Mr. Linnes' appraisal, the fee should only be $100 plus improvement costs. • APN 110-120-13, -14 (Thomas)2: Absent any dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes determined the value of these parcels to be $20/sq. ft. In light of the City's dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes assigned nominal values of $100 each for the 950 s.f. and 325 s.f. takings, respectively. (Based upon Mr. Linnes' conclusions, the value of the parts taken without the dedication requirement would have totaled $25,500. ) • APN 111-220-02, -03, -04 (Brindle) : Absent any dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes determined the value of these parcels to be $15/sq. ft. In light of the city's dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes assigned a nominal value for the total taking of 13,600 s.f. I Pertinent portions of the appraisals. by Mark Linnes, MAI, are contained within three appendices prepared by the City to demonstrate Munifinancial's fee calculations for the Goldenwest, Gothard, and Garfield right of way acquisitions. These appendices are included within the City's file- concerning this matter. By reference hereto, we incorporate those appendices into the administrative record of this proceeding. 2 John A. Thomas, Linda Thomas, Ronald I. Brindle, and. Emily Ann Brindle do not oppose the inclusion of their properties within a District, but they object to the manner in which the City has calculated fees. SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:58PNi 7143741»7;f 9/19 , PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City council April 1, 2002 Page 8 (Based upon Mr. Linnes' conclusions, the value of the parts taken without the dedication requirement would have been $204,000. ) The total amounts of compensation ultimately paid by the city and/or Developer for these and other parcels were greater than the conclusions of value for the fee takings set forth in Mr. Linnes' appraisals. That is because the resolution of an acquisition by or under threat of eminent domain includes many considerations other than compensation for the part taken in fee. The City also was required to pay for slope and construction easements, severance damages to the owners' remainder parcels, improvements to the realty, business goodwill, fixtures and equipment, interest, costs, and, in the appropriate case, litigation expenses, etc. Any compensation for these items would be included within the total sums paid by the City/Developer in finalizing these acquisitions, The City's attorney, Scott Field, informed property owners at the public workshop on March 4, 2002, that the City is seeking reimbursement only for the amounts of compensation paid for the frontage takings; the City is not seeking reimbursement of compensation paid for slope and construction easements, improvements, severance damages, goodwill, etc. Nevertheless, in calculating the amounts for reimbursement, Munifinancial either has based its calculations on the total lump sum settlements or has charged owners the full value of Mr. Linnes' appraisal assuming no dedication requirement,- which is contrary to its owner position. A condemnation award faxes once and for all the compensation to be paid for a taking of real property. (Ellena v. State of California (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 245, 254. ) Where property has been taken by condemnation or acquired by deed, courts will assume that the owner has received, and the condemnor has paid, full compensation for the acquisition of property and the construction and use of the proposed public improvements in the 3 The City is in possession of files for each of the acquisitions upon which the current fees are based. Many of those acquisitions, including those for properties owned by Thomas, Brindle, Anderson/Goudy/Gum, Ghodooshim, Marow, and Borghetti, were involved in litigation. Each such file will provide the City Council with more information concerning the specific components of compensation than the "payment records" provided by Munifinancial in its appendices. By reference to these files hereto, we include them in the administrative record for this matter. SENT BY: 1- 1- 2 3:58PM 7143741557:r10/19 PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM & IVALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 9 manner proposed. (Ibid. ) Whether property is acquired by condemnation or by consent, both the landowner and the condemnor are estopped from afterward prosecuting any action seeking to add to or subtract from the compensation previously paid. (Ibid. ) Moreover, where property in an eminent domain proceeding may be subject to dedication for public purposes, the- condemnor may contend that the property could be taken without compensation paid, and its market value should therefore be recognized as only nominal. (see, e.g. , People-ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Works v. Investors Diversified Servs. Inc. (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 367. ) Consequently, where the issue of future dedication has been. raised by the condemnor in an eminent domain proceeding, the compensation ultimately paid must be presumed to account for the likelihood of such future dedication in the value of the .property acquired. The condemnor is estopped from later prosecuting an action on the basis that it paid too much compensation for the property. . Here, the City's appraisal recognized the possibility of future dedication and assigned a nominal value to those parcels deemed subject to the dedication requirement. In the ensuing proceedings, which culminated in the City's and/or Developer's acquisitions of those parcels, the City must have either (a) enforced its dedication requirement and paid nominal compensation for the fee takings; or (b) decided not to enforce its dedication requirement in those negotiations. In the event that the City enforced its dedication requirement, the owners must be deemed. to have received nominal compensation only for the fee takings. Absent any showing to the contrary by the City, the balance of any sums paid to the owners must have represented compensation for slope and temporary easements, severance damages, improvements, goodwill, etc. Based upon the city's fee methodology, those sums cannot be considered in calculating the fees to be paid for the parts taken. Moreover, having paid only nominal value for these parts taken, the City cannot now extract a fee based upon the representation that it paid full value of the part taken. In the event that the City ultimately elected not to enforce its dedication requirement, that election must be deemed binding upon the. City. Having done so, the City thereby deprived the owners of the opportunity to require the City to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate the likelihood of such dedication. By taking the position that the property in question is now subject to a dedication requirement, and that the owners must give back whatever was paid to them in the prior action, the City effectively is attempting to "undo" the eminent domain proceeding SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 3:39PM 7143741»7;=11%19 " PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON' LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 10 to reduce the compensation paid. Under Ellena, the amount of compensation paid for the properties has been conclusively established, and the City is estopped from asserting otherwise in a subsequent proceeding. S. THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION FEES OVERSTATE THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY- THE OWNERS FOR THE FRONTAGE. In calculating the amounts of the fees to be charged for right of way acquisition, the City has utilized one of two methods: (a) basing compensation on the total lump sum payments made by the City to the individual owners; or (b) basing compensation on the full amount of Mr. Linnes' appraisals absent dedication, a position contrary to that which the City took in litigation in which it asserted nominal value for the frontage. In the case of the former, the City's fee calculation erroneously assumes that the amount of compensation paid consisted only of compensation for the part taken in fee. In the case of the latter, the City's fee calculation erroneously assumes that the property owner received compensation equal to the full amount of Mr. Linnes' appraisal assuming no dedication requirement. In both cases, the resulting calculation overstates the amounts of compensation actually received by the owners for the parts taken in fee. Calculations based upon the total lump sum payment made by the City to the individual owners are wrong because they fail to take into account compensation paid for other aspects of the condemnation, such as compensation for slope and construction easements, improvements, goodwill, etc. For example: • APN 110-211-04 (Ghodooshim - encyclopedia lots) : The City proposes to charge an acquisition fee of $4,035 for 18 ft. of frontage based upon the compensation of $4,483.33 for the full 20 ft. taking. The City essentially seeks to charge the property owner the full amount of the compensation received as the value of the part taken in fee. But, according to Mr. Linnes' appraisal, compensation for the fee taking represented just 7% of the total compensation to be paid for this parcel. In addition to ignoring any compensation for the slope and construction easements, the City's fee calculation ignores the fact that the amount paid to the owner also included compensation for severance damages, interest, litigation expenses, costs, and other litigation considerations. In the litigation, the City's position was that the property was undevelopable. SENT BY 4- 1- 2 3 59P11 7143741557;r12'19 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 11 a APN 111-150-15, -16 (Anderson/Goudy/Gum) : The City proposes to charge an acquisition fee of $29,778.48 per parcel. This sum, which amounts to compensation of $29.78/sq. ft. , is based upon total compensation of $175,798 per lot, less $116;241.04 paid for improvements. In fact, the owners' total compensation also included substantial claims for severance damages, business goodwill, interest, costs and litigation expenses. (The City's own appraiser determined there to be severance damages caused by the taking, which damages are not accounted for and excluded from the City's calculations. ) Moreover, the effective amount of the charge, at $29.78/sq. ft. , is nearly 50% greater than Mr. Linnes' conclusion of value for the property. calculations based solely upon the amount of Mr. Linnes' appraisal of that property, or the amount of his appraisal of other properties, are similarly erroneous. For example: • APN 111-120-13 (Thomas) : As part of the resolution of litigation commenced by Mr. Thomas (and others) against the Developer and other parties, the defendants agreed to pay Mr. Thomas a lump sum settlement of $815,000. This. unallocated amount included compensation for Mr. Thomas' interests in certain parcels as well as any compensation for damages to his remainder properties, improvements, etc. This sum also included compensation for the settlement of all other issues raised in the proceeding, as well as any and all other claims that may have existed between the parties. The City does not attempt to allocate this lump sum settlement but, rather, assumes payment pf $20/sq. ft. , which represents the full value of Mr. Linnes' appraisal (assuming no dedication requirement) . In fact, the actual . amount of Mr. Linnes' valuation conclusion for this parcel was lust �100 due to his assumption that dedication would be a requirement. The City has no basis for assuminq_that Mr. Thomas received anything more than nominal value for the part taken in fee. • APN 111-120-17 (Thomas) : Compensation for this parcel also was included within Mr. Thomas' lump sum. settlement. The City did not have an appraisal of this property, however, so it simply applied the $20/sq. ft. value of another property. In fact, Mr. Linnes' conclusion of compensation for that other parcel was $100, based upon the likelihood of dedication. As with the parcels for which it actually had an appraisal, the City had no basis for assuming that Mr. Thomas received anything more than nominal value for the part taken in fee. SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:59PM 7143741557:T13/19 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELNI & "A'ALDRON LL•P Mayor and Members of the City council April 1, 2002 Page 12 In order to establish that the fees are just and fair, the City first must establish that it actually paid those amounts for the frontage in question. The information currently available to the City Council does not establish what the City actually paid for the parts taken in fee. Based upon the owners' claims for compensation for severance damages, easements, etc. , the currently-proposed fees attempt to allocate lump sum settlements. 6. THE PROVISION FOR INTEREST TO ACCRUE ON THE ACQUISITION PORTION OF THE FEE, AS WELL AS THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUNSET PROVISION ON THE IMPROVEMENT PORTION OF THE FEE, ARE IMPROPER AND UNFAIR; BOTH ASPECT OF THE DISTRICT ENCOURAGE IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES. . The proposed District includes an annual inflationary adjustment to the total amount of the fee, including that portion attributable to the right of way acquisition. While such inflationary adjustments may be proper under certain circumstances, they are not proper where, as here, the public entity already enjoys the use and benefits of the property in question. In the eminent domain context, the California legislature has determined that possession of the property taken.. shall offset the accrual of interest on the compensation to be paid for that property. (See Code Civ. Proc. , S 1268.330(a) . ) Here, the City effectively paid for the early use of the owners' properties due to demands for infrastructure generated by the Developer's project. Although the owners are in possession of what compensation may be attributed to the fee takings, the City is in possession of the property. . And, while the Developer and the public have already received the benefit of the roadway improvements, the owners will receive no benefit until their properties are developed. Under these circumstances, the owners should not be required to bear the additional burden of paying the "inflation" that accrues on property for which they are no longer in possession. Also, as identified in the staff's report to the City Council, the District contains no "sunset clause" that would terminate the district after 20 years. City staff recommends against such a clause on the grounds that (a) it would encourage deferral of property development and (b) the property owners have received the benefit of the improvements for many years. First, the sunset provision is necessary to avoid having property owners pay for the construction of improvements that, after 20 years, will be obsolete and/or in substantially deteriorated condition. Moreover, should the District include inflationary adjustments to the improvement portions of the fees, that amounts owed by the SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 4:OOP1S : 7143741537;;�14/19 PAINTERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 13 owners will continually increase even as the value and utility of the improvements decreases. The City's contention that owners will have received the benefit of the improvements for many years simply makes no sense. In order to receive any claimed "benefit," under the City's analysis, the owners first must develop their properties. The owners receive no benefit from these improvements unless and until their properties are developed. As to the contention that a sunset clause would encourage deferred development, both the inflationary adjustments and the absence of a sunset clause strongly encourage immediate development of the properties in question. As time passes, and the fees continue to mount, the costs of development dramatically increase. For a City that increasingly has become concerned with tempering its growth, these two elements of the proposed District are at odds with a slow growth policy. 7. OTHER PROBLEMS PERSIST WXTH RESPECT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH FEES WERE CALCULATED FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWMERS. Munifinancial repeatedly has discovered errors in its fee calculations, each time necessitating substantial changes to the fees that are proposed to burden these property for years to come. The fees included with the staff report on this agenda item are substantially different even from those presented to the property owners at the public workshop on March 5, 2002. At that workshop, the City and Munifinancial essentially attempted to shift the burden of ensuring the correctness and fairness of the fees by requiring property owners to point out errors in the fee calculations or risk having them erroneously charged. Numerous problems persist in the fee calculations. Certain of these already have been noted in the preceding sections of this lette4 . Others include, but are not limited to, the following: APN 111-110-15 (Ramsay) : The City proposes to charge this owner an acquisition fee of $4, 600 based solely upon a payment record, with no supporting 4 The City's attorney did not make the appendices available for inspection until last week. Due to time constraints, as well as the recent changes in the fee numbers, we have been unable to fully analyze and document all errors with Munifinancial's calculations. SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 4:00FM 7143741557;,#15'19 PALMIERI, TYLER, wrENI R, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 14 documentation, for that amount. The City has no information concerning the area of the take, or if there even was one. Assuming that there was a take, the City has no information concerning the parcel's frontage, right of way depth, etc. Faced with the payment record and nothing else, the City simply has assumed that "not all ROW dedicated and ROW Charge equals payment received. " Yet the City has no records upon which to base this assumption, APNs 110-211-02 (Borghetti) and 110-211-03 (Marow) : In both of these cases, the City actually acquired the entire parcels, and the amounts paid reflected the full amount of compensation received for those parcels. Thus, Marow received total compensation of $39,000 for all of her interests in two parcels, and Borghetti received total compensation of $19,500 for all of his interests in one parcel. Not bothering to check the City's files concerning these acquisitions, Munifinancial seeks to charge these owners what amounts to the full amount of compensation for the entire parcel for just the front 18 feet. This problem likely will come to the City's attention as a future date, as , the parcels currently are under city ownership. Munifinancial's fee calculations are premised upon pivotal "assumptions" concerning matters such as the amount of a parcel's frontage, the area of property taken, the allocation of the compensation paid, the value of the part taken, etc. Any one of these unsubstantiated assumptions could, as in the examples above, result in serious overstatement of the fees to be charged, if any. In light of this level of attention given to such key issues, the Munifinancial report is inherently unreliable and should not be used as the basis for burdening these properties with substantially erroneous fees. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949/851-7294. Very truly yours, iV� Michael H. Leifer MHL:cg cc: Scott F. Field Affected Property Owners (see attached service list) SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 4:00P11 : - 7143741557:t16/19 BusinessName Address Cit State APNS 1. Robert Ghodooshim 320 Crown Drive Huntington 110-211- Beach, CA 01 90049 2. S & C Oil Co Inc 4952 Warner Huntington 111-120- Avenue Beach, CA 01 92649 3. Bernard A. Leckie 1616 Lincoln Newport 111-120- Lane Beach, CA 11 92660 4. Travis B. Mitchell 355 Bristol Costa Mesa, 111-120- Street Suite A CA 92626 27 5. Weir Oil Co Inc 401 20th Street Huntington 111-120- Beach, CA 28 92648 6. Bobbie G. Williams 4952 Warner Huntington 111-130- Avenue Beach, CA 14 92649 7. Wilvian J. Renner 807 Frankfort Huntington 111-130- Avenue Beach, CA 15 92648 8. Jerry J. Galich 939 10th Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 15 92648 9. Robert P. and 16242 Tisbury Huntington 111-110- Constance L. Circle Beach, CA 18 Mandic Jr. 92649 10. Thomas I. Greer, 18272 Fieldbury Huntington 111-110- Jr. Lane Beach, CA 19 92648 11. Michael Ramsey 19372 Woodlands Huntington 111-110- Lane Beach, CA 20 92648 12. Karen D. Pedersen 610 Main Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 21 92648 13. Gustafson Brothers 19161 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Inc Street Beach, CA 18 92648 SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 4:01PM : 7143741537;T17!19 14. John A. Gustafson 19161 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Street Beach, CA 19 92648 15. Gary and Debra 9937 Currant Fountain 111-140- Everroad Avenue Valley, CA 27 92708 16. James Telford 8800 Fritsch Austin, TX 111-140- Drive 78717 38 17. Bob Andersen 19082 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street Beach, CA 15 92648 18. Ora Beth Scott 2982 Country Costa Mesa, 111-150- Club Drive CA 92626 17 19. Arline Joan 2262 Avenida San Camarillo, 111-150- Robrecht Antero CA 93010 19 20. Marion E. 5237 Rosemead San 111-150- Burlingham Boulevard Gabriel, CA 21 91776 21. Willis M. Elliott 19411 Worchester Huntington 111-150- Lane Beach, CA 24 92646 22. Christopher Taylor 1840 Pine Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 14 92648 23. Charles H. Bollman P.O. Box 875 Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 31 92648 24 . Jack Dean Weide 1007 Florida Huntington 111-110- Street Beach, CA 33 92648 25. Paul Novak 7181 Garfield Huntington 111-110- Avenue Beach, CA 36 92648 26. Boodman-Gordon 6268 Surfboard Huntington 111-110- Investments Circle Beach, CA 37 92648 2 SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 4:01Pti1 7143741557;.'-.18/19 27. Mary S. Muck 119 North Monrovia, 111-130- Mountain Avenue, CA 91016 02 #A 28. Gary X. and 19691 Trident Huntington 111-130- Virginia C. Powell Lane Beach CA 05 92646 29. Helen V. Petersen 8755 Kings Hill Salt Lake 111-130- Carol Ann Winter Drive City, UT 06 84121 30. Donald A. Weir 401 20th Street; Huntington 111-140- Apt. A Beach, CA 02 92648 31. Weaver & Mola 19061 Gothard Huntington 111-140- street Beach, CA 04 92648 32. Dolores K. Lingle 20529 Vaccaro Torrance, 111-140- Avenue CA 90503 07 33. Loma Linda Loma Linda, 111-140- University CA 92350 09 34. Gloria Bradeson 5 Rue Cannes Newport 159-281- Hassett Beach, CA 03 92660 35. Jack Santiago 310 14th Street Huntington 111-150- Beach, CA 30 92648 36. Southridge Homes 18281 Gothard Huntington_ 111-150- Street, Suite ' Beach, CA 36 201 92648 37. Richard P. Kelter 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, suite Beach, CA 37 201 92648 38. R. L. Sfreddo 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- street, Beach, CA 38 Suite 201 92648 3 SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 4:01PNI 7143741557,r19/19 39. Southridge Homes 18281 Gothard Huntington 1.11-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 39 201 92648 4 �04/01/200 18i 7148421391 UNITED PAGE 01/01 �Ov/JCI L April 1,2002 P T/,+c j5 1, r TO: Members of the Huntington Beach Cut`Council FAX: 714-536-5233 Honorable Council Members: L We wish to state our opposition to placement of a community park at a proposed location at the intersection of Saddleback and Quarterhorse Streets. Sincerely yours„ Alleed and Linda Faas 6522 Trotter Drive Huntington Beach CA 92648 APR-01-2002 18: 19 7148421391 97: P.01 • z F � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication RECEIVED F7DM � AND MADE A PART OF TIE RECORD AFTHE COUNCIL MEETWG OF — -o OFRCE OF THE CITY CLEF TO: Honorable Debbie Cook,Mayor, and COME BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK Members of the City CouncilA FROM: Scott Field,Assistant City Attorne S DATE: April 1,2002 . SUBJECT: Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District; Item D-4 on April 1,2002 City Council Agenda This memo is intended to answer a few questions we recently received regarding the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit District. 1. The Settlement Agreement between the City and PLC. This Agreement resolved the dispute concerning the reimbursement obligations under the original Development Agreement. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached. Section 2.5 beginning at page 5 of.the Agreement addresses traffic circulation programs. This Section of the Agreement provided that the City's total obligation for reimbursement to PLC for roadway improvements was $1,312,000.00. Pursuant to the Agreement,the City has already paid the first $500,000.00 to PLC. The second payment of$812,000.00 is contingent upon a reimbursement district being formed. However,the Agreement provides that"failure of the City to establish the .new fee program to reimburse PLC any portion of the eight hundred and twelve thousand dollars ($812,000.00) shall not be deemed a breach of the settlement agreement or the development agreement." Consequently, PLC has no rights against the City if the City does not establish the reimbursement district. The only harm that will result to the City by not establishing a reimbursement district is the City will not recover the additional reimbursement moneys received after the first$812,000.00. The reimbursement program; as presently constituted, would recover up to $2,000,000.00,plus construction cost index increases. This money is specifically intended to repay the City the $500,000.00 already paid to PLC. All additional moneys recovered would be used to repay the City for traffic impact fee credits that the City has granted PLC for constructing Edwards and widening Ellis. In essence, the Agreement assigns PLC's recovery beyond the $812,000.00 to the City in exchange for various other benefits PLC received pursuant to the settlement agreement. r 2. Other impact fees. The City had previously considered a reimbursement fee program in 1994. This program had proposed that the property owners would owe reimbursement not only for traffic improvements, but for improvements to their sewer lines, storm drain facilities and water facilities. The RCA states that there will be no charge to the property owner under the new reimbursement district. for these facilities. However, the property owner will still pay the normal impact fee that any other property owner would pay, including those levied for traffic impacts, sewer facilities, water facilities, library improvements, and the like. 3. Anderson Property We understand that Mr. Anderson has specific concerns regarding how the charge on his property was calculated. The MuniFinancial report goes into considerable detail as to how the property charges were calculated for the southern portion of Gothard Street, including Mr. Anderson's property. A short version of this calculation is attached as an Exhibit to this memorandum. 4. S & COil. S & C Oil has questioned how the oil well acquisition was separated from the right-of-way acquisition for purposes of the calculation of the charge. This calculation is explained in the attached e-mail, dated March 28, 2002. 5. Galich. I met with Mr. and Mrs. Galich on March 28, 2002. They submitted information suggesting that $6,915.40 of the proposed charge of$13,384.90 should be examined again. Consequently, while we still recommend adopting the Resolution establishing the charges, we recommend doing so with the exception that the public hearing be continued as to Galich (APN 111-110-15)until April 15, 2002. ,� � F-,*' SCOTT FIELD Assistant City Attorney Enclosures 2 SF:2002 Memos:Holly-Seadiff CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �''�s�^%�-� ''�5• MEETING DATE: April 17, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA 00-02 Council/Agency Meeting Held: W-/7- eo Deferred/Continued to: �� eV��� . M Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied T� City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: April 17, 2000 Department ID Number: CA 00-02 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION Y N L- G SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL_ SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City 04� GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: MELANIE FALLON, Assistant City Administrator _ ROBERT BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Work SCOTT F. FIELD, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement; City-PLC Settlement Agreement Statement of issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Should the City resolve the dispute regarding reimbursement under the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement by way of a settlement agreement, or pursuant to binding contract arbitration. Funding Source: Water Master Plan Fund - $1,468,000; Traffic Impact Fee Fund — $ 500,000. (The Water Master Plan cost is an estimate only, and could go up or down depending upon the cost of the Edwards Reservoir. The Traffic Impact Fee amount does not include the cost of widening Ellis.) Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Approve Resolution No. 20CA-39that: (a) Approves the Settlement Agreement of the Dispute between the City and PLC re: reimbursement due for public facilities required under the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement; and (b) authorizes the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest to the Settlement Agreement and Exhibits thereto; and 00-02 PLC Settlement -2- �/ 4/12/00 1.40 A + REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: April 17, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA 00-02 2. Authorize the expenditures of $1,468,000 from the Water Master Plan Fund and $500,000 from the Traffic Impact Fee Fund; and 3. Authorize PLC to widen Ellis to a 48 ft. width, two.lane street with a 10 ft. wide painted median on an interim basis. Alternative Action(s):Not approve the Settlement Agreement and permit the matter to be resolved through contract arbitration. Analysis: I. Summary of the Terms of the Resolution A. Resolution No. 103--3q This Resolution: 1. Approves the Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release between the City of Huntington Beach and PLC. 2. Waives the Development Agreement requirement that PLC construct a water well in addition to Edwards Reservoir. The Settlement Agreement provides that construction of the well is waived instead of reimbursing PLC for the same cost. Instead, the City will construct the water well according to its own time schedule. 3. Authorizes that the money the Development Agreement required that PLC use to construct a police substation instead be used for a new dispatch center. The substation was to be located such that it could serve the Holly-Seacliff project as well as the neighboring area of the Bolsa Chica lowlands, which was contemplated to be developed concurrently with Holly-Seacliff at the time the Development Agreement was approved in 1990. Because the State of California has purchased the Bolsa Chica lowlands as a conservation area, there is no longer a need to construct a police substation, and instead, the same amount of money can be better used to construct a new dispatch center in the existing police station. II. Summary of the Terms of the Settlement Documents: A. Settlement Agreement: 1. PLC shall pay the City $850,000 for police facilities, with $275,000 due upon execution of the Agreement, $275,000 by June 30, 2000, and $300,000 by December 31, 2000. The City may use this money for any police-related purpose. 2. PLC shall receive no reimbursement for sewer lines, except that it be relieved. of constructing the Stewart extension. 00-02 PLC Settlement -3- 4/12/00 11:39 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: April 17, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA 00-02 3. PLC shall receive no further reimbursement for storm drains. (The Council previously.authorized $538,000 in reimbursement for construction of master plan facilities in 1999.) 4 PLC shall be paid $3,724,000 as full reimbursement for water facilities, in the form of waiver of water well construction ($2,256,000) plus a payment of $1,468,000, due upon City acceptance of the Edwards water reservoir and booster pump. 5. PLC shall be paid $1,312,000 as payment for arterial improvements, pursuant to the following schedule: a. $250,000 upon City acceptance of Goldenwest between Ellis and Garfield. b. $250,000 upon completion of Gothard between Garfield and Main. C. $812,000 pursuant to a reimbursement district. 6. The City shall, in good faith, attempt to form a reimbursement district that will collect impact fees upon the development of properties abutting streets PLC has widened (Garfield, Gothard, Goldenwest and Main). The amount of the fee will be based upon the cost of right-of-way acquisition and constructing curb, gutter, sidewalk and ten feet of street pavement adjacent to the benefiting property. Any funds received in excess of$812,000 will be retained by the City to reimburse the City for expenditures pursuant to Section 5, above. 7. The Agreement resolves all disputes regarding public facilities. PLC has no obligation to construct any additional public facilities and the City cannot be required to provide further reimbursement. B. Attachment No. 1 to the Settlement Agreement - Estimated Cost of Edwards Hill Reservoir and Booster Station: This schedule represents the current estimated cost of$9,309,610 for the Edwards Hill reservoir and booster station. If the actual cost of the facilities exceed the estimated amount, PLC will be reimbursed an additional amount of 40% of any cost overruns. Similarly, if the cost is less than the estimated amount, then PLC's reimbursement will be decreased by the amount of 40% of any cost overruns. 00-02 PLC Settlement -4- 4/12/00 11:39 AM S REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: April 17, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA 00-02 C. Attachment 2 - Amendment to the Traffic Fee Credit and Reimbursement Agreement The existing Traffic Fee Credit and Reimbursement Agreement implements the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement provided that while PLC would construct Seapoint Avenue, the Edwards Hill extension and the north side of Ellis Avenue, because these improvements were considered "off-site" to the Holly-Seacliff project area, the City would reimburse PLC for the cost of the improvements from the Traffic Improvement Fee payments PLC would otherwise pay. To date, PLC has been fully reimbursed for Seapoint in the form of credits to its Traffic Impact Fee payments. PLC has only been partially reimbursed for Edwards Street improvements, and the next $500,000 of Traffic Impact Fees PLC pays the City will be credited back to the City's obligation to reimburse PLC for Edwards. Given that the City will also pay PLC $500,000 for Goldenwest and Gothard from the Traffic Improvement Fee fund, there is no reason to believe that PLC will pay Traffic Improvement Fees sufficient to pay for widening the north side of Ellis as was originally contemplated under the Traffic Fee.Credit and Reimbursement Agreement. Consequently, Attachment 2 amends the existing Agreement to provide that within 90 days after execution of the Development Agreement, the City will determine if Ellis should be widened as a two-lane, three lane or four-lane street from Edwards to Goldenwest. Upon determination of the width, PLC will construct the street, and the City will reimburse PLC for the cost of design and construction upon City acceptance of Ellis. (The specific source of the repayment will be determined at a later date.) D. Attachment 3-An Agreement Between the City and PLC Implementing the Development Agreement: This supplemental agreement addresses a number of issues concerning construction of the remaining public facilities: 1. A firm schedule is established to complete the Edwards Hill Reservoir by August 31, 2001. 2. PLC provides a warranty for the reservoir against any design or construction improvements. 3. PLC provides a warranty for the improvements to Goldenwest Street, Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue against any design or construction defects. 4. PLC agrees to perform all plant establishment work and landscaping maintenance for the water improvements and the street improvements for one year after City acceptance. 5. PLC previously posted a $11,236,461 bond to secure its performance of the water improvements. This bond is now referenced in this Supplemental a= Agreement to provide security for the obligations of PLC under the 00-02 PLC Settlement -5- 4111/00 3:35 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: April 17, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA 00-02 Agreement. It should also be noted that because PLC has already partially constructed the reservoir, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, once the Supplemental.Agreement is signed, PLC may reduce the amount of the bond to $6,200,000. E. For further History and Analysis of these issues, see Attachment A. Ill. Ellis Avenue The Amendment to the Traffic Fee Credit and Reimbursement Agreement allows the City Council the discretion to dictate the width of Ellis Avenue. Although the Development Agreement specified Ellis was to be a four-lane street, consistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, the City Traffic Engineer recommends that it be widened to 48 ft. between curbs, with lane widths from north to south of 13 ft. westbound through, 13 ft. painted median, 12 ft. eastbound inside through lane, and 13 ft. eastbound outside through lane. The basis for this recommendation is detailed in Attachment E. IV. Traffic Impact Fee Study The Settlement Agreement provides.that the City shall, in good faith, attempt to form a. reimbursement district that will collect impact fees upon the development of properties abutting streets PLC has widened (Garfield, Gothard, Goldenwest and Main). The amount of the fee will be.based upon the cost of right-of-way acquisition and constructing curb, gutter, sidewalk and ten feet of street pavement adjacent to the benefiting property. Proposals were solicited from firms specializing in impact fee studies, and MuniFinancial has been hired to perform the study. (MuniFinancial is a subsidiary of Willdan Company, a well-known engineering firm.) Mr. Robert Spencer of MuniFinancial will be responsible for preparing the study. The following performance schedule has been developed: 4/17 — 5/15 Internal data collection. MuniFinancial will collect information identifying: (i) the cost of constructing curb, gutter and sidewalk and 10 feet of pavement; (ii) the acquisition cost of right-of-way, through reviewing eminent domain judgments; settlement agreements, and attorneys fees bills; (iii) improvements and/or bonds for prior roadway improvements that may be a credit against the impact fee; and (iv) other relevant materials. 5/16 — 6/12 Property owner meetings. MuniFinancial will meet with property owners to review the accuracy of the internal data, and collect additional information from the property owners. 00-02 PLC Settlement -6- 4/11100 3:35 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: April 17, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA 00-02 6/13 — 7/10 MuniFinancial drafts impact fee report. City Attorney drafts impact fee ordinance. 7/11 — 7/24 Draft impact fee report and fee ordinance presented at a property owners meeting. 7/25 — 8/25 Public Hearing Notice period 9/5 City Council public hearing to consider impact fee report and fee ordinance. Environmental Status: EIR 89-1 was approved for the Development Agreement. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description A. History of Development Agreement and Analysis of Reimbursement Obligations. B. 1999 Boyle Water Facilities Analysis. C. Resolution No. D. Settlement Agreement with Attachments 1-3. E. City Engineer's analysis of Interim Ellis Avenue Improvements RCA Author: Scott Field 00-02 PLC settlement -7- 4/12/00 11:51 AM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASE This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASE ("Agreement") is entered into as of April 17 2000,by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California municipal corporation (the "City"), and PLC, a California general partnership ("PLC"). RECITALS A. Effective December 5, 1990,the City and Pacific Coast Homes, a California corporation, and Garfield Partners, a California corporation(collectively, "Developer") entered into Development Agreement No. 90-1 ("Development Agreement")which was recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California as Document No. 90-599766 on November 14, 1990. B. The Development Agreement provides for the development of a residential and commercial development of approximately 545 acres of real property in City(the"Project"). The development area is bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and Main Streets on the east, Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west(the "Property"). C. The Development Agreement provides, among other things, for the Developer to construct certain public facilities and to pay certain public facilities fees to the City and for the City to: (1) determine the cost of the public facilities required under the Development Agreement that are in excess of those required to service the Project ("Reimbursable Costs"); (2)reimburse Developer for its verified Reimbursable Costs from funds generated by fees or exaction from other developments served by the excess capacity of the public facilities, and(3)to the extent lawful, apportion any Reimbursable Costs not reimbursed from fees or exactions in an equitable manner between the Developer and any subsequent developer(s)which are found to benefit from the public facilities. 1 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement R' 3/31/00 D. Effective May 6, 1996, City consented to the sale of a portion of the Property from Developer to PLC, a California general partnership ("PLC"), and the remaining portion of the Property to MS Vickers, H, L.0 a Delaware limited liability company("MS Vickers")- E. As a condition of the transfer, PLC agreed to assume the Developer's obligation to install or pay for the fire and police facilities, sewer, storm drain and water facilities, and traffic and circulation improvements required under Sections 2.2.4 through 2.2.7 (the"Public Facilities") of the Development Agreement. F. City and PLC are in dispute (the "Dispute")regarding the amount of Reimbursable Costs the City is obligated to cause to be paid to PLC in connection with the Public Facilities. G. Because an actual dispute has arisen and PLC has previously invoked the arbitration provisions of Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement, and the City and PLC have previously agreed to an arbitrator as.provided therein,PLC and City desire to settle and compromise any and all disputes, claims, differences, actions or causes of action,whether actual or potential,without admitting or conceding the truth of any allegations or assertions made in connection with the Dispute. H. It is agreed that the arbitrator the City and PLC previously selected shall remain as the arbitrator to resolve any disputes arising regarding this Settlement Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration,the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: TERMS 1. Purpose. It is the intention and purpose of PLC and City in entering into this Settlement Agreement to amicably settle and resolve any and all disputes, claims, differences, actions or causes of action,whether actual or potential, in connection 2 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement 3/31/00 with the Dispute. In order to resolve the Dispute,the parties recognize that a compromise is necessary and, accordingly, enter into this Settlement Agreement. 2. Settlement Terms. 2.1 Police Facilities. PLC shall pay the City the sum of Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000) (the "Police Facilities Payment") for police related services and facilities required in connection with Project. PLC shall pay said amount to the City in three (3)payments as follows: (i) Two Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($275,000) shall be paid on or before December 31, 1999, or within thirty(30)days of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement,whichever is later; (ii) Two Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($275,000) shall be paid on or before June 30, 2000; and(iii)Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) shall be paid on or before December 31, 2000. In the event of a delay in this Agreement becoming effective under this subsection,no interest shall accrue or further adjustment be made on the amounts due. In addition, PLC agrees that City shall have no obligation to use the Police Facilities Payment for construction of a police substation, but rather that City may use the Police Facilities Payment for any police-related purposes. PLC shall not be eligible for any Reimbursable Costs in connection with the expenditure of the Police Facilities Payment or the construction and establishment of any police-related facilities. 2.2 Sewer Improvements. PLC shall have no further obligation to construct sewer lines other than onsite sewer lines constructed within PLC's residential or commercial developments. PLC shall not be entitled to any Reimbursable Costs in connection with sewer facilities constructed, or to be constructed,by PLC. 2.3 Storm Drainage Jmprovements. PLC shall not be entitled to any Reimbursable Costs, other than the sum of$538,000 already paid by City to PLC, in connection with storm drainage improvements constructed, or to be constructed,by PLC. PLC shall have no further obligation to construct storm drainage improvements other than on-site storm drain lines,pursuant to the Development Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that PLC shall not be relieved from its obligation to pay any and all storm drainage fees payable in connection with the development of current and future subdivision maps on the Property. 3 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement 3/31/00 2.4 Water Facilities. 2.4.1 Amount of Reimbursement. PLC and City agree that the Reimbursable Costs to be paid.by City to PLC in connection with the reservoir, booster pumps, transmission lines and water well ("Water Facilities") constructed, and to be constructed, by PLC shall be Three Million Seven Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Dollars ($3,724,000), as adjusted for actual construction costs. This amount is based upon the total estimated Water Facilities construction cost of Eleven Million Five Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Six Hundred Ten Dollars ($11,565,610), which amount represents Nine Million, Three Hundred Nine Thousand, Six Hundred Ten Dollars ($9,309,610),which is the estimated construction cost of the Edwards Hill Reservoir and Booster Station (the "Reservoir"), as set forth in Attachment 1, plus Two Million, Two Hundred Fifty-six Thousand Dollars ($2,256,000)which is the amount PLC agrees it owes the City in lieu of construction of the water well required pursuant to Section . 2.2.5(h) of the Development Agreement. The amount of Reimbursable Costs to be paid by City to PLC shall be subject to pro rata adjustment, upward or downward as applicable,based upon the actual cost of constructing the Reservoir incurred by PLC. For each$1.00 increase/decrease in the actual construction costs of the Reservoir above/below the estimated amount set forth in Attachment 1,the amount of Reimbursable Costs to be paid by City to PLC shall be increased or decreased by$0.40. The Reimbursement Amount may only be modified to the extent actual costs differ from the cost items set forth in Attachment 1. PLC shall submit copies of invoices and other evidence reasonably satisfactory to the City evidencing the amount of Reservoir construction costs claimed by PLC,pursuant to Subsections (b) and (c) of Section 2.2.11 of the Development Agreement. 2.4.2 Reimbursement Schedule. Payment of the Reimbursable Costs shall be made by City to PLC as follows: Upon the satisfactory completion of construction of the Reservoir and booster station facilities by PLC,the acceptance thereof by City, and the verification of PLC's Reservoir construction costs by City, City shall: (i) waive the requirement that PLC either(a) construct and install a water well or(b)pay Two Million Two Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Dollars ($2,256,000)towards the costs of constructing and installing said water well; and(ii)pay to PLC the balance of the actual Reimbursable Costs which, based upon the estimated construction cost amount set forth above, is estimated at One Million Four Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Dollars 4 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement 3/31/00 (DIZ ($1,468,000). In lieu of paying PLC cash, the City may elect to pay PLC some or all of the balance of Reimbursable Costs in the form of credit against water capital facilities fees due from development of other PLC-owned property in Huntington Beach. 2.4.3 Rescission.of Fee Protest. By executing this Agreement, PLC rescinds with prejudice its fee protest letter of September 15, 1999, objecting to $153,655 of inspection fees for the Reservoir, and agrees not to challenge Resolution No. 98-36 establishing public works inspection fees, either facially or as applied to any of the Public Facilities, and further pay the balance of inspection fees currently due. 2.5 Traffic and Circulation Improvements. 2.5.1 Reimbursement. In connection with the traffic and circulation improvements constructed, and to be constructed,by PLC, City shall pay PLC Reimbursable Costs in the amount of One Million Three Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars ($1,312,000). The first Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) shall be payable as follows: (i) Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) shall be payable upon the satisfactory completion by PLC of that portion of Goldenwest Street between Ellis Avenue and Summit Drive, and the acceptance thereof by City; and(ii)Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) shall be payable upon the satisfactory completion by PLC of that portion of Gothard Street between Garfield Avenue and Main Street, and the acceptance thereof by City. The City, in good faith, shall attempt to establish a major thoroughfare and bridge fee program(Gov. Code § 66484), an impact fee program(Gov. Code § 66000, et seq.), an integrated financing district(Gov. Code § 53175, et seq.) or a similar program (collectively, "New Fee Program")to reimburse PLC the remaining Eight Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars ($812,000). 2.5.2 New Fee Program. The New Fee Program is in addition to the City's current traffic impact fee program pursuant to Chapter 17.65 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The New Fee Program shall be designed to recover the cost of right-of-way acquisition and construction costs for curb, gutter, sidewalk and ten feet of pavement, in connection with PLC's widening of Gothard, Goldenwest,Main and Garfield. The first Eight Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars($812,000) from the New Fee Program shall be paid to PLC. Any additional funds generated shall be paid to the City to repay the Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) (plus interest)paid to PLC 5 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement 3/31/00 F/_�) pursuant to Section 2.5.1 above. However, failure of the City to establish the New Fee Program to reimburse PLC any portion of the Eight Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars ($812,000) shall not be deemed a breach of this Settlement Agreement or the Development Agreement. No traffic impact fees collected pursuant to existing City regulations shall be used to pay PLC any portion of the Eight Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars($812,000). The Eight Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars ($812,000) shall be payable over time as fees are collected and received by City pursuant to the New Fee Program from other property owners in connection with other development projects located within the Holly-Seacliff area. Any New Fee collected in excess of Eight Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars ($812,000)will be returned to the City traffic impact fee fund that paid the Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) traffic reimbursement to PLC. 2.5.3 Ellis Avenue. On February 20, 1996,the City and PLC's predecessor-in-interest, the Developer, (dba Seacliff Partners), entered into the Traffic Fee Credit and Reimbursement Agreement(the"TFCRA"),which implemented certain provisions of the Development Agreement regarding off-site traffic and circulation improvements, including the construction of the north half of Ellis Avenue between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street. Concurrently with executing this Settlement Agreement, the City and PLC shall execute the Amendment to the TFCRA ,which is contained in Attachment 2. 2.6 Performance Bond. On July 20, 1998,PLC posted a performance bond in the amount of Eleven Million, Two Hundred Thirty-six Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-one Dollars ($11,236,461),to secure faithful completion of the Water Facilities. Upon execution of this Agreement and the Performance Agreement contained in Attachment 3, PLC is authorized.to reduce the amount of the performance bond to Six Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,200,000). 3. Mutual Discharge. PLC and City hereby release and forever discharge each other, together with their agents,representatives, employees, officers, directors, partners, stockholders, attorneys,predecessors, successors, assigns, heirs, personal representatives and executors,both past and present, and all persons, firms, associations, co-partners, co-venturers, insurers, contractors, engineers, subcontractors, subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, or corporations connected therewith, and each of them (hereinafter all 6 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement 3/31/00 nl � referred to as the "Parties" for purposes of this paragraph), from any and all claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, actions, and causes of actions of every nature, character, and description, whether in law or in equity.and whether known or unknown, which the Parties have held, now hold, or may hold in the future arising out of any matter, fact, and/or allegation arising from, regarding or relating to the Dispute. 4. Civil Code Section 1542. The parties further acknowledge that they are aware of the provisions of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which provides: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." and,having been so informed, elect to and do hereby waive the provisions and benefits of Section 1542, effective upon the execution of this Agreement. 5. No Further Action or Claim. PLC and City agree that they will not pursue any action of any sort before any court or agency against each other nor make any further claim, complaint, grievance, or the like against the other related to the Dispute. In the event that a dispute arises over the terms or the performance under this Settlement Agreement, the parties agree to retain the arbitrator previously selected and to proceed according to Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement. 6. Indemnification. PLC hereby agrees for the benefit of the City that if MS Vickers should ever allege or assert in any administrative or judicial proceeding that the City has any obligation to reimburse MS Vickers for the cost of any Public Facilities or to cause anyone to construct any of the Public Facilities, or to excuse MS Vickers from constructing any Public Facilities that they contend PLC should have constructed under the Development Agreement, then PLC shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, employees, and agents from such claims. PLC shall defend such claims with legal counsel of City's own choosing. 7 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement 4/3/00 J 7. No Admission of Liability. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission on the part of any of the parties of any claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, damages or liabilities asserted by any other party. 8. Informed Consent. :Each party declares that prior to the execution of this Agreement, it and/or its duly authorized.representatives have apprised themselves of sufficient relevant data, either through experts or other sources of their own selection, in order to intelligently exercise their judgment in deciding whether to execute, and in deciding the contents of,this Agreement. Each party states that this Agreement is entered into freely and voluntarily,upon the advice and with the approval of its counsel. 9. Construction. The drafting and negotiation of this Agreement has been participated in by each of the parties or their counsel and for all purposes of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted jointly by all parties. 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties relating to settlement of the Dispute and.supersedes all prior agreements,written or oral;among the parties. There are no oral understandings, terms or conditions, and no party has relied upon any representation, express or implied, not contained in this Agreement. All prior understandings,terms or conditions are deemed merged into this Agreement. 11. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. 12. Written Notification. Any notice, demand,request,consent, approval or communications that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail. Any such notice, demand, etc. shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth hereinbelow. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section. 8 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement AgreementCq 3/31/00 PLC: PLC Land Company attn: Chris Gibbs 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 City: City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 with copies to: City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 4th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 And Planning Director City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 13. No Assignment. Each party represents and warrants that there has been no assignment or other transfer of any claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, expenses, compensation, or any other interests which it may have, or may have had, at any time whatsoever against the other party, or its officers, agents,partners, representatives, employees, successors, assigns or affiliates to any person, firm, corporation,partnership, or any other entity of any kind whatsoever. 14. Successors and Representatives. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of each party and each party's agents,representatives, employees, beneficiaries, officers, directors,predecessors, successors, and assigns. 15. Further Actions and Documents. Each party shall take such further actions and shall execute, acknowledge and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged or delivered,to the other party such further instruments and documents as may be necessary in order to effectuate this Agreement. 16. Forum Selection/Attorneys Fees. In the event of a dispute and/or any legal action taken to enforce the terms of this Agreement any such action shall be in 9 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement 3/31/00 0 Orange County, California. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. 17. Severability. Should any provision of this Agreement be determined to be illegal or unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement shall be given effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. 18. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of the performance of all obligations hereunder. City of Huntington Beach Mayor ATTE T: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk �` Fce4' Pl City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: . —lfile; ' p INITIAT ED AND APP Cit Administrator 10 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement 3/31/00 �� Dated: A-Prm, -6 PLC: PLC, a California General Partnership By: PLC Holdings, a California genera_1 partnership as a general partner By: PACLACO, INC., a California corporation as it er 1 partner, By Name: QpAgnm es (type or print) Its (circle one) Chairman o /Presiden ice President By_ Name: ( 70�K �• �lB�S nt) Its (circle onejS�e� n'Assistant Secretary/ Chief Financial Officer/Any Assistant Treasurer 11 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement 3/31/00 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On 1 C. ,2000,before me, i-IbRA-E , personally appeared&2R4#4M -,WAtF.S and ek-AIST5p46k C• G164K , personally known to me ( e) to be the person(s) whose name (s) ' aze subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he4shO�1e executed the same in hisA�uthorized capacity(ies), and that by hi eir ignature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. MARTHA J.DICKEY commission# 1147120 Z 5=WT No* y Public-CalitofnlG y ronge Countymay;.,,r county 2001 Signature Notary Pub Dated: iprl a000 By: T/L HUNTINGTON BEACH, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, as a general partner By: LENNAR LAND PARTNERS II, a Florida general partnership, its managing member By: LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Californ' oration, its Attorney-in- Fact By Name: V �L (type or print) Its (circle one) Chairman of oard/ residen a President By Name: C.Y(-( (type or print) Its(circle one) Secretary/Assistant Secretary/ t7Chief Financial Office3i1piy Assistant Treasurer 12 SF-OOAgree-PLC Settlement Agreement 3/31/00 STATE OF ALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On r,I `f 2000, before me, p}a,r ,c, personally appeared 3-onaa dA6,4 M•Ste_ and malrc_—aA1ft N14 A , personally known to me (er- pr-evca te me en the Arils of cif eeter--evert) to be the persor(s whose name s is(g subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hefs they executed the same in hWh 49 authorized capacity es , and that by ' their ignatureo) on the instrument the persone) or the entity upon behalf of which the persorQ acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. DEE j Comm on#1036f01 .� NotaryPub&c--CcMfOrNO s orange County Comm.B pkes Apr 19.2= 3/ Signature of Notary Public C12 Holly-Seacliff Reimbursement District Right-of-Way Charge APN: 111-150-15 Owner: Anderson/Gowdy/Gum Lump Sum and Other Payments for Multiple Parcels Total Payment' $ 351,596.00 Area of Take of Individual Parcel (Sq. Ft.) 2,000 Total Area of Take of All Parcels (Sq. Ft.)' 4,000 Percent of Individual Parcel Take to Total Take 50% Allocated Share of Total Payment $ 175,798.00 Other Payments - Total Payment to Property Owner $ 175,798.00 Total Estimated Value of ROW Total Payment to Property Owner $ 175,798.00 Less Appraised Value of Oil Well - Less Value of ImprovementS2 116,241.04 Estimated Value of ROW $ 59,556.96 Estimated ROW Payment Per Square Foot Parcel Frontage (Lin. Ft.) 100 Average Depth of ROW Take (Lin. Ft.) 20 Total Area of ROW Take (Sq. Ft.) 2,000 Total ROW Payment per Sq. Ft. $ 29.78 ROW Charge Calculation Parcel Frontage (Lin. Ft.) 100 ROW Depth Required for Outside Lane Only (Lin. Ft.) 10 ROW Area Required for Outside Lane (Sq. Ft.) 1,000 ROW Payment for Outside Lane and Subject to Charge $ 29,778.48 ' Includes parcels 111-150-15 and 111-150-16. 2 Credit based on appraised value of improvements equal to 66%of total appraised value multiplied by actual payment. Sources:City of Huntington Beach and PLC ROW payment and appraisal records;MuniFinancial. Z--S Field, Scott From: Diane Montgomery[dianem@muni.com] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:51 PM To: Scott Field (E-mail) Cc: Bob Spencer Subject: APN 111-120-01 ROW Charge Calculation Scott, This e-mail responds to your request for clarification regarding how right-of-way (ROW) and oil well payments were used to calculate the ROW charge for APN 111-120-01 included in our report dated 3/20/02 . Per letters dated March 4 and 13, 1998, $54,200 was paid to acquire ROW for this parcel, owned by S&C Oil. We have a separate letter dated June 26, 1998 that indicates that an additional $85,215 was paid for oil well interests on this parcel. This amount reflects the appraised value documented in an Evans appraisal dated April 14, 1998. In total, $139,415 was paid for ROW acquisition and oil well impacts related to the ROW acquisition for this parcel. To calculate the appropriate charge, we deducted the amount paid for the oil well, crediting the entire $85,215 to the property owner. The remaining $54,200 was prorated to determine the appropriate charge for 18 feet for the required roadway acquisition out of the total 20 foot take. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thanks, Diane Diane R. Montgomery MuniFinancial 9275 Sky Park Court, Suite 110 San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-6955, ext. 20 (858) 467-1346 dianem@muni.com c s C= c o Z v o=4 C- Proposed Holly-Seacliff m � Dix Area Traffic Benefit Charge -- � D City of Huntington Beach April 1, 2002 :!&UNIFINANCIAL Background ■ 1990 Holly-Seacliff development agreement & State law: — Developer (PLC) reimbursed for cost of excess capacity provided — Reasonable charge paid by parcels in benefit area served by excess capacity (as required by Subdivision Map Act, Government Code 66485-66489) -NUNIFINANCIAL' I II a m w)t c 1 History ■ Various reimbursement mechanisms proposed previously — City proposed cost reimbursement district for variety of improvements - 1994 (Council rejected) — PLC proposed alternative City-wide benefit allocation — 1996 — Boyle study for City recommended third alternative with no street reimbursement —1998 MUNIFINANCIAL Settlement Agreement ■ PLC demanded arbitration.of reimbursement dispute as required by development agreement ■ City and PLC settled reimbursement dispute: — Required City to reimburse PLC for excess capacity associated with water reservoir and storm drains and — Allowed only street improvement costs to be spread to adjoining parcels /AUNIFINANCIAL D_q 2 Settlement Agreement (cont'd) ■ Reimbursement = cost of outer lane ■ Traffic analysis indicated that Holly- Seacliff development did not require outer lane — Example - Garfield between Goldenwest and Gothard Streets . Six-lane divided street but Holly-Seacliff only generated need for four-lane undivided street MUNIFINANCIAL Charge Nexus ■ PLC & City funded over-sizing of Goldenwest, Gothard, Garfield & Main ■ Outside lane ROW & improvements — Provides access to abutting properties — State law and City subdivision code require abutting properties to improve street to ultimate ROW — Charge reimburses PLC & City for actual cost of outside lane /HUNIFINANCIAL � � 3 Legal Authority ■ Government Code 66475 allows City to require dedication of land for streets and alleys ■ City of H.B. Section 254.02 and 255.04 (B) require property owner to dedicate and improve frontage to its ultimate ROW, including streets, curbs, sidewalks, and driveways /MUNIFINANCIAL Judicial Response ■ The courts have held that: — "...a city may constitutionally require the dedication of land for the widening of an existing street as a condition of its approval of a subdivision map where such condition is reasonably related to the increased traffic and other needs of the subdivision. It is no defense to the conditions imposed that their fulfillment will incidentally benefit the city as a whole. The decision of a planning body to require dedication for street widening purposes will not be judicially reversed even when it appears that the dedication was made necessary by the general growth of the community." People ex rel. Depart of Public Works v. Curtis 255 Cal. Appd. 2d 378, 383 (1967) &UNIFINANCIAL � 4 Proposed Charge ■ Reimburses PLC and City for actual cost of outside lane ■ Same cost the property owner would incur when parcel develops ■ Not requiring reimbursement would be unfair to other developers subject to these same development conditions &UNIFINANCIAL General Methodology ■ Charge based upon improvements costs for outside traffic lane abutting parcel: — Roadway construction costs — Right-of-way acquisition costs (no more than 18 feet, adjusted since 3/5/02 mtg.) — Legal costs (excluded since 6/7/01 mtg.) — Miscellaneous costs (excluded since 6/7/01 mtg.) ■ Costs based on actual payments or best available information MUNIFINANCIAL Excluded Properties ■ Properties owned by developer ■ Costs paid through Community Facilities (Mello Roos) District ■ Property not developable — Alleyways — Used for realignment of roadway ■ Roadway construction costs excluded for properties with prior improvements to ultimate ROW (excluded since 6/7/01 mtg.) .VIUNIFINANCIAL Roadway Construction Costs Colrpm ive Roadway construction Costs Cost per U ner Foot City of Hwvtington Improvement PLC Beach Willdan 10 ft.Asphalt Concrete Paving $ 25.00 $ 27.16 $ 25.45 Street Light Conduit,Boxes&Lights 22-00 30.28 33.61 2 ft.Curb&Gutter(8 in.high) 11.70 14.65 14.65 6 ft.Sidemraik 9.40 9.77 14.41 Total Cost $ 68.10 $ 81.86 $ 88.12 /NUNIFINANCIAL � � 6 Right-of-way Acquisition Costs ■ Based on actual cost paid for ROW — One traffic lane — Curb, gutter & sidewalk ■ Equals actual payment received by property owner for ROW, or best available information ■ Varies by parcel �VIUNIFINANCIAL. Right-of-way Credits ■ Realignment caused need for additional ROW ■ Five parcels affected by realignment — Four parcels credited for 10 ft. of ROW taken out of total 20 ft. take. — One parcel credited for realignment that divided parcel into two pieces ■ Two other parcels affected by ROW takes credited for lost oil production (since 6/7/01 mtg.) fMUNIFINANCIAL Preliminary Summary Summary of Costs & Charges Total Roadway Improvements $ 455,351 Right-of-Way 1,494,598 Miscellaneous - Total Costs $ 1,949,948 Parcels Subject to Charge 83 /MUNIFINANCIAL Charge Schedule - Sample MEMMME Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front- Roadway age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner (ftl mends Right-of-Way laneous Charge Golde►west street 110-211-01 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 $ 4,035.00 $ - $ 5,737.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 17,550.00 - 19,252.50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 35,100.00 - 38,505.00 110-211-04 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 4,035.00 - 5,737.50 110-211-05 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 28,245.00 - 40,162.50 110-220-02 Brindle 330 22,473.00 89,100.00 - 111,573.00 110-220-03 Brindle 199 13,551.90 53,730.00 - 67,281.90 110-220-04 Brindle 129 8,784.90 34,830.00 - 43,614.90 /NUNIFINANCIAL g Charge Implementation ■ Charge collected when parcel develops (at time of building permit) ■ No development = no charge ■ Charge increased annually based on Construction Cost Index (CCI) &UNIFINANCIAL Today's Decision ■ Public Hearing before City Council - - City Council will consider adoption of ordinance and resolution to establish area of benefit district and charges based upon MuniFinancial report (including Table 4) — If adopted, charges would become effective May 31, 2002 &UNIFINANCIAL -4 9 SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:55PM y 7143741557;* 1/19 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER; WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED LIAaILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS TELECDPILM (949) 851-1554 2603 MAIN STREET WRITER'S DIRECT (949) 851-3844 EAST TOWER — SUITE 1300 DIAL NUMBER (949) 757-1225 P.O. BOX 19712 (949) 851-7294 (949) 851-2351 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-8228 mleiferQptwww.com (949) 861-9400. IACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: April 1,2002 Time: 3:50 PM File Name: Thomas/Impact Fee File No.: 16193-027 To Fax No. Telephone No. City of Huntington Beach (714)374-1557 (714) 536-5227 From: Michael I-I. Leifer TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS FORM IS: Message: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED. ORIGINAL WILL: [7, BE SENT BY MAIL, r BE SENT BY FEDEXIOVERNTGHT COURIER E SEMI'BY MESSENGER NOT BE SENT [`' BE SENT BY E-MAIL If all page.,are not received,please call Pam Rothman at(949)851-7325. x o c C n -u �CD y d Cl) 00 D THIS COVER SHEET AND ANY DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING IT ARE INTENDED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY SET FORTH AS THE ADDRESSES, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYER OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBITPION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE SO TRAT ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE FOR RETURNING THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO VS. THANK YOU. r I CMMWNICA o �i N 1, SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:55PA1 y 7143741557;14 2/19 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI. TN'LER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2603 MAITY STREET ANGELO J. PALMIERI 0926.19961 EAST TOWER—SUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 1071E ROBERT F.WALDRON(19 2 7-113 9 61 IRVINC. CA 92623-R712 IRVINE, CAL)PC'RwA 920W^6220 hLhN H.WIENER' GARY C. WEISDG.RG ROBERT C. ,H.KE* MICHACL It. LEIFER- (04q) 951-A400 WRITER'S DIRECT .TAMES E.WILHELM. SCOTT R. CARRCNTER DENNIS G. TYLeR• www.piwww.com (94g}B%'4flT494 HICMARD 4 SAWS MICNAE.L J. GREENE' NORMAN J. ROD!CH m1elfeT(Mptwww.com FRANK C. ROTHROCK' D. SU5AN WIENS DENNIS w. GHAN' .RONALD M. COLE April 1, 2002 DAVID D. PARR* LUCEE S. KIRKA FACSIMILF (949) 951-1554 CHARLES H. KANTER• PAUIL B. LA SCALA GEORGE J.WALL MICHAEL L. DANGELO 19ay)Akl-3B4w L. RICHARD RAWLS CHARLES S. KROLIKOWSKI 19V�J1 7.S 7-122'J PATRICK 4 HENNE%SCY DARCLYN Y. 14A.MAOA l94?) 951-2atrl DUN F15HER STEPHEN A. SCHECK GREGORY N.WEILER MEATHCR C.WHITMDRE WARHFN A.WILLIAMS ELISE L. ENOM010 JOHN R. L157ER RYAN M.EASTER REFER TO FILL' NO. CA M.WOLCOTT GRACE LEE 1eIS3.027 JOEL P. KEW DAVID H. CULMCR NICHCLLE M. FUJIMOTO Of COUNI5EL MARTIN J.STEIN •rnpressmnal to.rO..nW VIA PERSONAL SERVICE o Mayor and Members of the City Council ^� ��-1 City Clerk's office c, City of Huntington Beach o�?� ; 2000 Main Street -+ r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 morn -0 n-7,,, Re: Objections to Proposed Holly-seacliff Area of x CD District No. 1 O c7 n Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: 00 This letter sets forth our objections, on behalf of all interested property owners, to Agenda Item No. D-4, the proposed resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of District No. 1 (the "District") . We request that this letter, as well as the documents and files referenced herein, be included within the administrative record for this item. First, the City Council must recognize the following; • The proposed District amounts to a tax on the property .owners listed within Munifinancial's report. • That tax is being imposed on property owners whose only reason for being on the list is because they had property taken and were injured by street projects made necessary by the Holly Seacliff development project. • The tax is being imposed only after the amount of compensation for the taking and injury was conclusively established. • The tax is being imposed in suite of representations by the city, in public records and/or in courts of law, SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:56PM ; y 714374155744 3/19 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 2 that all issues pertaining to the acquisition of the properties in question had been resolved. 1. SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS As set forth more fully below, we object to the proposed District on each of the following grounds: • The Constitution Reguires That An Exaction of Private Property Be Proportional To the Proposed Development; Since the ci,ty's statute Does Not, It Is Unlawful. The City cannot establish that the prior acquisition and improvement of the properties constitutes a "benefit" to their owners because the presumed dedication requirement amounts to an unconstitutional exaction of private property. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance section 255. 04 (B) mandates the dedication of property and construction of street improvements without regard for the proportionality of that dedication to the likely impacts of development of that property. This is in direct violation of the U.S. and California Constitutions. (Dolan v. City of . Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Ca1.4th 854. ) • If the City's Statute Is Lawful, the City Either Waived Its Enforcement In the Acquisitions or the City Did Not Compensate Owners for the Frontage. The proposed right of way acquisition fees erroneously and illegally assume that the properties in question would have been required to be dedicated. in acquiring and/or condemning portions of those properties, however, the City either (a) determined that the dedication was required and paid for the property accordingly or (b) determined that no dedication was required. In either case, the City is barred from attempting to extract an additional dedication and/or assuming a position contradictory to that which it assumed in settling the prior eminent domain proceedings or acquisitions. • The Fee Schedule Is Wrong. The proposed acquisition fees in the Munifinancial report, allegedly representing only the amounts that owners were paid for 18 feet of frontage for right of way, overstate the actual amounts that many of the owners received for the frontage. Payments to the property owners included compensation for items that the City's staff SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:56PNi ; y- 7143741557;# 4/10 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & %ALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City - council April 1, 2002 Page 3 and counsel at the public workshop and otherwise stated will not be included within the proposed fees, such as compensation for slope and construction easements, improvements, severance damages, business goodwill, interest, litigation expenses, costs, etc. No effort was made to exclude those amounts from the total compensation upon which the fees were calculated. • Interest May Not Be and Should Not Be Charged. As the Public Has the Benefit of Possession of This Right of Way. The proposed fee schedule-includes a provision for interest on the total fee amount, and it contains no sunset provision limiting the time in which those fees must be reimbursed. Consequently, the property owners' fees for improvements will increase annually even as the condition and utility of those improvements deteriorates; the owners' fees will still be increasing long after the improvements have become obsolete. This causes a penalty on those owners that do not rush to develop their properties. Moreover, the provision for interest on the "value" of the right of way, even though the City is in possession of the property and enjoys all of the benefits of such possession, is contrary to law. (Code Civ. Proc. , S 1268.330.) • Munifinancial Has Amended Its Calculations countless Times, But Substantial Problems Persist in the Manner I_n Which Fees Were Assiclned for the individual Parcels. The problems include, but are not limited to: development fees for properties that the City maintains are not developable; acquisition fees for properties where no records of any such acquisition can be found; fees for specifically identified properties based upon the appraisals of other properties; fees for the cost of improvements that (a) will not be suitable for the ultimate development of the property and/or (b) will have to be replaced by the owners at the time of development; payments for the settlement of a .CEQA lawsuit; charges to properties that were not appraised; etc. Any one of the foregoing objections could form the basis of a protracted legal challenge to the constitutionality/legality of the District in the event that the City Council votes to approve this measure. The City Council should deny the proposed District. Efforts to extract fees and/or additional dedications from property owners should be considered on a case by case basis SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:56PM y 7143741557;4m' 5!19 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 4 only, as the properties develop, in light of the proportionality of the fees and/or dedications to the proposed development. 2. BACKGROUND The proposed District has its origins in a 1990 Development Agreement between the City and Pacific Coast Homes, a California corporation, and Garfield Partners, a California general partnership (hereinafter collectively referred to, along with their successors) in interest, as the "Developer") . The Developer, as owner of a sizable area of property within the City, wished to commence what it believed would be a very lucrative development venture. The Developer proposed, and the city approved, a massive project that would substantially impact the appearance and make-up of a significant portion of Huntington Beach, attracting new home buyers, generating new traffic, etc. , all of which required additions to and/or modifications of the City's existing infrastructure. As a condition of that approval, the City required the Developer to construct any infrastructure needed as a result of the development, which included the widening of portions of Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, and Garfield Avenue to their ultimate geometric sections. The Developer never challenged the conditions imposed by the City. There was a CEQA challenge to the project. In order to settle that lawsuit based upon the Developer's use of an old or stale Environmental Impact Report, the Developer made payments to the CEQA challengers. The development process has gone forward. In the recent real estate market upswing, the Developer presumably pocketed substantial sums from its project. Nevertheless, the Developer seeks to further increase its profitability by passing off some of its development costs onto other property owners in the area. The City currently is considering whether to increase the Developer's profit. As set forth below, however, that District or tax is rife with problems and will, if adopted, subject the City to protracted litigation concerning its constitutionality/legality. In an April 17, 2000, settlement agreement with the Developer, the City promised that it would "in good faith . attempt" to establish a program to reimburse the Developer $812,000 in so-called "reimbursable costs." That settlement agreement does not compel the City's adoption of this or any other reimbursement program that does not meet with the City Council's approval. If, after due consideration, the City Council elects not to adopt this District, the City is under no SENT 6Y: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:57PM y 7143741557;# 6/19 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 5 obligation to reimburse the Developer for the $812,000 identified in the settlement agreement. The Council should not adopt this program. 3. THE CITY CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT ANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN QUESTION RECEIVED A "BENEFIT" FROM THE DEVELOPER'S PROJECT; THE PROPOSED DISTRICT AMOUNTS TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXACTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. After the City determined that no excess capacity was created by the Developer's improvements, the claimed legal authority for the District is Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance sections 254.02 and 255.04 (B) . These ordinances purport to require any developer of property within the City to improve and dedicate the adjoining right of way to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc. At the time of the Development Agreement, the City determined that the improvement and dedication of the Goldenwest, Gothard, and Garfield rights of way to their ultimate width was necessitated by the Developer's project. The City conditioned its approval of the project upon such completion of that infrastructure, and the Developer never objected to or otherwise challenged that condition. The City has never determined, and does not now contend, that any of these improvements by the Developer generated excess capacity beyond what was necessary for the project. At the March 4, 2002, public workshop on this matter, City Attorney Scott Field repeatedly emphasized that the fees in question are not based upon a determination that the Developer constructed improvements having "supplemental capacity." Nevertheless, Munifinancial's report references "oversized improvements" and Government Code section 66485 as providing justification for the District. In fact, Section 66485 only authorizes the collection of a "reasonable charge" from persons outside of a subdivision for their use of supplemental capacity created by the subdivision. That section does not apply where, as here, no supplemental capacity has been created. The City now seeks to require other property owners within the affected area to enhance the Developer's profit associated with the project. The City's claimed justification is that, absent the Developer's project, the other property owners would have been required to improve and dedicate their properties pursuant to sections 254.02 and 255.04(B) . The sole basis for the alleged "benefit" giving rise to the District is the presumed SENT BY, 4- 1- 2 ; 3:57PNi ; 7143741557;* 7/19 PALMIERI, TILER. WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 6 improvement and dedication of private property by operation of those local ordinances. In order to establish that the proposed District is legal, the City necessarily must first demonstrate that the dedication upon which it is based could be exacted. Dedication of private property can only be required when there is a "rough proportionality" between the impacts of the proposed development- and the required dedication. (Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854. ) The burden of proving this rough proportionality is on the public entity attempting to exact the dedication. (Ehrlich, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 883.) Here, the City's only "support" for its dedication requirement is the presumed operation of sections 254.02 and 255.04(B) . Few, if any, of the properties in question are in the process of development, however, so the City has no "proposed development" with which to compare the burden of the required dedication. Consequently, the City could not have performed the "rough proportionality" analysis. Lacking such information, the City cannot establish that the owners in question could be required to make those dedications. Moreover, to the extent that they purport to require a dedication of private property without regard to the impacts of any proposed development of the property, sections 254.02 and 255.04 (B) are unconstitutional. Unable to demonstrate that the individual property owners could be required to improve and dedicate the streets in question in the exact manner as called for in the project, the City cannot establish that any of the properties would be required to comply with sections 254.02 and 255. 04 (B) and, therefore, received a "benefit" from the Developer's project. The City should and must take the proportionality determination on a case by case basis. 4. THE ISSUE OF DEDICATION WAS RAISED AND DETERMINED CONCLUSIVELY, AT TEE TIME THE CITY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTIES; THE CITY CANNOT "RELITIGATE" THE ISSUE NOW AFTER THE ACQUISITIONS ARE RESOLVED. Whether by condemnation or by acquisition under threat of condemnation, the City lent its eminent domain power, on behalf of the Developer, to acquire portions of most of the properties against which it now seeks to impose the District. In advance of those acquisitions, the City through its appraiser, staff, and the Developer's hand-picked outside counsel considered the possibility of future dedications and, finding such dedications likely, valued the propertieg_accordinaly. Where the City SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:57PNI 7143741557;* 8/19 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 7 determined that future development of the parcel would require dedication, the City's appraiser assigned nominal value to the frontage taken. For example: • APN 110-211-04, -05 (Ghodooshim - encyclopedia lots) : The City's appraiser, Mark Linnes, MAI, determined that, absent any dedication requirement, this property would have a value of $7/sq. ft. But Mr. Linnes also determined that "the proposed street widening would be a required dedication to the city in order to obtain permits for development" of these parcels. Consequently, Mr. Linnes assigned a nominal value of 100 for the entire 4,000 s.f. taking from this property. (Based upon Mr. Linnes' conclusions, the value of the part taken without the d?dication requirement would have been $28,000.) Based on Mr. Linnes' appraisal, the fee should only be $100 plus improvement costs. • APN 110-120-13, -14. (Thomas)2: Absent any dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes determined the value of these parcels to be $20/sq. ft. In light of the City's dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes assigned nominal values of $100 each for the 950 s.f. and 325 s.f. takings, respectively. (Based upon Mr. Linnes' conclusions, the value of the parts taken without the dedication requirement would have totaled $25,500. ) • APN 111-220-02, -03, -04 (Brindle) : Absent any dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes determined the value of these parcels to be $15/sq. ft. In light of the city's dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes assigned a nominal value for the total taking of 13,600 s.f. Pertinent portions of the appraisals by Marls Linnes, MAI, are contained within three appendices prepared by the City to demonstrate Munifinancial's fee calculations for the Goldenwest, Gothard, and Garfield right of way acquisitions. These appendices are included within the City's file concerning this matter. By reference hereto, we incorporate those appendices into the administrative record of this proceeding. John A. Thomas, Linda Thomas, Ronald I. Brindle, and Emily Ann Brindle do not oppose the inclusion of their properties within a District, but they object to the manner in which the City has calculated fees. SENT BY, 4- 1- 2 : 3:58PM y 7143741557:# 9/19 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City council April 1, 2002 Page 8 (Based upon Mr. Linnes' conclusions, the value of the parts taken without the dedication requirement would have been $204,000. ) The total amounts of compensation ultimately paid by the City and/or Developer for these and other parcels were greater than the conclusions of value for the fee takings set forth in Mr. Linnes' appraisals. That is because the resolution of an acquisition by or under threat of eminent domain includes many considerations other than compensation for the part taken in fee. The city also was required to pay for slope and construction easements, severance damages to the owners' remainder parcels, improvements to the realty, business goodwill, fixtures and equipment, interest, costs, and, in the appropriate case, litigation expenses, etc. Any compensation for these items would be included within the total syms paid by the City/Developer in finalizing these acquisitions. The City's attorney, Scott Field, informed property owners at the public workshop on March 4, 2002, that the City is seeking reimbursement only for the amounts of compensation paid for the frontage takings; the City is not seeking reimbursement of compensation paid for slope and construction easements, improvements, severance damages, goodwill, etc. Nevertheless, in calculating the amounts for reimbursement, Munifinancial either has based its calculations on the total lump sum settlements or has charged owners the full value of Mr. Linnes' appraisal assuming no dedication requirement,- which is contrary to its owner position. A condemnation award fixes once and for all the compensation to be paid for a taking of real property. (E11ena v. State of California (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 245, 254. ) Where property has been taken by condemnation or acquired by deed, courts will assume that the owner has received, and the condemnor has paid, full compensation for the acquisition of property and the construction and use of the proposed public improvements in the 3 The City is in possession of files for each of the acquisitions upon which the current fees are based. Many of those acquisitions, including those for properties owned by Thomas, Brindle, Anderson/Goudy/Gum, Ghodooshim, Marow, and Borghetti, were involved in litigation. Each such file will provide the City Council with more information concerning the specific components of compensation than the "payment records" provided by Munifinancial in its appendices. By reference to these files hereto, we include them in the administrative record for this matter. SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:58PNI ; y 7143741557;*10/19 PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 9 manner proposed. (Ibid. ) Whether property is acquired by condemnation or by consent, both the landowner and the condemnor are estopped from afterward prosecuting any action seeking to add to or subtract from the compensation previously paid. (Ibid.) Moreover, where property in an eminent domain proceeding may be subject to dedication for public purposes, the condemnor may contend that the property could be taken without compensation paid, and its market value should therefore be recognized as, only nominal. (See, e.g. , People_..ex ref. Dept._ of Pub. Works v. Investors Diversified Servs. , Inc. (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 367. ) consequently, where the issue of future dedication has been raised by the condemnor in an eminent domain proceeding, the compensation ultimately paid must be presumed to account for the likelihood of such future dedication in the value of the property acquired. The condemnor is estopped from later prosecuting an action on the basis that it paid too much compensation for the property. Here, the City's appraisal recognized the possibility of future dedication and assigned a nominal value to those parcels deemed subject to the dedication requirement. In the ensuing proceedings, which culminated in the City's and/or Developer's acquisitions of those parcels, the City must have either (a) enforced its dedication requirement and paid nominal compensation for the fee takings; or (b) decided not to enforce its dedication requirement in those negotiations. In the event that the city enforced its dedication requirement, the owners must be deemed to have received nominal compensation only for the fee takings. Absent any showing to the contrary by the City, the balance of any sums paid to the owners must have represented compensation for slope and temporary easements, severance damages, improvements, goodwill, etc. Based upon the city's fee methodology, those sums cannot be considered in calculating the fees to be paid for the parts taken. Moreover, having paid only nominal value for these parts taken, the City cannot now extract a fee based upon the representation that it paid full value of the part taken. In the event that the City ultimately elected not to enforce its dedication requirement, that election must be deemed binding upon the City. Havinq done so, the City thereby deprived the owners of the opportunity to require the City to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate the likelihood of such dedication. By taking the position that the property in question is now subject to a dedication requirement, and that the owners must give back whatever was paid to them in the prior action, the City effectively is attempting to "undo" the eminent domain proceeding SEE\T BY: 4- 1- 2 3:59PNI 7143741557;*11/19 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP ' Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 10 to reduce the compensation paid. Under Ellena, the amount of compensation paid for the properties has been conclusively established, and the City is estopped from asserting otherwise in a subsequent proceeding. S. THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION FEES OVERSTATE THE ACTUAL A14OUNTS OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY TEE OWNERS FOR THE FRONTAGE. In calculating the amounts of the fees to be charged for right of way acquisition, the City has utilized one of two methods: (a) basing compensation on the total lump sum payments made by the City to the individual owners; or (b) basing compensation on the full amount of Mr. Linnes' appraisals absent dedication, a position contrary to that which the City took in litigation in which it asserted nominal value for the frontage. In the case of the former, the city's fee calculation erroneously assumes that the amount of compensation paid consisted only of compensation for the part taken in fee. In the case of the latter, the City's fee calculation erroneously assumes that the property owner received compensation equal to the full amount of Mr. Linnes' appraisal assuming no dedication requirement. In both cases, the resulting calculation overstates the amounts of compensation actually received by the owners for the parts taken in fee. Calculations based upon the total lump sum payment made by the City to the individual owners are wrong because they fail to take into account compensation paid for other aspects of the condemnation, such as compensation for slope and construction easements, improvements, goodwill, etc. For example: APN 110-211-04 (Ghodooshim - encyclopedia lots) : The City proposes to charge an acquisition fee of $4,035 for 18 ft. of frontage based upon the compensation of $4,483.33 for the full 20 ft. taking. The City essentially seeks to charge the property owner the full amount of the compensation received as the value of the part taken in fee. But, according to Mr. Linnes' appraisal, compensation for the fee taking represented just 7% of the total compensation to be paid for this parcel. In addition to ignoring any compensation for the slope and construction easements, the City's fee calculation ignores the fact that the amount paid to the owner also included compensation for severance damages, interest, litigation expenses, costs, and other litigation considerations. In the litigation, the City's position was that the property was undevelopable. SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:59PM 7143741557:#12/19 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIEXER, WILHELM & WALDRON UP Mayor and Members of. the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 11 • APN 111-150-15, -16 (Anderson/Gaudy/Gum) : The City proposes to charge an acquisition fee of $29,778.48 per parcel. This sum, which amounts to compensation of $29.78/sq. ft. , is based upon total compensation of $175,798 per lot, less $116,241.04 paid for improvements. In fact, the owners' total compensation also included substantial claims for severance damages, business goodwill, interest, costs and litigation expenses. (The City's own appraiser determined there to be severance damages caused by the taking, which damages are not accounted for and excluded from the City's calculations. ) Moreover, the effective amount of the charge, at $29.78/sq. ft. , is nearly 50% greater than Mr. Linnes' conclusion of value for the property. Calculations based solely upon the amount of Mr. Linnes' appraisal of that property, or the amount of his appraisal of other properties, are similarly erroneous. For example: • APN 111-120-13 (Thomas) : As part of the resolution of litigation commenced by Mr. Thomas (and others) against the Developer and other parties, the defendants agreed to pay Mr. Thomas a lump sum settlement of $815,000. This. unallocated amount included compensation for Mr. Thomas' interests in certain parcels as well as any compensation for damages to his remainder properties, improvements, etc. This sum also included compensation for the settlement of all other issues raised in the proceeding, as well as any and all other claims that may have existed between the parties. The City does not attempt to allocate this lump sum settlement but, rather, assumes payment pf $20/sq. ft. , which represents the full value of Mr. Linnes' appraisal (assuming no dedication requirement) . In fact, the actual amount of Mr. Linnes' valuation conclusion for this parcel was lust $100 due to his assumption that dedication would be a requirement. The City has no basis for assuming that Mr. Thomas received anything more than nominal value for the part taken in fee. • APN 111-120-17 (Thomas) : compensation for this parcel also was included within Mr. Thomas' lump sum settlement. The City did not have an appraisal of this property, however, so it simply applied the $20/sq. ft. value of another property. In fact, Mr. Linnes' conclusion of compensation for that other parcel was $100, based upon the likelihood of dedication. As with the parcels for which it actually had an appraisal, the City had no basis for assuming that Mr. Thomas received anything more than nominal value for the part taken in fee. SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 3:59PNI 7143741557;#13/19 PALMIERI. TYLER, WILNER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City council April 1, 2002 Page 12 In order to establish that the fees are just and fair, the City first must establish that it actually paid those amounts for the frontage in question. The information currently available to the City Council does not establish what the City actually paid for the parts taken in fee. Based upon the owners' claims for compensation for severance damages, easements, etc. , the currently-proposed fees attempt to allocate lump sum settlements. 6. THE PROVISION FOR INTEREST TO ACCRUE OH THE ACQUISITION PORTION OF THE FEE, AS WELL AS THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUNSET PROVISION ON THE IMPROVEMENT PORTION OF THE PER, ARE IMPROPER AND UNFAIR; BOTH ASPECT OF THE DISTRICT ENCOURAGE IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES, The proposed District includes an annual inflationary adjustment to the total amount of the fee, including that portion attributable to the right of way acquisition. While such inflationary adjustments may be proper under certain circumstances, they are not proper where, as here, the public entity already enjoys the use and benefits of the property in question. In the eminent domain context, the California legislature has determined that possession of the property taken. shall offset the accrual of interest on the compensation to be paid for that property. (See Code Civ. Proc. , S 1268.330(a) .) Here, the City effectively paid for the early use of the owners' properties due to demands for infrastructure generated by the Developer's project. Although the owners are in possession of what compensation may be attributed to the fee takings, the City is in possession of the property. . And, while the Developer and the public have already received the benefit of the roadway improvements, the owners will receive no benefit until their properties are developed. Under these circumstances, the owners should not be required to bear the additional burden of paying the "inflation" that accrues on property for which they are no longer in possession. Also, as identified in the staff's report to the City Council, the District contains no "sunset clause" that would terminate the district after 20 years. City staff recommends against such a clause on the grounds that (a) it would encourage deferral of property development and (b) the property owners have received the benefit of the improvements for many years. First, the sunset provision is necessary to avoid having property owners pay for the construction of improvements that, after 20 years, will be obsolete and/or in substantially deteriorated condition. Moreover, should the District include inflationary adjustments to the improvement portions of the fees, that amounts owed by the SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 4:OOP19 ; y 7143741557;1#14/19 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 13 owners will continually increase even as the value and utility of the improvements decreases. The City's contention that owners will have received the benefit of the improvements for many years simply makes no sense. In order to receive any claimed "benefit," under the City's analysis, the owners first must develop their properties. The owners receive no benefit from these improvements unless and until their properties are developed. As to the contention that a sunset clause would encourage deferred development, both the inflationary adjustments and the absence of a sunset clause strongly encourage _immediate development of the properties in question. As time passes, and the fees continue to mount, the costs of development dramatically increase. For a City that increasingly has become concerned with tempering its growth, these two elements of the proposed District are at odds with a slow growth policy. 7. OTHER PROBLEX5 PERSIST WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH FEES WERE CALCULATED FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. Munifinancial repeatedly has discovered errors in its fee calculations, each time necessitating substantial changes to the fees that are proposed to burden these property for years to come. The fees included with the staff report on this agenda item are substantially different even from those presented to the property owners at the public workshop on March 5, 2002. At that workshop, the City and Munifinancial essentially attempted to shift the burden of ensuring the correctness and fairness of the fees by requiring property owners to point out errors in the fee calculations or risk having them erroneously charged. Numerous problems persist in the fee calculations. Certain of these already have been noted in the preceding sections of this lette4r. Others include, but are not limited to, the following: • APN 111-110-15 (Ramsay) : The City proposes to charge this owner an acquisition fee of $4,600 based solely upon a payment record, with no supporting 4 The City's attorney did not make the appendices available for inspection until last week. Due to time constraints, as well as the recent changes in the fee numbers, we have been unable to fully analyze and document all errors with Munifinancial's calculations. I SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 4:00P11 : y 7143741557;#15/19 PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM & W.ALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the city Council April 1, 2002 Page 14 documentation, for that amount. The City has no information concerning the area of the take, or if there even was one. Assuming that there was a take, the City has no information concerning the parcel's frontage, right of way depth, etc. Faced with the payment record and nothing else, the City simply has assumed that "not all ROW dedicated and ROW Charge equals payment received." Yet the City has no records upon which to base this assumption. • APNs 110-211-02 (Borghetti) and 110-211-03 (Marow) : In both of these cases, the City actually acquired the entire parcels, and the amounts paid reflected the full amount of compensation received for those parcels. Thus, Marow received total compensation of $39,000 for all of her interests in two parcels, and Borghetti received total compensation of $19,500 for all of his interests in one parcel. Not bothering to check the City-Is files -concerning these acquisitions, Munifinancial seeks to charge these owners what amounts to the full amount of compensation for the entire parcel for just the front 18 feet. This problem likely will come to the City's attention as a future date, as . the parcels currently are under City ownership. Munifinancial's fee calculations are premised upon pivotal "assumptions" concerning matters such as the amount of a parcel's frontage, the area of property taken, the allocation of the compensation paid, the value of the part taken, etc. Any one of these unsubstantiated assumptions could, as in the examples above, result in serious overstatement of the fees to be charged, if any. In light of this level of attention given to such key issues, the Munifinancial report is inherently unreliable and should not be used as the basis for burdening these properties with substantially erroneous fees. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949/851-7294. Very truly yours, v Michael H. Leifer MHL:cg cc: Scott F. Field Affected Property Owners (See attached service list) SENT BY, 4- 1- 2 ; 4:00FM 7143741357:*16/19 lBusinessName Address Cit State APNS 1. Robert Ghodooshim 320 Crown Drive Huntington 110-211- Beach, CA 01 90049 2. S & C Oil Co Inc 4952 Warner Huntington 111-120- Avenue. Beach, CA 01, 92649 3. Bernard A. Leckie 1616 Lincoln Newport 111-120- Lane Beach, CA 11 92660 4. Travis B. Mitchell 355 Bristol Costa Mesa, 111-120- Street Suite A CA 92626 27 5. Weir Oil Co Inc 401 20th Street Huntington 111-120- Beach, CA 28 92648 6. Bobbie G. Williams 4952 Warner Huntington 111-130- Avenue Beach, CA 14 92649 7. Wilvian J. Renner 807 Frankfort Huntington 111-130- Avenue Beach, CA 15 92648 8. Jerry J. Galich 939 loth Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 15 92648 9. Robert P. and 16242 Tisbury Huntington 111-110- Constance L. Circle Beach, CA 18 Mandic Jr. 92649 10. Thomas I. Greer, 18272 Fieldbury Huntington 111-110- Jr. Lane Beach, CA 19 92648 11. Michael Ramsey 19372 Woodlands Huntington 111-110- Lane Beach, CA 20 92648 12. Karen D. Pedersen 610 Main Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 21 92648 13. Gustafson Brothers 19161 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Inc Street Beach, CA 18 92648 SENT BY, 4- 1- 2 4:01PM y 7143741557:#17/19 14. John A. Gustafson 19161 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Street Beach, CA 19 - 92648 15. Gary and Debra 9937 Currant Fountain 111-140- Everroad Avenue Valley, CA 27 92708 16. James Telford 8800 Fritsch Austin, TX 111-140- Drive 78717 38 17. Bob Andersen 19082 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street Beach, CA 15 92648 18_ Ora Beth Scott 2982 Country Costa Mesa, 111-150- Club Drive CA 92626 17 19. Arline Joan 2262 Avenida San Camarillo, 111-150- Robrecht Antero CA 93010 19 20. Marion E. 5237 Rosemead San 111-150- Burlingham Boulevard Gabriel, CA 21 91776 21. Willis M. Elliott 19411 Worchester Huntington 111-150- Lane Beach, CA 24 92646 22. Christopher Taylor 1840 Pine Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 14 92648 23. Charles H. Bollman P.O. Box 875 Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 31 92648 24. Jack Dean Weide 1007 Florida Huntington 111-110- Street Beach, CA 33 92648 25. Paul Novak 7181 Garfield Huntington 111-110- Avenue Beach, CA 36 92648 26. Boodman-Gordon 6268 Surfboard Huntington 111-110- Investments Circle Beach, CA 37 92648 2 SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 4:01Pli 7143741557;#18/19 27. Mary S. Muck 119 North Monrovia, 111-130- Mountain Avenue, CA 91016 02 #A 28. Gary K. and 19691 Trident Huntington 111-130- Virginia C. Powell Lane Beach CA 05 92646 29. Helen V. Petersen 8755 Kings Hill Salt Lake 111-130- Carol Ann Winter Drive City, UT 06 84121 30. Donald A. Weir 401 20th Street; Huntington 111-140- Apt. A Beach, CA 02 92648 31. Weaver & Mola 19061 Gothard Huntington 111-140- street Beach, CA 04 92648 32. Dolores K. Lingle 20529 Vaccaro Torrance, 111-140- Avenue CA 90503 07 33. Loma Linda Loma Linda, 111-140- University CA 92350 09 34. Gloria Bradeson 5 Rue Cannes Newport 159-281- Hassett Beach, CA 03 92660 35. Jack Santiago 310 14th Street Huntington 111-150- Beach, CA 30 92648 36. Southridge Homes 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 36 201 92648 37. Richard P. Kelter 19281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 37 201 92648 38. R. L. Sfreddo 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Beach, CA 38 Suite 201 92648 3 SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 4:01PM ; 7143741557;#19(19 39. Southridge Homes 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 39 201 92648 4 708191 NO.OF PIECES WEIGHT NO. I I I�it GROUND IMM. 0 RUSH O REGULAR O N/D 0 SERVICE U.C. CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. 18103 Skypark S., Suite A DOSERVICE AIR ON BOARD O S/D O 9:00 AM O N/D O Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 474-9000 Fax(949) 474-7442 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 24 HOUR SERVICE ACCOUNT a -9201.004 DATE[ r ^ CLIENT F'TIF1E,�l�f C I ` � f/Lfj , � ADDRESS SUITE l 2603 MAIN STREET 1300 CITY STATE ZIP !R.V I NE �..A 2614 � AUTHORIZED BY PHONE / CLIENT FIL9# l 0,;� SIC '2) 2 -7 TO COMPANY NAME PA AE�© D � ` '1 ;�� SUITE 7 -- CITY STATE ZIP PHONE TERMS OF PAYMENT ( 1 2%15 Days. Net 30 Days. Past due accounts will be charged 2%per month(24%annually) PICK UP FROM 11 COMPANY NAME LIABILITY CONDITIONS Liability for loss or damage to items is limited to$250.00. Carrier assumes no responsibility to make ADDRESS SUITE deliveries at a given time or for consequential damages. Every effort is made for fast service but a reasonable amount of time must be allowed.Checks accepted for CVD.**shpper's risk. CITY STATE ZIP 1 _ �� ,GsC / 11Z-i.--- RECIPIENT1 TIME DATE PHONEA DELIVERYL 6- t _ RECIPIENT COPY LAW OFFICES PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2603 MAIN STREET ANGELO J. PALMIERI (1926-1996) EAST TOWER-SUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 19712 ROBERT F. WALDRON (1927-1998) IRVINE. CA 9 2 6 23-9 712 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-6228 ALAN H. WIENER' GARY C. WEISBERG ROBERT C. IHRKE* MICHAEL H. LEIFER (949) 851-9400 WRITER'S DIRECT JAMES E. WILHELM* SCOTT R. CARPENTER DENNIS G. TYLER' RICHARD A. SALUS WWW.ptwww.com (921%} 818Me7'494 MICHAEL J. GREENE* NORMAN J. RODICH mleifer(@?ptwww.com FRANK C. ROTHROCK* D. SUSAN WIENS DENNIS W. GHAN' RONALD M. COLE April 1, 2002 DAVID D. PARR' LUCEE S. KIRKA FACSIMILE (949) 851-IS54 CHARLES H. KANTER* PAUL B. LA SCALA GEORGE J. WALL MICHAEL L. D'ANGELO (949) 851-3844 L. RICHARD RAWLS CHARLES S. KROLIKOWSKI (949) 757-1225 PATRICK A. HENNESSEY DAROLYN Y. HAMADA (949) 851-2351 DON FISHER STEPHEN A. SCHECK GREGORY N. WEILER HEATHER C. WHITMORE WARREN A. WILLIAMS ELISE L. ENOMOTO JOHN R. LISTER RYAN M. EASTER REFER TO FILE NO. CYNTHIA M. WOLCOTT _ GRACE LEE 16193-027 JOEL P. KEW DAVID H. CULMER MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO OF COUNSEL MARTIN J. STEIN - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VIA PERSONAL SERVICE Mayor and Members of the City Council City Clerk's Office City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Objections to Proposed Holly-Seacliff Area of District No. 1 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter sets forth our objections, on behalf of all interested property owners, to Agenda Item No. D-4, the proposed resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of District No. 1 (the "District") . We request that this letter, as well as the documents and files referenced herein, be included within the administrative record for this item. First, the City, Council must recognize the following: • The proposed District amounts to a tax on the property owners listed within Munifinancial's report. • That tax is being imposed on property owners whose only reason for being on the list is because they had Property taken and were injured by street projects made necessary by the Holly Seacliff development project. • The tax is being imposed only after the amount of compensation for the taking and injury was conclusively established. • The tax is being imposed in spite of representations by the City, in public records and/or in courts of law, V �6 ow toATw PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 2 that all issues pertaining to the acquisition of the properties in question had been resolved. 1. SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS As set forth more fully below, we object to the proposed District on each of the following grounds: • The Constitution Requires That An Exaction of Private Property Be Proportional To the Proposed Development; Since the City's Statute Does Not, It Is Unlawful. The City cannot establish that the prior acquisition and improvement of the properties constitutes a , "benefit" to their owners because the presumed dedication requirement amounts to an unconstitutional exaction of private property. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance section 255. 04 (B) mandates the dedication of property and construction of street improvements without regard for the proportionality of that dedication to the likely impacts of development of that property. This is in direct violation of the U.S. and California Constitutions. (Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854. ) • If the City's Statute Is Lawful, the City Either Waived Its Enforcement In the Acquisitions or the City Did Not Compensate Owners for the Frontage. The proposed right of way acquisition fees erroneously and illegally assume that the properties -in question would have been required to be dedicated. In acquiring and/or condemning portions of those properties, however, the City either (a) determined that the dedication was required and paid for the property accordingly or (b) determined that no dedication was required. . In either case, the .City is barred from attempting to extract an additional dedication and/or assuming a position contradictory to that which it assumed in settling the prior eminent domain proceedings or acquisitions. • The Fee Schedule Is Wrong. The proposed acquisition fees in the Munifinancial report, allegedly representing only the amounts that owners were paid for 18 feet of frontage for right of way, overstate the actual amounts that many of the owners received for the frontage. Payments to the property owners included compensation for items that the City's staff r PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 3 and counsel at the public workshop and otherwise stated will not be included within the proposed fees, such as compensation for slope and construction easements, improvements, severance damages, business goodwill, interest, litigation expenses, costs, etc. No effort was made to exclude those amounts from the total compensation upon which the fees were calculated. • Interest May Not Be and Should Not Be Charged, As the Public Has the Benefit of Possession of This Right of Way. The proposed fee schedule includes a provision for interest on the total fee amount, and it contains no sunset provision limiting the time in which those fees must be reimbursed. Consequently, the property owners' fees for improvements will increase annually even as the condition and utility of those improvements deteriorates; the owners' fees will still be increasing long after the improvements have become obsolete. This causes a penalty on those owners that do not rush to develop their properties. Moreover, the provision for interest on the "value" of the right of way, even though the City is in possession of the property and enjoys all of the benefits of such possession, is contrary to law. (Code Civ. Proc. , § 1268. 330. ) • Munifinancial Has Amended Its Calculations Countless Times, But Substantial Problems Persist In the Manner In Which Fees Were Assigned for the Individual Parcels. The problems include, but are not limited to: development fees for properties that the City maintains are not developable; acquisition fees for -properties where no records of -any such acquisition can be found; fees for specifically identified properties based upon the appraisals of other properties; fees for the cost of improvements that (a) will not be suitable for the ultimate development of the property and/or (b) will have to be replaced by the owners at the time of development; payments for the settlement of a CEQA lawsuit; charges to properties that were not appraised; etc. Any one of the foregoing objections could form the basis of a protracted legal challenge to the constitutionality/legality of the District in the event that the City Council votes to approve this measure. The City Council should deny the proposed District. Efforts to extract fees and/or additional dedications from property owners should be considered on a case by case basis r PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 4 only, as the properties develop, in light of the proportionality of the fees and/or dedications to the proposed development. 2. BACKGROUND The proposed District has its origins in a 1990 Development Agreement between the City and Pacific Coast Homes, a California corporation, and Garfield Partners, a California general partnership (hereinafter collectively referred to, along with their successor(s) in interest, as the "Developer") . The Developer, as owner of a sizable area of property within the City, wished to commence what it believed would be a very lucrative development venture. The Developer proposed, and the City approved, a massive project that would substantially impact the appearance and make-up of a significant portion of Huntington Beach, attracting new home buyers, generating new traffic, etc. , all of which required additions to and/or modifications of the City's existing infrastructure. As a condition of that approval, the City required the Developer to construct any infrastructure needed as a result of the development, which included the widening of portions of Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, and Garfield Avenue to their ultimate geometric sections. The Developer never challenged the conditions imposed by the City. There was a CEQA challenge to the project. In order to settle that lawsuit based upon the Developer's use of an old or stale Environmental Impact Report, the Developer made payments to the CEQA challengers. The development process has gone forward. In the recent real estate market upswing, the Developer presumably pocketed substantial sums from its project. Nevertheless, the Developer seeks to further increase its profitability by passing off some of its development costs onto other property owners in the area. The City currently is considering whether to increase the Developer's profit. As set forth below, however, that District or tax is rife with problems and will, if adopted, subject the City to protracted litigation concerning its constitutionality/legality. In an April 17, 2000, settlement agreement with the Developer, the City promised that it would "in good faith . . . attempt" to establish a program to reimburse the Developer $812 , 000 in so-called "reimbursable costs. " That settlement agreement does not compel the City's adoption of this or any other reimbursement program that does not meet with the City Council's approval. If, after due consideration, the City Council elects not to adopt this District, the City is under no PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 5 obligation to reimburse the Developer for the $812, 000 identified in the settlement agreement. The Council should not adopt this program. 3. THE CITY CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT ANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN QUESTION RECEIVED A "BENEFIT" FROM THE DEVELOPER'S PROJECT; THE PROPOSED DISTRICT AMOUNTS TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXACTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. After the City determined that no excess capacity was created by the Developer's improvements, the claimed legal authority for the District is Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance sections 254. 02 and 255. 04 (B) . These ordinances purport to require any developer of property within the City to improve and dedicate the adjoining right of way to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc. At the time of the Development Agreement, -the City determined that the improvement and dedication of the Goldenwest, Gothard, and Garfield rights of way to their ultimate width was necessitated by the Developer's project. The City conditioned its approval of the project upon such completion of that infrastructure, and the Developer never objected to or otherwise challenged that condition. The City has never determined, and does not now contend, that any of these improvements by the Developer generated excess capacity beyond what was necessary for the project. - At the March 4, 2002, public workshop on this matter, - City Attorney Scott Field repeatedly emphasized that the fees in question are not based upon a determination that the Developer constructed improvements having "supplemental capacity. " Nevertheless, Munifinancial's report references "oversized improvements" and Government Code section 66485 as providing justification for the District. In fact, Section 66485 only authorizes the collection of a "reasonable charge" from persons outside of a subdivision for their use of supplemental capacity created by the subdivision. That section does not apply where, as here, no supplemental capacity has been created. The City now seeks to require other property owners within the affected area to enhance the Developer's profit associated with the project. The City's claimed justification is that, absent the Developer's project, the other property owners would have been required to improve and dedicate their properties pursuant to sections 254 .02 and 255.04 (B) . The sole basis for the alleged "benefit" giving rise to the District is the presumed PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 6 improvement and dedication of private property by operation of those local ordinances. In order to establish that the proposed District is legal, the City necessarily must first demonstrate that the dedication upon which it is based could be exacted. Dedication of private property can only be required when there is a "rough proportionality" between the impacts of the proposed development and the required dedication. (Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854. ) The burden of proving this rough proportionality is -on the public entity attempting to exact the dedication. (Ehrlich, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 883 . ) Here, the City's only "support" for its dedication requirement is the presumed operation of sections 254 .02 and 255. 04 (B) . Few, if any, of the properties in question are in the process of development, however, so the City has no "proposed development" with which to compare the burden of the required dedication. Consequently, the City could not have performed the "rough proportionality" analysis. Lacking such information, the City cannot establish that the owners in question could be required to make those dedications. Moreover, to the extent that they purport to require a dedication of private property without regard to the impacts of any proposed development of the property, sections 254. 02 and 255.04 (B) are unconstitutional. Unable -to demonstrate that the individual property owners could be required to improve and dedicate the streets in question in the exact manner as called for in the project, the City cannot establish that any- of the properties--would be required to comply with sections 254 .02 and 255. 04 (B) and, therefore, received a "benefit" from the Developer's project. The City should and must take the proportionality- determination on -a case by case basis: 4. THE ISSUE OF DEDICATION WAS RAISED AND DETERMINED, CONCLUSIVELY, AT THE TIME THE CITY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTIES; THE CITY CANNOT "RELITIGATE" THE ISSUE NOW AFTER THE ACQUISITIONS ARE RESOLVED. Whether by condemnation or by acquisition under threat of condemnation, the City lent its eminent domain power, on behalf of the Developer, to acquire portions of most of the properties against which it now seeks to impose the District. In advance of those acquisitions, the City through its appraiser, staff, and the Developer's hand-picked outside counsel considered the possibility of future dedications and, finding such dedications likely, valued the properties accordingly. Where the City PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 7 determined that future development of the parcel would require dedication, the City's appraiser assigned nominal value to the frontage taken. For example: • APN 110-211-04, -05 (Ghodooshim - encyclopedia lots) : The City's appraiser, Mark Linnes,. MAI, determined that, absent any dedication requirement, this property would have a value of $7/sq. ft. But Mr. Linnes also determined that "the proposed street widening would be a required dedication to the city in order to obtain permits for development" of these parcels. Consequently, Mr. Linnes assigned a nominal value of 100 for the entire 4, 000 s.f. taking from this property. (Based upon Mr. Linnes' conclusions, the value of the part taken without the d?dication requirement would have been $281000. ) Based on Mr. Linnes' appraisal, the fee should only be $100 plus improvement costs. • APN 110-120-13, -14 (Thomas)2: Absent any dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes determined the value of these parcels to be $20/sq. ft. In light of the City's dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes assigned nominal values of $100 each for the 950 s.f. and 325 s.f. takings, respectively. (Based upon Mr. Linnes' conclusions, the value of the parts taken without the dedication requirement would have totaled $25, 500. ) • APN 111-220-02, -03 , -04 (-Brindle) : Absent any dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes determined the value of these parcels to be $15/sq. ft. In light of the -city's dedication requirement, Mr. Linnes assigned a nominal value for the total taking of 13, 600 s.f. 1 Pertinent portions of the appraisals by Mark Linnes, MAI, are contained within three appendices prepared by the City to demonstrate Munifinancial's fee calculations for the Goldenwest, Gothard, and Garfield right of way acquisitions. These , appendices are included within the City's file concerning this matter. By reference hereto, we incorporate those appendices into the administrative record of this proceeding. 2 John A. Thomas, Linda Thomas, Ronald I. Brindle, and Emily Ann Brindle do not oppose the inclusion of their properties within a District, but they object to the manner in which the City has calculated fees. PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 8 (Based upon Mr. Linnes' conclusions, the value of the parts taken without the dedication requirement -would have been $204, 000. ) The total amounts of compensation ultimately paid by the City and/or Developer for these and other parcels were greater than the conclusions of value for the fee takings set forth in Mr. Linnes' appraisals. That is because the resolution of an acquisition by or under threat of eminent domain includes many considerations other than compensation for the part taken in fee. The City also .was required to pay for slope and construction easements, severance damages to the owners' remainder parcels, improvements to the realty, business goodwill, fixtures and equipment, interest, costs, and, in the appropriate case, litigation expenses, etc. Any compensation for these items would be included within the total syms paid by the City/Developer in finalizing these acquisitions. The City's attorney, Scott Field, informed property owners at the public workshop on March 4, 2002, that the City is seeking reimbursement only for the amounts of compensation paid for the frontage takings; the City is not seeking reimbursement of compensation paid for slope and construction easements, improvements, severance damages, goodwill, etc. Nevertheless, in calculating the amounts for reimbursement, Munifinancial either has based its calculations on the total lump sum settlements or has charged owners the full value of Mr. Linnes' appraisal assuming no dedication requirement, which is contrary to its owner position. A condemnation award fixes once and for all the compensation to be paid for a taking of real property. (Ellena v. State of California (1977) 69 Cal.App. 3d 245, 254. ) Where property has been taken by -condemnation -or- acquired by deed, courts will assume that the owner has received, and the condemnor has paid, full compensation for the acquisition of property and the construction and use of the proposed public improvements in the 3 The City is in possession of files for each of the acquisitions upon which the current fees are based. Many of those acquisitions, including those for properties owned by Thomas, Brindle, Anderson/Goudy/Gum, Ghodooshim, Marow, and Borghetti, were involved in litigation. Each such file will provide the City Council with more information concerning the specific components of compensation than the "payment records" provided by Munifinancial in its appendices. By reference to these files hereto, we include them in the administrative record for this matter. PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 9 manner proposed. (Ibid. ) Whether property is acquired by condemnation or by consent, both the landowner and the condemnor are estopped from afterward prosecuting any action seeking to add to or subtract from the compensation previously paid. (Ibid. ) Moreover, where property in an eminent domain proceeding may be subject to dedication for public purposes, the condemnor may contend that the property could be taken without compensation paid, and its market value should therefore be recognized as only nominal. (See, e.g. , People ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Works v. Investors Diversified Servs. , Inc. (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 367. ) Consequently, where the issue of future dedication has been raised by the condemnor in an eminent domain proceeding, the compensation ultimately paid must be presumed to account for the likelihood of such future dedication in the value of the property acquired. The condemnor is estopped from later prosecuting an action on the basis that it paid too much compensation for the property. Here, the City's appraisal recognized the possibility of future dedication and assigned a nominal value to those parcels deemed subject to the dedication requirement. In the ensuing proceedings, which culminated in the City's and/or Developer's acquisitions of those parcels, the City must have either (a) enforced its dedication requirement and paid nominal compensation for the fee takings; or (b) decided not to enforce its dedication requirement in those negotiations. In the event that the City enforced its dedication requirement, the owners must be deemed to have received nominal compensation only for the -fee takings. Absent any showing to the contrary by the City, the balance of any sums paid to the owners must have represented compensation for slope and temporary easements, severance- damages, improvements, goodwill, etc. Based upon the City's fee methodology, those sums cannot be considered in calculating the fees to be paid for the parts taken. Moreover, having paid only nominal value-.for these parts taken, the City cannot now extract a fee based upon the representation that it paid full value of the part taken. In the event that the City ultimately elected not to enforce its dedication requirement, that election must be deemed binding upon the City. Having done so, the City thereby deprived the owners of the opportunity to require the City to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate the likelihood of such dedication. By taking the position that the property in question is now subject to a dedication requirement, and that the owners must give back whatever was paid to them in the prior action, the City effectively is attempting to "undo" the eminent domain proceeding PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 10 to reduce the compensation paid. Under Ellena, -the amount of compensation paid for the properties has been conclusively established, and the City is estopped from asserting otherwise in a subsequent proceeding. 5. THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION FEES OVERSTATE THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE OWNERS FOR THE FRONTAGE. In calculating the amounts of the fees to be charged for right of way acquisition, the City has utilized one of two methods: (a) basing compensation on the total lump sum payments made by the City to the individual owners; or (b) basing compensation on the full amount of Mr. Linnes' appraisals absent dedication, a position contrary to that which the City took in litigation in which it asserted nominal value for the frontage. In the case of the former, the City's fee calculation erroneously assumes that the amount of compensation paid consisted only of compensation for the part taken in fee. In the case of the latter, the City's fee calculation erroneously assumes that the property owner received compensation equal to the full amount of Mr. Linnes' appraisal assuming no dedication requirement. In both cases, the resulting calculation overstates the amounts of compensation actually received by the owners for the parts taken in fee. Calculations based upon the total lump sum payment made by the City to the individual owners are wrong because they fail to take into account compensation paid for other aspects of the condemnation, such as compensation for slope and construction easements, improvements, goodwill, etc. For example: • APN 110-211-04 (Ghodooshim - encyclopedia lots) : The City proposes to charge an acquisition fee of $4, 035 for 18 ft. of frontage based upon the compensation of $4,483 .33 for the full 20 ft. taking. The City essentially seeks to charge the property owner the full amount of the compensation received as the value of the part taken in fee. But, according to Mr. Linnes' appraisal, compensation for the fee taking represented just 7% of the total compensation to be paid for this parcel. In addition to ignoring any compensation for the slope and construction easements, the City's fee calculation ignores the fact that the amount paid to the owner also included compensation for severance damages, interest, litigation expenses, costs, and other litigation considerations. In the litigation, the City's position was that the property was undevelopable. PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City council April 1, 2002 Page 11 • APN 111-150-15, -16 (Anderson/Goudy/Gum) : The City proposes to charge an acquisition fee of $29,778.48 per parcel. This sum, which amounts to compensation of $29.78/sq. ft. , is based upon total compensation of $175,798 per lot, less $116,241.04 paid for improvements. In fact, the owners' total compensation also included substantial claims for severance damages, business goodwill, interest, costs and litigation expenses. (The City's own appraiser determined there to be severance damages caused by the taking, which damages are not accounted for and excluded from the City's calculations. ) Moreover, the effective amount of the charge, at $29.78/sq. ft. , is nearly 50o greater than Mr. Linnes' conclusion of value for the property. Calculations based solely upon the amount of Mr. Linnes' appraisal of that property, or the amount of his appraisal of other properties, are similarly erroneous. For example: • APN 111-120-13 (Thomas) : As part of the resolution of litigation commenced by Mr. Thomas (and others) against the Developer and other parties, the defendants agreed to pay Mr. Thomas a lump sum settlement of $815,000. This unallocated amount included compensation for Mr. Thomas' interests in certain parcels as well as any compensation for damages to his remainder properties, improvements, etc. This sum also included compensation for the settlement of all other issues raised in the proceeding, as well as any and all other claims that may have existed between the parties. The City does not attempt to allocate this lump sum -settlement but, rather, assumes payment of $20/sq. ft. , which represents the full value of Mr. Linnes' appraisal (assuming no dedication requirement) . In fact, the actual amount of Mr. -Linnes' valuation conclusion for this parcel was lust $100 due to his assumption that dedication would be a requirement. The City has no basis for assuming that Mr. Thomas received anything more. than nominal value for the part taken in fee. • APN 111-120-17 (Thomas) : Compensation for this parcel also was included within Mr. Thomas' lump sum settlement. The City did not have an appraisal of this property, however, so it simply applied the $20/sq. ft. value of another property. In fact, Mr. Linnes' conclusion of compensation for that other parcel was $100, based upon the likelihood of dedication. As with the parcels for which it actually had an appraisal, the City had no basis for assuming that Mr. Thomas received anything more than nominal value for the part taken in fee. PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 12 In order to establish that the fees are just and fair, the City first must establish that it actually paid those amounts for the frontage in question. The information currently available to the City Council does not establish what the City actually paid for the parts taken in fee. Based upon the owners' claims for compensation for severance damages, easements, etc. , the currently-proposed fees attempt to allocate lump sum settlements. 6. THE PROVISION FOR INTEREST TO ACCRUE ON THE ACQUISITION PORTION OF THE FEE, AS WELL AS THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUNSET PROVISION ON THE IMPROVEMENT PORTION OF THE FEE, ARE IMPROPER AND UNFAIR; BOTH ASPECT OF THE DISTRICT ENCOURAGE IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES. The proposed District includes an annual inflationary adjustment to the total amount of the fee, including that portion attributable to the right of way acquisition. While such inflationary adjustments may be proper under certain circumstances, they are not proper where, as here, the public entity already enjoys the use and benefits of the property in question. In the eminent domain context, the California legislature has determined that possession of the property taken shall offset the accrual of interest on the compensation to be paid for that property. (See Code Civ. Proc. , S 1268. 330 (a) . ) Here, the City effectively paid for the early use of the owners' properties due to demands for infrastructure generated by the Developer's project. Although the owners are in possession of what compensation may be attributed to the fee takings, the City is in possession of the property. And, while the Developer and the public have already received the benefit of the roadway improvements, the owners will receive no benefit until their properties -are developed.- - Under these circumstances, the owners should not be required to bear the additional burden of paying the "inflation" that accrues on property for which they are no longer in possession. Also, as identified in the staff's report to the City Council, the District contains no "sunset clause" that would terminate the district after 20 years. City staff recommends against such a clause on the grounds that (a) it would encourage deferral of property development and (b) the property owners have received the benefit of the improvements for many years. First, the sunset provision is necessary to avoid having property owners pay for the construction of improvements that, after 20 years, will be obsolete and/or in substantially deteriorated condition. Moreover, should the District include inflationary adjustments to the improvement portions of the fees, that amounts owed by the PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 13 owners will continually increase even as the value and utility of the improvements decreases. The City's contention that owners will have received the benefit of the improvements for many years simply makes no sense. In order to receive any claimed "benefit, " under the City's analysis, the owners first must develop their properties. The owners receive no benefit from these improvements unless and until their properties are developed. As to the contention that a sunset clause would encourage deferred development, both the inflationary adjustments and the absence of a sunset clause strongly encourage immediate development of the properties in question. As time passes, and the fees continue to mount, the costs of development dramatically increase. For a City that increasingly has become concerned with tempering its . growth, these two elements of the proposed District are at odds with a slow growth policy. 7. OTHER PROBLEMS PERSIST WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH FEES WERE CALCULATED FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. Munifinancial repeatedly has discovered errors in its fee calculations, each time necessitating substantial changes to the fees that are proposed to burden these property for years to come. The fees included with the staff report on this agenda item are substantially different even from those presented to the property owners at the public workshop on March 5, 2002 . At that workshop, the City and Munifinancial essentially attempted to shift the burden -of ensuring the correctness and fairness of the fees by requiring property owners to point out errors in the fee calculations or risk having them erroneously charged. Numerous problems persist in the fee calculations. Certain of these already have been noted in the preceding sections of this lette4 . Others include,. but are not limited to, the following: • APN 111-110-15 (Ramsay) : The City proposes to charge this owner an acquisition fee of $4, 600 based solely upon a payment record, with no supporting 4 The City's attorney did not make the appendices available for inspection until last week. Due to time constraints, as well as the recent changes in the fee numbers, we have been unable to fully analyze and document all errors with Munifinancial's calculations. PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council April 1, 2002 Page 14 documentation, for that amount. The City has no information concerning the area of the take, or if there even was one. Assuming that there was a take, the City has no information concerning the parcel 's frontage, right of way depth, etc. Faced with the payment record and nothing else, the City simply has assumed that "not all ROW dedicated and ROW Charge equals payment received. " Yet the City has no records upon which to base this assumption. APNs 110-211-02 (Borghetti) and 110-211-03 (Marow) : In both of these cases, the City actually acquired the entire parcels, and the amounts paid reflected the full amount of compensation received for those parcels. Thus, Marow received total compensation of $39, 000 for all of her interests in two parcels, and Borghetti received total compensation of $19, 500 for all of his interests in one parcel. Not bothering to check the City's files concerning these acquisitions, Munifinancial seeks to charge these owners what amounts to the full amount of compensation for the entire parcel for just the front 18 feet. This problem likely will come to the City's attention as a future date, as the parcels currently are under City ownership. Munifinancial's fee calculations are premised upon pivotal "assumptions" concerning matters such as the amount of a parcel 's frontage, the area of property taken, the allocation of the compensation paid, the value of the part taken, etc. Any one of these unsubstantiated assumptions could, as in the examples above, result in serious overstatement of the fees to be charged, if any. In light of this level of attention given to such key issues, the Munifinancial report is inherently unreliable and should not be used -as the basis for burdening these properties with substantially erroneous fees. Your attention to this matter would. be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949/851-7294. Very truly yours,-4� �/ 4/ - Michael H. Leifer MHL:cg cc: Scott F. Field Affected Property Owners (See attached service list) BusinessName Address Cit State APNS 1. Robert Ghodooshim 320 Crown Drive Huntington 110-211- Beach, CA O1 90049 2 . S & C Oil Co Inc 4952 Warner Huntington 111-120- Avenue Beach, CA O1 92649 3 . Bernard A. Leckie 1616 Lincoln Newport 111-120- Lane Beach, CA 11 92660 4. Travis B. Mitchell 355 Bristol Costa Mesa, 111-120- Street Suite A CA 92626 27 5. Weir Oil Co Inc 401 20th Street Huntington 111-120- Beach, CA 28 92648 6. Bobbie G. Williams 4952 Warner Huntington 111-130- Avenue Beach, CA 14 92649 7. Wilvian J. Renner 807 Frankfort Huntington 111-130- Avenue Beach, CA 15 92648 8. Jerry J. Galich 939 loth Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 15 92648 9. Robert P. and 16242 Tisbury Huntington 111-110- Constance L. Circle Beach, CA 18 Mandic Jr. 92649 10. Thomas I. Greer, 18272 Fieldbury Huntington 111-110- Jr. Lane Beach, CA 19 92648 11. Michael Ramsey 19372 Woodlands Huntington 111-110- Lane Beach, CA 20 92648 12 . Karen D. Pedersen 610 Main Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 21 92648 13 . Gustafson Brothers 19161 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Inc Street Beach, CA 18 92648 14. John A. Gustafson 19161 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Street Beach, CA 19 92648 15. Gary and Debra 9937 Currant Fountain 111-140- Everroad Avenue Valley, CA 27 92708 16. James Telford 8800 Fritsch Austin, TX 111-140- Drive 78717 38 17. Bob Andersen 19082 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street Beach, CA 15 92648 18. Ora Beth Scott 2982 Country Costa Mesa, 111-150- Club Drive CA 92626 17 19. Arline Joan 2262 Avenida San Camarillo, ill-150- Robrecht Antero CA 93010 19 20. Marion E. 5237 Rosemead San 111-150- Burlingham Boulevard Gabriel, CA 21 91776 21. Willis M. Elliott 19411 Worchester Huntington 111-150- Lane Beach, CA 24 92646 22. Christopher Taylor 1840 Pine Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 14 92648 23 . Charles H. Bollman P.O. Box 875 Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 31 92648 24 . Jack Dean Weide 1007 Florida Huntington 111-110- Street Beach, CA 33 92648 25. Paul Novak 7181 Garfield Huntington 111-110- Avenue Beach, CA 36 92648 26. Boodman-Gordon 6268 Surfboard Huntington 111-110- Investments Circle Beach, CA 37 92648 2 27. Mary S. Muck 119 North Monrovia, 111-130- Mountain Avenue, CA 91016 02 #A 28. Gary K. and 19691 Trident Huntington 111-130- Virginia C. Powell Lane Beach CA 05 92646 29. Helen V. Petersen 8755 Kings Hill Salt Lake 111-130- Carol Ann Winter Drive City, UT 06 84121 30. Donald A. Weir 401 20th Street, Huntington 111-140- Apt. A Beach, CA 02 92648 31. Weaver & Mola 19061 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Street Beach, CA 04 92648 32 . Dolores K. Lingle 20529 Vaccaro Torrance, 111-140- Avenue CA 90503 07 33 . Loma Linda Loma Linda, 111-140- University CA 92350 09 34 . Gloria Bradeson 5 Rue Cannes Newport 159-281- Hassett Beach, CA 03 92660 35. Jack Santiago 310 14th Street Huntington 111-150- Beach, CA 30 92648 36. Southridge Homes 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 36 201 92648 37 . Richard P. Kelter 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 37 201 92648 38 . R. L. Sfreddo 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Beach, CA 38 Suite 201 92648 3 39. Southridge Homes 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 39 201 92648 4 SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 8:58ANi 7143741557;# 2/ 2 LAW QF'FIC.F PALMIERI, T i'LER, WIENER, W1LkIELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PAPTNLWil lIP IMCL'JDING PROFESSIONAL COnP011A110N* <1603 MAIN STH!P;F..T ANGCLO J. PALMIERI (1326_1"61 ILA$T TOWER• SUITC 130p P• O. HAX 19712 ROBERT F.WALDRON 119?7-1998). IRVINE,CA 32623-]71? I IxvINE, CALIFORNIA 9T6146228 4LAN H.W16N En• JANY C. WEISBERG ROBERT C. IHnKC' MIl .1 H. LEIFER (9491 a51-9400 Wkl'lli:It L DIRECT JAVES E.WILHELM' SCOT-F H.CARPENTER www.ptwvivi.com I nENNIi G.YYLEn' LICIIARM A. yAI,US (90 NUMBER A AL NUMBER MICHAEL J.GREENE' NORMAN J. 4OpIC11 PRANK C.ROTHROCK' D.SUSAN WIL MIAifi3r@?ptwww.com nCNNI$W,GHAN' RONALD M.COLE DAVIU U, I-A Po LVCEC S. KIRKA April 1, 2002 CHARLES H, KANTFn' PAUL B.LA SCALA FACSIMILE (9491 Ij,�1_I�r•1 GEORGE J.WALL MIONgCI L D'ANGEL.O C-19)E�1-39'I'I L. RICHARD RAWLS CIIA,RLL5 '];.KROLIKCWSKI (St991 7G7-122S PATRICK A. HENNES— LIg14UL!N Y. IIAMADA 19491 85I.23SI CON FI.,HFR St CPHEN A.SCHECK GREOORY N,WEI;Fn 11rAT11LS C.WHITMORE WAnnFN A. WILLIAMS EL14E L. ENOM070 JOHN R.LISTER RYAN M.L'A�fER REFER TO FILE NO. CYNTNIA M.W01,C OTT .:H/`.l:C LEE JOEL P. AEW DAVIT) H. CULM_R 16193`027 MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO OF CCUNS MR1411N J. tILIN 'A I`POIC�.IOF AL COPPOPATIOeI VIA FACSIMILE Mayor and Members of the City Council City clerk's Office , City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Proposed Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Having received no response to our request for additional time with regard to the above-referenced item, this office spent considerable time over the past holiday weekend preparing for today's public hearing. We will be filing our written objections to the proposed City Counsel action, Agenda Item D-4, later today, and we will be prepared to present all of our objections to this matter before the City Council at the hearing tonight. We hereby withdraw our request to have the matter continued. Instead, we will be asking the City Council to consider our objections, and those of interested property owners, and to deny the proposed action at tonight's hearing. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949/851-7294. Very truly yours, 614 Michael H. Leifer MHL:cg Cc: Scott F. Field (via facsimile) N1 J ��T� c� M� IJ\TioJ � SENT BY: 4- 1- 2 ; 8:58M y 7143741557;# 1/ 2 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS TELECOPIER (949) 861-1554 2603 MAIN STREET WRITER'S DIRGCT (949) 851-3844 EAST TOWER— SUITE 1300 DIAL NUMBER (949) 757-1225 P.O. BOX 19712 (949) 851-7294 (949) 851-2351 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92814-6228 mlelfer®ptwww.com (949) 869-9400 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: April 1,2002 Time: 8:55 AM File Name: Thomas/Impact Fee File No.: 16193-027 T_ C To (?�' e J Fax No. Telephone No. City of Huntington Bcach (714) 374-15S7 (714)536-5227 �-,_`s'; From: Michael H- I.eifcr — ©� o— TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS FORM IS: = A Message: PLEASE SEEATTACHED. o D ORIGINAL WILL: i BE SENT BY MAIL ;!'1: BE SENT BY FEDEXIOVERNIGHT COURIER LM BE SENT BY MESSENGER [ NOT BE SENT (ET BE SENT BY E-MAIL If all pages are not received,please call Pam Rothman at 9( 49)8�1-7325. THIS COVER SHEET AND ANY DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING IT ARE INTENDED FOR THS INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY SET FORTX AS THE ADDRESSEE, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IP YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMWMICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE SO THAT ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE FOR RETURNING THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US. THANK YOU. LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2603 MAIN STREET ANGELO J. PALMIERI (1926-1996) EAST TOWER-SUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 19712 ROBERT F. WALDRON (1927-1998) IRVINE, CA 92623-9712 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-6228 ALAN H. WIENER' GARY C. WEISBERG ROBERT C. IHRKE* MICHAEL H. LEIFER (949) 851-9400 WRITER'S DIRECT JAMES E. WILHELM* SCOTT R. CARPENTER www.ptwww.com DIAL NUMBER DENNIS G. TYLER' RICHARD A. SALUS (949) 851-7294 MICHAEL J. GREENE* NORMAN J. RODICH FRANK C. ROTHROCK' D. SUSAN WIENS pq Q "'i"'Qptwww.com DENNIS W. GHAN* RONALD M. COLE R E H E I tl E DAVID D. PARR* LUCEE S. KIRKA March 28, 2002 FACSIMILE (949) 851-1554 C HARLES H. KANTER* PAUL B. LA SCALA GEORGE J. WALL MICHAEL L. D'ANGELO APR 0 L F�00F�L (949) 851-3844 L. RICHARD RAWLS CHARLES S. KROLIKOWSKI N P Il{, 19491 757-1225 PATRICK A. HENNESSEY DAROLYN Y. HAMADA (949) 8S1-2351 DON FISHER STEPHEN A. SCHECK GREGORY N. WEILER HEATHER C. WHITMORE City of Huntington Beach WARREN A. WILLIAMS ELISE L. ENOMOTO City Council Office JOHN R. LISTER RYAN M. EASTER REFER TO FILE NO. CYNTHIA M. WOLCOTT GRACE LEE JOEL P. KEW DAVID H. CULMER 1 6 1 93-027 MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO OF COUNSEL MARTIN J. STEIN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL a 711 Mayor and Members of the City Council ;L�==.- City Clerk's OfficeCD City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street CD Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -0 > r - Re: Proposed Holly-Seacliff' Area of Benefit District , r, No. 1 r D Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: The City Council is currently scheduled to consider adoption of a resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1 (the "benefit district") on April 1, 2002. The purpose of this letter is to request that the City Council continue its hearing on the proposed benefit district for four weeks in order to provide the affected property owners sufficient time in which to prepare for the hearing. On March 51 2002, the City held a "public workshop" for the claimed purpose of discussing the benefit district with affected property owners. That workshop was a sham. The City representatives present for the workshop (Scott Field, Dave Webb, and a representative of Munifinancial) came unprepared to discuss the specific manner of calculation of the proposed right of way acquisition costs to be charged to each individual property. (These costs comprise fully 80% of the proposed fees to be imposed under the benefit district. ) Property owners with questions regarding those fees were -instructed to contact Mr. Webb and to demonstrate-for him .any problems or calculation errors that they could ' find in -Munifinancial 's ''conclusions on their own. PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council March 28, 2002 Page 2 During the workshop, we requested Mr. Field to immediately produce Munifinancial 's entire file concerning the proposed benefit district, including all documents actually relied upon by Munifinancial ' in determining the specific amounts of fees to be charged to individual parcels for alleged right of way acquisition costs. (In fact, those documents should have been produced several months prior to the workshop in response to this office's public records requests. ) Mr. Field agreed to produce the .documents promptly. Although that request was made on March 5, 2002, Munifinancial 's file was not produced until March 19, 2002 . The most important document, an appendix of documents setting forth Munifinancial ' s actual fee calculations, was not made available until after March 21, 2002 . The City Attorney's office unreasonably delayed making available documents that are essential to the public's understanding of the proposed benefit district and the associated fees. Mr. Field's sandbagging of important supporting documentation has prejudiced all affected property owners in their ability to prepare and speak meaningfully about the proposed benefit district at the April 1, 2002, hearing. The City Attorney's office should not be permitted to gain an unfair advantage over those affected property owners simply by withholding important information. If the City Council's consideration of the proposed benefit district is not continued, the City effectively will be sanctioning the City Attorney's denial of due process rights to all property owners potentially affected by this City action. Your attention to this Natter would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949/851-7294 . Very t my your Mich H. fe MHL:cg cc: Scott F. Field Affected Property Owners (See attached service list) BusinessName Address Cit State APNS 1. Robert Ghodooshim 320 Crown Drive Huntington 110-211- Beach, CA 01 90049 2. S & C Oil Co Inc 4952 Warner Huntington 111-120- Avenue Beach, -CA O1 - 92649 - 3 . Bernard A. Leckie 1616 Lincoln Newport 111-120- - Lane Beach, CA --- 11 92660 4. Travis -B. Mitchell 355 Bristol Costa Mesa, 111-120- Street Suite A CA 92626 27 5. Weir Oil Co Inc 401 20th Street Huntington 111-120- Beach, CA 28 92648 6. Bobbie G. Williams 4952 Warner Huntington 111-,130- Avenue Beach, CA 14 92649 7. Wilvian J. Renner 807 Frankfort. Huntington 111-130- Avenue Beach, CA 15 92648 8. Jerry J. Galich 939 loth Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 15 92648 9. Robert P. and 16242 Tisbury Huntington 111-110- Constance L. Circle Beach, CA 18 Mandic Jr. 92649 10. Thomas I. Greer, 18272 Fieldbury Huntington" 111-110- Jr. Lane Beach, CA 19 92648 11. -Michael -Ramsey 19372 Woodlands- -, 'Huntington 111-110- Lane Beach, . CA - 20 92648 12 . Karen D. Pedersen 610 Main Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 21 92648 13 . Gustafson Brothers 19161 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Inc Street Beach, CA 18 92648 14. John A. Gustafson 19161 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Street Beach, CA 19 92648 15. Gary and Debra 9937 Currant Fountain 111-140- Everroad Avenue Valley, CA 27 92708 16. James Telford 8800 Fritsch Austin, TX 111-140- Drive 78717 38 17. Bob Andersen 19082 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street Beach, CA 15 92648 18. Ora Beth Scott 2982 Country Costa Mesa, 111-150- Club Drive CA 92626 17 19. Arline Joan 2262 Avenida San Camarillo, 111-150- Robrecht Antero CA 93010 19 -20. Marion E. 5237 Rosemead - San 111-150- Burlingham Boulevard Gabriel, CA 21 91776 21. Willis M. Elliott - 19411 Worchester Huntington 111-150- Lane Beach, CA 24 -92646 22. Christopher Taylor 1840 Pine Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 14 92648 - 23 . - Charles H. Bollman P.O. Box 875 Huntington 111-110- _ Beach, CA 31 92648 24. Jack Dean Weide 1007 Florida Huntington 111-110- Street Beach, CA 33 92648 25. Paul Novak 7181 Garfield Huntington 111-110- Avenue Beach, CA 36 92648 26. Boodman-Gordon 6268 Surfboard Huntington 111-110- Investments Circle Beach, CA 37 92648 2 27. Mary S. Muck 119 North Monrovia, 111-130- Mountain Avenue, CA 91016 02 #A 28. Gary K. and 19691 Trident Huntington 111-130- Virginia C. Powell Lane Beach CA 05 92646 29. Helen V. Petersen 8755 Kings Hill Salt Lake 111-130- Carol Ann Winter Drive City, UT 06 84121 30. Donald A. Weir 401 20th Street, Huntington 111-140- Apt. A Beach, CA 02 92648 31. Weaver & Mola 19061 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Street Beach, CA 04 92648 32 . Dolores K. Lingle 20529 Vaccaro Torrance, 111-140- Avenue CA 90503 07 33 . Loma Linda Loma Linda, 111-140- University CA 92350 09 34 . Gloria Bradeson 5 Rue Cannes Newport 159-281- Hassett Beach, CA 03 92660 35. Jack Santiago 310 14th Street Huntington 111-150- Beach, CA 30 92648 36. Southridge Homes 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 36 201 E• 92648 - 37. Richard P. Kelter 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 37 201 92648 38. R. L. Sfreddo 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Beach, CA 38 Suite 201 92648 3 39. Southridge Homes 18281 Gothard Huntington i11-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 39 201 92648 4 SENT BY: 3-28- 2 :11:53A69 7143741557;# 2/ 7 I.AW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLFR, W.11 NLR, WILIIELM & WALDRON LJAI A LIMITEU I.IAHIIIIY I+ TNCRU511M INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Q.I MAIN tiTRF_ET ANUCLO J. PALMIERI 119 2 0-199 61 EAST TOWER—SUITE 1300 I', O. HUA 19/Ik: ROBERT F.WALDRON(1927-IRAP.) IRVINE,CA 92623-9712 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614r622B ALAN H.WIENER' GARY C..WF15HF,ur, ROBERT C. !HRKE' MICHAEL H. LEIFEII (949) 1551 9400 WRITER'S DIk F;C't JAMES E.WILHELM* SCOTT R.CARPENTER VVWW.ptWWW.coTTI �IIA N MOF� OCNNIO G.TYLCR• RICHARD A.3ALUi MICIIACL J. GRCCNC' NORMAN J.ROOICH FIIANK C. ROl'HROC:K' D. 71j7AN WI!113 mlel/erQptwww.com DENNIS W. CHAN' RONAI.D M. COLC March 28 2002 DAVIO D. PARR- LUCEE S. MIRKA / CHARLES H. KANTER* PAUL 9, LA SCALA FACSIMILE (C+4 P1 F1':.I'ly:W UEURGE J.WALL MICHAEL L. D'ANOELO IH<91 9G138MI L.RICHARD RAWLS CHARLES S.KROI.IKOWFKI (9,19) 757-122S PATRICK A,HENNESSEY DAROLYN Y. HAMADA (9491 RSI-23S1 DON FISHER STEPHEN A. $CHOCK GREGORY N.WEILER HEATHER C.WHITMORF. WARREN A,WILUAMS F059 I, FNOMOTO 0 JOHN R. LISTER RYAN M. EASTER CYNTHIA M.WOLCOTT GRACE LEE REFL1a�T0 EL:(E NO. JOEL P.KEW DAVID H. CULMER j91Q=027c-) MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO ) — Or r.OUNsr.I N) Q y�' MARTIN J.STEIN Co mo VIA FACSIMILE A U.S. MAIL ) 77 s Mayor and Members of the City Council In C-) City Clerk's Office o m City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Proposed Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: The City Council is currently scheduled to consider adoption of a resolution establishing the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1 (the "benefit district") on April 1, 2002. The purpose of this letter is to request that the City Council continue its hearing on the proposed benefit district for four weeks in order to provide the affected property owners sufficient time in which to prepare for the hearing. On March 5, 2002, the City held a "public workshop" for the claimed purpose of discussing the benefit district with affected property owners. That workshop was a sham. The City representatives present for the workshop (Scott Field, Dave Webb, and a representative of MunifinanCial) came unprepared to discuss the specific manner of calculation of the proposed right of way acquisition costs to be charged to each individual property. (These costs comprise fully 80% of the proposed fees to be imposed under the benefit district. ) Property owners with questions regarding those fees were instructed to contact Mr. Webb and to demonstrate for him any problems or calculation errors that they could find in Munifinancial's conclusions on their own. SENT BY: 3-28- 2 ;11:53ANI y 7143741557;# 3/ 7 PALMIERI, TY1 ER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP Mayor and Members of the City Council March 28, 2002 Page 2 During the workshop, we requested Mr. Field to immediately produce Munifinancial's entire file concerning the proposed benefit district, including all documents actually relied upon by Munifinancial in determining the specific amounts of fees to be charged to individual parcels for alleged right of way acquisition costs. (In fact, those documents should have been produced several months prior to the workshop in response to this office's public records requests. ) Mr. Field agreed to produce the documents promptly. Although that request was made on March 5, 2002, Munifinancial's file was not produced until March 19, 2002. The most important document, an appendix ofdocuments setting forth Munifinancial's actual fee calculations, was not made available until after March 21, 2002. The City Attorney's office unreasonably delayed making available documents that are essential to the public's understanding of the proposed benefit district and the associated fees. Mr. Field's sandbagging of important supporting documentation has prejudiced all affected property owners in their ability to prepare and speak meaningfully about the proposed benefit district at the April 1, 2002, hearing. The City Attorney's office should not be permitted to gain an unfair advantage over those affected property owners simply by withholding important information. If the City council's consideration of the proposed benefit district is not continued, the City effectively will be sanctioning the City Attorney's denial of due process rights to all property owners potentially affected by this City action. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949/851-7294. Very my yours, Mich H. f MHL:cg cc: Scott F. Field Affected Property Owners (See attached service list) SENT BY: 3-28- 2 ;11:53AM y 7143741557;# 4/ 7 BusinessName Address Cit State APNS 1. Robert Ghodooshim 320 Crown Drive Huntington 110-211- Beach, CA 01 90049 2. S & C Oil Co Inc 4952 Warner Huntington 111-120- Avenue Beach, CA 01 92649 3. Bernard A. Leckie 1616 Lincoln Newport 111-120- Lane Beach, CA 11 92660 4. Travis B. Mitchell 355 Bristol Costa Mesa, 111-120- Street Suite A CA 92626 27 5. Weir oil Co Inc 401 20th Street Huntington 111-120- Beach, CA 28 92648 6. Bobbie G. Williams 4952 Warner Huntington 111-130- Avenue Beach, CA 14 92649 7. Wilvian J. Renner 807 Frankfort Huntington 111-130- Avenue Beach, CA 15 92648 8. Jerry J. Galich 939 10th Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 15 92648 9. Robert P. and 16242 Tisbury Huntington 111-110- Constance L. Circle Beach, CA 18 Mandic Jr. 92649 10. Thomas I. Greer, 18272 Fieldbury Huntington 111-110- Jr. Lane Beach, CA 19 92648 11. Michael Ramsey 19372 Woodlands Huntington 111-110- Lane Beach, CA 20 92648 12. Karen D. Pedersen 610 Main Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 21 92648 13. Gustafson Brothers 19161 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Inc Street Beach, CA 18 92648 SENT BY: 3-28- 2 ;11:54AM y 7143741557;# 5/ 7 14. John A. Gustafson 19161 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Street Beach, CA 19 92648 15. Gary and Debra 9937 Currant Fountain 111-140- Everroad Avenue Valley, CA 27 92708 16. James Telford 8800 Fritsch Austin, TX 111-140- Drive 78717 38 17. Bob Andersen 19082 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street Beach, CA 15 92648 18. Ora Beth Scott 2982 Country Costa Mesa, 111-150- Club Drive CA 92626 17 19. Arline Joan 2262 Avenida San Camarillo, 111-150- Robrecht Antero CA 93010 19 20. Marion E. 5237 Rosemead San 111-150- Burlingham Boulevard Gabriel, CA 21 91776 21. Willis M. Elliott 19411 Worchester Huntington 111-150- Lane Beach, CA 24 92646 22. Christopher Taylor 1840 Pine Street Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 14 92648 23. Charles H. Bollman P.O. Box 875 Huntington 111-110- Beach, CA 31 92648 24. Jack Dean Weida 1007 Florida Huntington 111-110- Street Beach, CA 33 92648 25. Paul Novak 7181 Garfield Huntington 111-110- Avenue Beach, CA 36 92648 26. Boodman-Gordon 6268 Surfboard Huntington 111-110- Investments Circle Beach, CA 37 92648 2 SENT BY: 3-28- 2 ;11:54A11 y 7143741557;# 611 7 27. Mazy S. Muck 119 North Monrovia, 111-130- Mountain Avenue, CA 91016 02 �A 28. Gary K. and 19691 Trident Huntington 111-130- Virginia C. Powell Lane Beach CA 05 92646 29. Helen V. Petersen 8755 Kings Hill Salt Lake 111-130- Carol Ann Winter Drive City, UT 06 84121 30. Donald A. Weir 401 20th Street, Huntington 111-140- Apt. A Beach, CA 02 92648 31. Weaver & Mola 19061 Gothard Huntington 111-140- Street Beach, CA 04 92648 32. Dolores K. Lingle 20529 Vaccaro Torrance, 111-140- Avenue CA 90503 07 33. Loma Linda Loma Linda, 111-140- University CA 92350 09 34. Gloria Bradeson 5 Rue Cannes Newport 159-281- Hassett Beach, CA 03 92660 35. Jack Santiago 310 14th Street Huntington 111-150- Beach, CA 30 92648 36. Southridge Homes 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 36 201 92648 37. Richard P. Kelter 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 37 201 92648 38. R. L. Sfreddo 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Beach, CA 38 Suite 201 92648 3 SENT BY: 3-28- 2 ;11.54AI y 7143741557;4 7/ 7 39. Southridge Homes 18281 Gothard Huntington 111-150- Street, Suite Beach, CA 39 201 92648 4 SENT BY: 3-28- 2 ;11:52Ahi 7143741357;* 1/ 7 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS TELECOPIER (949) 851-1554 2603 MAIN STREET WRITER'S DIRECT (949) 851-3844 EAST TOWER •- SUITE 1300 DIAL NUMBER (949) 757-1225 P.O. BOX 19712 (949) 851-7294 (849) 051-2351 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-6228 mIsIfereptwww.Com (949) 861-9400 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: March 28,2002 Time: 11:49 AM File Name: Thomas/Impact Fee File NO.: 16193-027 To: MAYOR&MEMBERS OF THE CITY Fax No. Telephone No. COUNCIL c/o CITY CLERK,City of Huntington Beach (714)374-1557 (714) 536-5227 From: Michael H.Leifer TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS FORM IS: Message: PLEASESEEATTACHED. ORIGINAL WILL: BE SENT BY MAIL ;+ BE SENT BY FEDEX/OVERNICHT COURIER If' BE SENT BY MESSENGER NOT BE SENT r BE SENT BY E-MAIL If all pages are not received,please call Pam Rothman at(949)851-7325. a c o Z 50 C7--!1 N O—I�C^i CO �-<C7[" w o r' rri D v z — s THIS COVER SHEET AND ANY DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING IT ARE INTENDED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY SST FORTH AS THE ADDREBBER, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERTNG THE NS88AGS TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE 80 THAT ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE FOR RETURNING THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO DS. THANK YOU. J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney 5 DATE: March 27,2002 SUBJECT: Holly Seacliff-Area Benefit District—April 1, 2002 Hearing Attached please find two (2) letters we received in connection with the April 1, 2002 hearing on the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District. Scott Field Assistant City Attorney a c o N O� co n � VJ S CI1 co D D-- SF/g:02 memo/Brockway S� 4 PALS INC.- PLUMBING & FIRE PROTECTION ? '� ,,.� �;1 9: 53 7072 GARFIELD AVE. s;= J` HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. - '" � 7 0 n''E Y 92648 CH PH: (714) 375-1227 FAX: (714) 847-5767 SCOTT FIELD RE;CITY OF HB PROPOSED HOLLY-SEACLIFF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE;APN 111-130-05 MR.FIELD MY WIFE AND I OWN A SMALL BUSINESS AND THE PROPERTY AT 7072 GARFIELD. WHEN THE CITY WIDEN GARFIELD THEY TOOK 9 FT OF OUR FRONTAGE. THIS WAS ALL OF OUR CUSTOMER PARKING,IN ADDITON OUR FRONTAGE IS NOW THE SIDEWALK. THIS HAS LOWERED THE MARKABLILITY OF OUR PROPERTY AND FRANKLY IT ISS BY FAR THE LARGEST COMPLAINT WE HEAR ABOUT THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE SUFFERED GREATLY FROM THE EXPANSION OF GARFIELD AND FEEL ANY CONSIDERATION OF ADDITONAL FEES ON TOP OF THE DAMAGE DONE WOULD BE TO MUCH. PLEASE CONSIDER OUR SITIUATION AND RESPOND TO OUR CONSERNS. / Y- GARY AND VIRGINIA POWELL l B. G. Williams 4952 Warner Avenue, Suite 223 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5505 714.840.0751 March 14, 2002 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Mr. Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney Re: Benefit District No. 1 AP #111-130-04 &AP #111-130-09 Dear Mr. Field: We attended the March 5t', 2002 meeting regarding the above referenced proposal to enact a benefit district. At that meeting I expressed my opposition to the proposal. It seems to be the City's view that we should reimburse the developer (PLC) for their costs of land they acquired from us because of their requirement to construct major roads due to the traffic impact of their development. It was stated, by the City, that even if we agree to pay the amount set out under the proposed benefit district we would still be responsible for future traffic fees when we develop the property. Additionally, part of the compensation that we received was to compensate us for the loss of usage of our property. By making the street improvements, not now currently needed by us, we will continue to be deprived of this usage. It also came up that this proposal was for"excess capacity"and that we were only expected to be responsible for 18' of the 30' we sold for street improvements. By our calculations the proposed charge is based on 30' not the 18' as stated at the meeting. Should this proposal pass an adjustment in these calculations should be made. Thank you for your consideration, B. G. Williams t 7, roe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney 1 1 DATE: March 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Holly Seacliff-Area Benefit District—April 1, 2002 Hearing Attached please find a letter that we received from S & C Oil Co., Inc. in connection with the April 1, 2002 hearing on the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District. Scott Field Assistant City Attorney N c= N C:) co -0 D� W U D SF/g:02memo/Brockway S & C Oil .Co., Inc. � 4952 Warner Avenue, Suite 223'" > Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5505._. . 714.840.0751 phone : : t. 714.840.6751 fax March 26, 2002 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 , Attn: Mr. Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney Re: Benefit District No. 1 —AP #111-120-01 Dear Mr. Field: I have reviewed the latest revision of the proposed charges relative to property that I own.in the proposed benefit district. The amount to be charged for the right of way portion of the assessment varies substantially from parcel to parcel (see enclosed). In the three parcels that I am involved in the prices per lineal foot are $220.09, $250.04 and for the S &C Oil property it's $369.54. I am at a loss to understand this wide variance in values. You will also notice that other properties have also been assessed at various prices per lineal foot. In the case of the S &C property (AP #111-120-01) part of the cost of acquisition included the purchase of an oil well. It was agreed that the cost of this=l would be deducted from the total acquisition cost, but this was apparently not assigned a correct value and some of the costs of the well were carried over to the price of the right of way. In addition, when the land was being acquired the value of the land was depreciated due to supposed pollution to the tune of$45,000. Now this land shows up as being valued at the high end of all properties at $20.10 per square foot.. Aside from my other objections to the whole scheme this is definitely inequitable. Should this measure pass with City Council approval, I feel that all property values should be looked at prior to the enactment of assessments being assigned to the individual parcels. Yours truly, B. G. Williams President Comparison of Right of Way Assessments Golden West AP Number Cost/Lineal Foot 111-211-01 161.40 111-211-02 702.00 111-211-03 630.00 111-211-04 161.40 111-211-05 161.40 111-220-02 270.00 111-220-03 270.00 111-220-04 270.00 111-120-01 369.54 111-120-06 162:00 111-120-07 189.06 111-120-08 344.68 111-120-09 324.00 111-120-11 304.35 111-120-27 157.37 111-120-28 613.80 111-130-11 668.24 111-130-12 371.46 111-130-14 223.15 111-130-15 22.24 Comparison of Right of Way Assessments Garfield Avenue AP Number Cost/Lineal Foot 111-110-07 189.00 111-110-10 180.00 111-110-14 226.54 111-110-31 252.00 111-110-33 0 111-110-36 0 111-110-37 0 111-120-12 304.35 111-120-13 360.00 111-120-14 360.00 111-120-15 360.00 111-120-16 360.00 111-120-17 360.00 111-120-18 360.00 111-120-19 360.00 111-120-20 360.00 111-130-01 282.48 . 111-130-05 100.00 111-130-06 252.00 111-130-07 304.35 111-130-08 304.35 111-130-09 259.04 111-130-26 282.48 111-140-02 265.50 111-140-04 180.00 111-140-05 180.00 111-140-06 180.00 111-140-07 270.16 111-140-08 180.00 111-140-09 210.12 . 111-140-36 265.50 111-140-37 265.50 159-281-03 378.00 Comparison of Right of Way Assessments Gothard Street AP Number Cost/Lineal Foot 111-110-15 36.65 111-110-18 0 111-110-19 0 111-110-20 48.81 111-110-21 0 111-110-22 0 111-110-38 0 111-140-18 0 111-140-19 0 111-140-21 0 111-140-22 0 111-140-23 0 111-140-24 0 111-140-25 0 111-140-27 0 111-140-38 141.08 111-150-13 524.09 111-150-15 297.48 111-150-16 297.48 111-150-17 240.75 111-150-19 166.18 111-150-20 166.18 111-150-21 195.78 111-150-24 68.71 Comparison of Right of Way Assessments Main Street AP Number Cost/Lineal Foot 111-150-30 0 111-150-36 0 111-150-37 0 111-150-38 0 111-150-39 0 Total Parcels 83 Average Cost/Lineal Foot Total Lineal Footage 8,348 $179.03 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ---- CITY OF SS. HUNTINGTON County of Orange ) BEACH CIT Y COUNCIL NOTICE 'OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ATION OF I am a Citizen of the United States and a HOLY SEACLIIFF `AREA OF BENEFIT . resident of the County aforesaid; I am DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR FINANCING over the age of eighteen years, and not a OF CERTAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS party to or interested • in the below PLEASE TAKE NO- TICE that the'City Coun- cilentitled matter. I am a principal clerk of of the City' of Hunt- ington Beach will hold a ublic hearing on Athe HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a 2002, at 7:00 p.m. atlthe City Council Chambers, newspaper of general circulation, printed 2000 Main Street, Hunt- ington Beach, California and published in the City of Huntington 92648, to consider es; tablishment of the Holly. Beach, County of Orange, State of Seacliff Area fof o Benefit District No. 1, for financ- California, and that attached Notice is a pr a certain street im- povements. . true and complete copy as was printed Your property is l cated within the e proposed boundaries of and published in the Huntington Beach the Area of Benefit of District,and may be sub- and Fountain Valley issues of said ject to a charge to pay a, portion of the costs of newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: providing street im- provements which bene- fit your parcel of land. If, after the date of for- mation of this"�District, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, or consolidation of prop- build- March 28 , 2002 ng perm or i,'a charge and an inflation,,,adjustment will become due and payable. The public.,,hpopn'g before the City Council on April 1, 2002, will be I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the opportunity.for all the foregoing is true and correct. persons who pectlre to the to testify with res necessity of the street improvements -.con- structed within the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit Executed on District, the.costs,of the March 28 2002 street improvements, the benefited area and at Costa Mesa, California. the amount of costs eligible to be recovered. Copies of documents and other materials re- garding this public hear- ing are available from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, Cali- fornia 92648. If you should have any ques- tions, please call Scott Field, Assistant City At- Signature torney, City of Hunt- ington Beach (714) 536-5555. City of Huntington Beach By: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Date: February 22, 2002 Published Huntington Beach Independent March 28, 2002 033-946 B.G.Williams .....;._,'. ,. ---- � 4952 Warner Avenue Ste 223 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 . TSAR - ^GSTdcSEAi'lCF I� ` fiMJJiJTr s Oooc I $0,57 - 926-q8 Oi 2000 Main 6tycc,+ Hun-h nq f or) Bcach CA 9 z& 4 8 Mtn : M r. ito1't F ct d Apt, Ayyw-q �j'y�lQ�3'i`t�ihi 'G1 �1311tillt�i}�iiftlllti�litlli�,illf��itiilll���ili��till�llEi 1 1 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) .. ) SS. County of Orange ) CITY OF By. Connie Brockway, Cit i am a Citizen of the United States and a HUBEACHON DateC1eFebruary 22, resident of the County aforesaid; 1 am CITY COUNCIL pub?shed Huntington NOTICE OF- Beach over the age of eighteen years, and not a PUBLIC REG HEARTRDING March 7, 2002ependenY r PUBLIC HEARING party to or interested to the below FORMATION IF 031-840 HOLLY-SEACLIFF entitled matter. I am a principal cleric of AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT NO. 1 ' the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a OFFOCERTAINNCING STREET newspaper of general circulation, printed IMPROVEMENTS b PLEASE TAKE NO- TICE that the City Coun- and published in the City of Huntington cil of the City of Hunt- Beach, ' County of Orange, State of Hunt- ington Beach will hold a public hearing on April 1, California, and that attached Notice is a City o ncil Chambers, at the City Council Chambers, true and complete copy as was printed 2000 Main Street, Hunt- ington Beach, California 92648, to consider es-i and published in the Huntington Beach Seachment of the Holly-I eacliff Area of Benefit and Fountain Valley issues • of said District No. 1, for financ- \ f—cer.ain street newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: environment. Your roperty is lo- cated within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit of 1 District,and may be sub- ject to a charge to pay a portion of the costs of providing street im- March 7 , 2002 provements which'bene- fit your parcel of land. If, after the date of for- mation of this District, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, or i declare, under penalty of perjury, that ery),orappy of prop- ert or apply fora build- ing permit, a charge and the foregoing is true and correct. an inflation adjustment will become due and payable. The public hearing before the City Council Executed on on April 1, 2002, will be March 7 � 2002 the opportunity for all persons who desire to at Costa Mesa, California. testifg with respect to the necessity of the street improvements con- structed within the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit District, the costs of the street improvements, the benefited area and the amount of costs eligible to be recovered. Copies of documents and other materials re- garding this public hear- ing area available from Signature the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, Cali- fornia 92648. If you should have any ques- tions, please call Scott Field, Assistant City At- torney, City of Hunt- ington. Beach (714) 536-5555. City of Huntington Beach t (�Mlch11ar of—�j 13`�i'Oc tomb CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FORMATION OF HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR FINANCING OF CERTAIN STREET IMPROVMENTS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing on April 1, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, to consider establishment of the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1, for the financing of certain street improvements. Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit of District, and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the costs of providing street improvements which benefit your parcel of land. If, after the date of formation of this District, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel or consolidation of property), or apply for a building permit, a charge and an inflation adjustment will become due and payable. The public hearing before the City Council on April 1, 2002, will be the opportunity for all persons who desire to testify with respect to the necessity of the street improvements constructed within the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District, the costs of the street improvements, the benefited area and the amount of costs eligible to be recovered. Copies of documents and other materials regarding this public hearing are available from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. If you should have any questions, please call Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney, City of Huntington Beach (714) 536-5555. J City of Huntington Beach By: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Date: February 22, 2002 Field\20020rdinance\Holly-Seacliff Public Hearing Notice-amend.doc 1 � p CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney fr �p DATE: February 21, 2002 SUBJECT: Holly Seacliff-Area Benefit District Please arrange for publication of the attached notice. The Public Hearing will be April 1, 2002. The Notice should be published at least-l-0—d, in a vance o e pn 1, 20 public hearing. �If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me at extension 5662. Scott Field Assistant City Attorney cc: Robert Beardsley, Director of Public Works Caren Ferrera, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner Sf/g:02memo/2.21.02 Memo • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Connie Brockway,City Clerk FROM: Scott Field,Assistant City Attorney ®r- / DATE: February 21, 2002 v` vt1 U SUBJECT: Holly Seacliff-Area Benefit District Please arrange for publication of the attached notice. The Public Hearing will be April 1, 2002.. The Notice should be published at leasrt tla an a vance o t e pn 1, 2 public hearing. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me at extension 5662. Scott Field Assistant City Attorney cc: Robert Beardsley, Director of Public Works Caren Ferrera, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner SF/g:02memo/2.21.02 Memo i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FORMATION OF HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR FINANCING OF CERTAIN STREET IMPROVMENTS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing on April 1, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, to consider establishment of the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1, for the financing of certain street improvements. Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit of District,and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the costs of providing street improvements which benefit your parcel of land. If, after the date of formation of this District, you either file a final map (subdivision,parcel or consolidation of property), or apply for a building permit, a charge and an inflation adjustment will become due and payable. The public hearing before the City Council on April 1, 2002, will be the opportunity for all persons who desire to testify with respect to the necessity of the street improvements constructed within the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District, the costs of the street improvements,the benefited area and the amount of costs eligible to be recovered. Copies of documents and other materials regarding this public hearing are available from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648. If you should have any questions,please call Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney, City of Huntington Beach(714)536-5555. City of Huntington Beach. By: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Date: February 22,2002 Field\20020rdinance\Holly-Seacliff Public Hearing Notice-amend.doc 1 i_ FCITY'�}E OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LV INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works l DATE: February 25, 2001 SUBJECT: Holly-SeaclifF/ Public Hearing Attached is information that is being distributed to property owners pertaining to the final public workshop being called for March 5, 2002, to discuss the formation of the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit of District No. 1. This item-is being set for Public Hearing on April 1, 2002. RFB:cf Aft. council-holly seadNY.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FORMATION OF HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA BENEFIT DISTRICT NO. 1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 5, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648,beginning at 3:00 p.m., a public workshop shall be conducted regarding the formation of the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit of District No. 1. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing on April 1, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, to consider establishment of the Holly- Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1, for the financing of certain street improvements. Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit of District, and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the costs of providing street improvements which benefit your parcel of land. If, after the date of formation of this District, you either file a final map (subdivision,parcel or consolidation of property), or apply for a building permit, a charge and an inflation adjustment will become due and payable. The nature of the proposed District is more particularly described in the following enclosed materials: 1. Ordinance No. XX, amending Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, establishing the'general procedures for formation of Area of Benefit Districts. G:\Field\20020rdinance\Holly-Seacliff Public Hearing Notice.doc 1 2. Resolution No. XX,proposed for adoption by the City Council, which would establish the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1. 3. The Report of the MuniFinancial regarding the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit District, dated February 8, 2002. The proposed charges to be levied against your parcel appear at Table 4 of the Report. (The Report is attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution.) 4. The map setting forth the proposed boundaries of the District. (The Report is attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution.) The March 5, 2002 workshop will be an opportunity for you and other property.owners to ask questions and obtain explanations regarding the effect of the proposed Area of Benefit District. The public hearing before the City Council on April 1, 2002, will be the opportunity for all persons who desire to testify with respect to the necessity of the street improvements constructed within the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District, the costs of the street improvements, the benefited area and the amount of costs eligible to be recovered. If you should have any questions,please call Scott Field,Assistant City Attorney, City of Huntington Beach(714) 536-5555. G:\Field\20020rdinance\Holly-SeacliffPublic Hearing-Notice.doc 2 t ORDINANCE NO. y AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 17.68 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City Council previously added Chapter 17.68 to the Municipal Code establishing procedures for formation of"Cost Reimbursement Districts;" and The City Council finds that it is reasonable and necessary to amend Chapter 17.68 to establish procedures for formation of"Area of Benefit Districts." This amended Chapter more closely follows the reimbursement procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66485- 66489. The amended Chapter further removes the provision that the reimbursement charge would be a lien against the benefited property, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby amends Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 17.68 AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICTS Sections: 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements 17.68.020 Definitions 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District 17.68.040 Application fee for formation of the Area of Benefit District 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for.Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Cost Reimbursement District 17.68.080 Action by City Council 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge 17.68.100 Administrative Audit 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge 1.7.68.115 Exemption from Charge 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties 17.68.140 Challenges to District 17.68.010 Requirement for Installation of Improvements. As a condition of approval for a Development, a Developer may be required to install and dedicate Public Improvements which may contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or length for the benefit of property not within the Development. When.such supplemental size, capacity, number, or length benefits property not within the Development, the City may enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures to reimburse the Developer for the Supplemental Improvements through an Area of Benefit District. In order to reimburse the Developer, the City may: 02ord/17-68 chap/2/21/02 1 (a) Collect from other persons, including public agencies, a reasonable charge for the use of Supplemental Improvements benefiting real property not within the Development Area. (b) Contribute to the Developer that part of the cost of the Public Improvements that benefit real property outside the Development Area and levy a charge upon the real property benefited to reimburse the Developer for such cost, together with interest thereon, if any. (c) Establish and maintain Area of Benefit Districts for the levy and collection of such charge from the property benefited. The charge collected shall be paid to the City or Developer constructing the public improvement. 17.68.020 Definitions. (a) "Actual or Estimated Costs of Public Improvements" means the actual or estimated costs for construction, design engineering, district formation, right-of-way appraisal and acquisition costs, condemnation proceedings, environmental impact mitigation, plan check and permit fees, construction inspections, maintenance of Improvements, or any other expenses attributable to the construction of Public Improvements. If the scope of the Development is altered during construction in order to respond to events or circumstances which are revealed during construction, the City Council may increase the estimated cost by not more than ten (10%)percent without notice to the affected property owners. (b) "Administrative Costs" shall be defined as costs for direct labor and employee benefits, outside consultants, direct materials, indirect costs, overhead costs and fixed assets or depreciation charges. (c) "Area of Benefit" means the entire area which receives a benefit from the Supplemental Improvements. The "Area of Benefit" shall be that area which, in the opinion of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, and after a noticed public hearing, is determined to be the area benefited by the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. (d) "Charge" means the Excess Costs attributable to an individual parcel of real property. (e) "Developer"means the person who is responsible for constructing the Public Improvements. (f) "Development" means any residential, commercial or industrial project or subdivision. (g) "Development Area" means the residential subdivision or commercial or industrial projects to be constructed by the Developer (h)."Excess Costs"means the costs attributable to that portion of Public Improvements which benefit areas outside the Development Area. Benefit may be determined by any commonly accepted method which fairly apportions the cost of the Improvements to the benefiting properties. (i) "Public-Improvements" means those improvements as set forth herein including,but not limited to, streets, bridges, traffic signals, street lights, drainage, flood control, 02ord/17-68 chap/2/21/02 2 water or sanitary sewer facilities, reclaimed water facilities, landscaping, grading, soil remediation, abandonment of oil facilities, relocation of utilities, other public facilities such as parks, libraries, fire stations, police stations, and any accessory improvements necessary for the functioning of the Public Improvements. The term Public Improvements includes not only improvements that benefit the Development, but also those that benefit parcels outside the Development. "Public Improvements" shall also include any property or property interests reasonably necessary for the construction of the improvement. 6) "Substantial Completion of an Improvement" means completion of construction of a - Public Improvement to the extent necessary to allow it to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. (k)-"Supplemental Improvements" means Public Improvements which are: (1) required as a condition of approval of the Development which have a size, capacity, number, or length greater than necessary solely to benefit or mitigate the impacts of the Development; or (2) improvements which have been agreed upon between the City and Developer. 17.68.030 Application for Area of Benefit District. Whenever a Developer elects, or is required by the City, to install or replace Supplemental Improvements, or whenever the City participates in the costs of Supplemental Improvements in advance.of Development, and provided that the costs of such Supplemental Improvements are not financed by an assessment district or similar proceeding, the Developer may submit an application for formation of an Area of Benefit District, or the City Council, on its own motion, may initiate the formation of the Area of Benefit District. The application of the Developer shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer with a non-refundable application fee. The City Engineer shall expeditiously process the request to City Council. 17.68.040 Application Fee for Formation of the Area of Benefit District. Where the Developer has applied for formation of an Area of Benefit District,prior to the City Council authorizing the initiation of the formation of the Area of Benefit District, the Developer shall deposit with the City the following fees to cover various administration costs: (a) A non-refundable application fee will be required from the Developer prior to commencing any work on the Area of Benefit District. The amount of the application fee will be determined by the City Engineer. The application fee will be deposited in a general Area of Benefit District administration fund established by the City Treasurer. (b) District formation fees shall be deposited into a specific project fund for each individual project to cover such expenses as the calculation of the Excess Costs of the Supplemental Improvements, determination of the Area of Benefit and, determination of the apportionment of the Excess Costs to the benefiting parcels. District formation fees will also include publishing of all notices,mailing, and City administrative costs. Once the fees have been deposited to the City by the Developer, the City Engineer will process the Developer's request to City Council. The City Engineer may retain a qualified consultant to-prepare the documents and estimates. This consultant shall have no business relationship with the Developer. The costs of any such engineering 02ord/17-68 chap/2/21/02 3 services shall be paid by the Developer; however, the costs shall be considered an incidental cost of the Supplemental Improvements to be recouped pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. 17.68.050 Recovering Costs for Formation and Monitoring the Area of Benefit District. The City Council may levy a supplemental fee on all properties paying Area of Benefit charges intended to reimburse the City for the cost of formation and monitoring the District. 17.68.060 Report of the City Engineer. Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the - City Engineer shall prepare and file with the City Clerk a report containing the following information: (a) A map indicating the boundaries of the Area of Benefit District which identifies all parcels within the District. (b) The actual or total estimated cost of the Supplemental Improvements. (c) The proposed spread of the Excess Costs to the Area of Benefit. 17.68.070 Notice and hearing on establishment of Cost Reimbursement District. (a) Upon receiving the request from the City Engineer, the City Clerk shall set a noticed public hearing before the City Council. The City Clerk shall cause a notice of the hearing, in substantially the following form, to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach at least ten(10) days prior to such hearing: NOTICE OF HEARING The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a public hearing at on at the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 to consider the . establishment of an Area of Benefit District for the financing of certain public facilities and related improvements within the City. Your property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Area of Benefit District and may be subject to a charge to pay a portion of the cost of providing public facilities which benefit your parcel of land. If, after the date of forming this District, you either file a final map (subdivision, parcel, consolidation, etc.) or apply for a building permit, the charge and inflation adjustment would become due and payable. The proposed boundaries of the District are more particularly described by Diagram No. which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. All persons desiring to testify with respect to: the necessity of said Public Improvements, the cost of said Public Improvements, the benefited area and the amount of the costs eligible to be recovered, may appear and be heard at said hearing. (b) The City Engineer shall, at least fourteen(14) days prior to the hearing, cause a copy of the above notice to be mailed to each owner of real property within the benefited area as shown on the last equalized tax roll. Such notice shall be accompanied by a 02ord/17-68 chap/2/21/02 4 Y diagram of the proposed benefited area and a statement by the City Engineer describing the following: (1) A description of the Public Improvements and that portion considered to be in excess of the Developer's requirements. (2) The estimated or actual costs necessary to pay for the Public Improvements. (3) The actual or estimated costs of the Supplemental Improvements which are proposed to be charged against the benefiting property when such property is developed or redeveloped. (4) A diagram identifying the properties to be included within the District. 17.68.080 Action by City Council. (a) After the public hearing the City Council may, in its sole discretion, approve a resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District and may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Developer to provide for the disbursements of proceeds of the Area of Benefit District. (b) The resolution establishing the Area of Benefit District shall incorporate an exhibit containing the following: (1) A list of the properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers which are included within the District. (2) A diagram included within the District. (3) An apportionment of the Excess Costs which represent the actual or estimated amount to be charged against each parcel within the District. If the Costs are estimated, the resolution will indicate that the Charges are subject to re- computation by the City Engineer when the construction and final audit have been completed. (4) The time when such Charges are due and payable. (5) A statement indicating that the Charges are subject to an interest or inflation charge, the terms of which shall be defined. (c) Once the Area of Benefit District has been approved by a resolution of the City Council, it shall establish a statement of charges due from the benefiting properties. 17.68.090 Re-computation of Charge. If the District is formed based on estimated costs, then the City Engineer shall reapportion the charge amounts after final costs have been calculated and verified by the City Engineer or his designee. All affected property owners shall be notified in writing of their charge amount. 17.68.100 Administrative Audit. The Director of Finance shall prepare a report indicating the administrative costs incurred for each District on an-annual basis. The report shall be prepared each calendar year following the formation of a Area of Benefit District and shall be completed by February 15. 02ord/17-68 chap/2/21/02 5 r 17.68.110 Establishment of Area of Benefit Charge. (a) Payment of Charges shall be placed by the City in the appropriate fund account established by Council for each District. These funds will be established to reimburse the Developer for costs incurred for the construction of the Supplemental Improvements. All accrued interest in this fund will be transferred to the project monitoring fund. The term of any reimbursement agreement shall be established by the City Council based upon the reasonable expectations of the Development of benefited properties or the utilization of the Public Improvement by such benefited properties provided. - - (b) Following the formation of the District, if any person records a final map (subdivision,parcel, consolidation, etc.) or applies for a building permit on a parcel within a District in accordance with this Chapter, and such person or their predecessor in interest has not paid such charge to the City, the established charge shall be paid prior to the recording of the final tract map, final parcel map or the issuance of the building permit. (c) All charges shall include a principal charge plus an interest or inflation-charge calculated from the date of establishment of the District. The date of establishment shall be the date of acceptance of the Public Improvements by the City, or City Council approval of the District, whichever occurs later. 17.68.115 Exemption from Charge (a) No Charge shall be required in connection with building permits described below: (1) Building alterations for non-residential uses which do not exceed a third(1/3) of the value of.a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and which effect no change in occupancy, and where no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing building. (2) Building alterations or additions for residential use which add no residential units. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Repair of construction defects or damage due to fire, civil unrest, flood or any other destructive act of nature which does not increase the building area by more than one third (1/3) the original area,provided that no additional vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land. (5) Temporary uses as specified in the City of Huntington Beach's Ordinance Code, Article 973. (b) Any claim of exemption must be filed with the City Engineer. Such application shall be filed with the City Engineer at the time of application for a building permit or final map. Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested charge exemption. 17.68.120 Obligation of Developer to Claim Monies. All monies collected under the provisions of this Chapter shall be deposited by the City Treasurer into the appropriate fund established for the collection of funds and the monitoring of the district. The City . Treasurer shall pay annually all monies so collected to the Developer who paid for the Supplemental Improvements for which the charges were collected, or to their assignees. The City shall notify the Developer of the existence of monies deposited in said fund. No 02ord/17-68 chap/2/21/02 6 :f funds will be reimbursed to the Developer until all costs included in the District have been verified by the City Engineer. The notice shall be mailed to the address contained in the reimbursement agreement and no further inquiries shall be required by the City. If any such money remains on deposit with the City without being claimed by the party rightfully entitled to it within three (3)years after notice has been made as provided herein, such money shall be forfeited to the City and then it shall be transferred to the general fund of the City. 17.68.130 Delegation of Duties. Whenever a duty is delegated or reposed in a City official or employee, except the City Council, that official or employee may delegate all or a portion of these duties to an assistant, deputy, or other employee of the City. 17.68.140 Challenges to District. Any action or proceeding to challenge, attack, set aside, avoid,or review the decision of the City Council to establish an Area of Benefit District or a reimbursement charge, fee, or requirement, or to decline to establish a District shall be brought by an interested person within ninety(90) days of formation of the District. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works 02ord/17-68 chap/2/21/02 7 1 RESOLUTION NO. �( A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT NO. 1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Findings and Intent. The City Council finds as follows: A. In December 1990, the City of Huntington Beach approved Ordinance No. 3080, thereby entering into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement("Development Agreement") with Pacific Coast Homes (the "Developer"). B. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project ("Holly-Seacliff Project") on approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and Main Streets on the east, Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west ("Holly-Seacliff Project Area"). C. The Development Agreement required that the Developer construct certain traffic and circulation improvements within the Holly-Seacliff Project Area, specifically Main, Edwards, Goldenwest Streets, Gothard and Garfield and Ellis Avenues (the ,"Arterials"). D. The Development Agreement also obliged the City to (1) determine the extent to which these Arterials resulted in street capacity in excess of the traffic demand the GAMulvihilho I Ordinance\Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee.doc 1 Holly-Seacliff Project created; and (2)reimburse the Developer for the excess street capacity from fees or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. E. In May 1996, the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly-Seacliff Project to PLC, a California general partnership, and the remainder to MS Vickers, II, a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer, PLC assumed the Developer's obligation to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. F. The City and the Developer implemented the reimbursement obligation of Development Agreement through a Settlement Agreement, dated April 17, 2000, that, among other things, limited the reimbursement obligation from property owners benefiting from the Arterials to those parcels immediately abutting the Arterials. The amount of the reimbursement was specifically limited to cost of ten (10) feet of pavement, plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent the Developer's construction of the Arterials, the abutting property owners would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of development. This requirement is found at Government Code §66475 and Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"),which require that any subdivider, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, dedicate, or make an irrevocable offer to dedicate, all parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for improving the street to G:\Mulvihill\010rdinance\Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee.doc 2 the ultimate right-of-way as established in the Circulation Element to the City General Plan. In addition, the subdivider shall construct or agree to construct all required street improvements to the ultimate right-of-way in accord with Chapter 255 of the HBZSO. Section 255.04(B) specifically requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further, Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. G. The cost of ten (10) feet of pavement, plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs of each property adjacent to the Arterials in the Holly-Seacliff Project Area has been analyzed in a report entitled "Holly-S each ff Area of Benefit District Report,"prepared by MuniFinancial and dated February 8, 2002 ("Area of Benefit Report"). The Area of Benefit Report calculates the Area of Benefit Charge to be paid by property owners that benefit from the Arterials the developer installed. The Charge varies by property depending upon each parcel's street frontage and cost of land acquisition. Two primary factors that dictate the amount of the Area of Benefit Charge: (1) the actual cost of constructing the ten (10) feet of roadway improvements, plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, which was determined to be $68.10 per linear foot of property frontage; (2) the cost to the City to acquire a right-of-way from various property owners by way of agreement or condemnation. Normally, right-of-way would be dedicated to the City upon the development of the property. Consequently,when the parcels.subject to the G:\Mulvihill\Ol Ordinance\Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee.doc 3 Charge develop and pay the Area of Benefit Charge,the Charge will include the right-of-way acquisition payments these same property owners received. H. The City Council finds and declares that, in the absence of this Resolution improving the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1, existing and future sources of revenue will not be adequate to reimburse PLC for its construction of supplement capacity in the Arterials. Failure to provide for reimbursement would violate Government Code Sections 66485-66489, Section 254.18 of the HBZSO and Section 2.2.11 of the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, all which provide that when one developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity, the City Council shall enter into an agreement providing for reimbursement to the Developer of the cost of constructing supplemental capacity, with the funding of the reimbursement derived from the levy and collection of a charge on the development of the properties benefiting from the supplemental capacity. SECTION 2: Report of the City Engineer. The City Council hereby acknowledges receipt of the City Engineer's Report regarding the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefits District No. 1. Said Report was prepared by a contractor, MuniFinancial,pursuant to Section 17.68.040(b) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. A copy of the Report is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Said Report includes: G:\Mulvihill\OlOrdinance\Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee.doc 4 A. The total cost of the Supplemental Improvements, which amount is $2,545.466.63. B. The spread of the Excess Costs to each parcel in the District subject to a charge. Said spread is set forth at Table 4 of the Report. The City Council hereby further acknowledges receipt from the City Engineer of a diagram describing the boundaries of the Area of Benefit District and identifying all parcels within the District. A copy of the diagram is attached as Exhibit B. SECTION 3. Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District. A. Pursuant to Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, there is hereby established the Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District No. 1 (the "District"). B. A list of the properties identified by assessor's parcel numbers which are included within the District is set forth at Table 4 to the MuniFinancial Report, which is attached as Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit A. C. A diagram identifying the properties which are included within the District is attached as Exhibit B. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit B. G:\Mulvihill\OlOrdinance\Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee.doc 5 D. An apportionment of the Excess Costs for acquisition and construction of the Arterials which represent the actual amount to be charged against each parcel within the District is included at Table 4 to Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves the Charges set forth in Exhibit A. E. Such Charges are due and payable prior to the issuance of a final tract map, final parcel map, or the issuance of a building permit; provided, however, such shall not be due in connection with building permits issued in circumstances as described in Section 17.68.110(b) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. F. Commencing on July 1, 2003, and annually thereafter, the Charges established by this Resolution shall be adjusted based upon the change in the construction cost index produced by Engineering News Record, published by McGraw- Hill ("Cost Index"), during the preceding year. The City Engineer shall then adjust the Charges set forth in Table 4 by such percentage change. The adjusted Charge amount shall be rounded to the nearest cent, and this amount shall constitute the Charge authorized by Chapter 17.68 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and established by this Resolution. Should the cost index be revised or discontinued, the City Engineer shall use the revised or a comparable index as approved by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of constructing traffic improvements. GAMulvNIAO I Ordinance\Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee.doc 6 SECTION 4. California Environmental Oality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental.Quality Act ("CEQA") under Section 15273(a)(4) of the California Code of Regulations,commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that this exemption applies because there is no reasonable possibility that the establishment of the Area of Benefit District could negatively affect the physical environment. To the contrary, the charge will be collected to mitigate the environmental impacts of new development on the City's surface transportation system. Any environmental impacts associated with specific projects that may be undertaken with charge proceeds will be assessed as each project is formulated. Further, the City Council finds that, based on Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b) and the fact that this Resolution implements the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which was analyzed pursuant to EIR 94-1, the Ordinance is currently exempt from further environmental assessment until individual traffic improvements are submitted for approval by . the City. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force sixty (60) days from and after adoption thereof, which date is G:\Mulvihill\OlOrdinance\Holly-SeacliffTraffic Impact Fee.doc 7 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 200 ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works G:\Mulvihill\010rdinance\Holly-SeacliTfTraffic Impact Fee.doc 8 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINAL DRAFT REPORT FEBRUARY 8, 2002 MuniFinancial A WILLOAN CO.MP.ANY Corporate Office Regional Office 28765 Single Oak Drive,Suite 200 1736 Franklin Street,Suite 450 Temecula,California 92590 Oakland,CA 94612 Tel: (800)755-MUNI(6864) Tel: (510)832-0899 Fax: (909)699-3460 www.inuni.com Fax: (510)832-0898 TABLE OF CONTENTS. ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................................................................1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................3 Development Agreement Background...............................................................:.::........................................4 LegalBasis..........................................................................................................................................................6 Methodologyand Assumptions......................................................................................................................8 GeneralDescription............................................................................................................................8 Roadway Construction Costs.............................................................................................................9 Right-of-way Acquisition Payments................................................................................................10 MiscellaneousCosts...........................................................................................................................13 LegalCosts............................................................................................................................13 TitleFees...............................................................................................................................13 Appraisal/Estimation...........................................................................................................13 CityReal Estate Services.....................................................................................................14 Areaof Benefit Study..........................................................................................................14 ExcludedProperties..........................................................................................................................14 ChargeSchedule..............................................................................................................................................16 Future Charge Adjustments...........................................................................................................................19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach, California ("City") approve the formation of an area of benefit district establishing a charge to developers of new residential and non-residential projects within the Holly-Seacliff area of the City. Normally, the City requires as a condition of development that the owner widen the street to its ultimate right of way, as shown in the Circulation Element of the City General Plan. However,pursuant to the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, the master developer, not the adjacent property owners, widened Goldenwest, Garfield, Gothard and Main Streets. The proposed Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District would charge the property owners adjacent to these streets a development impact fee equivalent to the cost the master developer paid to widen these streets. The proposed charge varies by property depending upon each property's actual share of total improvement costs. Total improvement costs are composed of sidewalk and roadway construction costs, and right-of-way acquisition payments to property owners. Charge revenues will be deposited into a separate City account and used exclusively to first reimburse the master developer the costs it advanced for initially widening these streets and then reimburse the City for some of the costs it advanced to the master developer. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., before an impact fee such as this area of benefit charge may be imposed, the City must first establish a fair and reasonable relationship or"nexus" between the fee charged and the cost of the proposed public improvements. This report serves to document the nexus requirement between the fee proposed and the benefit received for the road and related improvements the master developer installed. Table 1 summarizes the results of our analysis by presenting total improvement costs, and the number of properties to which the fee applies. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY8,2002 PAGE I HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFR'DISTRICT REPORT CRY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH Table 1: Summary of Costs & Charges Total Roadway Improvements $ 455,180 Right-of-Way 2,090,286 Miscellaneous' - Total Costs $ 2,545,466 Parcels Subject to Fee 83 ' It is recommended that miscellaneous costs for legal, title,appraisal,and real estate services incurred in order to acquire right-of-way be excluded from the charge because it was deemed unfair to charge property owners to reimburse these costs when they incurred similar costs on their own behalf. Costs associated with producing this report are also excluded. Sources: Table 4;MuniFinancial. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 2 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPOR T CITY OF HUNTINGTONBEACII INTRODUCTION This report calculates a Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District charge to be paid by property owners that abut and benefit from roadways improved by the developer, the PLC Land Company (PLC). The 1990 Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement required PLC to over-size certain road improvements otherwise needed to meet traffic-demand resulting from the Holly-Seacliff Project. PLC installed four-lane and six-lane arterial roadways,which pass through Holly-Seacliff. However, the outer two lanes of these arterials do not benefit the Holly-Seacliff Project,but instead are needed to serve growth on abutting properties by providing access to those properties. The properties subject to the Charge (the "Local Area's includes those properties that abut the arterial improvements PLC constructed along Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue and Main Street (the "Arterials"). Only those properties that benefit from the improvements and have not otherwise implemented an alternative reimbursement mechanism would be subject to the Charge. The City will collect the charge from properties within the Local Area only when they develop. The charge would vary by property depending on each property's actual project costs subject to reimbursement. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 3 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTo.v BEACH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BACKGROUND In December 1990,the City and Pacific Coast Homes entered into the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project of approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and Main Streets on the east,Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west ("Holly-Seacliff"). The Agreement required (among other things) for the Developer to construct certain public facilities and pay certain public facility charges to the City. The Agreement also obliged the City to (1) determine the cost of the public facilities the Developer was required to construct that were in excess of those necessary to serve the Holly-Seacliff development; and (2) reimburse the Developer for these excess costs from charges or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. In May 1996, the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly- Seacliff property to PLC, a California general partnership, and the remainder to MS Vickers, II, a Delaware limited liability company. As part of the transfer, PLC agreed to assume the obligations to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. Simultaneously, PLC became the beneficiary of the City's obligations to cause the Developer to be reimbursed for the cost of excess capacity in the public facilities. Regarding traffic and circulation improvements, the Development Agreement provided that the Developer was to install the arterial road improvements, principally Main, Garfield, Edwards, Goldenwest, Ellis, and Gothard. The Development Agreement then provided that "upon acceptance of the improvements," the Developer was eligible for "Reimbursable Costs" pursuant to Section 2.2.11 of the Agreement. "Reimbursable Costs"were defined to mean those "improvements in excess of those required to service the proposed project." Reimbursement is due from subsequent development. Section 2.2.11 of the Development Agreement begins by stating that "when in the performance of this Agreement,Developer is eligible for Reimbursable Costs, the following procedures apply." Section 2.2.11(a) then continues, stating that "upon receipt of funds generated by charges or exactions from other developers served by excess capacity of public facilities paid for by Developer, City shall reimburse Developer its verified Reimbursable Costs." This Section requires the City to reimburse the Developer (i.e., PLC) from fees or exactions collected from other developers served by the excess capacity. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 4 HOLLY-SE cLIFFAREAOFBENEFITDISTRICTREPORT CITYOFHUNTINGTONBEACH PLC installed in excess of $35,300,000 in roads and arterial improvements. PLC contended that it was entitled to reimbursement for a significant portion of these costs. PLC sought to arbitrate its cost reimbursement as permitted under the Development Agreement. Instead, the City and PLC entered into a Settlement Agreement on April 17, 2000 that, among other things, authorized reimbursing PLC from property owners adjacent to the Arterials in the amount of the cost of pavement plus curb,gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent PLC's construction of the arterials, these.property owners would have been required to install these same improvements as a'condition of development pursuant to Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Consequently, the Settlement Agreement provides that these property owners would pay these costs as a condition of their development. More specifically, the first $812,000 the City receives from these property owners will be paid to PLC. All further amounts will be retained by the City, in order to reimburse the City for (i) the $500,000 it has already paid PLC for the completion of Gothard between Garfield and Main, and the completion of Goldenwest between Garfield and Ellis, and (h) the credits the City has extended PLC against its traffic impact fees for installing other street improvements within the Holly Seacliff area. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 5 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CrrY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH LEGAL BASIS The Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code §§ 66485-66489) provides that if the City requires a subdivider to install supplemental capacity in public improvements for the benefit of property not within the subdivision, the City shall enter into an agreement with the subdivider for reimbursement of the difference in cost. To pay costs of reimbursement, the City may collect a reasonable charge from persons outside the subdivision for their use of the supplemental capacity. Such a charge may be through an area of benefit district, such as the one proposed in this Report. Whether such a charge must also comply with the reasonable relationship, or "nexus" requirement contained in The Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code § 66000 et seq.) is unclear. Regardless, the proposed Charge does comply with The Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act establishes ground rules for the imposition and ongoing administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January 1989 and requires local governments to make five findings when adopting an impact fee. These.findings and their justification for this Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee are described below: 1. Identify the purpose of the charge. The purpose of the Charge is to reimburse the Holly-Seacliff Developer and the City for oversized roadway improvement projects made within Holly-Seacliff. 2. Identify the use of charge revenues. Charge revenues shall be used to reimburse the Developer and the City of Huntington Beach for actual costs incurred for oversizing arterials within Holly-Seacliff. 3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the charge's use and the type of development paying the charge. The developments paying the charge will be those benefiting from the oversized improvements. Absent the Developer having installed the improvement, the individual property owners would have been required to install the same improvements when they developed. Charge revenues will only be used to reimburse actual costs for installing the improvements the property owner otherwise would have installed. MUNiRNANciAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 6 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPOR T CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4. Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the charge and the type of development paying the charge. Except for the fact that PLC was widening the arterials as part of the Holly-Seacliff project, the abutting property owners would be required to dedicate the right-of-way and widen the Arterials as a condition of their own development. This requirement is found at Government Code § 66475 and Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"),which require that the subdivider, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, to dedicate,or make an irrevocable offer to dedicate, all parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for required improvements,including access rights and abutters' rights. In addition, the subdivider shall construct or agree to construct all required improvements in accord with Chapter 255 of the HBZSO. Section 255.04(B) then requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section,including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and transitions. Further, Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Finally, Section 254.18 of the HBZSO and Section 2.2.11 of the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement provide that when the Developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity, the City Council shall determine the method for payment of the costs required by a reimbursement agreement which may include but is not limited to the establishment and maintenance of local benefit districts for the levy and collection of such charge or costs from the property benefited. 5. Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the charge and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the charge. Roadway construction costs are allocated to applicable individual properties based on linear feet of frontage. Right-of-way acquisition costs are allocated based on the actual costs attributable to each property or some reasonable allocation method if actual costs are not available (see Methodology and Assumptions section and Table 4). In sum, the charge is set equal to the cost of the improvements needed to accommodate the development paying the charge, and charge revenues would only be used to reimburse for those costs. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 7 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OFHUNnNGTONBEACH METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS This section describes the methodology and assumptions used to calculate the Charge. fir,<q €_.. �. r i2: s '..-. .''•s.'._ .°�--'' 3_ v, ir.�.,"TT`� w General�yescr�ption _ r Only properties abutting the oversized Arterials are subject to the Charge. These properties are all located on Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue, and Main Street, and abut roadway improvements constructed by PLC. Total roadway improvement costs are composed of the following items: • Roadway construction costs for the outer two lanes, and • Right-of-way acquisition payments to property owners. Miscellaneous costs,including legal costs related to right-of-way acquisition, title fees, real estate appraisal fees, and reimbursement to the City for real estate services provided to PLC and for the cost of this study, are excluded from roadway improvement costs. The City provided copies of all available checks,invoices and supporting documentation for all legal fees, right-of-way-payments and miscellaneous costs incurred on behalf of the project and requested for reimbursement by PLC. These costs were allocated to specific properties based on parcel details stated on supporting documentation or some reasonable allocation method. Costs incurred in construction of roadway improvements were provided by PLC in the form of a cost per linear foot. Each property's frontage distance provides the basis for allocating roadway improvements costs. The City has specifically identified the frontage distance of each property based on the City's parcel maps and supporting property records. In accordance with their agreement, the City of Huntington Beach maintained several bank accounts on behalf of PLC. The balances in these accounts, along with additional deposits from PLC,were used to pay vendor invoices for the legal and miscellaneous costs and right-of-way payments. MUN/FINANCIAL FEBR UARY 8,2002 PAGE 8 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �.....°:C•...�_....._�....>..-..w��_tt�.?.ac�uc::...:� -._.. ....-.F..._.�._,.;.:.. ._.,. -.»:3,r'a�L_z�'� ,`�.,�.3-.°s.:;�L�.,P,.<.:�aY-,:'_� ,-'.�.. Roadway improvements were installed on portions of Golden West Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue and Main Street, all of which pass through the PLC development. Roadway improvements are composed of the following: • Minimum ten-foot traffic lanes composed of six-inch asphalt concrete paving over a 12-inch aggregate base (only the costs of the two outer lanes are being recovered through the Area of Benefit District); a Eight-inch curb and gutter; • Six-foot sidewalk; and 0 Street lights with minimum spacing of approximately 150 feet including the cost all necessary conduit, boxes, poles and installation. Specific costs incurred in construction of roadway improvements were provided by PLC in the form of a cost per linear foot. Payments for roadway construction costs occurred between April 1997 and April 2000. However, PLC and the City.agreed to use 1998 as the base year for comparison of roadway construction costs. We obtained independent estimates of comparable construction projects from the City of Huntington Beach and Willdan, a civil engineering firm located in California. These comparable costs were adjusted to 1998 dollars. As illustrated in Table 2, the comparable costs were greater than the actual .cost provided by PLC. Roadway improvements were allocated based on each property's linear feet of frontage multiplied by PLC's cost per linear foot for construction. All properties subject to the fee abut roads improved by PLC, thus providing a reasonable relationship between the impact fee charged for roadway improvements and benefits received by property owners paying the impact fee. Property owners who installed roadway improvements at their own expense prior to PLC's installation of improvements are exempt from this portion of the impact fee to avoid double charging these property owners for replacement of improvements already made.' City staff reviewed aerial photographs and other supporting documentation to confirm that these improvements existed prior to PLC's improvements. The parcels exempted from reimbursement of roadway improvement costs include parcels 111-120-06,111-120- 07,111-120-08,111-120-27,111-110-38,111-140-19,111-150-15,111-150-16,111-150-17,111-110-31,111-110-33, 111-110-36,and 111-110-37. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBR UARY 8,2002 PAGE 9 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT D/STRICT REPORT CITY OF HuNTINGTON BEACH Table 2: Comparative Roadway Construction Costs Cost per Linear Foot City of Improvement PLC' Huntington Willdan3 Beach 10 ft.Asphalt Concrete Paving4 $ 25.00 $ 27.16 $ 25.45 Street Light Conduit, Boxes& Lights5 22.00 30.28 33.61 8 in. Curb&Gutter 11.70 14.65 14.65 6 ft. Sidewalk 9.40 9.77 14.41 Total Cost $ 68.10 $ 81.86 $ 88.12 'Actual roadway improvement costs incurred by PLC Land company(1998 dollars). 2 Roadway improvement costs estimated by the City of Huntington Beach based on actual City projects in 1999(deflated to 1998 dollars). 3 Roadway improvement costs estimated by Willdan based on bids for recent comparative projects (adjusted to 1998 dollars). 4 Assumes 10-foot wide lane with 6-inch asphalt concrete over 12-inch base. 5 Assumes 150-foot spacing of lights. Sources:PLC Land Company;City of Huntington Beach;Willdan. " � Right of way Acquisltlon}Paymeint&pg Portions of certain properties were acquired through either negotiation or condemnation proceedings. However, if that same property owner from whom the right-or-way was acquired,was instead subdividing or otherwise developing his property, Section 254.02 of the HBZSO would have required dedication of this same property. Consequently,pursuant to Section 254.18 requiring reimbursement for supplemental capacity, it is recommended that those property owners that have received compensation in the past for acquired land reimburse such payments. To establish the acquisition amount,we reviewed copies of right-of-way checks paid to property owners, title and other legal documents, and appraisals where available. (If no right-of-way was acquired, then no reimbursement for this payment is required.) The fee calculation for five properties included credits for additional costs from realignment of Gothard Street that occurred after the roadway improvements were identified in the Development Agreement. The realignment caused an increase in the amount of right-of-way needed beyond that required for a travel lane. It is appropriate to delete the additional costs associated with this realignment from the Charge calculation to ensure that all properties are treated according to the same roadway improvement standards. MumRNANCIAL FEBRUARY B,2002 PAGE 10 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH This right-of-way credit affected the following properties: • One property (parcel numbers 111-150-15 and 16) was credited for a total of $292,003 associated with acquisition of 10-feet of right-of-way out of the 20-foot take needed for the Project. This credit was based on the ratio of the appraised value of land taken to the total appraised compensation amount applied to the total right-of-way payment. This amount was further adjusted by the acquisition of 10-feet of right-of-way that would normally be taken out of the total 20-foot actual right-of-way taken for the project. • Three properties (parcel numbers 111-150-17, 19-20 and 21) were credited amounts of $46,150, $31,576,and $18,600, respectively, associated with acquisition of 10-feet of right-of-way normally required out of the 20-feet actually taken. This credit was calculated by multiplying total acquisition costs by 10/20 (or 50 percent). • One property (parcel number 110-150-24),which was substantially reduced in size by the realignment because the roadway cut the parcel into two pieces,'was credited $211,188. The credit was based on the average cost per square foot for the acquisition (total acquired area divided by total acquisition costs). The average cost per square foot was multiplied by each of the following two area calculations to calculate the credit: — The amount of right-of-way that would have been required if the roadway had not been realigned was deducted from the total acquired area to calculate the amount of area associated with the realignment.' — The area of the small section of the original parcel left stranded and not developable by the realignment. In addition, the charge calculation includes credits for lost oil production. This right-of-way credit affects the following parcels: • One property.(parcel number 111-120-01) was credited $85,215 for the appraised value of the oil well impacted by the right-of- take associated with this property. The resulting right-of-way acquisition charge is comparable on a per square foot basis for a similar property taken at approximately the same time. Z Total original area of this property was 17,168 square feet. The right-of-way taken for the road realignment was 9,937 square feet and the area deemed not developable was 1,400 square feet. Remaining usable property was 5,831 square feet. s The amount of right-of-way that would have been required if the roadway had not been realigned is estimated at 2,010 square feet or 201 of front footage multiplied by 10 feet of right-of-way normally taken needed for the Project. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 11 HOLLY•SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH • One property (parcel number 111-120-28) was credited $122,185 for the value of lost oil production from this property in the same ratio of the oil well credit to total right-of-way payment made for the previous parcel. Finally, several right-of-way payments were lumped together for multiple properties. In these instances, right-of-way reimbursements were based on appraised values or were allocated based on the ratio of linear feet associated with a specific property to total linear feet for all affected properties. This problem of allocation of lump-sum payments was particularly acute as to parcel numbers 111-220-02, -03, and -04 as well as parcel numbers 111-120-06, -07, -08 and -09 and 111-120-13 through -20. In both cases, the property owner of both these sets of parcels sued the Developer over the adoption of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. As part of the settlement of the litigation, both owners deeded right-of- way in exchange for$619,529 and$815,000, respectively. It was then necessary to allocate this payment to the individual parcels that they owned along both Garfield and Goldenwest Streets to determine the fee. To determine the allocation, we relied upon the property appraisals that Mark Linnes prepared on behalf of the Cite-in 1993. Although the Settlement Agreement likely-reflects the fact that the owners successfully contended their property values were substantially more than the Mr. Linnes' appraisals,we have relied exclusively on the City's original appraisals to set the amount of reimbursement. The total amount allocated to right-of-way cost to each of these parcels is $177,660 and $304,263 respectively,approximately$440,000 and $510,000 less than the amount they were paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. In addition,incorporated as Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement is a letter from Mike Adams, then-Director of Community Development for the City, explaining that it was anticipated in 1993 that these properties would be subject to the very impact fee that the City is now considering. The letter states that the City Code authorizes the creation of Cost Reimbursement Districts for the "purpose of reimbursing a Developer for the cost of public infrastructure constructed by Developer which benefit other property owners" and that such reimbursement would not be due and payable until the property owner"records a final map . . . or applies for a building permit." However, the fee would not be payable in connection with building permits issues for minor improvements or repairs. The letter concludes by stating that the intent of cost reimbursement: "...is to impose the liened costs at such time as you record a final map or apply for a building permit in connection with your MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 12 HOLLY-SEACLIFFAREA OFBENEFIT DISTRICTREPORT CITYOFHUNTINGTONBEAcm development of the . . . Property for a use which is different from or unrelated to the existing uses. Accordingly, the continuation or expansion of the existing uses of the . . . Property or the issuance of a building permit incident thereto will not require you to pay the liened costs." The Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District is consistent with this representation. The Charge will only be collected when these properties are developed with a new use or a tract map. Initially, miscellaneous costs were included in the Charge to reimburse PLC and the City for these costs. However,it was determined that it would not be fair to require property owners to reimburse these costs when they incurred similar costs on their own behalf for individual properties. Therefore, costs incurred for individual properties for these miscellaneous items are credited to each applicable property and are not included in the Charge. Miscellaneous costs are described in detail in the following subsections. Legal Costs Professional legal services were required in relation to property transfer, condemnation and other right-of-way acquisition matters. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Title Fees Title transfer costs were incurred in relation to parcel or portions of a parcel that was purchased as part of right-of-way acquisitions. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Appraisal/Estimation Real estate appraisal costs and equipment relocation estimation costs were incurred in relation to parcels,or portions of parcels that were purchased as part of right-of-way acquisitions. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 13 HOLLY-SEACLIFFAREA OFBENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OFHUN77NGTONBEACH City Real Estate.Services The City of Huntington Beach provided the use of its Real Estate Services Division in certain transactions relating to property purchased as part of roadway improvements.These costs represent the hourly payroll_ rate times the hours spent on each parcel, or portion of parcel, purchased as part of roadway improvements. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Area of Benefit Study The cost associated with conducting this Report was included as a reimbursable cost. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. Eleven properties were excluded from the Charge for the following reasons: • An alternate reimbursement mechanism has been established; • The property does not benefit from the improvements because it is an alley; or • The property does not benefit from the improvements because realignment of the roadway made the property not developable. These properties and the reason for their exclusion are listed in Table 3. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002- PAGE 14 HOLLY•SEACLlFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH Table 3: Excluded Properties Parcel No. Owner Reason For Exclusion 110-210-01 Landis Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-02 Dahl (Kubelka) Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-03 Niccole Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-06 Schuesler Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-07 Spelts Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-10 Niccole Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-11 Fuller Costs paid throug6'Community Facilities District.' 111-150-25 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: used in right-of-way realignment. 111-120-30 Thomas Not developable:alleyway. 111-130-28 City of Huntington Beach Not developable:alleyway. 111-140-10 City of Huntington Beach Not developable:alleyway. 'These parcels are part of the Heritage Homes development that has a Community Facilities(Mello Roos)District responsible for reimbursing PLC for frontage improvements. Sources:City of Huntington Beach;MuniFinancial. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 15 HOLL Y-SEA CLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAcn CHARGE SCHEDULE Table 4 on the following pages shows the cost components and total charge for each property included in the Local Area and subject to the Charge, by parcel number. MUNIFMANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 16 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPOR T CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Table 4:Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front. Roadway age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. Monts' Right-of-Wa laneous3 Charge Goldenwest Street 110-211-01 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 $ 4,500.00 $ $ 6,202.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 19,500.00 21,202.50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 39,000.00 - 42,405.00 110-211-04 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 4,481.25 6,183.75 110-211-05 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 31,368.75 43,286.25 110-220-024 Brindle 330 22,473.00 89.10b.00 111,573.00 110-220-034 Brindle 199 13,551.90 63,730.00 67,281.90 110-220-044 Brindle 129 8,784.90 34,830.00 43,614.90 111-120-0158 S 8 C Oil CO. 132 8,989.20 54.200.00 63,189.20 111.120.06" Thomas 145 - 23,490.00 23,490.00 111-120-074.1 Thomas 145 27,405.00 27,405.00 111-120-084'1 Thomas 145 - 46,980.00 46,980.00 111-120_0g4 Thomas 117 7,967.70 37,908.00 45,875.70 111-120-118 Lingle/Leckie 81 5,516.10 62,676.28 - 68,192.38 111-120-277 Mitchell 258 45.640.00 45,640.00 111-120-28"' Mitchell 132 8,989.20 77,714.59 86,703.79 111-130-11' City of H.B. 123 8,376.30 104,848.83 113,225.13 111-130-128 City of H.B. 72 4.903.20 61,374.92 66,278.12 111-130-14 Williams 88 5.992.80 32,730.00 38,722.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 53.710.00 63,584.50 Gothard Street 111-110-15 Galich 95 6,469.50 4,600.00 11,069.50 111-110-1810 Mandic 290 19,749.00 - 19,749.00 111.110_1973 Greer 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-110-20 Ramsey 98 6,673.80 6,444.00 13,117.80 111-110-2113 Pederson 73 4,971.30 - 4,971.30 111-110-2273 Pederson 73 4,971.30 4,971.30 111-110-38r'13 Custer 127 111-140-1813 Jones 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-191.13 Gustafson 145 - - - 111.140-2117 Thomas 20 1,362.00 - 1,362.00 111-140-2273 Thomas 125 8,512.50 - 8,512.50 111-140-2313 Gardner 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-2413 Thomas 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-2517 Weaver 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 111-140-2713 Everroad 88 5,992.80 - - 5,992.80 111-140-38` Telford 167 11,372.70 46,236.00 57,608.70 111-150-13 City of H.B. 195 13,279.50 154,590.06 167,869.56 111-150-15"" Anderson/Gowdy/Gum 100 - 29,796.27 29,796.27 111-150-161.r Anderson/Gowdy/Gum 100 29,796.27 29,796.27 111-150-17" Scott 200 46,150.00 - 46,150.00 111-150-191 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15,788.03 - 22,257.53 111-150-20° Robrecht 95 6.469.50 15,788.03 - 22,257.53 111-150-211 Delgado 95 6,469.50 18,600.00 - 25,069.50 111-150-2e Elliott 201 13,688.10 13,812.02 - 27,500.12 Garfield Avenue 111-110-0771 Dunn 150 10,215.00 66,109.81 - 76,324.81 111-110-10 Roulette 50 3,405.00 27,909.82 31,314.82 111-110-14 Taylor 79 5,379.90 35,123.78 - 40,503.68 111-110-31`-1 Bollman 100 - 30,800.00 - 30.800.00 111-110-33"12 Weida 50 - - 111-110-36"" Novak 75 - - 111-110-37r'12 Boodman-Gomdon 75 - - - 111-120-121 Leckie 38 2,587.80 24,553.60 27,141.40 111-120-134 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 - 21,405.00 111-120-10 Thomas '50 3,405.00 18,000.00 - 21,405.00 111-120-le Thomas 501 3,405.00 18,000.00 - 21,405.00 MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 17 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Table 4:Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule(cont'd) Project Costs Front- oa way age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. mental Ri ht-of-Wa laneous' Charge 111-120-164 Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 42,810.00 111-120-174 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-184 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-194 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21.405.00 111-120-204 Thomas 68 4,630.80 24,480.00 29.110.80 111-130-018 Weir 18 1,225.80 16,877.24 18,103.04 111-130-02° Weir 75 5,107.50 37,229.21 42,336.71 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3,405.00 29.080.31 32,485.31 111-130-064 Petersen 50 3,405.00 19,600.00 23,005.00 111-130-078 Leckie 50 3,405.00 32,307.36 35,712.36 111-130-088 Leckie 50 3,405.00 32,307.36 35.712.36 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 40,295.00 47,105.00 111-130-268 Weir 75 5,107.50 37,229.21 42,336.71 111-140-02' Weir 25 1,702.50 10,325.06 12,027.56 111-140-04' Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 15,325.00 18,730.00 111-140-058 Thomas 50 3,405.00 15,325.00 18,730.00 111-140-068 Weaver&Mola 100 6,810.00 30,650.00 37,460.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6.810.00 42,025.00 48.835.00 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 23,100.00 - 26,505.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 18 1,225.80 18,910.00 20,135.80 111-140-368 Weir 25 1,702.50 10.325.06 12,027.56 111-140-378 Weir 50 3,405.00 20,650.13 24,055.13 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 18,960.00 22,365.00 Main Street 111-150-3014 Santiago 103 7,014.30 - 7,014.30 111-150-3614 Southridge Homes 206 14,028.60 - 14.028.60 111-150-37" Keller 110 7,491.00 - 7,491.00 111-150-3814 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 - 7.218.60 111-150-3914 Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 - 7,150.50 Total 8,349 $455,180.40 $2,090,286.23 $ $2,545,466.63 Total Parcels 83 Actual per foot roadway construction costs incurred by PLC Land Company multiplied by frontage amount($68.10 per foot,see Table 2). 2 Reflects Payments 1-116. 'Miscellaneous costs include legal,real estate title,appraisal fees.City of Huntington Beach real estate services,and this charge study. Does not include City real estate services provided to PLC for ROW acquisition. These costs are credited to all parcels and are not included in the Charge. 4 ROW payments based on appraised values for parcel or like parcel. Per square foot values include: $14/sf for 111-110- 31 end 111-130.06; $14.50/sffor 111-140-38; $15/sffor 110-220-02through 110-220-04;$18/sf for 111-120-06 through 111-120-09;and$20/sf for 111-120-13through 111-120-20, 8 Parcels credited for extraordinary ROW acquisition required for realignment. Credit given for lost oil well and/or oil production where applicable. Credit given for unusable parcel caused by realignment where applicable. 8 Parcel credited$85,215 for appraised value of oil well affected by ROW take. Resulting ROW charge is comparable on a per square foot ROW payment($13.43/s f)for a similar property taken at approximately the some time for 132 linear feet of frontage 30 feet deep(e.g..$13.43/sf-132 lin.ft'30 ft.=$53,183.) 1 Certain properties with no roadway improvement costs are not charged because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLC's Improvements. e The right-of-way payments for these parcels are distributed proportionately among associated parcels based on linear feet. °Actual ROW payment is substantially more than appraised value. Parcel receives prorated credit of$122,185 for potential lost oil production based on like credit received for parcel 111-120-01. 10 Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost. "Includes Weaverr homas tank costs associated with same parcel. 12 No ROW charge is applicable because ROW was dedicated. "No ROW charge is applicable because ROW take was on opposite(east)side of Gothard Street. 14 No ROW charge is applicable because no ROW was required on this street. Sources:Table 2;City of Huntington Beach;MuniFinancial. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 18 HOLLY-SEACLIFFAREAoFBENEFITDISTRICTREPciRT Crr OFHUNTINGTONBmcff FUTURE CHARGE ADJUSTMENTS a The City should identify the appropriate inflation index in the proposed Area of Benefit District and adopt an automatic annual inflation adjustment. Typical sources for such an adjustment factor include the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (CCI). Because the CPI includes non-construction industries,we recommend that the City adopt the CCI since the proposed fee supports road construction. Table 5 compares the effects of applying these two indices on the proposed charge for select properties annually through 2020. Actual increases in the proposed fee will vary from those shown in the table depending on the'inflation index selected and the future performance of that index. Table 5:Comparison of Cost Indices on Select Properties 2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 Proposed Parcel No. Fee CPI CCI CPI CO CPI CCI CPI CCI 110-220-02 $111,573.00 $125,089.43 $117,953.53 $144,310.35 $126,444.72 $166.484.71 $135.547.18 $192.066.33 $145.304.90 111-120-01 63.189.20 70,844.21 66.802.80 81,729.95 71.611.78 94,288.36 76.766.94 108,776.47 82.293.21 111.130-12 66,278.12 74,307.34 70,068.37 85,725.21 75,112.43 98.897.53 80.519.59 114.093.87 86,316.01 111-13D-15 63,584.50 71.287.40 67,220.71 82,241.24 72,059.77 94.878.22 77,247.18 109.456.96 82,808.02 111-140-38 57.608.70 64.587.66 60,903.17 74,512.04 65,287.44 85.961.37 69,987.33 99,169.97 75.025.56 111-150-15 29,796.27 33,405.92 31,500.23 38,538.99 33,767.86 44,460.79 36.198.73 51,292.52 38,804.59 Notes: For illustrative purposes,this comparison assumes a Consumer Price Index for CJI Urban Consumers(CPI-U)of 2.9 percent and a Construction Cost Index(CCI)of 1.4 percent as of March 2001. Source:Table 4;U.S.Department of Labor;Engineering News Record;MuniFinancial. MUNIFINANCIAL FEBRUARY 8,2002 PAGE 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 � MuniFinancia 1 1 G' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator r " FROM: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works DATE: February 25, 2001 SUBJECT: Holly-Seacliff / Public Hearing Attached is information that is being distributed to property owners pertaining to the final public workshop being called for March 5, 2002, to discuss the formation of the Holly-Seacliff Area Benefit of District No. 1 . This item is being set for Public Hearing on April 1 , 2002. RFB:cf At council-holly seacliff doc 1 1 1 ' HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT ' FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 FINAL REPORT 1 MARCH 20, 2002 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 - 4 MuniFinancial A W O L-LD AN -C O�M-P A-N Y 1 1 Corporate Office Regional Office 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200 1736 Franklin Street,Suite 450 ' Temecula, California 92590 Oakland,CA 94612 Tel: (800)755-MUNI (6864) Tel: (510)832-0899 Fax: (909)699-3460 www.muni.com Fax: (510)832-0898 1 1 1 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................3 ' Development Agreement Background...........................................................................................................4 LegalBasis...........................................................................................................................................................6 Methodologyand Assumptions.......................................................................................................................9 GeneralDescription.............................................................................................................................9 ' Roadway Construction Costs ...........................................................................................................10 Right-of-way Acquisition Payments................................................................................................11 MiscellaneousCosts...........................................................................................................................14 ' Legal Costs............................................................................................................................ 15 TitleFees............................................................................................................................... 15 Appraisal/Estimation.......................................................................................................... 15 City Real Estate Services............................................................................... . 15 Areaof Benefit Study.......................................................................................................... 15 ExcludedProperties...........................................................................................................................16 ' Charge Schedule...............................................................................................................................................17 FutureCharge Adjustments............................................................................................................................20 1 , 1 ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' It is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach, California ("City") approve the formation of an area of benefit district establishing a charge to developers of new residential and non-residential projects within the ' Holly-Seacliff area of the City. Normally, the City requires as a condition of development that the owner widen the street to its ultimate right of way, as shown in the Circulation Element of the City General Plan. ' However, pursuant to the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, the master developer, not the adjacent property owners, widened Goldenwest, Garfield, Gothard and Main Streets. The proposed Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District would charge the property owners adjacent to these streets a development impact fee equivalent to the cost the master developer paid to widen these streets. The proposed charge varies by property depending upon each property's actual share of total improvement costs. Total improvement costs are composed of sidewalk and roadway construction costs, and right-of-way acquisition payments to property owners. Charge revenues will be deposited into a separate City account and used exclusively to first reimburse the ' master developer the costs it advanced for initially widening these streets and then reimburse the City for some of the costs it advanced to the master developer. ' Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., before an impact fee such as this area of benefit charge may be imposed, the City ' must first establish a fair and reasonable relationship or "nexus" between the fee charged and the cost of the proposed public improvements. This report serves to document the nexus requirement between the fee ' proposed and the benefit received for the road and related improvements the master developer installed. ' Table 1.summarizes the results of our analysis by presenting total improvement costs, and the number of properties to which the fee applies. ' MumFINANUAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 1 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' r Table 1: Summary of Costs & Charges ' Total Roadway Improvements $ 455,180 ' Right-of-Way 2,090,286 Miscellaneous' ' Total Costs $ 2,545,466 Parcels Subject to Fee 83 It is recommended that miscellaneous costs for legal, title,appraisal,and real estate services incurred in order to acquire right-of-way be excluded from the charge because ' it was deemed unfair to charge property owners to reimburse these costs when they incurred similar costs on their own behalf. Costs associated with producing this report are also excluded. Sources: Table 4; MuniFinancial. 1 , 1 1 MUNIFINANCLU MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 2 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH ' INTRODUCTION ' This report calculates a Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District charge to be paid by property owners that abut and,benefit from roadways improved by the developer, the PLC Land Company (PLC). The 1990 ' Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement required PLC to over-size certain road improvements otherwise needed to meet traffic demand resulting from the Holly-Seacliff Project. PLC installed four-lane and six-lane ' arterial roadways, which pass through Holly-Seacliff. However, the outer two lanes of these arterials do not benefit the Holly-Seacliff Project, but instead are needed to serve growth on abutting properties by providing ' access to those properties. The properties subject to the Charge (the "Local Area") includes those properties that abut the arterial improvements PLC constructed along Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue and Main Street (the "Arterials"). Only those properties that benefit from the improvements ' and have not otherwise implemented an alternative reimbursement mechanism would be subject to the Charge. ' The City will collect the charge from properties within the Local Area only when they develop. The charge would vary by property depending on each property's actual project costs subject to reimbursement. 1 ' MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 3 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH 1 ' DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BACKGROUND In December 1990, the City and Pacific Coast Homes entered into the ' Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement. The Development Agreement provided for the development of a residential and commercial project of ' approximately 545 acres bounded generally by Central Park and Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and Main Streets on the east,Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south, and the City of Huntington Beach boundary line on the west ("Holly-Seacliff"). The Agreement required (among other things) for the Developer to construct certain public ' facilities and pay certain public facility charges to the City. The Agreement also obliged the City to (1) determine the cost of the public facilities the Developer was required to construct that were in excess of ' those necessary to serve the Holly-Seacliff development; and (2) reimburse the Developer for these excess costs from charges or exactions from other developments that would be served by the excess capacity. ' In May 1996, the City consented to the sale of a portion of the Holly- Seacliff property to PLC, a California general partnership, and the remainder to MS Vickers, II, a Delaware limited liability company. As ' part of the transfer, PLC agreed to assume the obligations to install and pay for the public facilities required under the Development Agreement. ' Simultaneously, PLC became the beneficiary of the City's obligations to cause the Developer to be reimbursed for the cost of excess capacity in the public facilities. Regarding traffic and circulation improvements, the Development Agreement provided that the Developer was to install the arterial road improvements, principally Main, Garfield, Edwards, Goldenwest, Ellis, ' and Gothard. The Development Agreement then provided that "upon acceptance of the improvements," the Developer was eligible for "Reimbursable Costs" pursuant to Section 2.2.11 of the Agreement. ' "Reimbursable Costs" were defined to mean those "improvements in excess of those required to service the proposed project." ' Reimbursement is due from subsequent development. Section 2.2.11 of the Development Agreement begins by stating that"when in the performance of this Agreement, Developer is eligible for Reimbursable ' Costs, the following procedures apply." Section 2.2.11(a) then continues, stating that "upon receipt of funds generated by charges or exactions from other developers served by excess capacity of public facilities paid ' for by Developer, City shall reimburse Developer its verified Reimbursable Costs." This Section requires the City to reimburse the Developer (i.e., PLC) from fees or exactions collected from other ' developers served by the excess capacity. ' MUNYINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 4 ' HOLLY-SFACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HuNTINGTON BEACH PLC installed in excess of $35,300,000 in roads and arterial improvements. PLC contended that it was entitled to reimbursement for ' a significant portion of these costs. PLC sought to arbitrate its cost reimbursement as permitted under the Development Agreement. Instead, the City and PLC entered into a Settlement Agreement on April 17, 2000 ' that, among other things, authorized reimbursing PLC from property owners adjacent to the Arterials in the amount of the cost of pavement plus curb, gutter and sidewalk, and related acquisition costs. Absent ' PLC's construction of the arterials, these property owners would have been required to install these same improvements as a condition of development pursuant to Section 254.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Consequently, the Settlement Agreement provides that these property owners would pay these costs as a condition of their development. More specifically, the first $812,000 the City ' receives from these property owners will be paid to PLC. All further amounts will be retained by the City,in order to reimburse the City for (i) the $500,000 it has already paid PLC for the completion of Gothard between Garfield and Main, and the completion of Goldenwest between Garfield and Ellis, and (ii) the credits the City has extended PLC against ' its traffic impact fees for installing other street improvements within the Holly Seacliff area. MUNYWANCIAL MARcH20,2002 PAGE 5 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNT7NGTON BEACH LEGAL BASIS The Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code §§ 66485-66489) provides that if the City requires a subdivider to install supplemental capacity in public improvements for the benefit of property not within ' the subdivision, the City shall enter into an agreement with the subdivider for reimbursement of the difference in cost. To pay costs of reimbursement, the City may collect a reasonable charge from persons ' outside the subdivision for their use of the supplemental capacity. Such a charge may be through an area of benefit district, such as the one proposed in this Report. Whether such a charge must also comply with the reasonable relationship, or "nexus" requirement contained in The Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code § 66000 et seq.) is unclear. Regardless, the proposed Charge does comply with The Mitigation Fee Act. ' The Mitigation Fee Act establishes ground rules for the imposition and ongoing administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January 1989 and requires local governments to make five findings when ' adopting an impact fee. These findings and their justification for this Holly-Seacliff Traffic Impact Fee are described below: ' 1. Identify the purpose of the charge. The purpose of the Charge is to reimburse the Holly-Seacliff Developer and the City for oversized roadway improvement projects made within Holly-Seacliff. 2. Identify the use of charge revenues. ' Charge revenues shall be used to reimburse the Developer and the City of Huntington Beach for actual costs incurred for oversizing ' arterials within Holly-Seacliff. 3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the charge's use and the type of development paying the charge. The developments paying the charge will be those benefiting from the oversized improvements. Absent the Developer having ' installed the improvement, the individual property owners would have been required to install the same improvements when they developed. Charge revenues will only be used to reimburse actual ' costs for installing the improvements the property owner otherwise would have installed. ' MUNYINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 6 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 4. Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the charge and the type of development paying the charge. ' Except for the fact that PLC was widening the arterials as part of the Holly-Seacliff project, the abutting property owners would be required to dedicate the right-of-way and Aviden the Arterials as a condition of their own development. This requirement is found at Government Code § 66475 and Section 254.02 of the ' Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("HBZSO"), which require that the subdivider, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, to dedicate, or make an irrevocable ' offer to dedicate, all parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for required improvements, including access rights and abutters' rights. In addition, the subdivider shall construct or ' agree to construct all required improvements in accord with Chapter 255 of the HBZSO. ' Section 255.04(B) then requires that the frontage of each parcel be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and ' transitions. Further, Section 250.04 requires that all land be developed consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Finally, Section 254.18 of the HBZSO and Section 2.2.11 of the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement provide that when the Developer installs improvements with supplemental capacity, the City Council shall ' determine the method for payment of the costs required by a reimbursement agreement which may include but is not limited to the establishment and maintenance of local benefit districts for ' the levy and collection of such charge or costs from the property benefited. ' The need for the charge is also demonstrated by traffic analysis prepared in connection with the PLC development. That analysis showed that development on properties within the Holly-Seacliff ' area and included in the proposed Area of Benefit District would generate additional traffic and contribute to the need for the improvements constructed by PLC. Please see Appendix A for a ' copy of a briefing prepared by Boyle Engineering that summarized traffic modeling data on this issue. The last pages of that briefing show simplified cross-sections of streets in the area. For each ' street, the figure shows the additional traffic volumes generated by PLC (indicated as "developer") and other properties in the area (indicated as "HSO", or "Holly-Seacliff Other"). For all street ' sections "HSO" development contributes to the need for the additional capacity provided by the PLC improvements. ' MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 7 HOMY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 5. Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the charge and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying ' the charge. Roadway construction costs are allocated to applicable individual properties based on linear feet of frontage and the cost of one lane ' with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Right-of-way acquisition costs are allocated based on the actual costs attributable to each property ' limited to a maximum width of one lane with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, or some reasonable allocation method if actual costs are not available (see Methodology and Assumptions section and ' Table 4). In sum, the charge is set equal to the cost of the improvements needed to accommodate the development paying the charge, and charge revenues ' would only be used to reimburse for those costs. I ' MUNiFiNANCLU MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 8 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS ' This section describes the methodology and assumptions used to calculate the Charge. General-Descri tion i Only properties abutting the oversized Arterials are subject to the Charge. These properties are all located on Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue, and Main Street, and abut roadway improvements constructed by PLC. ' Total roadway improvement costs are composed of the following items: • Roadway construction costs for the outer lane abutting the ' property, and • Right-of-way acquisition payments to property owners for the outer lane abutting the property. ' Miscellaneous costs, including legal costs related to right-of-way acquisition, title fees, real estate appraisal fees, and reimbursement to ' the City for real estate services provided to PLC and for the cost of this study, are excluded from roadway improvement costs. ' The City provided copies of all available checks, invoices and supporting documentation for all right-of-way payments incurred on behalf of the project and requested for reimbursement by PLC. These costs were ' allocated to specific properties based on parcel details stated on supporting documentation, primarily parcel and right-of-way acquisition descriptions from appraisal reports, or some reasonable allocation method. Costs incurred in construction of roadway improvements were provided ' by PLC in the form of a cost per linear foot. Each property's frontage distance after any acquisition required for the right-of-way provides the basis for allocating roadway improvements costs. The frontage distance ' of each property is also primarily based on the property descriptions in the appraisal reports mentioned above, plus the City's parcel maps and improvement plans. ' In accordance with their agreement, the City of Huntington Beach maintained several bank accounts on behalf of PLC. The balances in ' these accounts, along with additional deposits from PLC,were used to pay vendor invoices for the right-of-way payments. ' MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 9 HOLLY-SEAcLiFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH ' Roadway Construction-YCosts _.. ' Roadway improvements were installed on portions of Golden West Street, Gothard Street, Garfield Avenue and Main Street, all of which pass through the PLC development. Roadway improvements are composed of ' the following: • Minimum ten-foot traffic lanes composed of six-inch asphalt ' concrete paving over a 12-inch aggregate base (only the costs of the two outer lanes are being recovered through the Area of Benefit District); ' • Two-foot curb and gutter (eight-inches high); • Six-foot sidewalk; and • Street lights with minimum spacing of approximately 150 feet including the cost all necessary conduit, boxes, poles and ' installation. Specific costs incurred in construction of roadway improvements were ' provided by PLC in the form of a cost per linear foot. Payments for roadway construction costs occurred between April 1997 and April 2000. However, PLC and the City agreed to use 1998 as the base year for ' comparison of roadway construction costs. We obtained independent estimates of comparable construction projects from the City of Huntington Beach and Willdan, a civil engineering firm located in ' California. These comparable costs were adjusted to 1998 dollars. As illustrated in Table 2, the comparable costs were greater than the actual cost provided by PLC. Roadway improvements were allocated based on each property's linear feet of frontage multiplied by PLC's cost per linear foot for construction. ' Frontage for corner properties located at the intersection of two Arterials included both frontages plus the radius of the corner. .Frontage for corner properties located at the intersection of an Arterial and Collector ' street include only the Arterial frontage and corner radius. All properties subject to the fee abut roads improved by PLC, thus providing a reasonable relationship between the impact fee charged for roadway ' improvements and benefits received by property owners paying the impact fee. ' Property owners who installed roadway improvements at their own expense prior to PLC's installation of improvements are exempt from this portion of the impact fee to avoid double charging these property owners ' for replacement of improvements already made.' City staff reviewed I The parcels exempted from reimbursement of roadway improvement costs include parcels 111-120-06,111-120- 07,111-120-08, ill-120-27,111-110-38,111-140-19, 111-150-15,111-150-16,111-150-17, 111-110-31,111-110-33, 111-110-36,and 111-110-37. ' MUNYMANCIAL MARcH20,2002 PAGE 10 ' HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HuNTINGTON BEACH ' aerial photographs and other supporting documentation to confirm that these improvements existed prior to PLC's improvements. ' Table 2: Comparative Roadway Construction Costs p Y Cost per Linear Foot city Of Huntington Improvement PLC' Beach Willdan3 ' 10 ft. Asphalt Concrete Paving° $ 25.00 $ 27.16 $ 25.45 Street Light Conduit, Boxes & Lights5 22.00 30.28 33.61 2 ft. Curb&Gutter(8 in. high) 11.70 14.65 14.65 6 ft. Sidewalk 9.40 9.77 14.41 ' Total Cost $ 68.10 $ 81.86 $ 88.12 ' Actual roadway improvement costs incurred by PLC Land company(1998 dollars). ' 2 Roadway improvement costs estimated by the City of Huntington Beach based on actual City projects in 1999(deflated to 1998 dollars). 3 Roadway improvement costs estimated by Willdan based on bids for recent comparative projects ' (adjusted to 1998 dollars). °Assumes 10-foot wide lane with 6-inch asphalt concrete over 12-inch base. 5 Assumes 150-foot spacing of lights. ' . Sources: PLC Land Company;City of Huntington Beach;Willdan. Right of wa Ac ulsltioriPa="menu ' Portions of certain were acquired through either negotiation or properties q g g condemnation proceedings. However, if that same property owner from whom the right-or-way was acquired, was instead subdividing or otherwise developing his property, Section 254.02 of the HBZSO would have ' required dedication of this same property. Consequently, pursuant to Section 254.18 requiring reimbursement for supplemental capacity,it is recommended that those property owners that have received compensation in the past for acquired land reimburse such payments. Description of Overall Approach To establish the reimbursement amount for acquisition,we reviewed copies of right-of-way checks paid to property owners, appraisals and title ' reports, and other legal documents where available. (If no right-of-way was acquired, then no reimbursement for this payment is required.) The reimbursement amount for right-of-way was calculated in the following ' manner: ' MUNIRNANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 11 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' • Payment records were used whenever available. If payment records were not available or incomplete for a particular parcel, ' then the appraised value from the appraisal report was used. Payments for multiple properties were allocated based on the area acquired from each property. ' • The reimbursement amount was reduced to exclude significant portions of payments related to oil wells or other major ' improvements. • The reimbursement amount only included that portion of the acquisition represented for an 18-foot width for one lane plus curb, gutter, and sidewalk, based on the acquisition cost per square foot net of the above adjustments. The approach used to determine each parcel's right-of-way reimbursement component of the total Charge is detailed in Appendix B with ' supporting documentation. Specific Parcel Considerations ' The fee calculation for five properties included credits for additional costs from realignment of Gothard Street that occurred after the roadway improvements were identified in the Development Agreement. The realignment caused an increase in the amount of right-of-way needed beyond that required for a travel lane. It is appropriate to delete the ' additional costs associated with this realignment from the Charge calculation to ensure that all properties are treated according to the same roadway improvement standards. ' This right-of-way credit affected the following properties: ' • One property (parcel numbers 111-150-15 and 16) was credited for a total of $292,039 associated with acquisition of 10-feet of right-of-way out of the 20-foot take needed for the Project. This ' credit was based on the ratio of the appraised value of land taken to the total appraised compensation amount applied to the total right-of-way payment, excluding the value of improvements. ' • Three properties (parcel numbers 111-150-17, 19-20 and 21) were credited amounts of $46,150, $31,576, and $18,600, respectively, associated with acquisition of 10-feet of right-of-way normally required out of the 20-feet actually taken. This credit was calculated by multiplying total acquisition costs by 10/20 (or 50 percent). • One property (parcel number 110-150-24), which was substantially reduced in size by the realignment because the roadway cut the MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 12 ' HOLLY-SP-ACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH ' parcel into two pieces,'was credited $211,188. The credit was based on the average cost per square foot for the acquisition (total ' acquired area divided by total acquisition costs). The average cost per square foot was multiplied by each of the following two area calculations to calculate the credit: — The amount of right-of-way that would have been required if the roadway had not been realigned was deducted from the ' total acquired area to calculate the amount of area associated with the realignment.' — The area of the small section of the original parcel left ' stranded and not developable by the realignment. In addition, the charge calculation includes credits for lost oil production. ' This right-of-way credit affects the following parcels: • One property (parcel number 111-120-01) was credited $85,215 for the appraised value of the oil well impacted by the right-of- take associated with this property. The resulting right-of-way acquisition charge is comparable on a per square foot basis for a ' similar property taken at approximately the same time. • One property (parcel number 111-120-28) was credited $122,185 for the value of lost oil production from this property in the same ratio of the oil well credit to total right-of-way payment made for the previous parcel. ' Finally, several right-of-way payments were lumped together for multiple properties. In these instances, right-of-way reimbursements were based on appraised values or were allocated based on the ratio of ' linear feet associated with a specific property to total linear feet for all affected properties. ' This problem of allocation of lump-sum payments was particularly acute as to parcel numbers 111-220-02, -03, and -04 as well as parcel numbers 111-120-06, -07, -08 and -09 and 111-120-13 through -20. In ' both cases, the property owner of both these sets of parcels sued the Developer over the adoption of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. As part of the settlement of the litigation, both owners deeded right-of- way in exchange for $619,529 and $815,000, respectively. It was then necessary to allocate this payment to the individual parcels that they owned along both Garfield and Goldenwest Streets to determine the 2 Total original area of this property was 17,168 square feet. The right-of-way taken for the road realignment was 9,937 square feet and the area deemed not developable was 1,400 square feet. Remaining usable property was 5,831 square feet. 3 The amount of right-of-way that would have been required if the roadway had not been realigned is estimated at ' 2,010 square feet or 201 of front footage multiplied by 10 feet of right-of-way normally taken needed for the Project. ' MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 13 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' fee. To determine the allocation, we relied upon the property appraisals that Mark Linnes prepared on behalf of the City in 1993. ' Although the Settlement Agreement (see Appendix C) likely reflects the fact that the owners successfully contended their property values were substantially more than the Mr. Linnes' appraisals,we have relied exclusively on the City's original appraisals to set the amount of ' reimbursement. The total amount allocated to right-of-way cost to each of these parcels is $177,660 and $304,263 respectively, ' approximately $440,000 and $510,000 less than the amount they were paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. ' In addition, incorporated as Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement is a letter from Mike Adams, then-Director of Community Development for the City, explaining that it was anticipated in 1993 that these ' properties would be subject to the very impact fee that the City is now considering. The letter states that the City Code authorizes the creation of Cost Reimbursement Districts for the "purpose of reimbursing a Developer for the cost of public infrastructure constructed by Developer which benefit other property owners" and that such reimbursement would not be due and payable until the property owner "records a final map . . . or applies for a building permit." However, the fee would not be payable in connection with building permits issues for minor improvements or repairs. The letter ' concludes by stating that the intent of cost reimbursement: ' "...is to impose the liened costs at such time as you record a final map or apply for a building permit in connection with your development of the . . . Property for a use which is different from or unrelated to the existing uses. Accordingly, the continuation or expansion of the existing uses of the . . . Property or the issuance of a building permit incident thereto will not require you to pay ' the liened costs." ' The Holly-Seacliff Area of Benefit District is consistent with this representation. The Charge will only be collected when these ' properties are developed with a new use or a tract map. Refer to Appendix C for full copy of the Settlement Agreement. -- MiscellaneousCosts Initially, miscellaneous costs were included in the Charge to reimburse PLC and the City for these costs. However, it was determined that it ' would not be fair to require property owners to reimburse these costs ' MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 14 ' HOLLY-SE cLIFFAREAOFBENEFITDISTRICTREPORT CITY OFHUNTINGTONBEACH ' when they incurred similar costs on their own behalf for individual properties. Therefore, costs incurred for individual properties for these ' miscellaneous items are credited to each applicable property and are not included in the Charge. Miscellaneous costs are described in detail in the following subsections. Legal Costs , ' Professional legal services were required in relation to property transfer, condemnation and other right-of-way acquisition matters. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included ' in the Charge. Title Fees ' Title transfer costs were incurred in relation to P or parcel portions of a parcel that was purchased as part of right-of-way acquisitions. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. ' Appraisal/Estimation ' Real estate appraisal costs and equipment relocation estimation costs were incurred in relation to parcels, or portions of parcels that were purchased as part of right-of-way acquisitions. However, these costs have been ' credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. ' City Real Estate Services The City of Huntington Beach provided the use of its Real Estate Services Division in certain transactions relating to property purchased as ' part of roadway improvements. These costs represent the hourly payroll rate times the hours spent on each parcel, or portion of parcel, purchased as part of roadway improvements. However, these costs have been ' credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. ' Area of Benefit,Study The cost associated with conducting this Report was included as a ' reimbursable cost. However, these costs have been credited to all applicable properties and are not included in the Charge. ' MUNYINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 15 ' HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNPINGTON BEACH ---- Excluded Properties Eleven properties were excluded from the Charge for the following reasons: ' • An alternate reimbursement mechanism has been established; • The property does not benefit from the improvements because it is an alley; or • The property does not benefit from the improvements because realignment of the roadway made the property not developable. ' These properties and the reason for their exclusion are listed in Table 3. ' Table 3: Excluded Properties Parcel No. Owner Reason For Exclusion ' 110-210-01 Landis Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-02 Dahl (Kubelka) Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' ' 110-210-03 Niccole Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-06 Schuesler Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-07 Spelts Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' ' 110-210-10 Niccole Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 110-210-11 Fuller Costs paid through Community Facilities District.' 111-150-25 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: used in right-of-way realignment. 111-120-30 Thomas Not developable: alleyway. 111-130-28 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: alleyway. 111-140-10 City of Huntington Beach Not developable: alleyway. 'These parcels are part of the Heritage Homes development that has a Community Facilities(Mello Roos)District responsible for reimbursing PLC for frontage improvements. ' Sources:City of Huntington Beach;MuniFinancial. ' MuNYINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 16 ' HOLLY-SEACuFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUN77NGTON BEACH CHARGE SCHEDULE ' Table 4 on the following pages shows the cost components and total charge for each property included in the Local Area and subject to the Charge, by parcel number. 1 1 ' MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 17 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' Table 4:Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule Project Costs Front- Roadway ' age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. mental Right-of-Way' laneous' Charge Goldenwest Street ' 110-211-018 Ghodooshim 25 $ 1,702.50 $ 4,035.00 $ $ 5,737.50 110-211-02 Borghetti 25 1,702.50 17,550.00 19,252.50 110-211-03 Marow 50 3,405.00 35,100.00 38,505.00 110-211-048 Ghodooshim 25 1,702.50 4,035.00 5,737.50 ' 110-211-058 Ghodooshim 175 11,917.50 28,245.00 40,162.50 110-220-024 Brindle 330 22,473.00 89,100.00 111,573.00 110-220-034 Brindle 199 13,551.90 53,730.00 67,281.90 110-220-044 Brindle -129 8,784.90 34,830.00 43,614.90 ' 111-120-018 S&C Oil Co. 132 8,989.20 48,780.00 57,769.20 111-120-064.7 Thomas 145 23,490.00 23,490.00 111-120-074-' Thomas 145 27,414.00 27,414.00 111-120-084.7 Thomas 145 46,980.00 46,980.00 ' 111-120-094 Thomas 117 7,967.70 37,908.00 45,875.70 111-120-118 Lingle/Leckie 113 7,695.30 34,391.94 42,087.24 111-120-277 Mitchell 290 45,640.00 45,640.00 111-120-289 Mitchell 102 6,912.15 62,607.63 69,519.78 ' 111-130-11 City of H.B. 41 2,792.10 27,397.86 30,189.96 111-130-128 City of H.B. 72 4,903.20 26,745.14 31,648.34 111-130-14 Williams 88 5,992.80 19,638.00 25,630.80 111-130-15 Renner 145 9,874.50 32,226.00 42,100.50 ' Gothard Street 111-110-15 Galich 129 8,784.90 4,600.00 13,384.90 111-110-1810 Mandic 290 19,749.00 19,749.00 111-110-1913 Greer 145 9,874.50 - 9,874.50 ' 111-110-20 Ramsey 132 8,989.20 6,444.00 15,433.20 111-110-2113 Pederson 73 4,971.30 4,971.30 111-110-2213 Pederson 73 4,971.30 4,971.30 111-110-387.13 Custer 127 - - ' 111-140-1813 Jones 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-19P3 Gustafson 145 111-140-2113 Thomas 20 1,362.00 1,362.00 111-140-2213 Thomas 125 8,512.50 8,512.50 111-140-2313 Gardner 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-2413 Thomas 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-2513 Weaver 145 9,874.50 9,874.50 111-140-2713 Everroad 88 5,992.80 - 5,992.80 ' 111-140-384 Telford 185 12,598.50 26,100.00 38,698.50 111-150-13 City of H.B. 113 7,695.30 60,352.43 68,047.73 111-150-155'' Anderson/Gowdy/Gum 100 29,778.48 29,778.48 111-150-161.7 Anderson/Gowdy/Gum 100 .29,778.48 29,778.48 ' 111-150-175.7 Scott 200 46,150.00 46,150.00 111-150-195 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15,788.03 22,257.53 111-150-205 Robrecht 95 6,469.50 15,788.03 22,257.53 111-150-215 Delgado 95 6,469.50 18,600.00 25,069.50 ' 111-150-245 Elliott 201 13,688.10 13,812.02 27,500.12 Garfield Avenue 111-110-0771 Dunn 150 10,215.00 28,350.00 38,565.00 111-110-10 Roulette 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 ' 111-110-14 Taylor 50 3,405.00 11,327.70 _ 14,732.70 111-110-311.7 Bollman 100 25,200.00 25,200.00 111-110-337.12 Weide 50 - - 111-110-367.12 Novak 75 ' 111-110-377.72 Boodman-Gorndon 75 - - - 111-120-128 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 18,622.67 111-120-134 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-144 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 ' 111-120-154 Thomas 501 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 ' MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 18 HOLLY-SPACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' Table 4: Allocation of Project Costs and Charge Schedule(cont'd) Project Costs Front- -'Roadway ' age Improve- Miscel- Parcel Number Owner ft. ments' Right-of-Way' laneous' Charge 111-120-164 Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 42,810.00 ' 111-120-174 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-184 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 111-120-194 Thomas 50 3,405.00 18,000.00 21,405.00 ' 111-120-204 Thomas 100 6,810.00 36,000.00 42,810.00 111-130-018 Weir 50 3,405.00 14,124.07 17,529.07 111130-028 Weir 75 5,107.50 21,186.10 26,293.60 111-130-05 Ashby 50 3,405.00 5,000.00 8,405.00 ' 111-130-064 Petersen 50 3,405.00 12,600.00 16,005.00 111-130-078 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 18,622.67 111-130-088 Leckie 50 3,405.00 15,217.67 18,622.67 111-130-09 Wiliams 100 6,810.00 25,903.93 32,713.93 111-130-268 Weir 75 5,107.50 21,186.10 26,293.60 111-140-028 Weir 25 1,702.50 6,637.54 8,340.04 111-140-04 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 - 12,405.00 111-140-05 Thomas 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 ' 111-140-06 Weaver&Mola 100 6,810.00 18,000.00 24,810.00 111-140-07 Lingle 100 6,810.00 27,016.07 33,826.07 111-140-08 Weaver&Mola 50 3,405.00 9,000.00 12,405.00 111-140-09 Loma Linda Univ. 50 3,405.00 10,505.56 13,910.56 ' 111-140-368 Weir 25 1,702.50 6,637.54 8,340.04 111-140-378 Weir 50 3,405.00 13,275.08 16,680.08 159-281-03 Hassett 50 3,405.00 18,960.00 22,365.00 Main Street - 111-150-3014 Santiago 103 7,014.30 7,014.30 111-150-3614 Southridge Homes 206 14,028.60 14,028.60 111-150-3714 Keller 110 7,491.00 - 7,491.00 ' 111-150-3814 S Freddo 106 7,218.60 _ 7,218.60 111-150-3914 Southridge Homes 105 7,150.50 7,150.50 Total 8,384 $455,350.65 $1,494,597.75 $ $1,949,948.40 Total Parcels 83 'Actual per foot roadway construction costs incurred by PLC Land Company multiplied by frontage amount($68.10 per foot,see Table 2). 2 Reflects Payments 1-116. 'Miscellaneous costs include legal,real estate title,appraisal fees,City of Huntington Beach real estate services,and this study. These costs are not included in the Charge. 4 ROW payments based on appraised values for parcel or like parcel. Per square foot values include: $14/sf for 111-110- ' 31 and 111-130-06; $14.50/sf for 111-140-38; $15/sf for 110-220-02 through 110-220-04;$18/sf for 111-120-06 through 111-120-09;and$20/sf for 111-120-13 through 111-120-20. 5 Parcels credited for extraordinary ROW acquisition required for realignment. Credit given for unusable parcel caused by realignment where applicable. 6 Parcel credited$85,215 for appraised value of oil well affected by ROW take. 'Certain properties with no roadway improvement costs are not charged because property owner improvements were in place prior to PLC's improvements. 6 Lump sum right-of-way payments for these parcels allocated proportionately based on square feet of take. Actual ROW payment is substantially more than appraised value. Parcel receives prorated credit of$122,185 for potential lost oil production based on like credit received for parcel 111-120-01. 10 Prior bond issue proceeds expected to fund improvement cost. "Excludes Weaver/Thomas tank costs associated with same parcel. ' 12 No ROW charge is applicable because ROW was dedicated. 13 No ROW charge is applicable because ROW take was on opposite(east)side of Gothard Street. 14 No ROW charge is applicable because no ROW was required on this street. Sources:Table 2;City of Huntington Beach;MuniFinancial. ' MUNIFINANCIAL MARCH20,2002 PAGE 19 HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA OF BENEFIT DISTRICT RFPORT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' FUTURE CHARGE ADJUSTMENTS ' The City should identify the appropriate inflation index in the proposed Area of Benefit District and adopt an automatic annual inflation adjustment. Typical sources for such an adjustment factor include the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (CCI). Because the ' CPI includes non-construction industries,we recommend that the City adopt the CCI since the proposed fee supports road construction. Table 5 compares the effects of applying these two indices on the proposed charge for select properties annually through 2020. Actual increases in the proposed fee will vary from those shown in the table depending on the inflation index selected and the future performance of that index. ' Table 5:Comparison of Cost Indices on Select Properties 2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 Proposed Parcel No. Fee CPI CCI CPI CCI CPI CCI CPI CCI ' 110-220-02 $111,573.00 $125,089.43 $117,953.53 $144,310.35 $126,444.72 $166,484.71 $135,547.18 $192,066.33 $145,304.90 111-120-01 63,189.20 70,844.21 66,802.80 81,729.95 ' 71,611.78 94,288.36 76.766.94 108,776.47 82,293.21 111-130-12 66,278.12 74,307.34 70,068.37 85,725.21 75,112.43 98,897.53 80,519.59 114,093.87 86,316.01 111-130-15 63,584.50 71,287.40 67,220.71 82,241.24 72,059.77 94,878.22 77,247.18 109,456.96 82,808.02 111-140-38 57,608.70 64,587.66 60,903.17 74,512.04 65,287.44 85,961.37 69,987.33 99,169.97 75,025.56 ' 111-150-15 29,796.27 33,405.92 31,500.23 38,538.99 33,767.86 44,460.79 36,198.73 51,292.52 36,804.59 Notes: For illustrative purposes,this comparison assumes a Consumer Price Index for Al Urban Consumers(CPI-U)of 2.9 percent and a Construction Cost Index(CCI)of 1.4 percent as of March 2001. Source: Table 4; U.S.Department of Labor, Engineering News Record; MuniFinancial. 1 1 ' MUNIFINANCLU MARCH 20,2002 PAGE 20 1 MuniFinancial A WILLDAN COMPANY MUNIFINANCIAL OFFICES WILLDAN OFFICES MUNIFINANCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES WILLDAN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 28765 Single Oak Drive,Suite 200 2125 East Katella Avenue,Suite 200 Temecula,California 92590 Anaheim,California 92806 909/699-3990 800/755-6864 714/940-6300 800/424-9144 fax 909/699-3460 www.muni.com fax 714/940-4920 www.wilidan.com Anaheim Anaheim 714/940-6390 fax 714/940-4920 714/940-6300 fax 714/940-6399 Antelope Valley Antelope Valley 661/945-8848 fax 661/723-0854 661/945.8848 fax 661/723-0854 Jacksonville Baldwin Park 904/278-7874 fax 904/278-4665 626/337-5103 fax 626/337-2103 Kansas City Elk Grove 816/554-7161 fax 816/554-7163 916/685-8155 fax 916/685-8296 Los Angeles Foothill Ranch 562/908-6200 fax 562/695-2120 949/470-8840 fax 949/770-9041 Oakland Las Vegas 510/832-0899 fax 510/832-0898 702/734-3001 fax 702/734-0888 San Diego Los Angeles 858/467-6950 fax 858/467-1346 562/908-6200 fax 562/695-2120 Seattle Phoenix 206/361-8494 fax 206/361-9118 602/870-7600 fax 602/870-7601 Washington,D.C. Pleasant Hill 410/490-5935 fax 410/290-7665 925/256-7601 fax 925/934-5068 Sacramento 916/924-7000 fax 916/924-3644 San Bernardino 909/386-0200 fax 909/888-5107 San Diego 858/467-6950 fax 858/467-1346 San Francisco 415/861-5554 fax 415/861-5554 Santa Barbara 805/962-0400 fax 805/962-0510 Tucson 520/624-3406 fax 520/624-3207 Ventura 805/653-6597 fax 805/643-0791