HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 2 - Special Municipal Election March 7, 2000 - Ini (LCM7V OF H JM7OH3701M 183EQCa
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFF110E OF THE C117Y CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington
Beach, do hereby certify that I caused to be destroyed the petitions entitled:
Initiative to amend zoning and general plan designation of Crest View School site to
prohibit commercial development and permit residential uses only.
The Initiative petitions were destroyed on MARCH 7, 2001, in accordance with Elections
Code §17200. Shred-It Mobile Paper Shredding and Recycling of Los Angeles
destroyed the initiative petitions.
Date Connie Brockoy, CIVIC
City Clerk
(Telephone:714-536-5227)
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to:
Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied t: Ci rk Signature
Coun it Meeting Date: 4/17/00 Department ID Number: CC 2000-2
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Goo
PREPARED BY: Connie Brockway, City Clerk f
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-33 — SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
RESULTS — MARCH 7, 2000 MEASURE I — REZONE OF CLOSED
CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE AND ADVISORY MEASURE J —
CREST VIEW SALES TAX VkS. NO 1000-- 33
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Resolution No. 2000-33 recites the facts of the Special Municipal Election consolidated with
the Statewide Primary held in the city on March 7 , 2000, declaring the results thereof and
such other matters as provided by provisions of the City Charter and the Elections Code of
the State of California (Measure I and Advisory Measure J).
Funding Source: Election Program Account #E-AA-CK-`:141-2-21-00.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2000-33 — "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON MARCH 7, 2000, DECLARING THE RESULT
AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW" — (Special Municipal Election
Results — March 7, 2000 — Measure I — Rezone of closed Crest View School Site and
Advisory Measure J — Crest View Sales Tax).
i
Alternative Action(s): Not Applicable
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: 4/17/00 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CC 2000-2
Analysis: The March 7, 2000 Special Municipal Consolidated Election showed a 57.9%
overall turnout. The total number of registered voters was 105,680.
Environmental Status: Not Applicable
Attachment(s):
' . o - Number NO. Description
1. Resolution No. 2000-33
2. Exhibit A — Certificate of Registrar of Voters to Result of the Canvass
of the Election Returns
3. 1 Precinct Listing
RCA Author:
Elections Results-mp -2- 04/11/00 5:25 PM
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-33
a
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE
FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD
ON MARCH 7, 2000, DECLARING THE RESULT AND
SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of
Huntington Beach, California, on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as
provided by law; that voting precincts were properly established; that election officers
were appointed and that in all respects the election was held and conducted and the
votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time,
form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of
California for the holding of elections pursuant to charter; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 99-78 (adopted on September 20, 1999)
and Resolution No. 99-89 (adopted on October 4, 1999), the County Election
Department canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results to the City
Council, the results are received, attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A".
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the whole number of ballots cast in the precincts except
absent voter ballots and provisional ballots was 46,170.
That the whole number of absent voter ballots cast in the City was 15,019,
making a total of 61,189 ballots cast in the City.
No. 2000-33
That the measures voted upon at the election are as follows:
MEASURE I. "Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan Designation of
the Crest View School site from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area
ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Resideential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and
to change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View School site from CG (Commercial
General) to R-L(Low Density Residential) be adopted?"
MEASURE J: "ADVISORY VOTE ONLY." Shall 50% of the sales tax income
from the Crest View site be spent to acquire, develop, improve, maintain sports fields for
soccer, football, softball, baseball, and other sports; replace restrooms,
bicycle/pedestrian trails, lighting, and showers on city beach; acquire senior center site;
develop swim complex, and improve neighborhood parks and tot lots?
SECTION 2. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the,number
of votes given in the City for and against the measures are as listed in Exhibit "A"
attached.
SECTION 3. The City Council does declare and determine that, as a result of
the election, a majority of the voters voting on the measure relating to Measure I, did not
vote in favor of it, and that the measure was not carried, and shall not be deemed
adopted and ratified.
SECTION 4. The City Council does declare and determine that, as a result of
the election, a majority of the voters voting on the measure relating to Advisory
Measure J did vote in favor of it and that said Advisory Measure was carried and shall be
deemed adopted and ratified.
s. No. 2000-33
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Council of the
City, a statement of the result of the election, showing: (1) The whole number of ballots
cast in the City; (2) The measures voted upon; (3) The number of votes given at each
precinct for and against each measure; and (4) The total number of votes given for and
against each measure.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON April 17 , 2000.
. Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Attorney City Clerk
Wresolution/resnumber 2000-33
EA;b;t 'A" Res. No. 2000-33
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO RESULT
OF THE CANVASS OF THE ELECTION RETURNS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters of Orange County, do hereby certify the
following to be a full, true and correct Statement of the Vote for the election listed below,
consolidated with the Primary Election held on March 7,2000.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MEASURE [
YES 26,412
NO, 31,570
MEASURE J
YES 34,398
NO 21,702
PRECINCT BALLOTS CAST: 46,170
ABSENTEE BALLOTS CAST: 15,019
TOTAL BALLOTS CAST: 61,189
I hereby certify that the number of votes cast is as set forth above and appears in
the Certified Statement of the Vote.
WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 24th day of March, 2000.
�RAR OF '•.,
•. •' i0 ;' ROSALYN LEVER
'•;�Lr,'•. 04,' Registrar of Voters
'•,'`'�•''••••-•••••'' \•�4•` Orange County
''enereeH■••�
3/27100 5:07 PM ORANGE COUNTY Statement of Votes 1705 of 2047
March 7,2000 PRIMARY ELECTION
Res. No. 2000-33
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
J
H W
W
UO
U r =N
O' Q p
W ma
L ^ Z } Z
O o OZ oW
Z O ui
N 0 O fZ-., N } y
m F- Z� m O 7� m O
= > Z =5; Z
?100 HUNTINGTON BCH 601 214 35.6 97 94 109 .76
2100-Absentees 601 45 7.5 24 21 29 14.;
?101 HUNTINGTON BCH_ 536 198 36.9 91 89 103 67
?101-Absentees 536 89 16.6 20 59 '52 23
1102 HUNTINGTON BCH 520 24-4 46.9 91 137 127 90
?102-Absentees 520 85 16.3 35 41 51 28
2103 HUNTINGTON BCH 774 '- 228 ;29.5 - 122 92 157.; 54
?103-Absentees T74 33 4.3 13 20 23 10
?106 HUNTINGTON BCH 1040 ., 426 41.6 183 .,_ 224 249:. 149 _
1106-Absentees 1040 174 16.7 81 86 113 49
M09 HUNTINGTON BCH 536 215 40.1 91 117 128 72
?109-Absentees 536 117 21.8 42 71 61 49
!141 HUNTINGTON BCH 741 357 482 154 192 223' 110
?141-Absentees 741 121 16.3 48 68 78_ 37
?142 HUNTINGTON BCH 774 344 44.4 140 183 1T7 .132
?142-Absentees T74 104 13.4 33 66 56 39
?143 HUNTINGTON BCH 536 245 45.7 98 129 114 101
?143-Absentees 538 154 28.7 52 96 78 64
?144_HUNTINGTON BCH .671 -293 43.7 94 184 168` 95
1144-Absentees 671 135 . 20.1 27 102 59 ;.. 63
?145 HUNTINGTON ITCH.,, 898 .. :424 ";472 214 799 261 133
'145-Absentees 898 179 19.9 73 99 97 72
t146 HUNTINGTON BCH 878 375 42.7 167 186 210 134
1146-Absentees 878 126 14.4 55 64 62 51
!147 HUNTINGTON BCH,_ 6522 274 52.5 91 159 117 115
A47-Absentees '522 152 ``29.1 52 86 65 62
1149 HUNTINGTON BCH„ 765 340 44A 172 153 199 : , 118
'149-Absentees 765 120 15.7 49 64 72 40
'.150 HUNTINGTON BCH 817 408 49.9 185 213 235 153
'150-Absentees 817 116 14.2 55 59 78 33
151 HUNTINGTON BCH 473 249 _ 52.6 79 153 120 ' 102
1151-Absentees "473 110 23.3 34 70 54 41 -
'152 HUNTINGTON BCH 911 289 31.7 107 155 156 'r 101
152-Absentees 911 64 7.0 29 30 35 20
'153 HUNTINGTON BCH 683 365 53.4 159 189 209 124
'153-Absentees 683 110 16.1 35 74 53 52
154 HUNTINGTON BCH-. '709 337 .47.5 165 .'`.154 191 115
'154-Absentees 709 121 17.1 41 7$ 58 56 .=
1155 HUNTINGTON BCH 650 322 49.5 120 186 187 : ,115
t55-Absentees 650 128 19.7 38 88 77 46
1.157 HUNTINGTON BCH 781 390 49.9 151 219 197 161
151-Absentees 781 183 23.4 55 114 95 65
158 HUNTINGTON BCH 708 322 =45.6 .101 _185 147 124 �>
:158-Absentees 706 145 20.5 43 93 : 57 79
159 HUNTINGTON BCH 823 441 53.6 157 .259 225 173
159-Absentees 823 160 19.4 67 84 67 78
160 HUNTINGTON BCH 992 307 30.9 135 154 197 84
160-Absentees 992 81 8.2 29 50 47 27
161 HUNTINGTON BCH 886 333. 37.6 167 141 175 119
161-Absentees 886 86 9.7 42 42 48 35
.162 HUNTINGTON BCH 489 239 48.9 105 116 125 83
162-Absentees 489 68 13.9 32 36 33 32
163 HUNTINGTON BCH 553 295 53.3 106 178 166 105
163-Absentees 553 78 14.1 37 38 46 28
165 HUNTINGTON BCH 979 385 39.3 180 .182 249 104
165-Absentees 979 119 12.2 `53 60 64 40
166 HUNTINGTON BCH 694 329 47A 277 47 251 67
166-Absentees 694 132 19.0 97 34 88 40
167 HUNTINGTON BCH 693 294 42.4 211 71 224 59
167-Absentees 693 79 11.4 58 21 60 17
169 HUNTINGTON BCH 865 325 37.6 164 136 182 107
169-Absentees 865 117 13.5 38 71 57 45
170 HUNTINGTON BCH 589 308 52.3 137 167 155 133
170-Absentees 589 100 17.0 41 58 54 44
171 HUNTINGTON BCH 891 330 37.0 148 160 179 131
171-Absentees 891 115 12.9 45 59 55 47
173 HUNTINGTON BCH 913 371 40.6 178 ` 173 219 124
173-Absentees 913 78 8.5 26 51 30 42
174 HUNTINGTON BCH wl 3501 41A 182 143 182 137 '
3/27/00 5:07 PM ORANGE COUNTY Statement of Votes 1706 of 2047
March 7,2000 PRIMARY ELECTION Res. No. 2 0 0 0-3 3
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
i0
f- ~
h N
W Lu
U
vo
Lp
V>
U $ 0
W « m Q
m > Z
C 0 Z O W
V 0 Z Z J
N M 0 FN t"co - -
O
m = W } Z 2 W>- Z
> -7>
12174-Absentees. 845 110 ..: 13.0 56 42 62 33
12175 HUNTINGTON BCH 773 381 49.3 164 196 216 134
2175-Absentees 773 167 21.6 69 .91 _. 94 62
52176 HUNTINGTON BCH 918 400 43.6 194 189 245 128
t2176-Absentees 918 211 23.0 89 119 117 83
12177 HUNTINGTON BCH 931 326 35.0 164 141 180 112
12177-Absentees 931 88 9.5 39 46 51 30 ?
12178 HUNTINGTON BCH 657 193 29.4 79 103 112
32178-Absentees 657 42 6.4 22 19
12179 HUNTINGTON BCH 904 407 45.0 184 195 212 157
12179-Absentees 904 175 19.4 71 99 92 71
32180 HUNTINGTON BCH 882 418 47.4 171 228 207 178
32180-Absentees 882 145 -"16.4 48 88 -
52182 HUNTINGTON BCH 843 424 50.3 173 ' :''M 238 149
12182-Absentees 843 : 114 13.5 46 - 64 56`;.._ ,,49
12154 HUNTINGTON BCH 777 364 46.8 161 189 205 142
2164-Absentees 777 123 15.8 64 54 69 49
12186 HUNTINGTON BCH 867 374 43.1 177 181 223 123
2186-Absentees 867 130 15.0 64 61 ;72 .51
12188 HUNTINGTON BCH 899 419 46.6 158 246 254 < 140
32188-Absentees 899 125 13.9 54 63 70 47 ;
12190 HUNTINGTON BCH 601 272 45.3 132 120 148 98
12190-Absentees 601 87 14.5 30 49 44 38
2191 HUNTINGTON BCH 740 366 49.5 159 179 207 125
32191-Absentees 740 108 14.6 31 64 66 32 ..
12193 HUNTINGTON BCH 758 366 48.3 154 205 206 132
12193-Absentees 758 88 :11.6 17 69 40 45
Q194 HUNTINGTON BCH 785 296 37.7 149 132 182 89
12194-Absenbees 785 75 9.6 28 40 40 28
12195 HUNTINGTON BCH 891 337 37.8 152 162 195 111
32195-Absentees 891 93 10.4 43 45 53 35 ='
32196 HUNTINGTON BCH.. 813 276 ,> 33 9 117 125 ::145 89
32196-Absentees 813 52 6.4 22 25 19
12197 HUNTINGTON BCH 880 356 40.5 160 171 211 113
32197-Absentees 880 102 11.6 54 46 65 40
12198 HUNTINGTON BCH 535 305 57.0 124 163 182 91
32198-Absentees 535 76 142 23 - 61 :45 27".
32200 HUNTINGTON BCH
912 'r 404 _ ':44 3 - 186 190 226 145
12200-Absentees " 912 195 „ :21A 89 7., 102 , 119 AM '
12204 HUNTINGTON BCH 484 213 44.0 106 98 124 71
12204-Absentees 484 52 10.7 14 37 25 25
52205 HUNTINGTON BCH 430 227 52.8 95 121 131 79
32205-Absentees 430 81 18.8 `37 - 43 47 26
12207 HUNTINGTON BCH IM 353 422 150 184 209 116
t2207-Absentees , 836 44 ',:5.3 - 15 27, 22 - 19
=W HUNTINGTON BCH 976 406 41.6 175 211 240 131
12208-Absentees 976 203 20.8 74 125 120 75
32209 HUNTINGTON BCH 631 288 45.6 124 150 161 108
32209-Absentees: 631 118 18.7 45 66 60 43
32232 HUNTINGTON BCH 769. 317 ' c'412 131 168 188 ..' 99
32232-Absenffies 769 94 ::' 12.2 41 51 62. 26
32247 HUNTINGTON BCH 897 447 49.8 222 207 265 146
32247-Absentees 897 127 142 59 62 74 44
12265 HUNTINGTON BCH 721 333 46.2 155 168 197 117
2M-Absentees 721 87 12.1 35 47 50 33 :
32266 HUNTINGTON BCH 757 407 53.8 205 189 233 150
32266-Absentees 757 105 13.9 34 =.' .67 59, 38
32267 HUNTINGTON BCH 591 284 48.1 112 160 166 103
52267-Absentees 591 78 13.2 26 49 41 35
12269 HUNTINGTON BCH 672 335 49.9 140 171 179 124
-Absentees. 672 115 17.1 42 71 '66 554
32270 HUNTINGTON BCH 774 388 50.1 180 193 229 137
32170-Absentees 774 129 16.7 51 72 71 47
32M HUNTINGTON BCH 653 177 27.1 76 82 94 57
32278-Absentees 653 63 9.6 25 28 36 15
32280 HUNTINGTON BCH 553 252 45.6 89 127 113 89
12280-Absentees 553 129 23.3 43 76 73 39
32282 HUNTINGTON BCH 71 319 42.9 124 176 186 108
32282-Absentees 743,
43 105 14.1 40 58 51 40
31271.00 5:07 PM ORANGE COUNTY Statement of Votes 1707 of 2047
March 7,2000 PRIMARY ELECTION
Zes. No. 2000-33
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
50
I.-
~
N
W It
UO
9 -
= to
0,2 (1 p
W .m. mQ
O a O O O y
V a Z O W J
N C C f-N z U)
4) m 3 m O x � m O
_;} Z '; } Z
=83 HUNTINGTON BCH 814. - 352 ': :02 . . 164 :. ::180 208 116
t2283-Absentees 814 166 20.4 62 94 93 62  -
s,
HUNTINGTON BCH 591 318 :53.8 143 160 155 134
2285-Absentees 591 - 106 17.9 35 68 54 40
;2286 HUNTINGTON BCH 749 239 31.9 131 98 152 66
:2286-Absentees 749 115 15.4 56 55 67 38
2287 HUNTINGTON BCH 944 370 39.2 _ " 166 177 ,. 210 "-i 129 _
.228T-Absentees 944 148 15.7 45 94 83 - 50
2289 HUNTINGTON BCH` 395 185 46.8 ..... 62 115, 95 71
2269-Absentees 395 74 18.7 26 44 40 32
2293 HUNTINGTON BCH 632 294 46.5 159 128 181 100
Z293-Absentees 632 104 16.5 42 57 55 37
2295 HUNTINGTON BCH 891 424 47.6 189 217 240 156
2295-Abserlhee§ 891 95 10.7 32 60 _ 47 45
2300 HUNTINGTON BCH:. -: 281 : 138
2300-Absentees 281 35 12.6 19 14 24 9
2301 HUNTINGTON BCH 896 404 45.1 173 212 232 135
2301-Absentees 896 151 16.9 65 81 90 55
2302-HUNTINGTON BCH 686 358 ¢22 :136 :191 213 102
2302-Absentees 686 94 :,.. 13.7 41 47 - 54 "^ 34
2303 HUNTINGTON BCH _ 699 360 M.5 155 194. : . 221 115
2303-Absentees 699 87 12.4 40 44 51 26
2305 HUNTINGTON BCH 866 474 54.7 200 263 253 206
2305-Absentees 866 126 14.5 58 66 75 42
2306 HUNTINGTON 6CFi 626 `: 394 47.7 207 171 231 133 :
2306-Abs " 826 131 15.9 60 68 64 <' 59
entees `-
2307 HUNTINGTON BCH:: 791 391 49.4 148 224 214 -;;, 150
2307-Absentees 791 89 11.3 38 44 46 35
2308 HUNTINGTON BCH 783 399 51.0 162 223 241 129
2308-Absentees 783 151 19.3 59 85 86 56
2309 HUNTINGTON BCH 780 .: 355 45.5 '. 158 l 177 210 ;f "I
2309-Absentees 780 99 "`,12.7 -48 48 70 21
2312 HUNTINGTON BCH ;;487 21281,43.5 81 118.'. 114
,_.
2312-Absentees 487 35 7.2 9 24 26 9
2319 HUNTINGTON BCH 928 432 46.6 203 201 254 138
2319-Absentees 928 106 11.4 44 58 57 41
2320 HUNTINGTON BCH 728 322 ,,:44.4 126 172 166 121
2320-Absentees' 728 84 ' i 1.6 40 36 56 "19
2321 HUNTINGTON BCH 536 292 54.5 ._ ., 128 152 . 187 a>. .83
2321-Absentees 636 96 17.9 31 64 55 36
2323 HUNTINGTON BCH 915 410 44.8 187 203 233 150
Absentees 915 81 8.9 31 49 42 32
2324 HUNTINGTON BCH 951 423 44:5 -208 200 .; " 243 148 e
2324-Absentees: 951 83 8,7 37 42 41 :: 39
MZ HUNTINGTON BCH :. 840 400 47.6 212 174 231 142
1325-Absentees 840 115 13.7 46 65 64 42
?'328 HUNTINGTON BCH 641 294 54.3 124 154 161 105
_M8-Absentees 541 61 11.3 25 30 31 25
329. HUNTINGTON BCH 781 372 47.6 " 154 202 .. 197 150 a:`
329-Absentees 781 164 21.0 58 102 : 91 64
333 HUNTINGTON BCH.. 923:. 344 37.3 :-.. 139 189 206 .111
>_3 3-Absentees 923 147 15.9 54 83 94 39
M35 HUNTINGTON BCH 886 301 34.0 125 140 150 97
'-335-Absentees 885 120 13.6 46 58 60 33
337 HUNTINGTON BCH. .803 308 38.4 144 143 iT6 : . 98
337-Absentees 803 - 59 7.3 19 37 30 ::;'" 24
338 HUNTINGTON BCH 919 347 `:.37.8 174 151 206 108
338-Absentees 919 71 7.7 28 37 42 25
340 HUNTINGTON BCH 641 208 38A 90 109 127 68
:340-Absentees 641 70 12.9 32 31 38 21
341 HUNTINGTON BCH 932 374 40.1 166 185 200 135
341-Absentees 932 121 :13:0 55 66 73 ' 43
343 HUNTINGTON BCH 878 463 527 213 229 285 157
343-Absentees 878 93 10.6 40 52 55 34
345 HUNTINGTON BCH 717 341 47.6 156 175 205 114
345-Absentees 717 118 16.5 39 73 61 48
346 HUNTINGTON BCH 628 335 53.3 143 179 182 ' 132
346-Absentees 628 91 .14.5 36 51 50 35
347 HUNTINGTON BCH 574 272 47.4 13d 123 140 108
3/27/.00 5:07 PM ORANGE COUNTY Statement of Votes 1708 of 2047
March 7,2000 PRIMARY ELECTION Res. No. 2 0 0 0-3 3
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
F- ~
Vl nn
W Lu
V V N
_ ;
V� a p
W - W Q
O
O e Z 0 o y
i0 V CZ 0j
w ul ZO ? Q
N C O F-N N
W m F IF
Y Z S W} Z
S> >>
52 7-Absentees .. 574 100 17.4 35 55 43 44
2348 HUNTINGTON BCH 588 :: 271 46.1 113 144 159 91
2348-Absentees "- 588 ".86 14.6 48 35 49 a 33
:2349 HUNTINGTON BCH 770 391 50.8 146 223 210 157
2349-Absentees 770 99 12.9 42 56 58 34
c2351 HUNTINGTON BCH 838 412 492 190 201 233 154
2351-Absentees 838 99 11.8 34 62 48 47 '
2352 HUNTINGTON BCH.`` 945 403 42 6 167 201 ZZ 1 138
7352-Absentees - 945 ,. :..,188 19.9 .;. '':. 75 95 _ 93 66 ", :.--
i2354 HUNTINGTON BCH 817 425 52.0 164 242 213 178
:2364-Absentees 817 128 15.7 59 64 77 42
2355 HUNTINGTON BCH 714 336 46.9 163 158 190 114
23---Absentees 714 126 17.6 51 69 72 '_ 47 -
2356 HUNTINGTON BCH 631 265 42.0 . .123 iZT 142-'
2356-Absentees 631 - 56 '. : 8.9 21 : 33 26
;2358 HUNTINGTON BCH 890 373 41.9 154 205 201 140
2358-Absentees 890 142 16.0 65 70 81 49
2361 HUNTINGTON BCH 826 276 WA 108 144 163 81
2361-Absentees 826 60 7.3 .. "34 21 31 < 23
2362. HUNTINGTON BCH 181 111 61.3 38 60 65 :i, 41
2362-AbSs 181 0 0.0 p 0 0 .z`
2365 HUNTINGTON BCH 923 375 40.6 159 191 180 150
2365-Absentees 923 182 19.7 66 105 84 76
2366 HUNTINGTON BCH 810 406 50.1 175 212 730 142
2366'Absentees- 810 .103 : '12.7 , 33 68 58 35
2367 HUNTINGTON BCH 713 305, ,, 42.8 :, :119 162 159 117
2367-Absentees- 713 85 .:::..11.9 27 51 33 s
2369 HUNTINGTON BCH 740 316 42.7 120 177 153 137
2369-Absentees 740 129 17.4 49 76 69 49
2370 HUNTINGTON BCH 766 235 30.7 98 123 131 87
2376-Absentees 766 81 : '10 6 40 37 41
2371 HUNTINGTON BCH 695 `;2 290 ;43.0 " 179 115 262 80
2371.-Absentees _ 695 104 ::15.0 55 46 _ i 68 - 31
2375 HUNTINGTON BCH 847 402 47.5 183 200 240 129
2375-Absentees 847 125 14.8 54 69 75 46
2376 HUNTINGTON BCH 831 265 31.9 120 127 161 81
2376-Absentees 831 - 91 11 6 32 57 42 is 46
2378 HUNTINGTON BCH 967 ._321 M.2 5166 139 219 - 81
2378-Absentees 967 50 `5.2 18 -_ _28 27. - 18
2379 HUNTINGTON BCH 701 276 39.4 124 128 164 86
2379-Absentees 701 56 8,0 26 29 28 27
2383 HUNTINGTON BCH 821 265 32.3 122 118 164 65
23M-Absentees 821 67 ::8.240
2385 HUNTINGTON BCH.' 729 ' 251 34.4 109 127 147 `: 82 '=
2385-Absentees_ 729 64 8.8 .-26 35 33
2388 HUNTINGTON BCH 495 244 49.3 94 141 110 110
2358-Absentees 495 51 10.3 22 26 28 17
2390 HUNTINGTON BCH 701 362 61.6 163 185 217 112
2390-Absentees 87
701 `126 :.18.0 61 56 >
2392 HUNTINGTON BCH:: 850 422 ,49.6 146 .265 245 148 =s
2392-Absentees 850 -_. '.181 21.3 " _:52 125 A04 70 ;
2393 HUNTINGTON BCH 877 339 38.7 149 168 172 133
Z393-Absentees 877 185 21.1 68 112 99 72
2395 HUNTINGTON BCH 569 175 30.8 92 73 110 56
2395-Absentees 569 33 ; , 5.8 11 20 7 19 13
2398 HUNTINGTON BCH. .897 337 37.6 181 _ 137 203 `- 105
2398-Absenbees 897 82 -9.1 44 34 50 26 C
2399 HUNTINGTON BCH 330 188 57.0 82 102 113 67
2399-Absentees 330 33 10.0 6 23 17 11
2400 HUNnNGTON BCH 792 267 33.7 100 144 138 97
2400-Absentees 792 85 10.7 31 52 54 25 :.
2401 HUNTINGTON BCH 715 295 41.3 .: 122 159 171 99
2401-Absentees 715 163 22.8 46 108 85 .67.'.
2408 HUNTINGTON BCH 880 220 25.0 110 90 122 75
2408-Absentees 880 71 8.1 38 30 35 26
2411 HUNTINGTON BCH 531 240 452 87 135 126 89
2411-Absentees 531 98 18.5 36 60 44 >. 42 `
2412 HUNTINGTON BCH 897 438 48.8 188 234 249 152
2412-Absentees 897 185 20.6 62 113 '101 66
3/27400 5:07 PM ORANGE COUNTY Statement of Votes 1709 of 2047
March 7,2000 PRIMARY ELECTION
Res. No. 2000-33
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
50
co
t— c
y
-- W Lu
UO
�' xy
U` U>>
W .m WQ
m ; m x
O H e p O O y
W F Z W
.�. O ZO ZQ
H O C F.N Z y
I9 m =W} Z S W} Z
S > >>
32413 HUNTINGTON BCH .791 340 43 0 173 149 211 102
32413-Absentees =791 93 - 118 34 - :57
32414 HUNTINGTON BCH 507 `238 46.9 88 132 122
12414-Absentees 507 68 13.4 28 37 37 29
32415 HUNTINGTON BCH 595 318 53.4 136 166 159 128
32415-Absentees 595 84 14.1 26 56 51 30
12416 HUNTINGTON BCH 794 268 83 8 140 111 163 81
22416-Absentees 794 114 " 14 4 52 56 60 45
,retaxi Totals 105680 i 46176 43 7 20476 23177 26176 16065
>bsentse Totals 105680 15019 142 5936 8393 8222 507
3rand Totals 105680 61189 57.9 26412 31570 34398 21702
Res. No. 2000-33
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 April, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio C erk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
Exh;b IT 'A"
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO RESULT
OF THE CANVASS OF THE ELECTION RETURNS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters of Orange County, do hereby certify the
following to be a full, true and correct Statement of the Vote for the election listed below,
consolidated with the Primary Election held on March 7, 2000.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MEASURE [
YES 26,412
NO 31,570
MEASURE J
YES 34,398
NO 21,702
PRECINCT BALLOTS CAST: 46,170
ABSENTEE BALLOTS CAST: 15,019
TOTAL BALLOTS CAST: 61,189
1 hereby certify that the number of votes cast is as set forth above and appears in
the Certifies! Statement of the Vote. _ __
ATTACHMENT #2
JANICE M. MITTERMEIER
County Executive Officer
4 U N-r Y O F
ROSALYN LEVER
2 Registrar of Voters
1
5 3 Gi E Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 11298
Santa Ana, California 92711
REGISTRATION & ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT
1300 South Grand Avenue, Bldg. C
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 567-7600
TDD (714) 567-7608
FAX(714) 567-7627
www.oc.ca.gov/election/
March 24, 2000
Connie Brockway
City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Ms. Brockway:
We are enclosing the certification of the statement of the vote and a copy of the abstract
of votes cast for the municipal election for the City of Huntington Beach, held in
consolidation with the primary election, on March 7, 2000.
If you have any questions you may call me at (714) 567-7567.
Very truly yours,
Suzanne Slupsky
Election Section Supervisor
Enc.
3/27/00 5:07 PM ORANGE COUNTY Statement of Votes 1705 of 2047
March 7,2000 PRIMARY ELECTION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
so
ui
ui I �
9lz - u 0
9
X >
uj
Lu -
to 0
z > z
Ind
00 of-
.2 Z CO
vi LU
U) Z
0 z 2 r
C P Ztn
:z 3: >. z 0 x D 0
)LU
>
32100 HUNTINGTON BCH 601 214 36.6 97 94'
32100-Absentees 601 46 7.6 2421 14
. ......32101 HUNTINGTON BCH': 36.9 gi 89 A03
32101-Absentees 536 89 16.6 20 59 52 23
32102 HUNTINGTON BCH 520 244 46.9 91 137 127 so
32102-Absentees 520 85 16.3 35 41 51 28
32103 HUNTINGTORIBCW' 77'4' 22'
8 29�5 lu 92 54
'33 4.3 ii�,-Absentees '20 32103 774 13 _23 10
32106 HUNTINGTON BCH_
4(40 421§ 41.0 224 183 149 32106-Absentees 1040 174 16.7 81 86 113 49
32109 HUNTINGTON BCH 536 215 40.1 91 117 128 72
32109-Absentees 536 117 21.8 42 71 61 49
321141 HUNTINGTON.BCH , ' 741 357 48.2 154 Ilk 223 lid
�
321141-Absentees 741 121 16.3 48 68 78 37
Nt.
K"
32142 HUNTINGTON BCH,.,, T74 344 444 -A 183 132.
32142-Absentees 774 104 13.4 33 66 56 39
32143 HUNTINGTON BCH 536 245 45.7 98 129 114 101
32143-Absentees 536 154 28.7 52 96 78 64
168 32144 HUNTINGTON'BCH' 671 293 '43.7 94' 184 95 ......
27 59 631 32144-Absentees e671 135 20.1
'214 261 133 32W HUNTINGTON CH 898 ,-,:,424 ,__47.2
32145-Absentees 898 179 19.9 73 99 97 72
32146 HUNTINGTON BCH 878 375 42.7 167 186 210 134
32146-Absentees 878 126 14.4 55 64 62 51
'52 5 2 7 32147 HUNTINI&C*ibCHI'� i 164 117,7411, 116
32147-Abien
tees s 522 152 <s29A '51 W ."Im 62,
HUNTINGTON 32149 .765 340 i94 161,
A 172 153
32149-Absentees 765 120 15.7 49 64 72 40
32150 HUNTINGTON BCH 817 408 49.9 185 213 235 153
32150-Absentees 817 116 14.2 55 59 78 33
32151 HUNTINGTON BCH im 473 249 153 zz, 120
4_1
32161-Absentees" M 110 231,, 34 70 54 41
-XI
32152 HUNTINGTON SCH..,�,,...% 911 289 iil '_i,vloi -165 156 1161
32152-Absentees 911 64 7.0 29 30 35 20
32163 HUNTINGTON BCH 683 365 53.4 159 189 209 124
32153-Absentees 683 110 16.1 35 74 53 52
32154 HUNTINGTON BCH,:,�� 709 .......47,5 165 154 a 191 115
32164 Absentees 70i 2�':_�' 71
�d 4 '32155 HUNTINGTON BCH l 20 186 167 1151,:'
32155-Absentees 650 128 19.7 38 88 77 46
32157 HUNTINGTON BCH 781 390 49.9 151 219 197 161
32157-Absentees 781 183 23.4 55 114 95 65
32158 HUNTINGTON idk 706 ,122 46.6 bi 186 147 124
'43 93 i""',��," ,67 32158-Absente.ft 706, 145'�� 206 79
32159 HUNTINGTON BCH 59 225 �Q'11:, I
4 441 816 2 73
32159-Absentees 823 160 19.4 67 84 67 78
32160 HUNTINGTON BCH 992 307 30.9 135 164 197 84
32160-Absentees 992 81 8.2 29 50 47 27
32161 HUNTIkdTO4"BCW '8'8 6' 333 '376 "'116 167 141
32161-Absentees 97 48 4i 4i 35
125 116 32162 HUNTINGTON BCH' 48 �83
w 239 48.9 -:�F
32162-Absentees 489 68 13.9 32 36 33 32
32163 HUNTINGTON BCH sm 295 53.3 106 178 166 105
32163-Absentees 553 78 14.1 37 38 46 28
-182 HUNTINGTON BCH 32165 HUNT] 139 3
32165-Absentees, 976 '119 12 2 63 60 64' 40
25i
'329 47A 1�277,-32166 HUNTINGTON BCH..', 694 7 67
_4;
32166-Absentees 694 132 19.0 97 34 88 40
32167 HUNTINGTON BCH 693 294 42.4 211 71 224 59
32167-Absentees 693 79 11.4 58 21 60 17
32169 HUNTINGTON BCH BN 325 164 37.6 136 182 107
32169 865 "117
45
32170 HUNTINGTON.BCHI 689 308 ",13 16
j
7, 55
32170-Absentees 589 100 17.0 41 68 54 44
32171 HUNTINGTON BCH 891 330 37.0 148 160 179 131
32171-Absentees 891 115 12.9 45 59 55 47
173 19, 124
; 7 2 32173 HUNTINGTON BCH 6113
17 l 40.6
32173-Absentees, 913 �'78" 85 51 30 42
HUNTINGTON BCH 845 35 L
132174 18i in A
3/27/00 5:07 PM ORANGE COUNTY Statement of Votes 1706 of 2047
March 7,2000 PRIMARY ELECTION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
50
y W
W
w 00
W « m xQ
e Z a O F
.0 O Z F W
` V C�Z Z�
.. U) Z O Q
A) C F- N Z y
m =W } Z 2 W N Z
> >
32174_-Absentees 846`= 110 13.0 56. _..;42 62 '33
32175 HUNTINGTON BCH 773 381 '-49.3 r- �164 „�196 � ..�216 '134
32175_-Absentees 773 167 21:694, r=:62
32176 HUNTINGTON BCH 918 400 43.6 194 189 245 128
32176-Absentees 918 211 23.0 89 119 117 83
32177 HUNTINGTON BCH 931 326 35.0 164 141 180 112
32177-Absentees: 931 - Be 9.5 ''
„�39 �_46 _ .61
32178_HUNTINGTON BCH 657 193 29.4 79 103 112 - ,60
32178-Absentees 657 42 6.4 22 -19 __ , . 28 9 ...
32179 HUNTINGTON BCH 904 407 45.0 184 195 212 157
32179-Absentees 904 175 19.4 71 99 92 71
32180 HUNTINGTON BCH 882 418 47.4 171 228 207 178
32180-Absentees - 882 =- 145 _ 16.4 48 -,88 "73 60 - .
32182 HUNTINGTON BCH 843 _-` 424 50.3 173�'� '� �''. 238 ':149 >.
32182-Absentees 843 :` 114 13.5 46 64 56 49
32184 HUNTINGTON BCH 777 364 46.8 161 189 205 142
32184-Absentees 777 123 15.8 64 54 69 49
32186 HUNTINGTON BCH 867 374 43.1 177 181 223 123
32166-Absentees , 867 _ 130 15.0 64 _ 61 72 51 "'a
32188 HUNTINGTON BCH 899 419 466 •- 158 248 254 146
32788-Absentees - ` 4 7 .
899 126 = 13.9 - 54 .63 70 4 =
32190 HUNTINGTON BCH 601 272 45.3 132 120 148 98
32190-Absentees 601 87 14.5 30 49 44 38
32191 HUNTINGTON BCH 740 366 49.5 159 179 207 125
32191-Absentees.. t 740 108 -''14.6 31 - 64 :- 66, -32
32193 HUNTINGTON BCH 758 368 48.3 `'� 154 ;206 206 „132 "
s _.�� -s
32193=Absentees' 758 88 11.6 17. .,..69 „� 40 :45 -
32194 HUNTINGTON BCH 785 296 37.7 149 132 182 89
32194-Absentees 785 75 9.6 28 40 40 28
32195 HUNTINGTON BCH 891 337 37.8 152 162 195 111
32195-Absentees - 891 93 104 43 �45 53 � �36
w
32196_HUNTINGTON BCH 813 276 33 9 117 , 125 145 '89
32196-Absentees. 813 52 '..��-;6:4 22 25 " "' 27 �` 19
�_.. >.
32197 HUNTINGTON BCH 880 356 40.5 160 171 211 113
32197-Absentees 880 102 11.6 54 46 55 40
32198 HUNTINGTON BCH 535 305 57.0 124 163 182 91
-
32198-Absentees-_ 535 ; 76 14 2 s 23 fii 46 27
32200'HUNTINGTON BCH 912 404 .` <44.3 186 190 ,226 145
32200-Absentees. . 195 `_- 21.4 �,-�. 89 102 _ ''>119 . 66 _- -
32204 HUNTINGTON BCH 484 213 44.0 106 98 124 71
32204-Absentees 484 52 10.7 14 37 25 25
32205 HUNTINGTON BCH 430 227 52.8 95 121 131 79
32205-Absentees 430 81 ti 18 8 ...,37 =43 _ -47
32207 HUNTINGTON BCH- 836 353 42.2 150 184 209 116a '
32207-Absentees 836"__ 44,:'- 53 .. 15 27 122, � 19
32208 HUNTINGTON BCH 976 406 41.6 175 211 240 131
3220E-Absentees 976 203 20.8 74 125 120 75
32209 HUNTINGTON BCH 631 288 45.6 124 150 161 108
32209-Absentees" 631 -_ 118 18.7 �'46 66 60 .." a
32232 HUNTINGTON BCH 769 '' 317 41.2 : d31 ,.168 ,E 188 99
32232-Absentees 769 94 -_ e;
41 51 26
62 12.2 µ. �•. �'
32247 HUNTINGTON BCH 897 447 49.8 222 207 265 146
32247-Absentees 897 127 14.2 59 62 74 44
32265 HUNTINGTON BCH 721 333 46.2 155 168 197 117
32265-Absentees 721 _ 87 12 1 35 :47 50 33
32266 HUNTINGTON BCH 757 407 53.8 205 189 233
32266-Absentees 757 -105 '13 8 �,34 - 67 �_�59'_. 38
32267 HUNTINGTON BCH 591 284 48.1 112 160 166 103
32267-Absentees 591 78 13.2 26 49 41 35
32269 HUNTINGTON BCH 672 335 49.9 140 171 179 124
32269-Absentees 672 115 171 42 71 60 54
32270 HUNTINGTON BCH 774 _ 368 60.1 180 193 229-- 137
32270-Ate 774 - 129 n. 16.7 - 51 72 47
32278 HUNTINGTON BCH 653 177 27.1 76 82 94 57
32278-Absentees 653 63 9.6 25 28 36 15
32280 HUNTINGTON BCH 553 252 45.6 89 127 113 89
32280-Absentees 653 129 23,3 43 76 7.3 39
32282 HUNTINGTON BCH 743 319- -;42 9 124 176 186 108
58 32282-Armes 743 106 - `:14.1 40 ' 51 40
3/27/00 5:07 PM ORANGE COUNTY Statement of Votes 1707 of 2047
March 7,2000 PRIMARY ELECTION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
50
to W >-
W
U 00
=i
x >
c w 4 o
m o wm Q
O H a Z 0 0
to W
yt7 Z Z J
tN C O F N r y
cc �3 m o �3 0 0
= W } Z Y W } 2
> >
32283 HUNTINGTON BCH . 814 352 -= 43.2 `^ .164 180 �,
32203-Absentees _ 814% ' 168 20.4 82 94 -93 82
32285 HUNTINGTON_ BCH_. 591 '- 318 -=53:8 143 160 15
32285-Absentees 591 106 17.9 35 68 54 40
32286 HUNTINGTON BCH 749 239 31.9 131 98 152 66
32286-Absentees 749 115 15.4 56 55 67 38
32287 HUNTINGTON BCH r 944 °` 370 391 166' 177_ 210 129�
32287-Absentees 944..i 148 15 7, . 45 9483 " b0
ti
32289- HUNTINGTON BCH,' 395 --_= 185 46.8 62 1-15 95 T1, _-
32289-Absentees 395 74 18.7 26 44 40 32
32293 HUNTINGTON BCH 632 294 46.5 159 128 181 100
32293-Absentees 632 104 16.5 42 57 55 37
32295 HUNTINGTON�
BCH 891 424 47 6 189 217 240 156,
32295-Absentees, '_ 891 95 10.7 32 =60 47 '45
32300 HUNTINGTON BCH 281 138 49 1 ; =` 64 70 .. .;` 67 . 61 ?
32300-Absentees 281 35 12.5 19 14 24 9
32301 HUNTINGTON BCH 896 404 45.1 173 212 232 135
32301-Absentees 896 151 16.9 65 81 90 55
32302 HUNTINGTON BCH 686 -_ 358 52.2 136 - - 191 "" 213 102
32302-Absentees- 686 94 ,- 13.7 _41 47 54 "-- '"31
_.� '380 =51.5 �-'�` � 155 �1 1 1,16.�
32303�-HUNTINGTON BCH �_ 899 � 94 22. ,,
32303-Absentees 699 87 12.4 40 44 51 26
32305 HUNTINGTON BCH 866 474 54.7 200 263 253 205
32305-Absentees 866 126 14.5 58 66 75 42
32306 2306-A enteeBGTON BCH 826 1a 26 31 15 9 171
�768
64 .., 9
32307- HUNTINGTON BCH 791 391 494 ,-. > 148224 214 150 .
32307-Absentees 791 89 11.3 38 44 46 35
32308 HUNTINGTON BCH 783 399 51.0 162 223 241 129
32308-Absentees 783 151 19.3 59 85 86 56
32309 HUNTNGTON$CH �= 780 355 ;;45 5 158. 177 210 124 "
32309-Absentees :x _ 780 �..">" 99 127 48 48 ^ e ' 70 21
32312 HUNTINGTONB,CH<� 467 .. 212 __43b 81 118 114 , $1
32312-Absentees 487 35 7.2 9 24 26 9
32319 HUNTINGTON BCH 928 432 46.6 203 201 254 138
32319-Absentees 928 106 11.4 44 58 57 41
32320
32320 HUTni 3
HUNTINGTON BCH 726 , 84 1144 6 ,0 36 166 121
»,
32321 HUNTINGTON BCH. 536 292 546 a28 ' 152 ,
_ ,. �" ,187. �� 83 -
32321-Absentees 536 96 17.9 31 64 55 36
32323 HUNTINGTON BCH 915 410 44.8 187 203 233 150
32323-Absentees 915 81 8.9 31 49 42 32
32324 HUNTINGTON BCH 951 423 44.5 268 "200 243 148 u'
32324-Absentees 951 .ti 83 8 7 37 42 41 �"39
32325 HUNTINGTON=BCH_ 840 400 -"47.6 _ 212, ''174 231 142,1
32325-Absentees 840 115 13.7 46 65 64 42
32328 HUNTINGTON BCH 541 294 54.3 124 154 161 105
32328-Absentees 541 61 11.3 25 30 31 25
,
32329 HUNTINGTON BCH,,", 781 372 =47.6 164 202 197 150
32329-Absentees �. 781 164 21.0 58 102
32333 91 84
HUNTINGTON BC 923 3? -'- 344 :;�37.3 -139 1,89 �,.;'': _��,208
32333-Absentees 923 147 15.9 54 83 94 39
32335 HUNTINGTON BCH 885 301 34.0 125 140 150 97
32335-Absentees 885 120 13.6 46 58 60 33
32W HUNTINGTON BCH ^ 803 308 '38.4 144 143
32337=Absentees _ 803 59 7 3 '19
74 17 30 24 t
.^
32338 HUNTINGTON,BCH .,.; 919 -_- 347 37.8 1 51 206, 108 <
32338-Absentees 919 71 7.7 28 37 42 25
32340 HUNTINGTON BCH 541 208 38.4 90 109 127 68
32340-Absentees 541 70 12.9 32 31 38 21
32341 HUNTINGTON BCH 932 374 40 1 1 �
66 185 20d 138
32341 Absentees 932 121 13 0 455 66 73 43
32343 HUNTINGTON BCH' 878' 463 52.7 '>' 213 ,,229 285 157 ,
32343-Absentees 878 93 10.6 40 52 55 34
32345 HUN71NGTON BCH 717 341 47.6 166 175 205 114
32345-Absentees 717 118 16.5 39 73 61 48
32346 HUNTINGTON BCH 626 335 53.3 143 vii 182. 132
32346-Absentees 628 91 14 5 36 st 50 35
32347 HUNTINGTON BCH 574 272 47,4 134 ",e-423 '- 140- =108
3/27/00 5:07 PM ORANGE COUNTY Statement of Votes 1708 of 2047
March 7,2000 PRIMARY ELECTION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
so
to
Lu w
0 0
9 - U)
q_0
uJ w
> z
O z
0 0
ca 0 z
0 Lu
Z
30 p 0 �- N z
F Z 3: 11 0 =3: 'w 0
w Lu - z > z
�`43 32347-Absentees i"""a
574 17 4 �66 A i-
44
32348 HUNTINGT BCH 588 271 - =461 113 144 91
'48 35 33
32348-Absent6iii�",. 588%�:•-, 86 14.6
32349 HUNTINGTON BCH 770 391 50.8 146 223 210 157
32349-Absentees 770 99 12.9 42 56 58 34
32351 HUNTINGTON BCH 838 412 49.2 190 201 233 154
48 A7
W351`Abseritees M 62
Mll . ....-1��
32352 HUNTINGTON BCH' 945 403' 426 Iq -
945 188 19.9 �95 66
=W Abseinli4i�.:"
32354 HUNTINGTON BCH 817 425 52.0 164 242 213 178
32354-Absentees 817 128 15.7 69 64 77 42
32365 HUNTINGTON BCH 714 335 46.9 163 158 190 114
714 126 11�6 '6i 69'
32355- 47
�:",1,-
32356.HUNTINGTON BCH-:i., 631 .265 4ib -127 142 106
'21 33 ��k 32356-Absentees' 63i-;�':,::, 66 6.9 26 26 4
32358 HUNTINGTON BCH 890 373 41.9 154 206 201 140
32358-Absentees 890 142 16.0 65 70 81 49
32361 HUNTINGTON BCH 826 276 33.4 108 144 163 81
'34 32361'- 6'
0 7.3 21 31 23
66
32362 HUNTINGTON BCH..
CH 181 181 111 61.3 . 38 50 5 41
3ZM 0.0 - -.0
32365 HUNTINGTON BCH 923 375 40.6 159 .191 180 150
32365-Absentees 923 182 19.7 66 105 84 76
32366 HUNTINGTON BCH 810 406 50.1 176 212 230 142
'7
32366 Absentees
810 ,e, .��103 12.7. :Y` 733
159 'll 305 42 7
32367.,HUNTINGTON.B&'�, 113' 8 119 162
4--
33
MIR, Il k
32369 HUNTINGTON BCH 740 316 42.7 120 177 153 137
32369-Absentees 740 129 17.4 49 76 69 49
32370 HUNTINGTON BCH 766 235 30.7 98 123 131 87
32370 Absentaes 766aEi 81
r',
106 Q 37 .
41 36
32371'HUNTINGTON B 299 43.0 179 115 80
.
32371 696 04 156
46 W 31
32375 HUNTINGTON BCH 847 402 47.5 183 200 240 129
32375-Absentees 847 125 14.8 64 69 75 46
32376 HUNTINGTON BCH 831 265 31.9 120 127 161 81
'323-76 Alii6nlieii .91 i 12 57 2 46" 19
32378 HUNTINGTON BCH i' 967 321 "'i 33 166 139 2 88
27 32378 Absentees 967 50 5.2 '18 �
32379 HUNTINGTON BCH 701 276 39.4 124 128 164 86
32379-Absentees 701 66 8.0 26 29 28 27
32383 HUNTINGTON BCH 821 265 32.3 122 118 164 65
32383-AbswtDei-I"!..,".1., 821 �67, 8.2 22 40 32385 HUNTINGTONBCk r-729 -l"�i I�,�.x -�il"
251 34 4 166 12,7, 147
Z,
32385 Absentees; ��64 8. :26
8 ,33
32388 HUNTINGTON BCH 495 244 49.3 94 141 110 110
32388-Absentees 495 51 10.3 22 26 28 17
32390 HUNTINGTON BCH 701 362 51.6 163 185 217 112
18.0
32390 Absentees. 701
-87 61 56
33
` '850 146 422 49.6 i"'v- '�265 32392 HUNTINGTON BCH ......146,
850 181 2 AN
32392 Absentees, 76
32393 HUNTINGTON BCH 877 339 38.7 149 168 172 133
32393-Absentees 877 185 21.1 68 112 99 72
32395 HUNTINGTON BCH 569 175 30.8 92 73 110 56
32395=:Absentees 13:11 20 569 5.8 J
32398 HUNTINGTON BCH-, ��1203 --,,10 67 337 37.6 '181 -1137
Absentees '44 32398 W 697� ;"26
32399 HUNTINGTON BCH 330 188 57.0 82 102 113 67
32399-Absentees 330 33 10.0 6 23 17 11
32400 HUNTINGTON BCH 792 267 33.7 100 144 138 97
'32400 Absenlleii�' 79 86 10.7
NGTO'
99 32401 HUNTI N BC 715 295 413 li� 159 t
32401-Absentees 715 163 218 :.46 N
32408 HUNTINGTON BCH 880 220 25.0 110 90 122 75
32408-Absentees 880 71 8.1 38 30 35 26
32411 HUNTINGTON BCH 531 240 45.2 87 135 126 89
4i 66 44 '�x,42
32411-Absentees'
-'�4i i�2
32412 HUNTINGTON BC H 697 438 48 8[:
62 33 ini
1§97 186 132412-Absentees 20*6
• 3/27/00 5:07 PM ORANGE COUNTY Statement of Votes 1709 of 2047
March 7,2000 PRIMARY ELECTION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
50
t— U
y W w
- W
UO
w
U U>
U Q p
W v W Q
m
m; Z
0 Or y
W
f�N may' C H N f.W
O Z
Iz coh„ =W} Z SW} 2
S> >>
32413 HUNTINGTON BCH 791 340 '430 173 1'49 "211
32413-Absentees', .:i ; 791 93 '11 8 34 4" ;67 48
32414 HUNTINGTON BCH 50T „, 238 ;'46.9,}. 88
32414-Absentees 507 68 13.4 28 37 37 29
32415 HUNTINGTON BCH 595 318 53.4 136 166 159 128
32415-Absentees 595 84 14.1 26 56 51 30
32416 HUNTINGTON BCH 794 268 �33 8 �, �140, "1.11 163
32416-Absentees 794 , 114 14 4 52
c?
Precinct Totals 105680`,'46170 " »43.7 20476 ` 23177 26178 16065
Absentee Totals 105680 15019 14.2 5936 8393 8222 5637
Grand Totals 105680 61189 57.9 26412 31570 1 343981 21702
1
ATTACHMENT 3
Precinct Listing 1
32100 Saint Peter's By the Sea 16871 Bolsa Chica Street
32101 Warner Fire Station 3831 Warner Avenue
32102 Westchester Bay Homeowners Clubhouse 16011 Bonaire Circle
32103 Boys&Girls Clubs/Huntington Valley 2309 Delaware Street-Community Room
32106 Fire Station#1 18311 Gothard Street
32109 Santizo Residence 18836 Academy Circle
32141 Weiser Residence 6441Jasmine Drive
32142 Pacific Ranch Clubhouse 7432 Seabluff Drive
32143 Huntington Landmark Clubhouse 20880 Oakridge Lane
32144 Stong Residence 3401 Venture Drive
32145 Rosa Residence 5941 Kenbrook Drive
32146 Wm. Newland School 8787 Dolphin Drive
32147 Huntington Landmark Clubhouse 20880 Oakridge Lane
32149 Geraud Residence 8661 Larkport Dr.
32150 Wiseman Residence 17671 Wrightwood Lane
32151 Huntington Landmark Clubhouse 20880 Oakridge Lane
32152 Seascape Condo Clubhouse 16800 Algonquin Atreet
32153 Zenk Residence 304 W. Springfield Avenue
32154 Domingo Residence 8582 Topside Circle
32155 Nielsen Residence 20041 Crown Reef Lane
32157 Richardson Residence 16375 Ardsley Circle
32158 Lindsay Residence 3502 Gilbert Drive
32159 Harbor View Clubhouse 16600 Saybrook Lane
32160 Hope Chapel 715 Lake Street
32161 lacopetti Residence 1005 England Street
32162 Jurisch Residence 7832 Rhine Drive
32163 College View Sch/Hall - MPR/LIB 6582 Lennox Drive
32165 Lake Park Community Center Lake @ 12th Street
32166 St. Wilfrids Episcopal Church 18631 Chapel Lane
32167 Huntington Beach Baptist Church 8121 Ellis Avenue
32169 St. Peter's By the Sea 16871 Bolsa Chica Street
32170 Gayler Residence 18011 Freshwater Circle
32171 Kinney Residence 16642 Lucia Lane
32173 Community Bible Church 401 6th Street
32174 Los Amigos Mobile Park Clubhouse 18601 Newland Street
32175 Dugmore Residence 19441 Summer Breeze Lane
32176 Archambeault Residence 17901 Denvale Circle
32177 Hope Chapel 715 Lake Street
32178 Sun View School/Multi Purpose Room 7721 Juliette Low Drive
32179 Grace Lutheran Church 6931 Edinger Drive
32180 Coastline Community College (Robinwood) 5172 McFadden Avenue
32182 Tuller Residence 15092 Capetown Lane
32184 Saeman Residence 15082 Sussex Circle
32186 Helen Stacey Intrm. School 6311 Larchwood Drive
32188 Heil Fire Station 5891 Heil Avenue
32190 Huntington Village Senior Apartments 16171 Springdale Street
32191 Skandia Mobile Country Club 16444 Bolsa Chica Street
32193 Community United Methodist Church 6652 Heil Avenue
32194 First Methodist Church Room 34 2721 Delaware Street
32195 Senior Outreach Center 1718 Orange Avenue
32196 Lutheran Church of the Resurrection 9812 Hamilton Avenue
32197 Surfside Clubhouse#2 8176 Atlanta Avenue
32198 Huntington Beach Ed. Ctr./Sch. Dist. Office 20451 Craimer Lane
Precinct Listing 2
32200 Osuna Residence 19692 Drybrook Lane
32204 Ryan Residence 19311 Hickory Lane
32205 Wm. Newland School Rm. E-26 8787 Dolphin Drive
32207 Village Townhomes Clubhouse 9635 Cornwall Drive
32208 Allenbaugh Residence 19525 Woodlands Drive
32209 Seacliff on the Green 19261 Coldstream Lane
32232 School Dist. Office/Art Lab 17200 Pinehurst Lane
32247 Cabana Clubhouse 8141 Atlanta Avenue
32265 Maxwell Residence 9652 Sailfish Drive
32266 Moffett School 8800 Burlcrest Drive
32267 Hildebrant Residence 20392 Bluffwater Circle
32269 Tomich Residence 9581 Scotstoun Drive
32270 Joseph Perry School 19231 Harding Lane
32278 Huntington Creek Apts. 8211 San Angelo Drive
32280 Rancho Del Ray Clubhouse 16222 Monterey Lane
32282 Sea Breeze Mobile Park Clubhouse 5200 Heil Avenue
32283 Schoenman Residence 5701 Kern Drive
32285 Murdy Fire Station 16221 Gothard Street
32286 Hunt. Bch. Church of Religious Science 7641 Talbert Avenue
32287 Reed Residence 17051 St. Andrews Lane
32289 Qaqundah Residence 3901 Legend Circle
32293 School Dist. Office/Art Resource 17200 Pinehurst Lane
32295 Coulson Residence 4862 Hilo Circle
32300 Wright Residence 7702 Everest Circle
32301 Cape Huntington Clubhouse 20300 Magnolia Street
32302 Villa Pacific Clubhouse 9933 Villa Pacific Drive
32303 Meehan Residence 9352 Greenwich Drive
32305 Hope View School/Front Hallway 17622 Flintstone Lane
32306 Marine View School/Multi Purpose Room 5682 Tilburg Drive
32307 City Yard Administration Building 17371 Gothard Street
32308 Katz Residence 6341 Myrtle Drive
32309 Ada Clegg School 6311 Larchwood Drive
32312 Huntington By the Sea Rec. Center 21851 Newland Street
32319 School District Office/Board Room 10251 Yorktown Avenue
32320 Huntington Bay Clubhouse 10199 Holburn Drive
32321 Hunt. Bch. Ed. Ctr./Sch. District Office 20451 Craimer Lane
32323 Calvary Baptist Church 8281 Garfield Avenue
32324 Lake View Park Clubhouse 17461 Zeider Lane
32325 Canter Residence 8341 Bryant Drive
32328 Golden View School/Toad Hall/MPR 17251 GoldenView Lane
32329 MesaView School/Multi Purpose Room 17601 Avilla Lane
32333 Charrier Residence 16762 Lovell Lane
32335 Wycliffe Gardens 18765 Florida Street
32337 Pacific Trailer Park Clubhouse 80 Huntington Street
32338 Lake Fire Station 530 Lake Street
32340 Seaside Village Clubhouse 7836 Mainmast
32341 Lawrence Residence 511 21 st Street
32343 Edison Community Center 21377 Magnolia Street
32345 Isaac Sowers School 9300 Indianapolis Avenue
32346 Brethren Christian Jr./Sr. School 21141 Strathmoor Lane
32347 Edison Comminity Center 21377 Magnolia Street
32348 Ferrill Residence 10071 Sprit Circle
32351 Bushard Fire Station 19711 Bushard Street
Precinct Listing 3
32352 Brookfield Manor Clubhouse 9850 Garfield Avenue
32354 Perry Residence 21922 Vacation Lane
32355 Schafer Residence 22261 Kittery Circle
32356 Chambers Residence 7581 Alhambra Dr.
32358 St. Bonaventure Church Hall 16410 Springdale Street
32361 Harbour View School/ Library 4343 Pickwick Circle
32362 Mail Ballot Precinct
32365 Betancourt Residence 17085 Edgewater Lane
32366 Circle View School/Library 6261 Hooker Drive
32367 Eccles Residence 5831 Spa Dr.
32369 Hotel Huntington Beach 7667 Center Ave.
32370 Oak View School/Library 17241 Oak Lane
32371 DeLillo Chevrolet 18211 Beach Blvd.
32375 Turner Residence 20582 Troon Lane
32376 H.B. International Surfing Museum 411 Olive Avenue
32378 H.B. International Surfing Museum 411 Olive Avenue
32379 Surfside Clubhouse#1 21340 Attleboro
32385 Murdy Community Center 7000 Norma Drive
32388 Hefner Residence 19841 Lexington Lane
32390 Beatty Residence 17441 Alta Vista Circle
32393 La Questa By the Sea Clubhouse 7855 Beachcomber Drive
32395 First Methodist Church 2721 Delaware Street
32398 Pacific Cst. Community Church/Henderson Rm. 17581 Newland Street
32399 Belitz Residence 21631 Bahama Lane
32400 Harbor Hts. Village Clubhouse 4649 Vista Bahia Drive
32401 Dugan Residence 9441 Pier Drive
32408 City Yard Administration Building 17371 Gothard Street
32411 Sea Gate Clubhouse 16011 Bonaire Circle
32412 Beachwalk I Clubhouse 19752 Deep Harbor
32413 Israel Residence 20161 Cape Cottage Lane
32414 Stan Residence 9782 Kings Canyon Drive
32415 Smith Residence 22022 Capistrano Lane
32416 Murray Residence 8301 Indianapolis Avenue
CITY G. HUNTINGTON BEACH RLs No,
REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES AssnTo 'i'
f
Gail Hutton, City Attorney
Date: Request made by: Telephone: Department:
4/5/00 Connie Brockway x5404 City Clerk
INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office. Outline reasons for this request and state
facts necessary for City Attorney to respond. Please attach all pertinent information and exhibits.
TYPE OF LEGAL SERVICES REQUESTED:
❑ Ordinance ❑ Opinion ❑ Stop Notice
❑ Resolution ❑ Lease ❑ Bond
❑ Meeting ❑ Contract/Agreement ❑ Deed
❑ Court Appearance ❑ Insurance ® Other: Approve as to
Form
Is Request for Preparation of Contract form attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Are exhibits attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Unless otherwise specified herein, I
If not for Council action, consent to the disclosure of the
If for City Council action, desired completion date: information contained in this RLS to all
members of the City Council.
Agenda Deadline 4/13/00cv�uy-
Council Meeting 4/17/00 Signature. of Department Ftead
COMMENTS
Please approve as to form the attached ORIGINAL Resolution No 2000-33 for the APRIL 17, 2000 AGENDA.
Please note that we_are_transmitting the-original RCA (and Resolution with exhibit on archival paper).
Thank you.
❑ LB SL In
JRoufirg: ❑ ❑ PDA F
Jv
9 ,
This Re uest for Le al Services has been assigned to 'attorney ,
q
;extension3r His/her secretary is; , ex tension
a 1
Notes. File Name Date Completed
..,. .. ,. .
WO: NQ.
3 '
r
r
Shaded areas for City Attorney's Office use only.
CITY OF HUNITINGTON BEAC "AgPP&AV D
HUNTINOTON BEACH I V 6 rl "'
UBST/7l)78 I�Y�an-3N: Zf 5 CITY COUNCIL CO MUNICATI N �'r�n�J-jarrrnn�5�11
�esf_-Hv& -/fie ihvr in eonsul1u#ion 0Htj -ham ea�vo o� o e.1s I�otee� de+'�1o/° c� dam "`%`'�
t�tnel3 ?oli` o✓ hand ll n eontrD✓eesi4( �5 bjeats tjhie h are OF oca� ors I r)afi-D,1 and-1vhAM �Pl'ea f
fh� ballot. e addross y�oC. and sho��d i Ar;5
� ehe ra r z ode r- Se% _vn 1�dle y esA, lenu� For Fa-le t ' rarn.n�ng Alec 'o✓)
f rf�e, rani s s�rr ian and }a be re etoaol ea s�' ?5'F Lhe Pr o r&r�
n 7i m
6: Mayor afd Cit Council � �in 61� the
° Pa P y � ram. 8 n o+he. fa Ls
wh s} d b-e- ac(d�esse � i e Sfar-F rek
FROM: Dave Sullivan, CityCouncil Member �vrtc �I �� -o vend e i at
� -ty�e,r p�,r(i� convene enu- .
SUBJECT: "H" Item for the November 15, 1999 City Council Meeting �J� J
Regarding the Wal-Mart/ Crestview Issue Debate on Channel 3 J
DATE: November 10, 1999
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The proposed Wal-Mart project at the Crestview site is a very controversial issue and
the subject of an election. In total, 22,000 residents signed petitions to put the question
on the ballot. The matter should be debated on Channel 3 to provide information, both
pro and con to the voters.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
a) InGlude two 'ell -roponents on ea;Gh side of the issue
wee s in a ruary an
— 4afch
el Air a minimum of three (3) times per week.
PVPninne hot�Aicpn ���� and A•00 �m
2- Se et9RM.iRe mutually acceptabi
Xc: Ray Silver, City Administrator
Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
crorz: Pobert Pc1k0+:+1(7i�1962-9B10 To: Clty Clerk+1(714)174-1557 Page of 2, S:mdaq, Cctober 17, 19S� 9.8;Z?pm
Bob Polkow
21772 Oceanview Lane
Huntingtion Beach, Ca. 92646-8215
U.S.
Home Phone 714 962-4810
Email RPolkow@aol.com
October 17, 1999
SUBJECT: Agendixed Item H-3,Moriday 18 October 1999
TO: Huntington Beach City Council Members
It is now become apparent why Tom Harmon suddenly voted in favor of the March Schedule on
the Wal-Mart vote;and I thought perhaps,despite his lawyer perspective he was willing to
accept what would be a fair chance for all the people to voice their desire. He knows full well if
he suddenly is on the prevailing side of a council vote he can ask for a reconsideration. Sorry
Tom, 1 may have voted for you to represent me in Sacramento but,this, in my opinion,for lack
of other words typical lawyers trick, perhaps in cahoots with the minority side,has erased any
such intention. To those who have the best interest of the city at heart, stay the course. Don't let
this lawyer's trick work. Time will show that you will receive the gratitude of the city.
RESPBCTFi JLLY:
"BOB POL KOW
f
.Fa,!lon rolr8�y9 C /C �Pe.�i�)8 9 ithmnit-enr'Al•
HUf TOHB C17Y. GF RUNTING IEAC '
EACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
3 -
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Dave Sullivan, City Council Member
DATE: October 15, 1999
SUBJECT: "H"Item for the October 18, 1999, City Council Mtg.
Special Election
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On October 4, 1999,the City Council voted to deny a January election to almost 16,000
voters who satisfied the legal requirements for such an election.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
PTZ
1 -
�' I'j')0fi'vn/ fo Yeevr�s�adeR�
Olen�a,L bF Jan a+- S eia ( Y�un;e��zC �lcGf%oi✓
DS:lp Orr Z'7�i f� fi'v� � / i �f�v�- 740 A'ezo17e aF
ffj� Cyst Y/Pu) Closed �SM0,0 e yes: d reeA1
xc: Connie Brockway NO` 3,90m) De co Ft
Ray Silver C6k.OFf1A0-- IOT/ 01/ OF ?'ice 114re �
Melanie Fallon
o/ aJ1_4.6sAJ ov C/7y ADM/N ,.
LE,�ST7 - JrniN•SCE✓.��ie,
l9y %✓zecFSK y p1�hr�>nG .Dtre e ray
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
;Detred/Continued to:rQv Cl Conditionally Approved ' ❑ Denied U City Clerk's Signature
.GG vo enr
Council Meeting Date: October 4, 1999 Department ID Number: ED 99-54
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ' r ...
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator .� -�.« ��-� ;:a
PREPARED BY: MELANIE FALLON, Assistant City Administrator
DAVID C. BIGGS, Economic Development Director
JOHN REEKSTIN, Administrative Services Director 1�
HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Election Code Section 9212 Report Regarding the Crest View
Initiative
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: On September 7, 1999, the City Council requested preparation of the
subject report. The report is attached.
Funding Source: Staff prepared the subject report with limited assistance from a
consultant. The estimated $4,000 cost of this work was funded from Non-Departmental
Contingency (Account E-AA-ND-101-5-93-00).
Recommended Action: Receive and file the Election Code Section 9212 Report regarding
the Crest View Initiative.
Alternative Action(s): Direct staff to modify the Report.
Analysis: Sufficient signatures have been verified to quality the Crest View initiative for the
ballot. One of the alternatives presented to the City Council on September 7, 1999, was the
ability to request a report on the fiscal impacts, general plan conformity, and other issues
specified by the Council prior to setting the election date. The Council took action to request
that this report be prepared, including information on the fiscal impact to the School District,
and returned to the City Council on October 4, 1999.
Staff assembled and reviewed the information developed during the course of the General
Plan Amend ment/Conditional Use Permit/Environmental Impact Report approval process for
the Crest View site on the topics to be included in the Elections Code Section 9212 Report.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: October 4, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 99-54
Given the passage of time since some of the information was initially developed, staff had the
firm of Keyser Marston & Association (KMA) summarize and review the information regarding
the fiscal impacts. The results of KMA's review are set out in the Report. Commercial land
uses will generate positive net revenues to the City of at least $370,000 per year.
Residential land uses will generate a net positive benefit to the City of just over $20,000 per
year.
Staff also prepared the section of the Report that addressed the issue of General Plan
consistency. The proposed initiative to amend the general plan and zoning designations to
Low Density Residential is consistent with some of the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan which encourage a diversity of land uses, promotes housing opportunities for
senior citizens and the physically and mentally challenged, and provides opportunities for
affordable housing. The initiative is inconsistent with other elements of the General Plan
which encourage commercial development for fiscal viability, promotes improving the jobs to
housing ratio, and encourages the provision of jobs and commercial services in proximity to
residences. The proposed initiative ensures consistency between the General Plan and
Zoning because both are proposed as Low Density Residential. In addition, an amendment
to Low Density Residential would not result in any discriminatory acts pursuant to the
Government Code and the land use designations would not prohibit affordable housing or
density bonuses.
The Ocean View School District staff prepared and the School Board approved on
September 21, 1999, a statement on the fiscal impact to the School District. This statement
has also been summarized and reviewed by KMA as part of the Report. Commercial land
uses would provide a greater benefit to the School District through a ground lease as
opposed to the proceeds of a land sale for residential development, even at the high end of
the residential land sales price range. In addition, ground lease proceeds provide for new
funds being made available for facilities while land sales proceeds are offset in great part by
reduced State assistance.
Staff also reviewed a study prepared for the Orange County Business Council entitled "The
Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California" dated September, 1999 (on file in the City
Clerk's Office). This study focused on big box grocers, not big-box general merchandise
stores. The study was considered to be of limited relevance since the City has already
imposed a restriction that no more than 10% of the net floor area in the proposed Wal*Mart
for the Crest View site shall be used for non-taxable sales. This effectively precludes the
conversion of the store to a grocery superstore.
ElectionCodeRpt -2- 09/27/99 5:05 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: October 4, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 99-54
Environmental Status: No environmental review is required to receive and file the Report.
'Attachment(s):
pescrip-tio in
1. Election Code Section 9212 Report regarding the Crest View Initiative.
RCA Author: Biggs, extension 5909
ElectionCodeRpt -3- 09/27/99 5:05 PM
Election Code Section 9212 Report
ti-i y
a JI,
N
ELECTION CODE SECTION 9212 REPORT
October 4, 1999
Proposed Crest View Initiative
Sufficient signatures have been verified to quality the Crest View initiative for the ballot. One of
the alternatives presented to the City Council on September 7, 1999, was the ability to request a
report on the fiscal impacts, general plan conformity, and other issues specified by the Council
prior to setting the election date. The Council took action to request that this Report be prepared,
including information on the fiscal impact to the School District.
This Report consists of the attached three sections:
A. Impact Analysis by Keyser Marston Associates;
B. Planning Analysis by the City Planning Department; and,
C. Financial Analysis of the Crest View Site by the Ocean View School
District.
Staff assembled and reviewed the information developed during the course of the General Plan
Amendment/Conditional Use Permit/Environmental Impact Report approval process for the Crest
View site on the topics to be included in this Report. Staff had the firm of Keyser Marston &
Association (KMA) summarize and review the information regarding the fiscal impacts.
Commercial land uses will generate positive net revenues to the City of at least$370,000 per year.
Residential land uses will generate a net positive benefit to the City of just over$20,000 per year.
Staff also prepared the section of the Report that addressed the issue of General Plan consistency.
The proposed initiative to amend the general plan and zoning designations to Low Density
Residential is consistent with some of the goals,objectives, and policies of the General Plan which
encourage a diversity of land uses, promotes housing opportunities for senior citizens and the
physically and mentally challenged, and provides opportunities for affordable housing. The
initiative is inconsistent with other elements of the General Plan which encourage commercial
development for fiscal viability,promotes improving the jobs to housing ratio, and encourages the
provision of jobs and commercial services in proximity to residences. The proposed initiative
ensures consistency between the General Plan and Zoning because both are proposed as Low
Density Residential. In addition, an amendment to Low Density Residential would not result in
any discriminatory acts pursuant to the Government Code and the land use designations would not
prohibit affordable housing or density bonuses.
The Ocean View School District staff prepared, and on September 21, 1999 the School Board
approved, a statement on the fiscal impact to the School District. This statement has also been
summarized and reviewed by KMA as part of the Report. Commercial land uses would provide a
greater benefit to the School District through a ground lease as opposed to the proceeds of a land
sale for residential development, even at the high end of the residential land sales price range. In
addition, ground lease proceeds provide for new funds being made available for facilities while
land sales proceeds are offset in great part by reduced State assistance.
FISCAL. IMPACT ANALYSIS
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES
D
x i
........................
i�T
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC . ADVISORS IN:
REAL ESTATE
500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1480 REDEVELOPMENT
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PHONE: 213/622-8095 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FAX:213/622-5204 FISCAL IMPACT
WEB SITE: WW W.KMAINC.COM
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE
VALUATION AND
LITIGATION SUPPORT
Los Angeles
Calvin E. Hollis, II
MEMORANDUM Kathleen H. Head
James A. Rabe
San Diego
To: Mr. David BiggsGerald M.Trimble
Robert J.Wetmore
Director of Economic Development Paul C. Marra
City of Huntington Beach SAN FRANCISCO
A.Jerry Keyser
Timothy C.Kelly
From: James Rabe Kate Earle Funk
Denise E. Conley
Debbie M. Kern
Date: September 24, 1999 Martha N. Packard
Subject: Review of Fiscal Effects of Development of
Crest View Site
Pursuant to your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has evaluated several
questions with respect to the development of a Wal-Mart anchored commercial project or a
residential project at the site of the former Crest View School. You have requested that KMA
address three issues.
• What is the expected change in sales captured by the City of Huntington Beach (City) as a
result of the development of a Wal-Mart store at this location?
• What are the fiscal impacts on the City of the Wal-Mart anchored commercial center
versus a residential development?
• What are the potential revenues to the Ocean View School District from commercial
development as compared to a residential development?
In preparing this review, KMA has reviewed a number of documents that were supplied by the
City and we have conducted follow up discussions with Stanley R. Hoffman Associates (SHA)
and the Sedway Group. Documents reviewed include:
• "Retail and Fiscal Impact Analysis, Crest View Site, City of Huntington Beach," Stanley R.
Hoffman Associates, 1998.
• "Southeast Corner of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue," Keyser Marston Associates,
1994.
9909080.H B:JAR:gbd
14066.001.067
To: Mr. David Biggs September 24, 1999
City of Huntington Beach Page 2
Subject: Review of Fiscal Effects of Development
Of Crest View Site
• "Examination — Retail and Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed Wal-Mart, Crest View School
Site on the City of Huntington Beach, Peter Whelan, 1998.
• "Bolsa Chica Annexation Study, Review of Options and LAFCO Fiscal and Technical
Review Procedures, " prepared for City of Huntington Beach, 1998
• Various Sedway Group analyses prepared in 1998.
• Various City staff reports and presentations prepared in 1997, 1998 and 1999.
KMA has not conducted any new analysis. Our analysis is based on a critical review of the
previous reports, discussions with SHA and Sedway, and a review of our files with respect to
other big box retail projects.
BACKGROUND
As we understand the situation, Arnel Development and Wal-Mart have entered into ground
leases for the development of the Crest View site as a commercial center that will be anchored
by a Wal-Mart store. The site will also contain additional retail uses amounting to
approximately 14,500 square feet of leaseable space. The site fronts on Talbert Avenue and
is just east of Beach Boulevard. Commercial uses abut the property to the west along Beach
Boulevard and residential uses abut the site's south and east boundaries.
RETAIL SALES AND MARKET CAPTURE
A number of memorandums and reports have addressed the leakage of general merchandise
sales from Huntington Beach and the potential for capture of some or all of these lost sales at
this site, beginning with the KMA memorandum in 1994. The most recent memorandum from
the Sedway Group (December 1998) estimates that the project site will generate $48.6 million
of total sales plus $5.0 million of spin-off sales. Of the $48.6 million of site sales, the Sedway
Group estimates that approximately $7.0 million of sales will be transferred from existing
Huntington Beach retailers.
The Sedway Group has estimated Wal-Mart will generate $40.0 million in taxable sales. SHA
estimated approximately $42.0 million of taxable sales. It is our understanding that there have
been minor changes in the size of the Wal-Mart store, which accounts for some of the
difference. In any event, both estimates are realistic for a Wal-Mart store based on all of the
literature and reports regarding Wal-Mart and KMA's experience with other Wal-Mart projects.
9909080.HB:JAR:g bd
14066.001.067
To: Mr. David Biggs September 24, 1999
City of Huntington Beach Page 3
Subject: Review of Fiscal Effects of Development
Of Crest View Site
For purposes of this analysis, KMA will utilize the Sedway Group's more conservative estimate
of$40.0 million in taxable sales for Wal-Mart.
Not all of the Wal-Mart sales will represent incremental taxable sales. There will be some
transfer of general merchandise sales and food and drug sales from other retailers. Sedway
Group has previously estimated that there will be approximately $7.0 million in transferred
general merchandise sales within Huntington Beach. With respect to food and drug sales,
KMA and the Sedway Group estimate that approximately $1.5 million of taxable food and drug
sales will be transferred within Huntington Beach. The estimate of incremental taxable sales
from Wal-Mart is provided below.
Taxable Sales
Wal-Mart Sales $40,000,000
Food and Drug Transfers ($1,500,000)
General Merchandise Transfers ($7,000,000)
Net Sales Increase in
Huntington Beach from Wal-Mart $31,500,000
The Sedway Group has also estimated that the 14,500 square feet of pad space will generate
approximately $4,600,000 of sales, 100% of which will be taxable. KMA believe that this is a
reasonable estimate provided that the pads are occupied by fast food restaurants. KMA and
Sedway Group believe, however, that not all of these sales will represent new sales to the City
of Huntington Beach. We conservatively estimate that 50%, or $2,300,000, of these sales
would be new sales in Huntington Beach.
The Sedway Group has also estimated that the development of a Wal-Mart anchored center
will generated a minimum of$5.0 million in spin off taxable sales in the area. Given the
location near the center of the Beach Boulevard retail corridor, KMA believes that the Sedway
Group estimate is a reasonable estimate.
Based on the above, KMA and the Sedway Group estimate that a commercial center anchored
by Wal-Mart at the Crest View site will generate a minimum increase of $38.8 million in taxable
sales in the City.
FISCAL IMPACT
SHA has prepared a fiscal impact report for the commercial alternative that concluded that the
project generated a net fiscal benefit, on an annual basis of between $390,000 and $443,000.
Their analysis assumed that total sales tax revenues would amount to between $408,000 and
$460,000. The minimum KMA estimate of incremental sales tax revenues amounts to
9909080.HB:JAR:g bd
14066.001.067
To: Mr. David Biggs September 24, 1999
City of Huntington Beach Page 4
Subject: Review of Fiscal Effects of Development
Of Crest View Site
$388,000. This is $20,000 lower than the lower SHA estimate. On this basis, the fiscal
surplus would decline to $370,000 annually. This fiscal benefit includes approximately
$41,000 in annual property tax revenues based on a projected assessed valuation of
approximately $20.6 million.
City staff has prepared analyses of the potential fiscal impacts on the City if this site is
developed as a residential project. The most likely case assumes that the site is developed
with 72 single-family units and dedication of 1.25 acres for parks and streets. The homes are
projected to sell at an average price of$280,000 for a total value of$20.2 million. The
projected assessed value of the residential project is approximately the same as the
commercial project. The City's portion of property taxes is projected at $41,000. Based on
this development assumption, it was estimated that the residential project generate an annual
net fiscal surplus of approximately $25,000.
KMA believes that this fiscal surplus estimate is somewhat overstated and inconsistent with
the SHA analysis of the commercial site. The estimate of cost of service for the residential
units is based on the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study, which assumed an incremental cost
approach for that project. Based on our review of other fiscal impact reports, an estimated
service cost of$783 per unit appears low, particularly for a full service city such as Huntington
Beach. This analysis also is inconsistent with the SHA analysis in that the SHA analysis is
based on an average cost approach.
Further, it seems unlikely that the total service costs for a residential project at this location
would be less than the public service costs for a commercial project. SHA has estimated costs
for the commercial project at $60,900 per year, while the residential project is estimated to
have service costs of$56,400 per year. At a minimum, the public service costs for the
residential project should be at least as high as for the commercial project. If this adjustment
is made, then the annual fiscal surplus of the residential project is decreased to $20,400.
Based on our review, KMA estimates that the commercial project will show a net fiscal benefit
to the City of$370,000 annually, while the residential alternative might show a net fiscal
benefit of$20,400 annually.
SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUES
KMA has discussed with the School District the terms of the leases that the School District has
executed with Arnell Development and Wal-Mart. It is KMA's understanding that the Wal-Mart
lease is $250,000 per year initially with adjustments every 10 years and the Arnell lease is
$150,000 per year with adjustments every 5 years. The School District has indicated the Wal-
Mart and Arnell have provided corporate guarantees for the rent through the initial term of the
lease. Both leases have a term of 65 years. Based on information provided by the School
9909080.H B:JAR:gbd
14066.001.067
To: Mr. David Biggs September 24, 1999
City of Huntington Beach Page 5
Subject: Review of Fiscal Effects of Development
Of Crest View Site
District, lease revenues are projected to be $37.9 million over the 65-year term of the lease. In
addition, the School District estimates that they will receive $2.9 million in interest earning from
initial developer payments.
Based on this information, KMA has estimated that the leases have a present value of
approximately $7,600,000 including land reversion, assuming a 6.5% discount rate, which is
greater than the District's cost of funds.
KMA has assembled recent comparable sales data for residential land in Huntington Beach
and Fountain Valley. These comparables are summarized in Table 1. The sales ranged in
price from approximately $8.50 per square foot to $25.50 per square foot. KMA believes that
the likely range for this property is between $11.00 per square foot to $13.00 per square foot.
This site has no entitlements and is a school district site. In that sense it is similar to Santa
Ynez parcel that sold in 1997 for approximately $11.00 per square foot. The other low priced
sales are for sites that had to be assembled and did not have entitlements. The three higher
valued sites had entitlements and are better located then the Crest View parcel. Even with
price appreciation in the market since 1997, KMA does not believe that the parcel will generate
a higher value.
Buyers are also likely to deduct for the 1.25-acre dedication for parks and streets. This leaves
12.6 acres for sale. At $11.00 per square foot the parcel will yield $6.0 million for the School
District. At $13.00 per square foot the site will provide $7.1 million for the School District.
In terms of revenues, KMA estimates that the School District will receive approximately
$7.6 million in value from the ground leases. This is greater than the estimated revenue that
the School District might receive from the sale of the site, which ranges from $6.0 million to
$7.1 million. More importantly, the School District still holds the real estate asset, which can
be re-leased in the future to continue the income stream.
The School District will also receive a similar amount of property tax from either development
of the site. The property taxes do not provide a direct benefit to the School District because
school aid comes from the State and augments property tax receipts. The increased property
taxes benefit the School District indirectly by providing a local funding source, which is not
subject to the whims of the State.
Attachment
9909080.H B:JAR:gbd
14066.001.067
TABLE
RESIDENTIAL LAND SALE COMPS
CITY OF HINTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA
Gross Price/ Density Total Price
No. Location&City Sale Date Zoning Acreage Sale Price (Sq.Ft.) DU/Acre Units per Unit Comment
1 18685 Santa Ynez St. Apr-97 R-1 14.89 $7,200,000 $11.10 4.0 59 $122,034 School district site no entitlements
Fountain Valley
2 6300 Garfield Ave. Sep-98 SP 4.60 $2,900,000 $14.47 3.1 14 $207,143
Huntington Beach
3 17301 Edwards St. Sep-96 R-1 2.58 $2,000,000 $17.82 6.6 17 $117,647 Entitled site with subdivision map
Huntington Beach
4 Main St.and Palm Ave. May-97 SP#6 1.75 $1,950,000 $25.54 14.9 26 $75,000 Townhouse project
Huntington Beach
5 18892-18972 Main St. Sep-97 RMH 4.01 $1,900,000 $10.88 7.3 29 $65,517
Huntington Beach
6 Golden West south of Ellis Aug-98 LUO-CD 2.66 $980,000 $8.47 9.5 25 $39,200 Raw land,assembled five lots
Huntington Beach
Per Sq.Ft.Sale Price Range $8.47-$25.54
Average Sale Price per Sq.Ft.of Land $12.61
Weighted Average Sale Price per Sq.Ft.of Land $12.75
Average Sale Price per Unit $97,890
Weighted Average Sale Price per Unit - $99,588
KMA estimates expenses to be approximately$0.60 per square foot annually.
Prepared By:Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File Name:Comparable Sales,Comps,9/24/99:JAR
PLANNING ANALYSIS
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,, r r
/ t
PLANNING ANALYSIS
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The City Council has requested a report on the initiative's effect on the internal consistency of
the city's general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between
planning and zoning, and a discussion of the initiative's effect on the limitations of city actions
under certain sections of the Government Code. These sections, Section 65008 of the
Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing
with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, ensure that the initiative
will not result in any discriminatory acts.
Background
Recent General Plan history began on the Crest View School site in 1987 when Land Use
Element No. 87-1 was proposed on the property. Even though the school was in operation at the
time, the Redevelopment Agency proceeded with a request to amend the general plan from
Community Facilities-Education with underlying Low Density Residential to General
Commercial. As part of the Redevelopment Agency's plans for the Beach Boulevard Corridor
Project, staff analyzed the possibility of a commercial land use on the site which could tie into
the somewhat marginal adjacent shopping center. The project was ultimately withdrawn and
land use designations remained Community Facilities-Education with underlying Low Density
Residential.
The City then began a comprehensive update of the City's General Plan in 1991. As part of the
update effort, a General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) made up of community
representatives was appointed by the City Council. GPAC was charged with analyzing and
recommending general plan designations throughout the City, including the Crest View School.
The GPAC recommended to the Planning Commission that the west one-half of the total site be
amended to General Commercial and that the east one-half of the site be designated as Low
Density Residential.
During the General Plan update process, Planning staff recommended that the entire school site
along with the properties fronting Beach Blvd. be re-designated as General Commercial and that
a Specific Plan overlay designation be added. The recommendation by staff was intended to
require future development to be integrated,provide reciprocal vehicular and pedestrian access,
require a common urban design and architectural theme, and provide buffers from adjacent
single family residential uses. Through the update process, the Planning Commission and City
Council decided not to re-designate the site to commercial and maintained the existing general
plan designation of P - RL-7 (Public with underlying Low Density Residential-maximum seven
units per net acre). The decision was based upon a need to comprehensively review any
development proposal and mitigate to the greatest extent possible potential impacts to the
surrounding land uses. By not amending the general plan on Crest View during the
comprehensive general plan update, any proposal for future development required a general plan
amendment, zoning map amendment, and specific environmental review.
Current General Plan Designation
On December 14, 1998, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 97-1 and
Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1, a request by Arnel Retail Group, to amend the General Plan
(Table LU-4 for Subarea 6g and the Land Use Map) and the Zoning Map (District Map 40) of
the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance at the approximately 13. 89 acre Crest
View School site. The General Plan Land Use Map was amended from Public (underlying Low
Density Residential) to General Commercial with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of.35 (CG-F0.
The Zoning was amended from Public-Semipublic (PS) to General Commercial (CG).
Proposed Initiative
The initiative petition recently circulated for signatures by Crest View United asks the people of
Huntington Beach to amend the general plan and zoning designations on the Crest View School
site from the current designation of CG—General Commercial to RL-7 Low Density Residential.
A Low Density Residential general plan designation describes a variety of residential uses, such
as, single family residential units, clustered zero lot line development, and"granny" flats at a
maximum density not to exceed seven units per net acre. A Low Density Residential zoning
designation further defines the types of uses permitted or allowed by conditional use permit.
These uses include day care, multi-family residential, manufactured homes, limited alcohol
recovery facilities, limited residential care facilities, single family residential, clubs and lodges,
park and recreation facilities, public safety facilities, religious assembly uses, public and private
schools, major and minor utilities, horticulture, and nurseries.
The 13.89 net acre site would allow a maximum density of 97 residential units based on a
maximum seven units per acre. Development of the property would likely yield fewer units
when land is dedicated for streets and park facilities. It is estimated that the site could feasibly
yield approximately 72 units after the physical design of streets and parks are accounted for.
General Plan Conformance
An amendment of the General Plan to RL-7 Low Density Residential at the Crest View School
site would be consistent with the following goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General
Plan.
1. Land Use Element
Goal
LU 7
Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining
the City's environmental resources and scale and character.
Objective
LU 7.1
Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that (a) provides for the housing,
commercial, employment, educational, cultural, entertainment, and recreation needs of existing and
future residents, (b) provides employment opportunities for residents of the City and surrounding
subregion, (c) captures visitor and tourist activity, and (d) provides open space and aesthetic
"relief' from urban development.
Goal
LU 9
Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse
economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Objective
LU 9.1
Provide for the development of single- and multi-family residential neighborhoods.
Policy
LU 13.1.6:
Encourage surplus schools and other public properties to be made available first for other public
purposes, such as parks, open space, adult or child care, and secondarily for reuse for private
purposes and/or other land uses and development.
New Residential Subdivisions
Objective
LU 9.3
Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and projects that incorporate a
diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborhood and identity.
Permitted Uses and Densities
Policy
LU 9.3.1
Permit the development of master-planned residential projects that incorporate a mix of housing
types, neighborhood-serving commercial, services, schools, parks, open space, and other elements
in areas designated for residential on the Land Use Plan Map. (I-L U 1, I-L U 2, I-L U 4, and I-L U 7)
Housingfor or Special Needs
Objective
LU 9.5
Provide for the development of housing for senior citizens, the physically and mentally challenged,
and very low, low, and moderate income families.
Permitted Uses
Policy
LU 9.5.1
Accommodate the development of housing types, such as multifamily development and Single
Room Occupancies (SRO), intended to meet the special needs of senior citizens, the physically and
mentally challenged, and, very low, low and moderate income households in areas designated for
residential and mixed-use on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the Housing Element.
(I-L U 1, I-L U 2, I-L U 4, I-L U S, I-L U 7, I-L U 10, and I-L U 13)
Land Use Element Discussion
The proposed amendments to the general plan and zoning for Low Density Residential will be
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Land Use Element cited above because
the residential designations allow for a range of additional housing opportunities to meet the
diverse needs of the community. For example, the residential designation would potentially
accommodate a variety of projects including single family, multi-family, affordable housing,
housing for seniors, housing for the physically and mentally challenged, and other unique and
diverse residential related uses.
2. Circulation Element
Goal
CE 1
Provide a balanced transportation system that supports the policies of the General Plan and
facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while
providing a balance between economic development and the preservation of residential
neighborhoods, and minimizing environmental impacts.
Objective
CE 2.4
Ensure compliance with the City's Growth Management Plan.
Circulation Element Discussion
Amending the general plan and zoning to Low Density Residential would not conflict with the
above Circulation goals because future residential development could be compatible with the
transportation system and would not exceed maximum development as described in the Growth
Management Element.
3. Housing Element
Existing Affordable Housing
Goal
HE 1
Conserve and improve existing affordable housing in Huntington Beach.
Policy
HE 1.1.8
Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse of residential land on
existing residential development. (I-HE 18, LU9.2.1, and I--LU 1)
Policy
HE 1.1.9
Encourage preservation of the existing low density residential character in established single-
family neighborhoods. (I-HE I8, I-L U 9.2.1 and I-L U 1)
Adequate Sites
Goal
HE 2
Provide adequate housing sites.
Objective
HE 2.1
Provide appropriate zoning and regulatory incentives to facilitate the production of 31 very low,
115 moderate, and 800 upper income units through the remainder of this planning period.
Policy
HE 2.1.3
Use the following general criteria for identifying and evaluating potential sites for affordable
housing and for the elderly and handicapped. While compliance with these criteria is preferable,
no site shall be dismissed for failure to meet these criteria and shall be judged on its own merit.
Sites should be:
• located with convenient access to arterial highways and public transportation,
schools, parks and recreational facilities, shopping areas, employment
opportunities;
• adequately served by public facilities, services, and utilities;
• minimally impacted by seismic and flood hazards. Where such hazards cannot be
avoided, adequate mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the design of all
proposed development;
• minimally affected by noise and blighted conditions; and
• located outside areas of predominantly lower income concentrations. (I-HE 20
and I-HE 21, and L U 9.5.1)
Policy
HE 2.1.4 Plan for residential land uses which accommodate anticipated growth from new
employment opportunities. (I-HE 17 and L U 1)
Policy
HE 2.1.5 Locate residential uses in proximity to commercial and industrial areas and
transportation routes to provide convenient access to shopping and employment
centers. (L U 2.1.1, L U 2.1.4, and CE 3.1.1)
Policy
HE 2.1.7 Use surplus park and/or school sites for residential use where appropriate and
consistent with the City's General Plan. (I-HE 19, L U 13.1.6, L U 13.1.7 and I-L U
25)
Development of Affordable Housing
Goal
HE-3
Assist in Development of Affordable Housing.
Objective
HE 3.1
Facilitate the development of housing for low and moderate income households which is
compatible with and complements adjacent uses and is located in close proximity to public and
commercial services.
Policy
HE 3.1.1
Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the
community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. (1-HE 16, I-HE 20 - 30,
I-LU9, andLU9.1.1)
Policy
HE 3.1.2
Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of housing
with particular emphasis on housing affordable to lower income households, as well as the needs
of the handicapped, the elderly, large families and female-headed households. (I-HE 20 - I-HE
25, I-HE 27, I-HE 29, I-HE 30 and LU 9.5.1)
Policy
HE 3.1.4 Encourage alternative forms of home ownership, such as shared equity ownership,
shared living units, and other housing arrangements to make housing more
affordable. (I-HE 1, I-HE 2)
Policy
HE 3.1. 10 Promote the availability of sufficient rental housing to afford maximum choice of
housing types for all economic segments of the community. (I-HE 16, I-HE 20 -
I-HE 30, and L U 9)
Policy
HE 3.1.13 Encourage the provision of alternative housing through replacement housing
and/or relocation for low or moderate income households displaced by public or
private development. (I-HE 14, I-HE 15)
Policy
HE 3.1.14 Investigate the development of single room occupancy (SRO) hotels to provide
housing opportunities for very low-income residents. (I-HE 33 and L U 9.S.1)
Equal Housing
Goal
HE5
Provide Equal Housing Opportunity.
Objective
HE 5.1
Promote equal housing opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice.
Policy
HE 5.1.2
Promote housing which meets the special needs of handicapped and elderly persons., as well as
housing facilities for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and for persons with AIDS. (ME 20, 1-
HE 21, ME 31, I-HE 38, I-HE 39, and I-LU9.5.1)
Policy
HE 5.1.3
Encourage the provision of adequate numbers of housing units to meet the needs of families of
all sizes. (ME 1 -I-HE 3, I-HE S -I-HE 7, I-HE 12 -I-HE 16, 21, I-HE 20 -I-HE 30, I-LU 9,
and L U 9.5.1)
Housing Element Discussion
Amending the general plan and zoning designations to Low Density Residential would facilitate
compliance with the Housing Element. In particular, development could provide affordable
housing, housing for the elderly and handicapped, could accommodate growth from new
employment, would be in close proximity to commercial centers, would provide equal housing
opportunities, and would allow development of a surplus school site as residential.
General plan and zoning designations of Low Density Residential would also allow development
with a high potential to be compatible with the surrounding single family residential properties to
the south and east. Any proposed residential development would require certain design criteria
and measures to ensure compatibility with the general commercial zoned properties to the west
and the arterial highway, Talbert Avenue, to the north.
4. Noise Element
Noise Impact Encroachment of Commercial and Industrial Land Uses
Objective
N 1.4
Minimize noise spillover or encroachment from commercial and industrial land uses into adjoining
residential neighborhoods or"noise-sensitive"uses.
Noise Impacts of Entertainment and Restaurant/Bar Land Uses
Objective
N 1.8.2
Discourage the development of new nightclubs, discotheques, and other high noise-generating
entertainment uses that may impact residential neighborhoods, schools, health care facilities, or
other "noise sensitive" land uses, unless it can be demonstrated that adequate measures can be
installed and employed to adequately mitigate the potential impacts of on-site operations and/or
off-site customer access and activities of these establishments upon these areas. (I-N 4)
Noise Element Discussion
Amending the general plan and zoning designations to Low Density Residential would prohibit
high noise-generating commercial land uses, including entertainment and restaurantsibars,
adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood.
5. Growth Management Element
Policy
5.8.1
Promote balanced growth of residential and non-residential land uses and supporting public
facilities and services.
Growth Management Discussion
Amending the general plan and zoning designations to Low Density Residential would facilitate
growth of residential land uses.
GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCY
Although the discussion above indicates how the proposed general plan and zoning designations
would be consistent with certain goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, Section 9212
of the Elections Code specifically states that the report should discuss the internal consistency of
the proposed initiative with the General Plan. A discussion of the internal consistency would
only be complete with an explanation of how the proposed general plan and zoning are also
inconsistent with certain elements of the General Plan. Therefore, an amendment of the general
plan designation from General Commercial to Low Density Residential at the Crest View School
site would be inconsistent with the following goals,policies, and objectives of the General Plan:
1. Land Use Element
Goal
LU 1
Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic
demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents
of Huntington Beach.
Objective
LU 1.1
Provide for the timing of residential, commercial, and industrial development coincident with the
availability of adequate market demand to ensure economic vitality.
Policy
LU 1.1.2
Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. (I-L U 1 7)
Goal
LU 7
Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining
the City's environmental resources and scale and character.
Objective
LU 7.1
Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that (a) provides for the housing,
commercial, employment, educational, cultural, entertainment, and recreation needs of existing and
future residents, (b) provides employment opportunities for residents of the City and surrounding
subregion, (c) captures visitor and tourist activity, and (d) provides open space and aesthetic
"relief' from urban development.
Policy
LU 7.1.5
Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintain the City's fiscal viability
and integrity of environmental resources. (I-L U 1, I-L U 11, I-L U 12, and I-L U 17)
Policy
LU 7.1.6
Accommodate the development of additional jobs-generating land uses that improve the 1992 jobs
to housing ratio of 0.82 to 1.0 or greater; to meet objectives of the Regional Comprehensive Plan
(Southern California Association of Governments) and Air Quality Management Plan. These
should capitalize upon existing industrial strengths and emphasizing the clustering of similar or
complementary industries. (I-L U 1 and I-L U 17)
Goal
LU 10
Achieve the development of a range of commercial uses.
Objective
LU 10.1
Provide for the continuation of existing and the development of a diversity of retail and service
commercial uses that are oriented to the needs of local residents, serve the surrounding region,
serve visitors to the City, and capitalize on Huntington Beach's recreational resources.
Policy
LU 13.1.6
Encourage surplus schools and other public properties to be made available first for other public
purposes, such as parks, open space, adult or child care, and secondarily for reuse for private
purposes and/or other land uses and development.
Land Use Element Discussion
The proposed amendments to the general plan and zoning designations to Low Density
Residential would be inconsistent with the land use goals to improve the City's fiscal viability,
achieve the development of a range of commercial uses, to increase the jobs to housing ratio,
and to provide jobs and commercial services in proximity to residents. The amendment to
residential would also be inconsistent with City Council Resolution No. 96-57, adopted July
1996, to "...pursue commercial development opportunities on large parcels adjacent to major
arterial highways, including vacant/surplus school sites, or any other vacant or underutilized
sites or parcels in the City...".
2. Economic Development Element
Goal
ED 1
Provide economic opportunities for present and future Huntington Beach residents and
businesses through employment and local fiscal stability.
Objective
ED 1.1
Enhance the City's market potential in terms of retail, office, industrial, and visitor serving
activity. This would allow Huntington Beach to provide for retail, office, and industrial
opportunities that serve the current and projected population and enhance sales and occupancy
tax revenue.
Objective
ED 1.2
Seek to create a cumulative economic growth that provides a balance throughout the City.
Objective
ED 2.4
Revitalize, renovate and expand the existing Huntington Beach commercial facilities while
attracting new commercial uses.
Policy
ED 2.4.1
Encourage and assist existing and potential commercial owners to modernize and expand their
commercial properties.
Policy
ED 2.4.2
Seek to capture the "new growth"businesses such as, but not limited to:
a. telecommuting;
b. "shop for value"or"big box" stores;
c. entertainment-commercial developments;
d. knowledge-based retail and entertainment-information retail uses; and
e. high sales tax producing businesses.
Policy
ED 2.4.3
Encourage the expansion of the range of goods and services provided in Huntington Beach to
accommodate the needs of all residents in Huntington Beach and the market area.
Economic Development Discussion
Amending the general plan and zoning designations to Low Density Residential would prohibit
commercial development of the site, would not improve fiscal stability, and would not provide
economic opportunities for the City. The proposed amendments, therefore, are inconsistent with
the goals included in this element.
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN PLANNING AND ZONING.
The proposed initiative would be consistent between the General Plan and Zoning designations
of Low Density Residential because the initiative proposes a change to both documents. The
initiative would only be inconsistent between planning and zoning if only the general plan or
only the zoning was proposed to change to residential while the other designation remained
commercial.
LIMITATIONS OF CITY ACTIONS:
Amending the general plan and zoning designations on the 13.89 acre Crest View School site
from general commercial to low density residential does not constitute a discriminatory act under
Section 65008 of the Government Code. In addition, the land use amendments would not
prohibit future affordable housing pursuant to Chapter 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913)
and would not prohibit future density bonus projects under Chapter 4.3 (commencing with
Section 65915).
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF CREST VIEW SITE
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
H,,,,�M Nt4-r
TA #-E,� c
M1 ,p",#-y-'r
Ocean View School District
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
03
�r
F inancial Analysis
of
Crest view Site
September 1999
Ocean View School District
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Crest View Site
September 1999
E/i Commercial use of the Crest View site enables the Ocean View
School District Board of Trustees to provide a quality learning
environment for our students without a general obligation bond or
additional tax burden placed on our citizens.
E/i Commercial use of the Crest View site would bring in at least $41
million over the duration of the lease versus $7.5 million if the property
was sold for residential use.
E/i Commercial use of the Crest View site would qualify Ocean View
School District for State bond modernization monies worth $27 million.
ED/ Commercial use of the Crest View site would provide money for the
maintenance and repair of all the District's facilities.
R/i Commercial use of the Crest View site would provide off-site
mitigation regarding the need for additional youth sports facilities in
the City of Huntington Beach.
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROJECTED LEASE INCOME FROM CREST VIEW SITE
Years Yearly Rent YearlyXXXX
Rent
In 5 Yr Blocks
1 - 5 $400,000 i $2,000,000
6 - 10 $415,0001 $2,075,000
11 - 15 $461,250 $2,306,250
16 - 20 $476,250 $2,381,250
21 - 25 $491,2501 $2,456,250
I
26 - 30 $547,5061 $2,737,530
31 - 35 $566,2501 $2,831,250
36 - 40 $622,506 1 $3,112,530
41 - 45 $641,250 $3,206,250
46 - 50 $697,506I $3,487,529
�I
51 - 55 $716,250,I $3,581,249
'I
56 - 60 $772,506 $3,862,529
61 - 65 $791,250 1 $3,956,249
Projected Interest Earnings $2,925,000
TOTAL
$40 9'18 867
crest.wk4
1
O <�aG NHS eo
G�
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT VN 0 �^
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
v
ass�'P
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
OF
CREST VIEW SITE
SEPTEMBER 1999
HISTORICAL REVIEW
In 1990, a Master Planning Committee/Committee of Eleven was convened. The Master Planning
Committee was then subdivided into an Integration/Reconfiguration Committee. Members of both
Committees consisted of parents, community members, educators, local business persons, and
administrators. The two Committees were charged with the responsibility of examining and
correcting any imbalance of the ethnic ratio at our schools, and at the same time, reconfiguring
Ocean View's K-8 schools to K-5/6-8 schools. That meant some schools would be closed and
students would be reassigned. Using specific criteria for determining school closures, the
Committee recommended that Crest View and Haven View be closed. On May 19, 1992, the
Board of Trustees officially declared Crest View surplus property for lease or sale by its adoption
of Resolution No. 12:9192. Closure was based on priorities such as: student safety, enrollment,
school plant, geographic consideration, financial savings, transportation, value of the site, and
student population growth. These determiners have not changed. It would cost approximately
$2.5 million to reopen Crest, not a cost-effective plan, based on current and projected enrollment
data.
As an adjunct to the Master Planning Committee/Committee of Eleven, A Real Property Asset
Management Committee/Community Budget Advisory Committee, was convened as early as 1990,
which was composed of parents, community members, educators, local business persons, and
administrators. This Committee began the process of looking for developers and pursuing long
term ground lease options; more than seventy meetings took place from 1990 to 1998 which were
open to the public, for comments or observation, or both.
SURPLUS SCHOOL SITES
The District currently has nine closed school sites. Two of these are ideal for retail: Crest View
and Rancho View. In 1996, the Board of Trustees met the requirements of the RFQ/RFP process
and began the entitlement process with Amel Retail Group, Inc. Ocean View is in an enviable and
excellent position to handle any future enrollment increases since it has seven remaining closed
school sites: Robinwood, Meadow View, Pleasant View, Glen View, Park View, and Haven View.
Closed school site, Lark View, is being used as the District office.
Ocean View researched and completed a Master Plan on March 18, 1997 that included
demographic enrollment data. The District's enrollment projects continue to reflect an approximate
growth of 2 percent overall. Currently there are eleven elementary schools and four middle
schools. Within our boundaries, the 1999-2000 enrollment is 9,850 students.
2
Ocean View School District
Crest View Site September 1999
CLASS SIZE REDUCTION (CSR) PROGRAM
The Class Size Reduction (CSR) program for kindergarten, first, second, and third grades, exists
at all eleven of our K-5 schools. This has created a need to generate approximately seventy-five
additional classrooms throughout the District. Since CSR is District-wide, opening Crest View
School would only produce classroom space for a very small, neighboring geographic population,
such as Hope View and Lake View. Ocean View's Board of Trustees did not choose to bus
kindergarten through third grade students for CSR. Instead the Trustees opted to purchase
twenty-nine portables disbursed among the eleven elementary schools to meet the 20:1 ratio
required by the State's program. The District will continue to develop classroom space at each site
instead of transporting students.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Ocean View is striving to increase its elementary school enrollment at all K-5 sites to an average
of 650 students. Only Circle View, Harbour View, and Oak View have a larger enrollment. In
contrast, Crest View boundary zones 118, 122, and 123 reflect a student residential population of
123 elementary grade children and 55 middle grade, totaling 178 students (see elementary school
attendance areas). Zones 113, 120, and 121 were originally part of the Crest View boundaries.
However, once Beach Boulevard became such a congested thoroughfare, a safety issue became
paramount, and 158 elementary grade children and 54 middle grade, totaling 212 students, were
placed at Hope View Elementary and Marine View Middle School.
A child care facility has been launched at Lake View Elementary in order to attract more students
and reduce the student enrollment at our other K-5 sites. Lake View has a current population of
419 students, making it the lowest-enrolled school in the District. We will continue to develop its
facilities until it reaches a capacity of 650 students, but that will take a minimum of fifteen years.
ACADEMIC ACCOUNTABILITY
Ocean View School District is dedicated to school accountability and "we walk what we talk." We
set high academic standards for all students, and have directed Ocean View's resources to
maximize that mission. Our motto for this year, Charting the Course- Success for All, defines our
mission, along with our two goals: (1) to increase student achievement through an assessment-
driven, standards-based instructional program, and (2) to effectively utilize the instructional day
and year to increase student success.
3
Ocean View School District
Crest View Site September 1999
FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Academic accountability depends upon fiscal accountability. We must enforce a strong asset
management plan that produces the monies necessary to maintain school facilities, transportation,
and instructional materials, including technology. All of the District's schools are more than 25
years old and require ongoing improvements and repair. Ocean View has a present backlog of
$30 million in facility project needs.
For the last six years, the District has worked to intensify surplus school income from the Crest
View and Rancho View sites. Those monies would allow Ocean View to maintain high quality
schools. The long term lease at Crest View would provide us an income stream for the next 65
years worth more than $41 million. What are the benefits of this long term lease? Primary is that
the District retains ownership. If we sell Crest View for residential use, we cannot optimize the
future value of the property. Second, every five years, we receive inflation adjustments that add
to the base revenue, increasing the income stream. Third, as the land owner, after 65 years,
Ocean View gets another"bite of the apple." Four, the District has six other closed sites. The long
term lease monies from Crest View will let us keep those sites to safeguard against future growth
needs and to continue to honor our commitment to playing fields for the youth and adults in
Huntington Beach. Five, the City of Huntington Beach will also reap an ongoing income at a time
when it is actively seeking other revenue resources.
Ocean View is fortunate to have surplus property, unlike Huntington Beach Union High School
District. As reported, the high school district needs $165 million to make necessary facility
improvements and is seeking a school bond. We feel very lucky to have additional choices as it
would be a hardship on the community to support more than one facility bond measure. From our
perspective, long term lease income is the most fiscally responsible answer for Ocean View, the
City of Huntington Beach, and its citizens. The District owns the property, but in another sense,
it belongs to all the community members whose children attend our schools. Ocean View serves
9,850 students on 15 campuses. We are obligated and committed to providing them safe and
inviting facility and academic environments, and have been recognized for fulfilling that goal.
The California Distinguished Schools Program honors elementary and secondary schools that
demonstrate high standards for all students, strong family and community involvement,
partnerships with the business community, safe and clean school environments, and modern
technology. The California Department of Education, with the help of county offices of education
and local educators from throughout the state, select schools after their program applications are
judged to be exemplary at a state-level competition. Five Ocean View elementary schools and
three middle schools are designated California Distinguished Schools: elementary schools are
Circle View, Golden View, Harbour View, Hope View, Oak View; middle schools are Marine View,
Spring View, and Vista View. In addition, four elementary schools were selected as Honorable
Mention winners: College View, Lake View, Star View, and Village View.
Ocean View constantly considers the best interests of its students when making any decisions
regarding our schools. The spirit and passion of our District will forever be: "KIDS FIRST!"
4
Ocean View School District
Crest View Site September 1999
Ocean View School District is responsible for sustaining an ongoing income
stream to maintain and improve its facilities and capital improvement projects.
A detailed financial analysis of the needs of the Ocean View School District
follows, focusing on six major components:
1 . Class Size Reduction
2. Educational Technology
3. Developer Fees
4, Deferred Maintenance
5. Proposition 1A - Modernization
6. Multi-Year Facility and Compliance Projects
5
Ocean View School District
Crest View Site September 1999
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BREAKDOWN
I. CLASS SIZE REDUCTION
In 1996-97, Governor Wilson and the State Legislature created the Class Size Reduction (CSR)
program which required that the teacher-to-student ratio be reduced to 20:1 in order for Districts
to be eligible for State funds. Ocean View School District has fully implemented Class Size
Reduction in the following way:
Class Size Reduction/1996-97
Grades 1, 2, and 3: All of these grade level classrooms were reduced to 20:1 throughout the
District.
Class Size Reduction/1997-98
Kindergarten: All kindergarten classrooms were also reduced to 20:1 throughout the
District.
State funds have covered most of the salary and benefits of the new teachers hired that resulted
in a total cost over the last three years of$3.8 million. CSR created an immediate facility need at
all K-5 school sites, with no funding source.
In addition to using all existing available space at the open campuses, from 1996-1999, the District
has purchased and installed 50 portable classrooms. Developer fee monies were only available
to pay for three portables and the child care fund paid for five of the portables to free up space for
classes. The remaining 42 portables (at a cost of almost $65,000 per unit) have been from
General Fund revenues.
In addition to the cost of the portables, monies have been expended for teacher desks, maps,
white boards, and other classroom materials needed to set up over 80 new classes.
The costs from 1996 to 1999 have encroached on the General Fund in the amount of$2.5 million.
6
Ocean View School District
Crest View Site September 1999
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BREAKDOWN
2. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
The vision of the Ocean View School District Board is to transform the use of technology from its
supplementary and peripheral role to an integrated role that supports appropriate teaching
strategies and makes instruction more relevant to students at all levels. To accomplish this vision,
the District has made technology a priority by developing goals that include standard
studenticomputer ratios at various grade levels, lab environments and on-going training programs.
To accomplish these goals, the Board has dedicated funding from three sources:
1. Educational Technology Restricted Funds
2. Categorical Supplemental Grant Funds
3. General Fund Monies
Ocean View has a multimedia computer distributive network in place throughout the District for
grades three through eight: there is one computer for every five students at our elementary school
sites, and each of the District's four middle schools (Marine View, Mesa View, Spring View, Vista
View) have a computer lab with intranet capabilities. Distributive network computers are provided
in the middle school classrooms (10:1 ratio), and are used as instructional tools for English and
math.
The cost of this program over the last three years has been $3.7 million, with $1.4 million coming
from the District's unrestricted general funds (see chart on the following page).
7
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUMMARY OF AMOUNTS
EXPENDED FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Educational Funded with Funded with
Technology Restricted Unrestricted
i
State Money General Funds
�11995-96 $927,237 11 598,3441 328,893
11996-97 1 $771,254 1 413,7291 357,525
)997-98 L_$685,963 428,5451 257,418
�1998-99 $689,149 j 441,7541 247,395
Budget �11999-00 $702,196 442,196 260 000
(Totals $3 775 799 ! $2 324 5681 $1 451 231
budproj\edtech.wk4
8
Ocean View School District
Crest View Site September 1999
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BREAKDOWN
3. DEVELOPER FEES
Another source of funds is developer fees. Developer fees are collected from the builders of new
construction within the school boundaries, or from home owners or businesses expanding their
dwellings. The fees are collected to offset the impact of the development on the school district,
primarily from increased enrollment. Two-thirds of every dollar collected are distributed to Ocean
View School District and the revenues can only be spent on construction or items associated with
increased enrollment such as classroom furniture.
The Ocean View School District is positioned in an almost fully-developed area so there is very
little significant construction that would generate developer fees. Over the last six years, Ocean
View has collected an average of $75,000 per year in fees. These monies have been spent
primarily on portable classrooms to accommodate the District's two percent student growth.
Developer fees are restricted in. use to meet the demand created by additional students. The most
obvious need is for classroom space. Over the past six years, Ocean View has experienced an
average increase of 195 new students each year. Since the implementation of Class Size
Reduction, there are no unused classrooms. This necessitates the District's placement of
portables to house student growth. At an average of 28 students per classroom, 195 students
generates a need for seven new portables each year. At a cost of$65,000 each, the annual cost
to meet the housing need is $455,000. Due to the limited dollar amount and the restricted uses
of these dollars, developer fees are not a viable source of funds for facility improvements.
The chart on the following page proves a six-year history of developer fees.
9
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
SIX YEAR HISTORY OF DEVELOPER FEES
Fiscal Yr Net Fees Expenses
93-94 $108,871 $101 ,186
94-95 28,895 130,011
95-96 277401 17,660
96-97 135,834 113,592
97-98 56,887 1 1 ,908
98-99 92,654 66,919
Total i $450,5421 $431,276
Average 1 $75 090 ; $71 879
AVERAGE COST OF ADD'L CLASSROOMS NEEDED $455,000
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPER FEES COLLECTED $75,090
FUNDING SHORTFALL EACH YEAR $379 910
devfee\histdev
10
Ocean View School District
Crest View Site September 1999
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BREAKDOWN
4. DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
DEFINITION:
Deferred Maintenance: This is a program that projects capital improvement needs
over a five-year period, and is submitted to the State for
approval.
The State of California suffered a recession that resulted in a loss to State revenues;
consequently, monies allocated to school districts were reduced. One of the hardest hit areas was
funding for deferred maintenance. The State Deferred Maintenance program is a dollar-for-dollar
match program. The State allocation formula is supposed to be one-half of one percent of
expenditures. The same amount is required to be contributed by the District in order to participate
in this matching program. Unfortunately, the State allocation has been significantly lower than the
formula.
Over the past six years, the average state allocation has been $101,145 per year, with the District
depositing an average of$117,638 per year. The total resources over the past six years averaged
$218,783 per year, and expenses averaged $192,603 per year. When the list of needs totals in
the millions, the $219,000 per year is not a sufficient amount to be relied upon for planning
deferred maintenance projects.
Ocean View School District's Five-Year Plan that was filed with the State Allocation Board in
February 1999 indicates a backlog of deferred maintenance projects, totaling $23,120,533.
With a critical need to replace 30-year old roofs, Ocean View has dedicated most of the State and
District match monies, over the last six years, to roof replacement.
The chart on the following page outlines the District's six-year history of deferred maintenance
costs.
11
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
SIX YEAR HISTORY OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
Fiscal Yr I State Allowance District Match Total Resources ! Expenses
93-94 $62,8431 $100,827 $163,670 182,026
94-95 66,889 0 � 66,8891 (1,045
95-96 21,891 100,000 121,891 109,718
96-97 50,0781 100,000 150,078 436,893
97-98 180,179 100,000 280,179 233,007
98-99 224,991 305,000 529,991 195,016
Total $606,871 j $705,827 1 $1,312,698 $1,155,615
Averse $101 145 ' $117 638 I $218 783 ! $192 603
negotia\histdm
12
Ocean View School District
Crest View Site September 1999
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BREAKDOWN
5. PROPOSITION 'IA-MODERNIZATION
In November 1998, the voters of California approved Proposition 1A to issue bonds for facility
construction and modernization. Ocean View School District qualified for modernization funds
since all its sites are over 25 years old. Eligibility applications have been submitted, and
preliminary calculations indicate Ocean View will be eligible for over $27 million in modernization
funds. The State requires a 20 percent match from the District which is equal to $5.4 million.
Ocean View School District has made a commitment to utilize the revenue proceeds from the Crest
View site and contribute its 20 percent match of modernization monies rather than seek a tax bond
measure.
Two years ago, the District began a multi-phased HVAC retrofit project which was to be funded
by energy savings. Since adequate funding was unavailable to fund the Phase I project, a ten-year
loan agreement was signed and paid out of the annual energy and maintenance savings
associated with the retrofit. Phase II was begun in the summer of 1999 and was the first project
scheduled, using modernization funding. The District's 20 percent match toward this project
equals $540,000 and has already been transferred to the County School Facilities Fund.
As a first-time player in the area of modernization funding, Ocean View did not have a developed
strategic plan to utilize the new influx of facility funds available since the November vote.
Therefore, the District took the following steps:
1. Secured State approval and eligibility of a project already in the planning stages for
implementation in the summer of 1999: the Phase II HVAC retrofit at six sites.
If this funding had not been available, the District would have been required to take
out a loan as was necessary for the Phase I project.
2. Began working with an architect to develop a site Master Plan for selected middle
and elementary schools that could most benefit from large scale projects.
Two charts follow:
1. Schools by Construction Date
2. Prop 1A Maximum Funding Eligibility
13
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Schools by Construction Date
SITE SCHOOL YEAR CONSTRUCTED
1 Rancho View April 1959
2 Crest View May 1961
3 Meadow View November 1961
Warehouse June 1962
4 Village View July 1962
5 Robinwood August 1962
6 Westmont November 1962
7 Pleasant View June 1963
8 Sun View August 1964
9 Circle View February 1965
10 College View February 1965
11 Spring View February 1965
12 Star View May 1965
13 Lark View- (District Office) June 1965
14 Haven View September 1965
Maintenance&Transportation July 1966
15 Harbour View March 1967
16 Lake View March 1967
17 Marine View September 1967
18 Oak View December 1967
19 Hope View January 1968
20 Glen View October 1969
21 Park View May 1970
22 Mesa View June 1970
23 Vista View November 1970
24 Golden View June 1972
NslsohootsWtwkage
14
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROPOSITION 1A MAXIMUM FUNDING ELIGIBILITY
Option A
State's 80%
Actual#of Port.C/R Funding Lesser of Funding District's 20% Total
School Grade Level Classrooms 20 Yrs old Total Allowance Eligibility CBEDS Eliq or CBEDS Rate El4gibility Contribution Funding
Circle View - K-5 27 27 - 25 675 660 660 $2,246.00 $1,482,360 $370,590 $1,852,950
College View K-5 26 26 25 650 620 620 $2,246.00 $1,392,520 $348,130 $1,740,650
Golden View K-5 25 25 25 625 582 582 $2,246.00 $1,307,172 $326,793 $1,633,965
Harbour View K 5 23- _ 10_ 33 — 25 - 825 898 825 $2,246.00 $1,852,950 $463,238 $2,316,188
Hope View _ K-5 23 23 25 575 618 575 $2,246.00 $1,291,450 $322,863 $1,614,313
Lake View K-5 19 ------- 1 -20 25 500 452 -___ 452_ $2,24600_$1,015,192 _ $253,798 $1,268,990
Marine View 6-8 21 8 29 27 783 828 783 $2,376.00 $1,860,408 $465,102 $2,325,510
Mesa View 6-8 27 27 27 729 729 729 $2,376.00 $1,732,104 $433,026 $2,165,130
Oak View K-5 22 6 28 25 700 707 700 $2,246.00 $1,572,200 $393,050 $1,965,250
Spring View 6-8 27 — 1 ___ 28 27756 815 -_ 756 $2,376_00 $1,796,256 _$449,064 $2,245,320
Star View K-5 18 2 20 25 500 580 500 $2,246.00 $1,123,000 $280,750 $1,403,750
Sun View K-5 17 4 21 25 525 475 475 $2,246.00 $1,066,850 $266,713 $1,333,563
Village View K-5 23 23 25 575 546 546 $2,246.00 $1,226,316 $306,579 $1,532,895
Vista View 6-8 26 26 27 702 757 702 $2,376.00 $1,667,952 $416,988 12,084,940
Westmont K-5 26 26 25 650 583 583 $2,246.00 $1,309,418 $327,355 $1,636,773
Total 350 32 382 383 9,770 9,850 9,488 $21 696 148 $5 424 037 $27 120 185
Un
Ocean View School District
Crest View Site September 1999
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BREAKDOWN
6. MULTI-YEAR FACILITY AND COMPLIANCE PROJECTS
The Ocean View School District maintains 24 school sites, one of which has been converted to
a District office, and a Maintenance, Warehouse, and Transportation facility. During much of the
past 30 years, the major maintenance performed at these sites consisted of cleaning and the repair
of things as they broke.
As the condition of aging facilities and inequities of site improvements became apparent to
Administration, strategic plans were developed to address long overdue site needs on a
centralized basis. The District conducted a survey on the life expectancy of roofs and heating and
air conditioning units. In addition, each school was assessed regarding carpet, paint, asphalt, ball
walls, lunch benches, copiers, and other major cost items. The resulting reports showed a huge
backlog of facility and capital outlay needs which would cost millions.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements are an unfunded mandate. Playfall area
retrofit and compliant playground equipment replacements are unfunded mandates. Security and
safety issues, such as ball wall replacements due to structural earthquake needs have no specific
revenue source. Therefore, these projects have been funded from unrestricted General Fund
monies. For the past eight years, short term lease income has been the major source of
funding. Ocean View's six closed school sites (Haven View, Glen View, Park View, Robinwood,
Meadow View, Pleasant View) are expected to net revenue in the amount of$678,000.
ONLY ELIGIBLE FUNDING SOURCES FOR FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Deferred Maintenance
2. Developer Fees (when mitigating impact of additional students)
3. Short Term Lease Income
The District has attached a detailed summary of its facility improvement costs that lists Ocean
View's expenditures for the past five years and estimates future financial obligations for the next
five years. As is shown in the statistical data provided, the District has dedicated funds for facility
improvements at a total cost of $17,768,304.27. Ocean View estimates that future facility
improvements will cost $27.3 million.
16
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Coate
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
ADA Compliance CIRCLE VIEW $ - $ 45,450.00
COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 41,650.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ - $ 30,150.00
HARBOUR VIEW $ - $ 44,600.00
HOPE VIEW $ 10,160.00 $ 27,100.00 Actual costs are for recent ADA ramp
LAKE VIEW $ 5,050.00 $ 28,500.00 modifications. Future estimated
MARINE VIEW $ - $ 38,550.00 costs were derived utilizing the ADA
MESA VIEW $ - $ 38,250.00 Implementation Plan as prepared for
OAK VIEW $ - $ 37,050.00 the District by Disability Access
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 27,550.00 Consultants, Inc.
STAR VIEW $ - $ 24,000.00
SUN VIEW $ 9,640.00 $ 22,500.00
VILLAGE VIEW $ - $ 55,050.00
VISTA VIEW $ - $ 36,050.00
WESTMONT $ - $ 30,650.00
Totals: $ 24,850.00 $ 527,100.00
Asbestos CIRCLE VIEW $ 51,615.00 $ 5,610.00 Future estimated costs are derived
COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 13,300.00 from the AHERA Reports using the
GOLDEN VIEW $ - $ 138,775.00 amount of material multiplied by the
HARBOUR VIEW $ - $ 513,725.00 per unit costs as received from PSI
HOPE VIEW $ 1,125.00 $ 434,665.00 Incorporated.
LAKE VIEW $ - $ 494,195.00
MARINE VIEW $ - $ 414,124.00
MESA VIEW $ - $ 11,357.00 Previous actual costs are derived
OAK VIEW $ - $ 507,625.00 from the per unit costs from PSI and
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 32,990.00 multiplied by the amount of material
STAR VIEW $ - $ 57,615.00 removed from the site, ie., the floors.
SUN VIEW $ 29,500.00 $ 5,592.00
VILLAGE VIEW $ - $ 139,940.00
VISTA VIEW $ - $ 32,048.00
WESTMONT $ - $ 101,172.00
Totals: $ 82,240.00 $ 2,902,733.00
CIRCLE, LAKE&
Ballwalls VILLAGE VIEW $ 92,610.00 $ -
MARINE, OAK&
CIRCLE $ 47,300.00 $ - Costs are actual from construction
HARBOUR, SUN, bid projects.
WESTMONT $ 32,840.00 $ -
COLLEGE, HOPE&
STAR $ 67,377.00
Totals: $ 240,127.00 $ -
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xls 17
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
Electrical/Lighting Retrofit
Future cost is estimate based on 5
CIRCLE VIEW $ - $ 36,900.00 Year Deferred Maintenance Plan
ICOLLEGE VIEW *' $ - Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
COLLEGE VIEW $ 830.00 $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
DISTRICT OFFICE '* Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
GOLDEN VIEW $ 55,270.00 $ - Phase 11 -JB Rodgers actual cost
Actual cost performed by, and based
HARBOUR VIEW $ 100,986.00 on Maintenance records.
HARBOUR VIEW Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
HARBOUR VIEW $ 3,310.00 Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
HOPE VIEW ** Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
!HOPE VIEW $ 3,310.00 $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
!LAKE VIEW ** !Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
!LAKE VIEW ! $ 830.00 $ - !Phase I I -JB Rodgers actual cost
!M &O ** Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
Actual cost performed by, and based
MARINE VIEW $ 102,846.00 $ - on Maintenance records.
MESA VIEW ! ** $ - Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
!OAK VIEW ** Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
!OAK VIEW $ 3,310.00 $ - Phase 11 -JB Rodgers actual cost
Actual cost based on Maintenance
SPRING VIEW $ 247,098.00 $ - records.
STAR VIEW ** Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
STAR VIEW $ 3,310.00 $ - Phase 11 -JB Rodgers actual cost
Future cost is estimate based on 5
SUN VIEW $ - $ 27,390.00 Year Deferred Maintenance Plan
VILLAGE VIEW '* Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
!VILLAGE VIEW 1 $ 3,310.00 $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
VISTA VIEW $ 82,332.00 $ - Phase 11 -JB Rodgers actual cost
WESTMONT *' $ - Retrofitted as Phase I -JB Rodgers
WESTMONT $ 3,310.00 $ - Phase 11 -JB Rodgers actual cost
GLEN VIEW $ 31,240.00 $ - Phase 11 -JB Rodgers actual cost
MEADOW VIEW $ 55,560.00 $ - Phase 11 -JB Rodgers actual cost
PLEASANT VIEW $ 28,450.00 $ - Phase 11 -JB Rodgers actual cost
**JB RODGERS
RETROFIT- Phase I $ 573,850.00 $ -
Future cost is an estimate based on
comparable square footage and costs
HAVEN VIEW $ - $ 27,500.00 of actual retrofits
PARK VIEW $ - $ - I Retrofit funded by HBUHS District
Future cost is an estimate based on
comparable square footage and costs
ROBINWOOD $ - $ 55,000.00 of actual retrofits
Totals:I $ 1,299,152.00 1 $ 146,790.00
18
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xis
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
Fire Alarm & PA CIRCLE VIEW $ - $ 28,200.00
COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 27,000.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ - $ 28,200.00 Future equipment is estimated by
HARBOUR VIEW $ - $ 33,000.00 the approx. number of"devices" per
HOPE VIEW $ - $ 27,600.00 site times its costs plus a new main
LAKE VIEW $ - $ 25,200.00 fire alarm panel
MARINE VIEW $ - $ 37,200.00
Actual cost: installed as part of Mesa
Bldg A Remodel project, included
MESA VIEW $ 12,000.00 $ 31,800.00 Fire Alarm panel and interconnect to
OAK VIEW $ - $ 28,200.00
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 30,600.00
STAR VIEW $ - $ 42,600.00
SUN VIEW $ - $ 24,000.00
VILLAGE VIEW $ - $ 26,400.00
VISTA VIEW $ - j $ 31,200.00 � Future equipment is estimated by
WESTMONT $ - $ 30,000.00 ! the approx. number of"devices" per
PLEASANT VIEW $ - $ 22,500.00 ' site times its costs plus a new main
MEADOW VIEW $ - 1 $ 26,800.00 fire alarm panel
GLEN VIEW $ - $ 18,500.00
ROBINWOOD $ - $ 29,000.00
HAVEN VIEW $ - $ 23,600.00
PARK VIEW $ - $ 26,800.00
Totals: $ 12,000.00 $ 598,400.00
Flooring/Carpet CIRCLE VIEW $ 51,935.52 $
COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 63,336.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ 64,602.72 $ -
HARBOUR VIEW $ - $ 67,130.00
HOPE VIEW $ 65,869.44 $ -
LAKE VIEW $ 19,423.04 $ 38,846.00
MARINE VIEW $ 21,534.24 $ 43,070.00
MESA VIEW $ 62,491.52 $ 31,250.00 All costs are based on the square
OAK VIEW $ 21,956.48 $ 43,900.00 footage of the site by the cost the
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 76,000.00 District pays for carpet($8.95/yd)
STAR VIEW $ - $ 57,000.00 plus District labor
SUN VIEW $ 40,535.04 $ -
VILLAGE VIEW $ 20,267.52 $ 40,535.00
VISTA VIEW $ - $ 84,870.00
WESTMONT $ 10,915.00 $ 65,870.00 j
MEADOW VIEW $ - $ 49,500.00
GLEN VIEW $ - $ 38,950.00
ROBINWOOD $ - $ 57,750.00
PARK VIEW $ - $ 50,250.00
PLEASANT VIEW $ 13,933.92 $ 14,000.00 Partial remodel for new tenant.
HAVEN VIEW $ 16,700.00 $ 24,300.00 Future estimate for remainder of site
Totals: $ 410,164.44 $ 846,557.00
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xis 19
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
Flooring/Tile ICIRCLE VIEW $ 43,758.48 $ -
COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 53,360.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ 54,431.28 $ -
HARBOUR VIEW $ - $ 56,560.00
HOPE VIEW $ 55,498.56 $ -
LAKE VIEW $ 16,364.96 $ 32,730.00
MARINE VIEW $ - $ 54,430.00
MESA VIEW $ 52,652.48 $ 26,330.00
SOAK VIEW $ - $ 55,500.00 All costs are based on the square
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 64,050.00 footage of the site by the cost the
STAR VIEW $ - $ 48,030.00 District pays for tile($0.67/SF) plus
'SUN VIEW $ 34,152.96 $ - District labor
VILLAGE VIEW $ 17,076.48 $ 35,570.00
VISTA VIEW $ - $ 71,510.00
WESTMONT $ 18,499.52 $ 37,000.00
MEADOW VIEW $ - $ 52,800.00
GLEN VIEW $ - $ 34,600.00
ROBINWOOD $ - $ 53,500.00
PARK VIEW $ - $ 41,280.00
HAVEN VIEW $ - $ 32,150.00
Partial remodel for new tenant.
PLEASANT VIEW $ 11,740.08 $ 12,450.00 Future estimate for remainder of site
Totals: $ 304,174.80 $ 761,850.00
Costs are estimates as provided by
Gymnasium MESA VIEW $ - $ 3,120,000.00 the District Architect, at$130 per
MARINE VIEW $ - $ 3,120,000.00 square foot and an apx. building size
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 3,120,000.00 of 20,000 SF which includes
VISTA VIEW $ - $ 3,120,000.00 restrooms, locker rooms and office
space. An additional 20% is added
Totals: $ - $12,480,000.00 for"soft" costs (ie, plans, fees, etc.)
I
20
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xis
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
HVAC CIRCLE VIEW $ 383,260.00 $ - Actual project contract cost
COLLEGE VIEW $ 1,740.00** $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
GOLDEN VIEW $ 429,660.00 $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
HARBOUR VIEW $ 5,790.00** $ - I Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
HOPE VIEW $ 2,900.00** $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
LAKE VIEW $ 2,320.00** $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
MARINE VIEW $ 447,830.00 $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
MESA VIEW $ 402,790.00 $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
OAK VIEW $ 339,860.00 $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
Future cost is estimate based on 5
SPRING VIEW $ 119,282.00 $ 22,000.00 Year Deferred Maintenance Plan
STAR VIEW $ 402,680.00 $ - Phase II -JB Rodgers actual cost
SUN VIEW $ 235,235.00 $ - Actual project contract cost
Future cost is estimate based on 5
VILLAGE VIEW $ 4,050.00** $ 308,105.00 lYear Deferred Maintenance Plan
(VISTA VIEW $ 543,980.00 $ - Phase 11 -JB Rodgers actual cost
Future cost is estimate based on 5
iWESTMONT $ 2,900.00** $ 367,775.00 Year Deferred Maintenance Plan
All items marked with "**"were
**JB RODGERS completed as part of Phase I, except
RETROFIT-Phase I $ 1,572,650.00 for the cost shown as a Phase 11 cost.
MEADOW VIEW $ - $ 299,000.00
GLEN VIEW $ - $ 224,000.00
ROBINWOOD $ - $ 232,000.00 !Estimated future costs as provided by
PARK VIEW $ - $ 337,000.00 the District Architect's office
HAVEN VIEW $ - $ 166,000.00
PLEASANT VIEW $ - $ 206,000.00
Totals: $ 4,877,227.00 $ 2,161,880.00
Irrigation Retrofit ICIRCLE VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00
COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00
HARBOUR VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00
HOPE VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00 Future costs are an estimate based
LAKE VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00
MARINE VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00 on apx. 100 heads per site plus
MESA VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00 controllers, valves, wiring and for the
OAK VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00 conversion from the obsolete
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00 hydraulic system to a new electric
(STAR VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00 system.
SUN VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00
VILLAGE VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00
VISTA VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00
WESTMONT $ - $ 20,000.00
Totals: $ - $ 300,000.00
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xis - 21
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
Actual costs are for the foundations,
Libraries CIRCLE VIEW $ 118,201.00 $ - library buildings and furniture.
COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 118,200.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ - $ 118,200.00
HARBOUR VIEW $ - $ 118,200.00 Future costs are estimates based on
HOPE VIEW $ - $ 118,200.00 current library projects.
LAKE VIEW $ - $ 118,200.00
OAK VIEW $ - $ 118,200.00
STAR VIEW $ - $ 118,200.00
Actual costs are for the foundations,
SUN VIEW $ 118,201.00 $ - library buildings and furniture.
VILLAGE VIEW $ - $ 118,200.00 Future costs are estimates based on
WESTMONT $ - $ 118,200.00 current library projects.
Totals: $ 236,402.00 $ 1,063,800.00
MARINE, LAKE,
Lunch Benches MESA(135) $ 53,675.66 $ -
COLLEGE,
WESTMONT, HOPE,
SPRING (93) $ 36,976.57 $ -
CIRCLE, STAR,
GOLDEN (89) $ 35,386.18 $VILLAGE, HOPE, Costs are actual from invoices.
SPRING (130) $ 51,687.68 $ -
SUN, GOLDEN (36) 1 $ 14,682.02
HARBOUR (38) $ 14,887.60 $ -
GOLDEN (5) $ 2,004.15 $
VISTA(20) Sport
benches, no back $ 3,846.68 $ -
OAK VIEW $ - $ 15,600.00 Estimated costs at$400 per lunch
VISTA VIEW $ - $ 16,800.00 bench
Growth (25) $ - $ 10,000.00
Totals: $ 213,146.54 $ 42,400.00
Lunch Shelters CIRCLE, HOPE $ 72,415.00 $ - Costs are actual from construction
COLLEGE, VILLAGE $ 78,167.00 $ - bid projects.
MARINE VIEW $ - $ 70,000.00
MESA VIEW $ - $ 70,000.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ - $ 40,000.00
HARBOUR VIEW $ - $ 40,000.00 Estimated costs are based on
LAKE VIEW $ - $ 40,000.00
OAK VIEW $ - $ 40,000.00 Previous construction projects.
District"shares" cost with site
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 70,000.00
STAR VIEW $ - $ 40,000.00 funding.
SUN VIEW $ - $ 40,000.00
VISTA VIEW $ - $ 70,000.00
WESTMONT $ - $ 40,000.00
Totals: $ 150,582.00 $ 560,000.00
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xls 22
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
Mesa Remodel
Phase I
IBUILDING B $ 135,800.00 $ - Costs are actual from construction
BUILDING A $ 212,167.00 $ - bid projects.
Phase II
(Technology Lab $ - $ 235,000.00
Learning Support
Center $ - $ 120,000.00 Estimates are provided from the
BUILDING D $ - $ 260,000.00 District Architect's office
Phase III
Administration $ - $ 70,000.00
Totals: $ 347,967.00 $ 685,000.00
I
Painting-Exterior CIRCLE VIEW $ 18,387.00 $ -
COLLEGE VIEW $ 9,640.00 $ -
DISTRICT OFFICE $ 20,040.00 $ -
IGOLDEN VIEW $ 8,650.00 $ -
HARBOUR VIEW $ 14,860.00 $ -
�HOPE VIEW $ 16,760.00 $ -
LAKE VIEW $ 14,650.00 $ - Actual costs are for District supplied
MARINE VIEW $ 10,980.00 $ - paint and Maintenance or outside
MESA VIEW 1 $ - $ 9,060.00 1 vendor labor. Future costs are
OAK VIEW $ 13,595.00 $ - estimates for needed painting.
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 10,160.00
STAR VIEW $ 14,640.00 $ -
SUN VIEW $ 15,190.00 $ -
VILLAGE VIEW $ 18,190.00 $ -
VISTA VIEW $ - $ 9,060.00
WESTMONT $ 17,850.00 $ -
PLEASANT VIEW $ 16,090.00 $ -
Totals: I $ 209,522.00 $ 28,280.00
Painting-Interior CIRCLE VIEW $ 22,352.79 $ -
COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 27,260.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ 27,804.69 $ -
HARBOUR VIEW $ 28,895.07 $ -
HOPE VIEW $ 28,349.88 $ -
LAKE VIEW $ - $ 25,100.00 Actual costs are for District supplied
MARINE VIEW $ - $ 27,800.00 paint and labor as performed by the
MESA VIEW $ 26,896.02 $ 13,450.00 Maintenance Dept. Future costs are
OAK VIEW $ - $ 28,350.00
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 32,710.00 estimates for needed painting
STAR VIEW $ - $ 24,530.00
SUN VIEW $ 17,446.08 $ -
VILLAGE VIEW $ - $ 26,170.00
VISTA VIEW $ 36,527.73 $ -
WESTMONT $ - $ 28,350.00
PLEASANT VIEW $ 5,997.09 $ -
Totals:I $ 194,269.35 $ 233,720.00
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xis 23
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
Parking Areas - CIRCLE VIEW $ 32,396.00 $ -
Asphalt/Concrete COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 33,090.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ 20,800.00 $ -
HARBOUR VIEW $ 18,710.00 $ -
HOPE VIEW $ 18,090.00 $ -
LAKE VIEW $ 22,500.00 $ -
!MARINE VIEW $ - $ 10,915.00
MESA VIEW $ 27,235.00 1 $ - Costs are from actual repair and
SOAK VIEW $ 27,130.00 $ - replacement of existing parking lots.
SPRING VIEW $ 28,430.00 $ - Future costs are estimated for
STAR VIEW $ 17,880.00 $ _ needed repairs.
SUN VIEW $ 73,998.00 $ -
VILLAGE VIEW $ 17,880.00 $ -
VISTA VIEW $ 31,655.00 $ -
IWESTMONT $ 26,220.00 $ -
IGLEN VIEW $ 53,560.00 $ -
PLEASANT VIEW $ 28,099.00 1 $ -
Totals: $ 444,583.00 $ 44,005.00
Playgrounds - CIRCLE VIEW $ 64,790.00 $ -
Asphalt/Concrete COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 66,183.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ 60,655.00 $ -
HARBOUR VIEW $ 63,980.00 $ -
HOPE VIEW $ 67,330.00 $ -
LAKE VIEW $ 45,220.00 $ Costs are from actual repair and
MARINE VIEW $ 12,100.00 $ 13,105.00
MESA VIEW $ 74,740.00 $ _ replacement of existing playgrounds.
OAK VIEW $ 29,100.00 $ _ Future costs are estimated for
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 56,860.00 needed repairs.
STAR VIEW
SUN VIEW $ 42,863.00 $ -
VILLAGE VIEW $ - $ 54,575.00
VISTA VIEW $ 67,725.00 $ -
WESTMONT $ - $ 53,610.00
Totals: $ 528,503.00 $ 244,333.00
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xis 24
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
Playground Areas CIRCLE VIEW $ - $ 80,000.00 Cost is estimate for kindergarten and
upper grade play areas and
COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 80,000.00 equipment
GOLDEN VIEW $ 80,337.00 $ - (Actual cost, equipment included
HARBOUR VIEW $ - $ 80,000.00 Cost is estimate for kindergarten and
HOPE VIEW $ - $ 80,000.00 upper grade play areas and
LAKE VIEW 1 $ - $ 80,000.00 equipment
MARINE VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00 Estimate is for equipment and fall
MESA VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00 area only.
Cost is estimate for kindergarten and
upper grade play areas and
OAK VIEW $ - $ 80,000.00 equipment
Estimate is for equipment and fall
SPRING VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00 area only.
Cost is estimate for kindergarten play
STAR VIEW $ 6,335.00 $ 20,000.00 area and equipment
Cost is estimate for kindergarten and
upper grade play areas and
SUN VIEW $ - $ 80,000.00 equipment
Cost is estimate for upper grade play
VILLAGE VIEW $ 54,807.00 $ 20,000.00 area and equipment
Estimate is for equipment and fall
VISTA VIEW $ - $ 20,000.00 area only.
Cost is estimate for kindergarten and
upper grade play areas and
WESTMONT $ - $ 80,000.00 equipment
Totals: $ 141,479.00 $ 760,000.00
25
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xls
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
Relocatables&
Foundations
CIRCLE, COLLEGE,
Buildings HARBOUR, HOPE,
1999 LAKE, OAK, STAR,
SUN, VILLAGE,
WESTMONT $ 457,032.00 $ -
CIRCLE, COLLEGE,
Foundations HARBOUR, HOPE,
1999 LAKE, OAK, STAR,
SUN, VILLAGE,
WESTMONT $ 613,952.00 $
Buildings CIRCLE, COLLEGE,
1998 GOLDEN, HARBOUR,
LAKE, OAK, SPRING, Costs are actual from construction
WESTMONT $ 345,345.70 1 $ - bid projects and invoices.
I
Foundations ICIRCLE, COLLEGE,
1998 GOLDEN, HARBOUR,
LAKE, OAK, SPRING,
WESTMONT $ 379,223.00 $ -
CIRCLE, HOPE,
Buildings LAKE, OAK, SUN,
1997 VILLAGE,
WESTMONT $ 425,442.00 $ -
CIRCLE, HOPE,
Foundations LAKE, OAK, SUN,
1997 VILLAGE,
WESTMONT $ 399,680.00' $ -
Redesign, VISTA, GOLDEN,
Foundations& HOPE, MESA, STAR
Buildings 1992 $ 1,816,973.66 $ -
Growth Estimated at six portables per year
$ - $ 1,950,000.00 for five years at$65,000 each
Totals: 1 $ 4,037,968.36 $ 1,950,000.00
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xis 26
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
Roofing CIRCLE VIEW $ 187,730.00 $ -
1 COLLEGE &OAK
VIEW $ 214,676.00 $ -
DISTRICT OFFICE $ 226,387.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ 121,440.00 $ -
HARBOUR VIEW $ 174,010.00 $ 23,860.00
HOPE VIEW $ 120,266.00 $ -
LAKE VIEW $ 157,820.00 $ -
MARINE VIEW $ 155,925.00 $ 18,710.00
MESA&STAR VIEW $ 194,579.00 $ - Actual costs are based on work as
SPRING VIEW $ 179,985.00 $ performed by separate contractors.
SUN VIEW $ 122,870.00 $ Future work estimates repairs to
VILLAGE VIEW $ 162,160.00 $ - auxiliary buildings only.
VISTA VIEW $ 149,670.00 $ -
WESTMONT $ 126,337.00 $ -
,PLEASANT VIEW $ 81,000.00 $ -
I REPAIRS TO
HARBOUR,HOPE,
MEADOW, SPRING
AND D.O. BLDG E $ 178,700.00 $ -
MARINE &VISTA
PORTABLES $ 39,833.00 $ -
IMEADOW VIEW $ - $ 185,000.00
GLEN VIEW $ - $ 85,000.00
ROBINWOOD $ - $ 122,500.00 � Estimates are based on actual costs
PARK VIEW $ - $ 186,000.00 compared to square footage
HAVEN VIEW $ - $ 123,800.00
Totals: $ 2,593,388.00 $ 744,870.00
I
Security Systems CIRCLE VIEW $ - $ 13,000.00
COLLEGE VIEW $ - $ 13,000.00
DISTRICT OFFICE $ 10,876.00
GOLDEN VIEW $ - $ 13,000.00
HARBOUR VIEW $ - $ 13,000.00
HOPE VIEW $ 400.00 $ 13,000.00
LAKE VIEW $ - $ 13,000.00
MARINE VIEW $ 13,970.00 $ - Actual costs are from invoices of
MESA VIEW $ 17,724.00 $ - installation. Future costs are an
M &O, TRANSP., average estimate for installation.
WAREHOUSE $ 6,857.00 Does not include monitoring charges.
OAK VIEW $ - $ 13,000.00
SPRING VIEW $ 12,250.00 $ -
STAR VIEW $ 13,780.00 $ -
SUN VIEW $ - $ 13,000.00
VILLAGE VIEW $ - $ 13,000.00
VISTA VIEW $ 11,665.00 $ -
WESTMONT $ 21,835.00 $ -
Totals: $ 109,357.00 $ 117,000.00
27
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xis
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
Actual Estimated
Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5
i
Item Site Years Years Comments/Assumptions
HOPE, GOLDEN,
Signs -Marquees VILLAGE $ 13,898.62 $ -
CIRCLE, LAKE, STAR $ 13,898.62 $ -
HARBOUR,
COLLEGE, Costs are actual from construction
WESTMONT $ 13,898.62 $ - bid project
OAK, SPRING,
MARINE $ 10,449.45 $ -
VISTA VIEW $ 4,654.28 $ -
I SUN VIEW $ 5,233.21 $ -
MESA VIEW $ 3,476.98 $ -
Estimated cost based on District
DISTRICT OFFICE $ - $ 7,500.00 Architect's office
i
Totals: $ 65,509.78 $ 7,500.00
Telecommunications
Actual costs includes phones,
switches, cabling and software.
DISTRICT WIDE $ 1,245,692.00 $ 100,000.00 Future costs represents the cost to
Install phones in a complete site, for
a possible re-openning of a school
facility.
Totals: $ 1,245,692.00 $ 100,000.00
I
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xls 28
I
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Improvement Costs
SUMMARY
Actual s ima
Item Cost/Previous 5 Cost/Future 5 Funding Sounce
Years Years
ADA Compliance $ 24,850.00 $ 527,100.00 No Special Funding Source
Asbestos $ 82,240.00 $ 2,902,733.00 * NSF
Ballwalls $ 240,127.00 $ - No Special Funding Source
Electrical/Lighting $ 1,299,152.00 $ 146,790.00
Fire Alarm & PA I $ 12,000.00 $ 598,400.00 * NSF
Flooring/Carpet $ 410,164.44 $ 846,557.00 * NSF
Flooring/Tile $ 304,174.80 $ 761,850.00 * NSF
Gymnasium $ - $12,480,000.00 No Special Funding Source
Previous: $2M Loan, *and **/
HVAC $ 4,877,227.00 $ 2,161,880.00 Future: **
Irrigation Retrofit $ - $ 300,000.00 No Special Funding Source
Libraries $ 236,402.00 $ 1,063,800.00 No Special Funding Source
Lunch Benches $ 213,146.54 $ 42,400.00 No Special Funding Source
Lunch Shelters $ 150,582.00 $ 560,000.00 No Special Funding Source
Mesa Remodel $ 347,967.00 $ 685,000.00 Previous: ++ / Future: **
Painting-Exterior $ 209,522.00 $ 28,280.00 *
Painting-Interior $ 194,269.35 $ 233,720.00
Parking Areas-
Asphalt/Concrete $ 444,583.00 $ 44,005,00 *
Playgrounds-
Asphalt/Concrete $ 528,503.00 $ 244,333.00 *
Playground Areas $ 141,479.00 $ 760,000.00 No Special Funding Source
Relocatables & Previous: + and ++ and$600,000CSR/
Foundations $ 4,037,968.36 $ 1,950,000.00 Future: No Special Funding Source
Roofing $ 2,593,388.00 $ 744,870.00 *
Security Systems $ 109,357.00 $ 117,000.00 No Special Funding Source
Signs- Marquees $ 65,509.78 $ 7,500.00 No Special Funding Source
Telecommunications $ 1,245,692.00 $ 100,000.00 No Special Funding Source
Grand Totals: $ 17,768,304.27 $27,306,218.00
.
Fun:dlg Sc?trtc�
_.
* Deferred Maintenance
** Modernization
+ Developer Fees
++ Lease Income
NSF $ Not Sufficient to Fund
i
29
File Name:Facility Summary 0999.xls
(F-2A
u.n�
ELECTION CODE � a
1
SECTION
C.:
City Council Meeting
October 4, 1999
Election Code Section
9212 Report
MW
City Council Requested Repoft¢oi�
September 7, 1999
• Fiscal Impact
• General Plan Conformity
• Impact on OV School District
1
Staff assembled and reviewed
information developed for:
— General Plan Amendment
— Conditional Use Permit
— Environmental Impact Report
Slide 3
Keyser Marston
Associates (KMA) E
Retained to review and summarize
previous information
Slide 4
2
Keyser Marston
Associates ,
n F
• Review of Summary Commercial Land ITse
Wal*Mart Net Taxable Sales $ 36,5001000
Pads Net Taxable Sales 2,300,000
$ 3858005000
Sales Tax $ 388,000/year
Slide 5
Keyser Marston
Associates F
• Review of Summary Commercial Land_Use
Sales Tax $ 38800
Property Tax 41,000
$ 429,000
Cost of Service 61,000
Net Direct
Fiscal Impact $ 368,000
Slide 6
3
Keyser Marston
Associates
,,,!_�r7 ,
• Review of Summary Residential Land Ilse w
Property & Other Taxes $ 81,400
Cost of Service 61,000
Net Direct Fiscal Impact $ 205400
Slide 7
School District Fiscal
Impact
1999N)E' ..
Commercial Land Lease $400,000 yr.
$40.8 M/65 yrs. $7.6 Million
Residential Land Sale One-time pmt. $6 M - $7.1 M
Slide S
4
School District Fiscal
Impact
Net Fiscal Impact'
Commercial Residential
City $ 370,000 $ 20,400
School District 400,000 346,000*
TOTAL: $ 770,000 $366,000
* Mid-point of one-time Sale Range/annualized over 65
years.
Slide 9
General Plan C®nst 01
ly
• Current commercial zoning designation
consistent with current General Plan.
• Proposed residential zoning would be
consistent with same proposed General
Plan.
Slide 10
5
General Plan Consists �cy
�va
• Residential consistent with some General
Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies
— diversity of land use
— promote housing opportunities
Slide 11
General Plan Consistenigy
• Residential inconsistent with some
General Plan Goals, Objectives and
Policies
— encourage commercial development
— improve jobs/housing balance
— encourage jobs/services in close proximity to
residences
Slide 12
6
L
General Plan Consist,, nipy,
i
• No Discriminatory Acts
• No Prohibition on Affordable Housing
or density bonuses
Slide 13
OVS® Financial Ana,ly'
?I
Presentation by Ocean View School District
Board of Trustees Member
Slide 14
7
Crest View Site
September 1999 &.
• Commercial Use of the Crest View'S1te `
enables the Ocean View School District board of Trustees
to provide a quality learning environment for our students
without a general obligation bond or additional tax burden
placed on our citizens.
• Commercial Use of the Crest View Site
would bring in at least$41 million over the duration of the
lease versus $7.5 million if the property were sold for
residential use.
Slide 15
Crest View Site
September 1999
• Commercial Use of the Crest View See
would qualify Ocean View School District for State bond
modernization monies worth$27 million.
• Commercial Use of the Crest View Site
would provide money for the maintenance and repair of all
the District's facilities.
• Commercial Use of the Crest View Site
would provide offsite mitigation regarding the need for
additional youth sports facilities in the City of Huntington
Beach.
Slide 16
8
Projected Lease Income
from Crest View Site ,r
Years Yearly Rent Yearly Rent'n 5 Year Blocks
1-5 $400,000 $2,000,000
6-10 415,000 2,075,000
11-15 461,250 2,306,250
16-20 476,250 2,381,250
21-25 491,250 2,456,250
26-30 547,506 2,737,530
31-35 566,250 2,831,250
36-40 622,506 3,112,530
41-45 641,250 3,206,250
46-50 697,506 3,487,529
51-55 716,250 3,581,249
56-60 772,506 3,862,529
61-65 791,250 3,956,249
Projected Interest Earnings 2,925,000
TOTAL: $40,918,867
Slide 17
Fiscal Rationale for
1999 Land Use Change
to Commercial
Slide 18
9
CommercialDevelopment
Desired
Limited•
sites with revenue ge r. •
potential.
close- Schools gain $400,000 in new ground
lease revenues.
• Help $7 millionannual •
to
Slide 19
Vl
x �
r
ems`
. r $in-I- fOnS� a a Yr
�` '-$50 .�"�,� �s' � 3'E � • �♦�� s �� .ate ,�
Zi
7.:
$40 g•/ • � � A x -"ail w
r fi --A-Pofice-Fire-Marline Safety Costs
` 81= 88 89 90 91 92 93 AAA 95 4b 9T°98 99"00 '0I
Ot`GMwn
'
•
100
in gp
c � ®Safety Costs
c 60
40is Property&Sales
20 Taxes
0
0� �'e CC
d
Slide 21
Sales Tax Revenue Sales&Property Tax Revenue
FY 1999M FY 199900
45
50 40
40 35
30
30
25 ,E ®Saies Tax
20 .E 20 .., ®Pm.Tax
10 N 15
10 aE
0 5
0
S'Dc Fc o ca°'m QO�
s oo•
Slide 22
l�
Commercial Development
Desired
j
• Reduces General Merchandise Leakage
(Wal*Mart, Target, K-Mart).
• Creates new jobs.
• Provides new retail anchor for Beach
Boulevard.
• Economic multiplier - 3 to 7 times.
Slide 23
Why Commercial
Development?
® JOBS
— Create 280'jobs.
— 80% - 90% from 10 mile radius.
—Improves jobs / housing balance.
Slide 24
12
Sales Tax Perspective
• 1997/98 Sales Tax Revenue $19 million
• 1989/90 Prior Highpoint $18.3 million
1998/99 Estimate $20.5 Million
1999/2000 Proj ection $21.2 Million
Slide 25
Leakage of Retail Sales
6
• Ranked 19th of 31 cities in 1996 for per
capita sales tax
Slide 26
13
Sales Tax Per Capita
$250
$200 '''
$171
$150 $123
$106
$100 $74 00
$50
$0
v ® LZ t9 i 2
v
Slide 27
Huntington Beach is a Net
Loser
• Millions of dollars each year. ;
• $7.2 million using countywide average.
1.2
• $8.3 million adjusted for higher income.
Slide 28
14
General Merchandise
Leakage
�O
HB Purchasing Power $ 214 Million 100
Annual Leakage $ 87 Million 41
Estimated Wal*Mart $ 44 Million 21
General Mer. Sales
Remaining General $ 43 Million 20
Merchandise Leakage
Slide 29
Other Positives
• Help create node per General Plan.
• Provide strong retail anchor for area.
• Encourage upgrade of area retail.
Slide 30
15
Cher Positives
• Create spin-off shoppers for other retailers.
• Provide much-needed revenue for schools.
• Continue to send message that city is good
place to do business for Big Boxes and
others.
Slide 31
Rationale
® Recognize competing objectives R.
— Land-use compatibility versus economic
development.
— Neighborhood impact versus community
benefit.
• Commercial development sets stage for
future economic development success
Slide 32
16
Rationale
• Citywide benefits outweigh local
impacts
® Commercial development in best
interest of City
- Captures General Merchandise leakage.
- Highest revenue potential.
Slide 33
Summary
14
Commercial Development Fiscally
Superior
Net Benefit to City in Excess of
$370,000/year
Slide 34
17
Put Into Perspective
• Top 10 Sales Tax Producer
• Equal to 1.5 Auto Dealers
• Allows City to provide, for example,
— 5 firefighters, or
— 4,5 police officers, or
— 2.7 miles of local street curb, gutter, and
sidewalk replacement, or
— 10.8 lane miles of arterial street asphalt overlay.
Slide 35
Recommended Acto
A
p
Receive and File Election Code
Section 9212 Report
Slide 36
18
-
�
Slide e
19
Y, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
City Administrator's Office
To: Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, and
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
Via: Ray Silver, City Administrator
From: Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administratork� � �c.
Date: September 28, 1999
Subject: Orange County Business Council Report on Big Box Grocers
Mr. Bob Cronk, of Crest View United, requested that I share the attached report with the
City Council. This report is referenced in the Request for Council Action on the Election-
Code Section 9212 Report on the Council Agenda for October 4, 1999.
Through this memorandum, I am requesting that City Clerk Connie Brockway retain a
copy of this study on file in her office for public review.
Cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator
i
The Impact of Big Box Grocers
on Southern California :
Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances
Prepared for the Orange County Business Council
By
Marlon Boarnet, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Departments of Urban Planning and Economics
University of California at Irvine
949-824-7695
mgboarne@uci.edu
and
Randall Crane, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Public Policy and Social Research
University of California at Los Angeles
310-206-1859
crane@ucla.edu
with the assistance of Nicholas Compin, Angela Koos, Gregg Macey, and Amanda Wallace.
Final Report: September 1999
S
Executive Summary
The following research analysis, The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California:Jobs.
Wanes, and Municipal Finances, was prepared for the Orange County Business Council by
Professors Marlon Boarnet(University of California, Irvine) and Randall Crane (University of
California, Los Angeles). The authors publish broadly in the areas of local economic development,
land use, and municipal fiscal policy. The Orange County Business Council also has a long-
standing interest in both the fiscal impacts of local land use issues and the economic impacts of
government decision-making and changing business climates in California.
In this report they examine the enormous, and ever-growing retail grocery business, and the many
changes occurring in this industry. One of the most important developments is the combination of
big-box discount retail and grocery sales into a single store known as a supercenter. While K-Mart
and others have experimented with retail grocery sales in recent years, Wal-Mart has quietly
become the second largest grocer in the country by adding large grocery stores to their retail stores
to form massive retail "supercenters", often as large as 220,000 square feet.
This study is designed as an aid to public decision-making regarding such projects, which have
negative as well as positive impacts. Neither are always well understood, or carefully considered,
in the municipal race for sales tax revenue. However, this report clearly shows that the fiscal
benefits of supercenters, and of discount retail more generally, are much more complex, and
often lower, than they first appear.
THE POLICY QUESTIONS
® The nature of the grocery business has changed dramatically in some areas, with conventional
grocery stores having difficulty competing on wages.
® Cities, starved for sales tax revenue but also protective of their existing retail base, are unsure
how these big-boxes will affect either their economic structure or their fiscal bottom line. This
study is designed mainly as an aid to public decision-making regarding such projects, which
have negative as well as positive impacts. Neither are always well understood, or considered, in
the municipal race for sales tax revenue.
And now the supercenters are coming to California. What will happen?
KEY FINDINGS
® The aggressive entry of supercenters such as those operated by Wal-Mart into the
regional grocery business is expected to depress industry wages and benefits at an
estimated impact ranging from a low of$500 million to a high of almost$1.4 billion per
year, potentially effecting 250,000 grocery industry employees: (Chapters 2 and 4)
® The full economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout southern
California could approach $2.8 billion per year. (Chapters 2 and 4)
1
♦ Discount retail chains that operate supercenters, including Wal-Mart, typically offer much
less comprehensive health care coverage than major California grocery chains. One
negative economic impact of Supercenters could be a dramatic reduction in health coverage
for most of the 250,000 grocery employees in California. This can lead to lower quality care
for grocery employees whose health insurance benefits are reduced. (Chapter 2)
♦ The fiscal benefits of supercenters, and of discount retail more generally, are often
much more complex, and lower, than they first appear. This is particularly true when
big box retailers close existing stores to move into larger quarters elsewhere,when they
expand an existing store into food, and when retailers reconfigure an existing store to
sell food without expansion. In each case the additional tax revenues generated will in
part come from existing businesses elsewhere in the city in the form'of lost market
share. (Chapter 3)
♦ Supercenters, especially Wal-Mart supercenters, are often conversions of existing
discount retail stores. Thus local officials should carefully consider the possibility of a
future conversion to a supercenter, and any attendant negative economic, fiscal, or land
use impacts,when approving big box discount retail projects, even when the proposed
land use does not include immediate plans for grocery sales. (Chapter 1)
2
u
ECKLIS FOR E ALUA ING BIG Bo RE AIL PRO EC S
Overall, our analysis of these data illustrate the great complexity, and possible unintended
consequences, of the entry of large footprint discount retail into the grocery business. To help
prepare local and regional officials to review proposed big box projects generally, we suggest
communities systematically assess the positive and negative local impacts of such projects. The
following checklist is one way to do so. It proposes a systematic review of the impacts on local
workers, on municipal finances, and on other key community issues.
1. Economic and Employment Impacts
How much will the new big-box outlet cut into existing local retail market share?
TASKS: Need to inventory the local retail base
Assess market areas and market impacts
What will happen to the local work force?
TASKS: Assess impact on existing local retail
Calculate direct impact of job changes, lower wages
Calculate impacts of less medical coverage and other fringe benefits
Calculate ripple impacts of lower wages on local economy
(multiplier impacts)
Will the new big-box outlet lead to vacancies or changes in local land use?
TASKS: Inventory vacant land and commercial properties.
Assess re-use or redevelopment possibilities for competing sites.
2. Municipal Finance Impacts
® How much will the new development cost your municipality?
ASKS Services and capital expenditures: Calculate cost of infrastructure & utilities
(i.e., streets, sewer connections, water lines, etc.)
Traffic and other service impacts?
Calculate the cost of associated economic development incentives
(e.g.,tax credits)
Assess the impact of redevelopment zone tax-increment financing.
How much will the new development really change local tax revenues?
4
ASKS Assess net changes in local retail sales
(e.g., including sales lost to the new big box).
Calculate net changes in sales and property tax revenue.
Examine the stability of the retail sales tax revenue over time.
3
3e C®mmunitE Impacts
Will the big-box footprint possibly expand in the future? In the same line of business?
TASKS: Ask about future plans up front
Examine industry trends
Plan for expansion contingencies
® What localities will benefit from and/or be disadvantaged by the big-box development.
TASKS: Assess the differences between local and regional impacts.
Are local gains at the expense of losses in other cities?
Must these be mitigated?
® How will the new retail outlet affect your community's quality of life?For example, will it
reduce the appeal of a downtown core that you are trying to preserve or revitalize?
TASKS: Inventory locations of competing retailers.
Assess impact on existing local retailers.
4
Contents
ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................I
ThePolicy Questions................................................................................................................1
KeyFindings.............................................................................................................................I
A Checklist for Evaluating Big Box Retail Projects:................................................................3
1. Economic and Employment Impacts................................................................................3
2. Municipal Finance Impacts...............................................................................................3
3. Community Impacts..........................................................................................................4
Listof Tables...............................................................................................................................6
Listof Figures..............................................................................................................................8
Chapter1: Issues and Trends...................................................................................................9
A. Policy Issues........................................................................................................................9
B: The Grocery Sector in the United States...........................................................................11
1. Trends and Corporate Consolidations.............................................................................11
2. Competition....................................................................................................................13
3. State of the Retail Food Industry...................................................................................14
C: The Combination of Big-Box Discount Retail and Grocery Sales...................................19
D. The Economic Importance of the Grocery Industry.........................................................22
E. What This Means for Orange County ...............................................................................29
Chapter2: Job and Wage Impacts.........................................................................................33
A. Differences in Employment& Wages Across Discount Retail &the Grocery Industry..33
B: Examples of the Labor Market Impact of Wage Differentials—Cases from Canada......45
C. Wage and Benefit Impacts of Wal-Mart Supercenters in Southern California.................47
D. Projected Market Impact of Wal-Mart Supercenters in Southern California...................48
E: Labor Market Impacts.......................................................................................................57
1. Economic Impact of Lower Wages Paid to Supercenter Employees.............................57
2. Economic Impact of Lower Wages Paid to Grocery Employees...................................58
F: Regional Induced Impacts and Land Market Impacts.......................................................63
1. Regional Impacts............................................................................................................63
2. Land Market Impacts......................................................................................................64
Chapter 2 Appendix: health Care Coverage Issues..............................................................67
Chapter3: Municipal Finance Impacts.................................................................................80
A. The Fiscalization of Land Use Planning...........................................................................80
B. Big Box Fiscal Experiences..............................................................................................81
C. Taxable Sales and Tax Revenues......................................................................................83
D. The Fiscal Impacts of Big Box Grocers............................................................................84
E. Summary............................................................................................................................93
Chapter4: Concluding Comments.........................................................................................94
References........................................................................................:..:..&...................................99
Appendices...............................................................................................................................103
5
List ®f Tables
Table 1-1: EBITDA Multiples for Recent Supermarket Mergers and Acquisitions.....................12
Table1-2: Rates of Return ............................................................................................................13
Table 1-3: Food Store Sales by Size and Ownership(1997).........................................................15
Table 1-4: Types and Number of Stores(1988 vs. 1998)..............................................................16
Table 1-5: Median Average Store Size..........................................................................................16
Table 1-6: Supermarket Facts(Year End 1997) ...........................................................................17
Table 1-7: Top Ten Food Retailers by Annual Sales....................................................................18
Table 1-8: Top Ten Food Retailers by Store Count......................................................................18
Table 1-9: Store Counts of Super Kmarts&Wal-Mart Supercenters...........................................20
Table 1-10: Wal-Mart Store Transformations...............................................................................21
Table 1-11: Total Yearly Employment for the Grocery Industry...................................................22
Table 1-12: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the Grocery Industry....................................23
Table 1-13: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for all Industries in California...........................23
Table 1-14: Total Yearly Employment for the Construction Industry...........................................24
Table 1-15: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the Construction Industry.............................25
Table 1-16: Total Yearly Employment for the Tourism Industry..................................................26
Table 1-17: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the Tourism Industry....................................27
Table 1-18: Total Yearly Employment for the Hotel and Motel Industry......................................28
Table 1-19: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the Hotel and Motel Industry.......................28
Table 1-20: Big Box Retailers in Orange County..........................................................................29
Table 2.1: Total Yearly Employment for the Grocery Industry.....................................................34
Table 2.2: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the Grocery Industry.......................................34
Table 2.3: Total Yearly Employment for the General Merchandise Industry................................35
Table 2.4: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the General Merchandise Industry................35
Table 2.5: Total Yearly Employment for the Variety Store Industry.............................................36
Table 2.6: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the Variety Store Industry.................:...........37
Table 2-7: Hourly Wage Structure of the Major Grocery Chains in Southern California............39
Table 2-8: Comparative Benefit Analysis.....................................................................................41
Table 2-9: Comparison of Southern California Grocery& Wal-Mart Wages......................4........44
Table 2-10: LA Metro Area Market Share Information................................................................50
Table 2-11: Market Share Points Per Store...................................................................................51
6
Table 2-12: Regional Supermarket Market Share Percentages ....................................................52
Table 2-13: Market Share Information, Selected Comparison MSAs............................................53
Table 2-14: Estimated Wal-Mart Southern California Market Share.............................................54
Table 2-15: SCAG County Population Forecasts...........................................................................56
Table 2-16: Direct Economic Impact of Lower Wages Paid to Supercenter Employees..............57
Table 2-17:Near-Term Indirect Economic Impact from Lower Wages........................................59
Table 2-18: Indirect Economic Impact of Lower...........................................................................60
Table 2-19: Estimates of Total Wage and Benefit Impact.............................................................61
Table 2-20: Estimates of Total Regional Wage and Benefit Impact..............................................63
Table 2-21: Large-Scale Vacancies in Orange County and Site Information...............................64
Table A2-1: The Uninsured in Major Metropolitan Areas............................................................70
Table A2-2: Percent Distribution of Uninsured Households by Income Level, 1990-1995.........71
Table A2-3: Trends in Health Insurance Coverage.......................................................................72
Table A2-4: Percent Uninsured by Age and Gender, 1990-1995..................................................73
Table A2-5: Sources of Health Insurance......................................................................................74
Table A2-6: Reasons for Ineligibility of Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance........................75
Table A2-7: Number of Workers Offered,Accepting, Ineligible.,................................................76
Table A2-8: Getting Medical Attention.........................................................................................78
Table A2-9: Studies Examining the Relationship Between Insurance and Health.......................79
Table 3-1: Wal-Mart Locations in Orange County and Opening Dates.........................................88
_Table 3-2: Sales Per Square Foot and Selling Square Foot...........................................................91
Table 3-3: Pearson's Correlations for Orange County Taxable Sales............................................92
t
7
t
Dist ®f Figures
Map1-1............................................................................................................................. 31
Chart 2-1: Components of Hourly Wage..........................................................................42
Chart 2-2: Estimates of Total Wage and Benefit Impact.................................................. 62
Figure 2-1. Vacant Grocery Store in Costa Mesa ........................................................... 64
Figure 2-2. Vacant Grocery Store in Costa Mesa............................................................ 65
Figure 2-3: Vacant Grocery Store in Costa Mesa............................................................ 66
Figure 3-1. Estimated Total Sales: Food Stores and General Merchandise ................... 84
Figure 3-2. Taxable Sales: General Merchandise as a Percentage of Total Retail......... 85
Figure 3-3: Food Taxable Sales as a Percentage of Total Retail Taxable Sales.............. 86
Figure 3-4: General Merchandise Taxable Sales per Permit............................................ 86
Figure 3-5: Food Stores Taxable Sales per Permit........................................................... 87
Figure 3-6: General Merchandise Taxable Sales per Permit in Anaheim........................ 89
Figure 3-7: Food Stores Taxable Sales per Permit in Anaheim........................................ 89
Figure 3-8: General Merchandise Taxable Sales per Permit in Laguna Niguel............... 90
Figure 3-9: Food Stores Taxable Sales per Permit in Laguna Niguel.............................. 90
Figure 4-1. Estimates of Regional Income Loss From Big Box Grocers........................ 93
8
Chapter I Issues and Trends
A. POLICY ISSUES
The grocery business in the United States is currently undergoing dramatic and rapid change.
Some differences in food retailing are evident even to casual observers—for example, stores
across southern California have changed ownership and sometimes names as part of the recent
mergers in the grocery industry. Yet the food retailing business is changing in ways that go
beyond the larger trend toward corporate consolidation. Several major retail chains, all with little
previous direct connection to the grocery business, have begun to combine discount retail and
full-service grocery stores under one roof. These "supercenters" represent a restructuring that will
have potentially more dramatic impacts on local public policy than the current wave of
consolidation among traditional grocery chains.
In this report, we examine the local and regional impacts of the trend toward combining
discount retail and groceries under one roof. At first glance, the issues might seem minor—two
classes of goods that previously were sold in different stores are now increasingly sold in the
same place. Yet that seeming ordinariness belies the importance of the grocery industry for local
economies. There is little public awareness of the ways that the discount retail and grocery
industries differ—differences that suggest that a trend toward merging the two activities will
change the face of the grocery business. The policy issues from such a restructuring of the
grocery business are twofold.
1. The trend toward combining discount retail and grocery sales raises the potential for
unanticipated changes in local land uses.
Discount retail firms, such as K-Mart, Target, and Wal-Mart, often build supercenters by
adding a grocery store onto an existing discount center. When considering whether to approve
specific discount retail stores, local officials might often not consider the possibility—a very real
-possibility, as this report documents—that the store will expand in the near future into full service
grocery sales. This might seem nothing more than an ordinary expansion of the floor space of a
particular business. Yet the expansion of a retail store into groceries is an expansion from one
business sector into a different line of business, with different competitors and different
community, economic, and fiscal impacts. The food retailing and discount retailing industries
differ dramatically, so that an expansion of a discount retail site to include grocery is best
considered a change in the land use rather than a simple expansion of an existing land use. Most
importantly, grocery and discount retail have different impacts on the local community, economy,
and municipal revenue stream. This leads to the second policy issue.
2. Because of differences in pay and benefits in the discount retail and grocery sectors, a
shift from traditional grocery stores to supercenters creates the very real risk that high
wage jobs will be replaced with low wage jobs.
The grocery industry,nationally and in southern California especially, has traditionally paid
good wages with attractive benefit packages. Average wage and salary pay for full-time hourly
workers in major southern California chains is $32,386. The major southern California chains
offer a complete benefit package, including health care coverage for employees and dependents,
9
and a retirement plan. Discount retail traditionally pays substantially less, uses more part-time
workers, and offers limited or no health insurance or retirement plans. Everything that is known
about the discount retail chains now entering the grocery business suggests that supercenter
employees earn wages and benefits comparable to discount retail employees, substantially less
then what southern California grocery workers earn Thus the development of a robust
supercenter sector in southern California will lead to the conversion of high wage jobs into low
wage jobs.
The purpose of this report is simple: The grocery business is changing and public officials
should be aware of the potentially adverse impacts on cities and local economies. Yet the
seeming ordinary nature of this issue is part of the policy problem. The pace of change in the
grocery industry is rapid, and the everyday character of most persons' experience with groceries
belies the importance of the retail food business for local economies. We show later that the entry
of discount retailers into the southern California grocery industry can lead to wage and benefit
losses that could be as high as nearly $1.4 billion per year. The economic impacts on specific
communities can be quite large. Yet unless local officials are aware of these issues now,they will
be caught by surprise by the fast pace of change in the grocery industry.
This report seeks to educate local officials about the policy importance of the changes in the
grocery industry. In the rest of Chapter 1, we discuss trends in the grocery business in the United
States and more specifically in southern California. Two key points emerge from that discussion.
First,discount retail firms are rapidly entering the grocery business. Second, discount retail and
grocery are sufficiently different, in terms of pay,benefits, and employment practices, that the
entry of discount retail into groceries will have profound economic impacts. We focus
specifically on those labor market impacts, for the case of southern California, in Chapter 2. In
Chapter 3, we discuss the broader community and fiscal impacts that can result from the entry of
discount retail into the food retailing business.
The rest of this introductory chapter proceeds in four sections. Section B describes the food
retailing business in the United States. Section C discusses the recent trend toward combining
grocery sales with big-box discount retail. Section D discusses the economic importance of the
grocery business. Section E discusses the implications of grocery trends for Orange County and
southern California.
4
10
B: THE GROCERY SECTOR IN THE UNITED STATES
1. Trends and CoEporate Consolidations
A recent report on the U.S. food retail industry (S & P, 1998)identifies a few key trends that have
emerged in the supermarket industry in the past several years. These trends are as follows:
® In an attempt to accommodate consumers' desires for increased shopping convenience,more.
and more food retailers are experimenting with cyber supermarket aisles in the form of home
delivery and on-line shopping;
® In an attempt to increase customer loyalty and boost profit margins, food retailers continue to
develop private-label products;
® In an attempt to adapt to such demographic changes as the aging and increasing ethnicity of
the U.S. population, supermarkets are spending more time conducting market research;
In an attempt to counter competition from retail formats encroaching on their territory
supermarket retailers are opening more larger-sized combination food/drug stores;
® In an attempt to achieve growth in a mature industry where opportunities for internal growth
through physical expansion have narrowed, supermarkets are expanding through mergers and
acquisitions.
While each of these trends has contributed to the changing face of the food retail industry,
consolidation has been the underlying theme for the supermarket industry in the past several years
(S &P, 1998). The U.S. food retail industry,historically highly fragmented and diversified,
became increasingly consolidated in recent years.
In the past year, Kroger's $13.5 billion merger with Fred Meyer was the largest and most
expensive deal in food retailing history. That merger created the nation's largest grocery store
chain, with 2,200 stores in 31 states (Kroger, 1999). Albertson's recent merger with American
Stores for $11.7 billion made Albertson's the nation's second-largest retailer specializing in food
and drugs, with approximately 1,800 grocery stores and $35 billion in annual sales (Progressive
Grocer, 1999).
In the midst of the recent mergers and acquisitions, Safeway dropped to the rank of third-largest
chain (after being second for several years)with annual sales of around $25 billion. Safeway
recently acquired Randall's Food Markets, a privately owned 116 store Texas-based chain, for
approximately $1.8 billion. This new partnership will allow Safeway to continue its growth
strategy while re-entering the rapidly growing Texas market(Safeway, 1999). The California
chain has also had much success with both its 1997 purchase of the Voris chain in southern
California, which brought Safeway back to southern California after a decade-long absence, (S &
P's Industry Surveys,Supermarkets & Drugstores, 24 Sept 98) and its recent acquisition of
Dominick's for$1.2 billion(Progressive Grocer, 1999).
11
Table 1-1 presents "Earnings Before Interest, Taxes,Depreciation and Amortization" (EBITDA)
multiples for many of the recent supermarket mergers and acquisitions that occurred in the U.S.
food retail industry since late 1996. While many consolidations occurred in order to achieve
economies of scale in volume-based purchasing,procurement, distribution, information
technology, and corporate overhead,many were defensive moves spurred by the pressures from
the newer entrants into supermarketing, most importantly discount retail chains.
Table 1-1: EBITDA Multiples for Recent Supermarket Mergers and Acquisitions
Enterprise Enterprise
Date Date No.of Value' EBITDA:'; -Value/
Announced Completed Acquirer Target Stores $mm : $mm -EBITDA
Oct-98 May-99 Kroger Fred Meyer 821 12,890 1275 10.1
Aug-98 May-99 Albertson's American Stores 1,557 11,865 1261 9.4
Aug-98 Apr-99 Safeway Carr-Gottstein 49 332 45 7.3
Oct-98 Nov-98 Safeway Dominick's 112 1,855 170 10.9
May-98 Oct-98 Ahold Giant Food 170 2,634 248 10.6
Jan-98 Oct-98 Albertson's Buttrey Food& Drug 43 169 21 8.0
Feb-98 Mar-98 Somerfield Kwik Save 882 780 229 3.4
Nov-97 Mar-98 Fred Meyer Ralphs Grocery 406 3,048 381 8.0
Nov-97 Mar-98 Fred Meyer Quality Food Centers 147 1,569 131 12.0
Sep-97 Mar-98 Richfood Farm Fresh 110 253 a 38 6.6
Jan-98 Jan-98 Albertson's Seessels Holdings of 10 88 10 9.0
Bruno's
Jul-97 Nov-97 Jitney-Jungle Delchamps 128 236 42 5.7
May-97 Sep-97 Fred Meyer Smith's Food&Drug 151 1,955 240 8.2
May-97 Aug-97 Giant Eagle Riser Foods 36 469 56 8.3
Nov-96 Mar-97 Quality Food Hughes Family Markets 56 391 49 8.0
Centers
Nov-98 N/A. J Sainsbury Star Markets 53 490 48 10.3
Apr-97 N/A. Kohlberg Kravis Randall's Food Markets 122 714 5 93 7.7
Roberts
Mar-97 N/A. Lund Food Byerly's 11 90 13 6.7
Dec-96 N/A. Dart Group Shoppers Food - 225 40 5.7
Warehouse
Dec-96 N/A. Bruno's Seessels Holding 10 63 7 8.5
Sources: SEC Filings and Progressive Grocer's 6e Annual Report of the Grocery Industry,April 1999.
t EBITDA=Earnings Before Interest,Taxes,Depreciation and Amortization
2 Enterprise Value=market value of equity plus net debt minus cash and cash equivalents
3 Revenues,EBITDA and EBIT from Fred Meyer include acquisitions of Smith's,QFC and Ralphs.
4 Does not include options granted to Farm Fresh to purchase 1.5 million RFH shares at$25.
s Implied transaction value,assuming a 64%acquired stake;includes options to purchase 3.6 million Randall's shares at$12.11.
4
12
2e Competition
Competition in the grocery industry is largely a function of product price and quality, store
location, quality of service,product variety,and overall store reputation. Because food retailers
are interacting in such a fiercely competitive market, it is not uncommon for these retailers to see
profit margins of only 1 or 2 percent on sales. This is illustrated in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2: Rates of Return 1
Year Return on Revenue
Return�►n Assets (1i6)3
Company End; 1993 1994 1995.1996 4997:1993: 1994;1995 1996 1997
Albertsons Inc Jan* 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.5 10.9 12.1 12.0 11.2 10.4
American Stores Co Jan* 1.4 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 3.9 4.9 4.4 3.8 3.4
:Food Lion Inc Dec 0.1 1.9 2.1 2.3 1.7 0.2 6.1 6.7 6.7 5.0
GiantFood Inc Feb* 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.2 1.7 6.9 6.8 7.1 5.8 4.7
Great Atlantic& Pacific Feb* 0.0 NM 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.1 NM 2.0 2.5 2.1
:`.Tea
Harinaford Bros Co Dec 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 1.8 7.0 7.4 7.6 7.0 4.9
Kroger Co Dec 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.7 3.9 5.9 6.5 6.5 7.3
IVleyer(Fred)Inc Jan* 2.4 0.2 0.9 1.6 1.9 5.9 0.5 1.9 3.5 3.4
Publix Super Mkts Inc - N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A.
"'Ruddick Corp Sep 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 5.3 5.2 5.8 5.6 5.7
Safeway Inc Dec 0.8 1.6 2.0 2.7 2.8 2.4 5.0 6.4 8.6 8.9
,SupervaluInc - N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A.
Whole.Foods Mkt Inc Sep 1.2 2.2 1.7 NM 2.4 5.0 7.1 4.9 NM 7.5
Winn-Dixie Stores Inc Jun 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 11.7 10.3 10.0 10.0 7.3
:Wal-Mart Stores Inc ^ Jan* 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.9 3.1 9.9 9.0 7.8 7.9 8.3
1 Source: S&P's Industry Surveys,Supermarkets&Drugstores,September 1998,unless otherwise noted.
2 Net income divided by operating revenues.
3 Net income divided by average total assets.
* Of the following calendar year.
NM-not meaningful
N/A.-not available.
^Source: S&P's Industry Surveys,Retailing.General,Oct 1998.
At first glance, these narrow profit margins seem to indicate that the grocery industry is a highly
saturated market with no room for new competitors. A closer look at food retailers' rates of
return, however, indicates that the opportunity for new competitors to be profitable does in fact
exist. More specifically, some food retailers are realizing a return on assets of 10 percent or more,
indicating that new market entrants who are able to achieve high sales volume will be able to
successfully enter the food retail industry.
13
In the past, food retailers commonly competed with local,regional, and national supermarket
chains,as well as with convenience stores,membership warehouse clubs, specialty retailers, and
discount food stores. In recent years,however, food retailers also faced competition from
supercenters. In 1998, a few of the larger supermarkets, including Hannaford Bros and Winn-
Dixie Stores, specifically cited Wal-Mart as a major source of competition in the geographic
regions in which they competed (Hannaford Bros', 1998; Winn-Dixie's SEC Form 10-K).
Several other major supermarkets, including Albertson's, Safeway, and Food Lion, mentioned
supercenters in general as a source of competition.
3e State of the Detail Food Indu�t�y
According to Progressive Grocer(S & P, 1998), at year end 1997, total grocery store sales were
$436.3 billion, of which $334.5 billion(77%) was contributed by the approximately 30,300
supermarkets in the U.S. that had $2 million or more in annual sales. 18,955 (63%) of these
supermarkets were affiliated with a chain, and they had sales of$262.0 billion(78% of all
supermarket sales). The remaining 11,345 supermarkets were independently operated, and they
had sales of$72.5 billion.
Table 1-3 provides a more detailed overview of food store sales by size and ownership at year end
1997.
14
Table l-3: Food Store Sales by:Size and w Onership (Il997);'
Number % of $ Sales, ``%.of-."
of Stores. Total ': (Ballipn):" Total:
All Stores 127,000 100.0 436.6 100.0
Suppermark®ts (over$2.0 million) 30,300 23.9 334.5 76.7
Chain Supermarkets ($ millions) 18,955 14.9 262.0 60.1
$2.0 - $3.9 1,040 0.8 2.9 0.7
$4.0 - $7.9 3,575 2.8 21.1 4.8 11
$8.0 -$1""1.9 3,975 3.1 37.7 8.6
$12.0-$19.9 5,755 4.5 84.8 19.4
$20.0-- $29:9 3,505 2.8 78.8 18.1
$30,+ 1,105 0.9 36.7 8.4
Independent Supermarkets 11,345 8.9 72.5 16.6
($ imillions)
$2.0 - $3.9 4,565 3.6 12.8 2.9
$4.0-- $7.9 4,240 3.4 23.1 5.3
$8.0 - $11.9 1,210 1.0 11.5 2.6
$12.0 - $19:9 810 0.6 11.4 2.6
$20.0 - $29.9 340 0.3 7.5 1.7
$30+ 180 0.1 6.2 1.4
Convenience Stores * 56,000 44.1 27.4 6.3
Wholesale Club-Stores * 730 0.6 20.3 4.7
Other Stores 38,970 30.7 54.1 12.4
Suppermarkets;By Format, Total 30,300 100.0 334.5 100.0
Conventional 18,200 60.1 142.9 42.7
Extended z 8,700 28.7 149.6 44.7
Economy-# 3,400 11.2 42.0 12.6
Source: Table from Progressive Grocer's Annual Report of the Grocery Industry
(S&P's Industry Surveys,April 1998 and April 1999.)
* -Includes supermarket items only.
#-Includes limited assortment,warehouse,super warehouse,and hypermarket.
Table 1-4 provides a comparison of how the types and number of food retail stores have changed
over the past ten years. The recent industry trend of mergers and acquisitions has greatly
contributed to the increases in both the large ($2+million) and chain supermarkets.
15
a
Table 1-4: Types and Number of,Stores (19,88 V&1998.y
1988 1998
Number, % of Number %°of;
Total Total;;
All Stores 148,000 100.0 126,000 100.0
Supermarkets ($2+million) 30,400 20.5 30,700
Chain Supermarkets 16,850 11.4 19,530 24.4
Independent Supermarkets 13,550 9.1 159
Other.Stores (<$2 million) 62,600 42.3 11,170 8 .
Convenience Stores 37,550 29,8
55,000 37.2 57,000 45.2
.Wholesale Club Stores N/A. N/A. 750
0.6
Sources: 56th Annual Report of the Grocery Industry,April 1989,and 66th Annual Report of
the Groce ndus_L2,April 1999, as cited in h ://www.fmi.or /ke facts/stores.html.
As the number of both large ($2+million) and chain supermarket increases, it is not surprising that
the median average store size is also increasing. Table 1-5 indicates that the median size has increased from 31,000 to 39,260 ft2(27%) in eight years. average store
Table 1-5: Median Average Store Size
Grocery
Store Size.
Year ft2 :
1997 39,260
1996 38,600
1995 37,200
1994 35,100
1993 33,000
1992 32,400
1991 31,500
1990 31,000
Source: Food Marketing Industry Speaks, 1991-1998.
as cited in ht ://www.fmi.or /keyfacts/storesize.html.
Other interesting facts about the state of the supermarket industry at year end 1997 are found in
Table 1-6.
16
t
Table 1-6: Supermarket Facts (Year End 1997) 1
Totals for the Industry 1997
Number of Employees 3.5 million
Number of Grocery Stores 126,000
Average Supermarket
Square Feet of Typical Supermarket z 39,260
Square Feet of Selling Area 27,723
Number of Checkouts
8.8
Number of Full-Time Employees 64
Population Per Supermarket 8,820
Households Per Supermarket 3,259
Square Feet Per Person 3.14
Square Feet Per Household 8.5
Number of Items Per Supermarket z 30,000
Average Annual Performance ($)
Sales Per Supermarket 11,039,638
Sales Per Square Foot 398.21
Sales Per Employee 172,602
Sales Per Checkout 1,258,186
Average Weekly Performance ($)
Sales Per Supermarket 212,300
Sales Per Square Foot 7.66
Sales Per Employee 3,319
Sales Per Checkout 24,196
1 Source: Table from Progressive Grocer's Annual Report of the
Grocery Industry, as cited in S &P's Industry Surveys,April 1998
and 1999,unless otherwise noted.
llZ Source: Taken from Progressive Grocer as cited in
http://www.fmi.or /food/su erfact.html.
Recall that at year end 1997, the supermarkets with$2+million in sales accounted for$334.5
billion of the $436.3 billion total grocery store sales in the U.S. The top ten food retailers had
combined food sales of nearly $175 billion(40% of total grocery store sales). Table 1-7 lists the
top ten food retailers in terms of annual sales at year end 1997. (Note that recent consolidations,
detailed elsewhere in this report and in the report appendices, have changed this ranking in
several respects.)
R
Supervalu Inc ($17,201 million) and Fleming Cos ($15,373 million) are also among the top food
retailers, but because their sales totals include revenues from wholesale operations, their relative
position in this ranking could not be determined. The top ten food retailers in terms of store count
17
as of mid-1998 can be found in Table 1-8.
'gable 1-7: Top Ten Food Retailers by Annual Sales
(Year End 1997)
Net Sales
Rankin Com an 1Vlillion $
1 Kroger Co 26,567
2 Wal-Mart Stores 25,000 *
3 Safeway Inc 22,484
4 American Stores Co 19,139
5 Ahold USA 18,500#
6 Albertsons Inc 14,690
7 Winn-Dixie Stores Inc 13,219
8 Meyer (Fred) Inc 12,800 #
11 9 Publix Super Mkts Inc 11,100
10 Great Atlantic & Pac Tea Co 10,262
Source: Table from S&P's Industry Surveys,Supermarkets&Drugstores, September 1998.
* -reported as an estimate
#-pro forma
FTable : Top Ten Food Retailers by Store ]No.
(Mid-1998)
Rankin Com an 1 Kroger Co 2 Safeway Inc
3 Food Lion Inc 1,175
4 Winn-Dixie Stores Inc 1,168
5 Great Atlantic & Pac Tea Co 919
6 Albertsons Inc 916
7 Ahold USA 830
8 Meyer(Fred)Inc 823
9 American Stores Co 804
10 Publix Super Mkts Inc 563
Source: Table from S & P's Industry Surveys,
Su ermarkets & Drugstores, Se tember 1998.
18
C: THE COMBINATION OF BIG-BOX DISCOUNT RETAIL AND
GROCERY SALES
Big-box discount retailers are currently engaged in a rapid trend toward incorporating full-scale
grocery stores into their discount centers. Michigan-based Meijer was the first to combine a
grocery and general merchandise store, doing so in the 1960s (Meijer, 1999). They currently
operate 116 supercenters in the Midwest. Fifty-nine of these stores are located in Michigan,
thirty-two are in Ohio, nineteen are in Indiana, five are in Kentucky, and one is located in Illinois.
Their stores are as large as 250,000 square feet, and most stores include forty departments
featuring over 120,000 different items. Although information on Meijer's expansion plans was
limited, none of the resources available suggests that Meijer has plans to expand beyond the
Midwest.
More recently, Target has entered the supercenter business. Target has been experimenting with
the supercenter format for four years. Target recognizes that the supercenter concept provides
additional opportunities for future growth, yet its most recent annual report does not emphasize
the expansion of traditional Target stores into SuperTargets. In 1998, for example, Target opened
fifty-five new Target stores, yet only fourteen of Target's 851 existing stores are currently
SuperTargets. Target plans to open only two additional SuperTargets in 1999.
Target's growth efforts instead appear to be focused on the expansion of traditional Target stores
in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S., including Baltimore, Washington, D.C.,
Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and greater New York City. At year end 1998, Target operated
sixty-five stores in these regions. By the year 2001, Target expects to double its store base in
these regions (Dayton Hudson, 1998).
Kmart introduced its Super Kmart concept in 1992. By 1995, the Super Kmart store count was at
eighty-seven stores. Since 1995, however, the conversion of traditional Kmarts into Super
Kmarts has slowed considerably. The annual growth rate in Super Kmarts was only 3 percent in
both 1997 and 1998 (Kmart, 1999). At year end 1998, there were 102 Super Kmarts operating in
twenty-one states throughout the U.S. (Kmart, 1998).
While Kmart is a much bigger player in the supercenter business than Target,' the top priority of
Kmart's real estate strategy is the completion of its comprehensive conversion of traditional
Kmart stores to Big Kmarts (Kmart, 1999). Big Kmarts differ from Super Kmarts in that Super
Kmarts aim to provide the ultimate shopping experience by combining a complete assortment of
fresh groceries with a broad selection of general merchandise (Kmart, 1999). Big Kmarts, on the
other hand, emphasize those departments that are most important to the typical Kmart shopper.
Additionally, located near the front of each Big Kmart store are everyday basics and consumables.
These items are typically priced at a zero-to-three percentage differential from Kmart's leading
competitors in order to increase inventory turnover and gross margin dollars (Kmart, 1999). By
year end 1998, Kmart had 1,245 Big Kmart stores (Kmart, 1998). The remainder of eligible
stores are expected to be converted during 1999 (Kmart, 1999).
4
'Behind Wal-Mart and Meijer, Kmart was the third largest supercenter firm in the U.S. in 1997(Kmart, 1999).
19
Wal-Mart, currently the number one general merchandise retailer in the U.S., began
experimenting with the supercenter concept in 1988. The recent growth of Wal-Mart
Supercenters has far surpassed that of other retail supercenters, as is evidenced by the store
comparison for Wal-Mart Supercenters vs. Super Kmarts shown in Table 1-9. In 1999, for count
example, Wal-Mart plans to open 150 new Supercenters while Kmart expects to open only
new Super Kmarts. y four
Table 1-9: Store Counts of Super Kmarts & Wal-Mart Supercenters
Super Kmart Percentage Wal-Mart Percentage
Year Store Count Chan a Store Count
_ Chan e
1990 0
1991 0 _ 6 100%
1992 5 9 50%
1993 19 28- 10 11%
1994 67 253% 34 240%
72 112%
1995 87
1996 96 3000 147 104%
199 99 10% 239 63%
1998 102 30° 344 44%
1999 , 106 30° 441 2g%
2000 , N/A. N/A. 564 28%
714 27%
Source: http://www.kmart com/d_about/financial/factbk_1998/7.stm
z Source: Wal-Mart Annual Report,1999.
'Estimates as stated in Kmart Corp Annual Report,1998,and Wal-Mart Annual Report,1999.
David Glass, the President and CEO of Wal-Mart Stores, discusses Wal-Mart's en into the
food business in Wal-Mart's 1998 Annual Report: m'
"[The Supercenter concept) took the idea of retailing both general merchandise and food
in the same building and created the convenience of`one-stop shopping.' It has become
our key domestic growth vehicle and will remain so for at least the next 10 years. This
year alone we are going to open approximately 150 Supercenters in the Unites States as
well as using it as a key vehicle in our international growth."
Although many of the existing Wal-Mart Supercenters are located in the Midwest and Southeast
the threat of their entry into Southern California is very real. In 1999, it is estimated that 72
percent of the new Wal-Mart Supercenters openings in the U.S. will be the result of conversions'
from traditional Wal-Mart Discount Stores into Wal-Mart Supercenters (Wal-Mart SEC Form -
K, 1999) (see Table 1-10). Because California is currently the home to over 106 Wal-Mart 10
discount centers, including seven in Orange County, there is a very strong possibility that some o
these conversions will occur in California. f
20
Given Wal-Mart's rapid expansion, one can conclude that Wal-Mart is by far the most aggressive
competitor in the supercenter business. At Wal-Mart's current supercenter expansion pace, the
firm will have more supercenters than traditional discount centers in less than ten years. Wal-
Mart is a discount retail firm that is essentially transforming itself into a combination general
merchandise/food retailing business. Because Wal-Mart is currently the most aggressive entrant
into the supercenter market, much of this report will focus on the impacts of the en of Wal-
Mart Supercenters into Southern California. A thorough examination of Wal-Mart Supercenters
will help grocery retailers better understand the effects and consequences of discount retailers'
entry into the grocery industry.
FFF,
1-10: Wal-Mart Store Transformations
% of
Supercenter
umber of Number of Openings.
ount Store Supercenters Resulting from
nversions Opened
Conversions
37 38 97%
69
80 75 92%
92 92 87%
1 105 gg%
998 75
[2000 * 90 999 * 88 97 77%
123 72%
150 60%
urce: Wal-Mart SEC Form 10-K,January 1999,unless
herwise stated.
Expansion plans as stated in Wal-Mart Annual Report, 1999.
21
D• TIDE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE GROCERY INDITE
TRY
Table 1-11 shows grocery industry employment(standard industrial classification, or SIC code
541) for southern California counties and statewide. Table 1-12 similarly shows average g per
employee wages paid to southern California grocery employees. For comparison,
gives average annual per employee wages for all businesses in California. Table 1-13
Table 1-11: Total Yearly Employment for the Grocery Industry
(SIC Code#541).
Area 1993 1994 1995
1996
Imperial 1,512 759
Los Angeles 61,51 1,586 1,377
Orange 61,375 61,341 60,513
20,532 19,136 21,056 21,075
Riverside 10,057 9,358
San Bernardino 9,356 9,726
10,338 10,371 10,778 10,633
San Diego 19,540 18,911
Ventura 18,538 19,739
5,203 4,840 4,899 5,408
Southern CA Region 131,837 124,750
CA State 247,117 238,913 127,554 128,471
241,180 250,206
Source:Coun Business Patterns Annual 1993-1996);US De artntent ofl abor,Bureau oft.Census.
22
Table 1-12: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the.Grocery Industry
(SIC Code#541)
1993 1994 1995
1996
Imperial $17,222
Los Angeles $15,749 $15,830 $15,717
Oran g e $20,860 $21,231 $21,871 $21,729
$21,783 $22,458
Riverside $22,612$21,873 . $22,357 $21,948
San Bernardino $22,315 $23,307 $22,410
San Diego $21,995 $21,609 $22,323
,.Ventura $20,201 $20,443 $20,801
$21,890 $22,999 $20,175
$23,424 $20,429
Southern CA Region $21,096
CA State $21,483 $21,905 $21,508
$20,996 $21,495 $21,923 $21,154
All figures adjusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI-W index for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange
Coun area(US Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Table 1-13: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for all
Industries in California
Area 1993 1994 1995 1996
Statewide $30,120 $30 669 $31,232 $32,376
Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996);US
Department of Labor,Bureau of the Census.
* Payroll includes all forms of compensation:salaries,wages,
reported tips, commissions,bonuses etc...
All figures adjusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI-W index for the Lo
Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area(US Bureau of Labor
Statistics).
-Excludes most government employees,railroad employees,and self
em to ed ersons
In 1996, the grocery industry in southern California paid wages that were 65.3% of the statewide
average. That comparison should be treated with some caution, as the County Business Patterns
data shown in Tables 1-11 through 1-13 do not distinguish between full and part-time workers.
To the extent that some grocery employees work part-time, average annual full-time wages will
be higher than what is shown in Table 1-12. That comparison understates the importance of the
major chains in the southern California economy. Of the approximately 128,000 southern
23
California grocery employees, about 80,000 are unionized. Those union members, employed by
the major grocery chains (Albertsons, Hughes, Lucky, Ralphs, Smiths, Stater Bros., and Vons
earn substantially higher wages than the non-unionized grocery employees. Drawing on )
information from the southern California employers, we show(in Chapter 2) that the average
grocery employee at a major southern California grocery chain earns $32,385-virtually identical
to average annual pay for all of California.
Another way to get insight into the importance of the grocery industry is to compare it to more
highly visible sectors. Here we compare the grocery business to construction and tourism,
because both are commonly associated with the strength of the southern California economy. In
Table 1-14, we show employment in construction jobs in southern California counties, whi e er
employee annual wages for the construction industry are shown in Table 1-15. p
Table 1-14: Total Yearly Employment for the Construction Industry
(SIC Code# 15)
Area 1993 1994 1995
1996.
Imperial 1,552 1,642
Los Angeles 1,342 1,350
101,359 104,380 113,883
Orange 111,713
Riverside 54,154 54,512 56,226 56,652
23,428 21,478 23,435 25,280
San Bernardino 21,806 21,733 22,156 23,729
San Diego Ventura 40,905 42,000 45,098 48,457
10,507 10,586 11,344
11,426
Southern CA Region 253,711 256,331 273,484 278,607
CA State 475,509 480,078 495,037 513,401
Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996);US Department of Labor,Bureau of the Census.
t
24
Table 1-15: Total Pearly Payroll Per Employee for the Construction Industry
(SIC Code# 15)
Area 1993 1994 1995
1996
Imperial $19,878 $19,767
Los Angeles $23,079 $20,595
Orange $31,727 $33,425 $32,648 $33,578
$31,697 $32,346 $31690 Riverside $24,947 $28,194 $33,598
San Bernardino $28,255 $29,349
San Diego $27,190 $29,115 $28,685 $29,012
Ventura $29,973 $30,237 $30,164 $30,640
$28,085 $29,209 $28,902 $29,527
Southern CA Region $30 199
$31,608 $31,142 $32,069
CA State $31,501
$32,501 $33,113 $33,750
Source: County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996); US Department of Labor,Bureau of the Census
* Payroll includes all forms of compensation: salaries,wages,reported tips,commissions,bonuses etc...
All figures adjusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI-W index for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange
County area(US Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Statewide and in southern California, grocery employment is approximately half as large as
construction employment. Construction pays higher wages-based on the data shown in Tables
1-12 and 1-15, the average per employee wage in grocery is about two-thirds what is paid in
construction. But again if attention is limited to the 80,000 employees of major southern
California chains, grocery employees earn essentially the same annual wage as construction
workers, on average.
Few doubt that construction is vitally important to the southern California economy, and many
recognize the role that construction jobs play in providing
economic o
to persons with entry-level skills. Grocery employment a es a sim'larlyod wagesdimportant role.oInunl
ty
southern California, the major grocery chains pay wages comparable to that earned in
construction, and their 80,000 members in the region number about one-third the region's total
construction employment.
Tables 1-16 and 1-17 show, respectively, employment and per employee annual wages in tourism,
which we define as hotels and motels (SIC 7010), racing and track operations (SIC 7948),
amusement parks (SIC 7996), and miscellaneous amusement and recreation(SIC 7990).
Employment and wages are substantially higher in the grocery industry than in tourism.
25
Table 1-16: Total Yearly Employment for the Tourism Industry
(SIC Codes: #70109#79489#"79909#7996)
Area 1993 1994 1995 1996
Imperial 493 559 519 481
Los Angeles 74,188 71,856 72,390 73,926
Orange n/a n/a n/a n/a
Riverside n/a 16,133 n/a 17,914
San Bernardino n/a n/a n/a 8,168
San Diego n/a n/a n/a 40,002
Ventura 4,241 n/a n/a n/a
Statewide 316,122 317,388 329,918 341,370
Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996);US Department of Labor,Bureau of the
Census.
Tourism Includes the Following Industries:Hotel and Motel(SIC#7010),Racing and Track
Operations(SIC#7948),Miscellaneous Amusement and Recreation(SIC#7990),and
Amusement Park SIC#7996 .
t
26
Table 1-17: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the Tourism Industry
(SIC Codes: #7010,#7948, # 7990,# 7996)
Area 1993 1994 1995
1996
Imperial $8,815 $8,410
Los Angeles $8,716 $9,122
Orange $16,289 $17,171 $16,363 $16,720
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Riverside n/a $15,189
San Bernardino n/a $16,184
San Diego n/a n/a n/a $11,240
Ventura n/a n/a n/a $16,280
$12,283 n/a n/a n/a
Statewide $15,680 $15 912
$15,663 $16,267
Tourism Includes the Following Industries:Hotel and Motel(SIC#7010),Racing and Track
Operations(SIC#7948),Miscellaneous Amusement and Recreation(SIC#7990),and
Amusement Park(SIC#7996)
Source: County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996);US Department of Labor,Bureau of
the Census.
* Payroll includes all forms of compensation: salaries,wages,reported tips,
bonuses etc. commissions,
["AlIfigureou,djusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI-W index for the Los Angeles-Riverside-
e Cn area(US Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Because many of the categories of tourism employment do not report data at the county level we
isolate employment and wages in the hotel/motel sector in Tables 1-18 and 1-19. That more
specific comparison with the grocery sector yields the same conclusions—the grocery indust
employs more persons, and at higher wages. rY
27
Table 1-18: Total Yearly Employment for the Hotel and Motel Industr
y
(SIC Code h!7010)
Area 1993 1994
1995 1996
Imperial 382
Los Angeles 418 408 371
Orange 39,916 36,682 37,248 36,617
Riverside 18,418 17,618 17,354 18,571
San Bernardino 10,083 8,254 11,191 8,877
San Diego 2,855 2,790 2,811 3,238
Ventura 22,383 22,289 22,616 22,965
2,225 2,394 2,036 2,006
Southern CA Region 96,262
Statewide 90,445 93,664 92,645
170,467 163,694 170,032 168,580
Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996);US Department of Labor,Bureau of the Census.
Table 1-19: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the Hotel and
Motel Industry
(SIC Code# 7010)
Area 1993 1994 1995
1996
Imperial $8,603 $8,726
Los Angeles $1 $8,621 $9,228
Orange 5,870 $16,758 $17,011 $18,527
Riverside $15,197 $15,432 $15,246 $16,278
$13,424 $14,218 $14,119 $17,569
$15
San Bernardino $9,122 $9,825
San Diego $15,698 $ ,4224 $9,184
Ventura ,553 $15 $16,470
$13,127 $13,381 $11,133 $12,830
Southern CA Region $15 152 $15,631
Statewide $15,572 $16,987
$15,364 $15,829 $15,865 $17,021
Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996); US Department of Labor,
Bureau of the Census.
* Payroll includes all forms of compensation: salaries,wages,reported tips,
commissions, bonuses etc.
All figures adjusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI-W index for the Los Angeles-
Riverside-Oran e Coun area(US Bureau of Labor Statistics .
28
E• WHAT 'PHIS MEANS FOR ORANGE COUNTY
Table 1-20 lists the big-box discount retail outlets in Orange County. The location
County discount centers are also shown on Map 1-1. Target has the most discount r of Orange
the county, with fifteen stores, followed by K-Mart, which has nine Orange County retail outlets in
Mart also has three K-Mart Super Centers in the coun ty locations. K-
is exceptionally new—half of the Wai-Mart discount enters listed in Table 1 20 s presence inwere ne County
1997 or later. built in
Table 1-20: Big Box Retailers in Orange County
Costco
17900 Newhope St Fountain Valley 92708
900 S Harbor Blvd Fullerton
32
11000 Garden Grove Blvd Garden Grove 92843
115 Technology Dr Irvine
27972 Cabot Rd 92618
2655 El Camino Real Laguna Niguel 92677
Tustin 92782
22633 Savi Ranch Pk wY Yorba Linda 92886
Kmart
10870 Katella Ave Anaheim
2222 E Lincoln 92804-6116
5885 Lincoln Ave Anaheim 92806-4107
2200 Harbor Blvd Buena Park 90620-3461
16111 Harbor Blvd Costa Mesa 92627-2501
1911 Magnolia Fountain Valley 92708-1305
Huntington Beach 92646-2233
1855 N Tustin Orange 92865-4604
2505 El Camino Real Tustin
15440 Beach Blvd 92782-8920
Westminster 92683-6237
Kmart Super Centers
26501 Aliso Creek Rd Aliso Viejo 92656-2882
1095 N Pullman Anaheim
92808-2516
1000 W Imperial Hw
y La Habra 90631-6901
SAM'S Clubs
17099 Brookhurst Fountain Valley 92708
629 S Placentia Ave Fullerton
16555 Von Karman Ave Irvine 92
12540 Beach Blvd Stanton 90680
631
29
Table 1-20 (cost.):
Bi -Box Retailers in Orange County
Target
26935 La Paz Rd Aliso Viejo 92656
1881 W Lincoln Ave Anaheim 92801
8148 E Santa Ana Canyon Rd Anaheim 92808
6835 Katella Ave Cypress 90630
2920 Yorba Linda Blvd Fullerton 92831
13831 Brookhurst Garden Grove 92843
12100 Harbor Blvd Garden Grove 92840
9882 Adams Ave Huntington Beach 92646
3750 Barranca Pkwy Irvine 92606
1000 E Imperial Hwy La Habra 90631
24500 Alicia Pkwy Mission Viejo 92691
2191 N Tustin Orange 92865
3300 S Bristol Santa Ana 92704
1330 E 17th Santa Ana 92701
16400 Beach Blvd Westminster 92683
Wal-Mart
440 N Euclid St Anaheim 92801
259E E Imperial Hwy Brea 92821
26502 Towne Centre Dr Foothill Ranch 92610
27470 Alicia Pkwy Laguna Niguel 92677
2300 N Tustin St Orange 92865
3600 W Mcfadden Ave Santa Ana 92703
IIL_L3331 Beach Blvd& 122 Westminster 92683
30
Ma 1-1
Big Box Retail in Orange n runty
By City
mle rton
Q iVpf M3
�„�- •`* - -Anaheim Qe
r
f 'Tustin f`
f �
�l Sw6ta Atia r'f
1
Himitingon Bead r
r'r
Costa Mesa Al iso'%160' �
t
Laguna N LgLw.I
Orange County
1 Big Box Ratans r
Big Box Retailers
or Xfore Big Box . etailer
w - -
0 7 14 files
31
As we mentioned before, the economic concern is not big-box discount retail per se, but the trend
for discount stores to include full service grocery sales. Discount retail pays considerably less
than the major grocery chains. The policy issue is thus that, if supercenter grocery sales will
crowd out sales in grocery chains, some otherwise well paying grocery jobs will become lower
paying jobs.
The growth of low wage jobs has become a source of concern in Orange County. The Orange
County Business Council, drawing on.data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, has
shown that Orange County's per capita income growth from 1994 through 1996 was lower than
competing high technology regions such as the Silicon Valley, Seattle, Minneapolis/St. Paul,
Austin, and San Diego. Per capita income growth in Orange County was also below both state
and national averages during that time period. The Business Council has estimated that the
majority of Orange County job growth from 1989 through 1997 was in relatively low paying
sectors—for example, during those nine years,the county's service employment increased by
58%while manufacturing jobs in the county fell by 22%.
Against that backdrop, it becomes important to encourage job growth in sectors that pay well—
especially those sectors, like the grocery industry,that offer a living wage to persons with entry-
level skills. The emergence of supercenters, which pay wages typical of the low-paying discount
retail sector, threatens to convert many high wage jobs into low wage jobs. Because that fact is so
central to the policy concerns in this area, we focus explicitly on the labor market impacts of
supercenters in the next chapter.
32
Chapter 2 ® Job and Wage Impacts
In this chapter;we examine the labor market impacts of the entry of discount retailers into the
grocery industry in southern California. Because Wal-Mart supercenters are currently the most
vigorous potential competitor to southern California grocery chains, we focus on that possibility.
But the arguments developed here are general, and apply to any case where a new entrant in a
market dramatically lowers labor costs.
Using data on current wages and benefits, we calculate that the direct impact on workers in
southern California would likely fall in the range of about $500 million to $1.4 billion per year in
lower pay, depending on the big box food sales market share. Using the Southern California
Association of Governments estimates of how these lowered wages would impact the regional
economy, the total regional drop in spending ranges from about $1 billion to over$2.8 billion per
year. The numbers will rise the larger the market share of big box grocers, and could well top
even these figures over time.
The discussion below proceeds in four steps. First, we discuss the differences in pay and benefits
across the discount retail and grocery sectors, as those are vital for understanding the possibility that
high wage jobs will be converted into low-wage jobs. Second,we describe what happened in
Canada when a similar low-labor cost competitor entered the grocery business. Third, we estimate
the likely impact that Wal-Mart will have on the grocery industry in southern California. Fourth, we
examine the possible labor market impacts of competition from Wal-Mart, focusing on employment
impacts, downward pressure on wages, and the implications for employee health benefits.
A. DIFFERENCES IN EMPLOYMENT & WAGES ACROSS DISCOUNT
RETAIL & THE GROCERY INDUSTRY
Tables 2-1 through 2-4 show employment and per employee annual wages for the grocery (SIC
code 541) and general merchandise retail (SIC code 53) sectors for 1993 through 1996? All wage
data are expressed in 1999 dollars. For the seven county southern California region, the per
employee annual wage in the grocery industry was $21,508 in 1996; the per employee annual
wage in general merchandise retail in 1996 was $14,432. In southern California, general
merchandise employees earn, on average, about two-thirds the salary of grocery employees. That
proportion is roughly constant for the four year time period shown in Tables 2-1 through 2-4 3
2 According to the definition of the Standard Industrial Classification(SIC)code system,general merchandise retail
includes stores that sell a number of lines of merchandise,such as dry goods,apparel and accessories,furniture,small
wares,hardware, and food.
3 The per employee wage data in Tables 2-2 and 2-4 allow comparisons between the broad categories of general
merchandise retail and grocery. The question of competition between Wal-Mart and major southern California grocery
chains is better informed by specific comparisons,shown later in this chapter,for the major grocery chains and Wal-
Mart. For example,the wage data in Table 2-2 likely understate per employee wages among the employees at major
grocery chains,who are represented by union contracts. Approximately 80,000 southern California grocery employees,
out of a total employment of approximately 128,000 for SIC 541,are union members. All employees of the major
southern California grocery chains are union members. Also note that,because County Business Patterns does not
33
Table 2.1: Total Yearly Employment for the Grocery Industry
(SIC Code#541)
Area 1993 1994 1995 1996
Imperial 1,512 759 1,586 1,377
Los Angeles 64,655 61,375 61,341 60,513
Orange 20,532 19,136 21,056 21,075
Riverside 10,057 9,358 9,356 9,726
San Bernardino 10,338 10,371 10,778 10,633
San Diego 19,540 18,911 18,538 19,739
Ventura 5,203 4,840 4,899 5,408
Southern CA Region 131,837 124,750 127,554 128,471
CA State 247,117 238,913 241,180 250,206
Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996);US Department of Labor,Bureau of the Census.
Table 2.2: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the Grocery Industry
(SIC Code#541)
Area 1993 1994 1995 1996
Imperial $17,222 $15,749 $15,830 $15,717
Los Angeles $20,860 $21,231 $21,871 $21,729
Orange $21,783 $22,458 $22,612 $21,948
Riverside $21,873 $22,357 $23,307 $22,410
San Bernardino $22,315 $21,995 $21,609 $22,323
San Diego $20,201 $20,443 $20,801 $20,175
Ventura $21,890 $22,999 $23,424 $20,429
Southern CA Region $21,096 $21,483 $21,905 $21,508
CA State $20,996 $21,495 $21,923 $21,154
Note:*Payroll includes all forms of compensation:salaries,wages,reported tips,commissions,bonuses etc.
Clerical Workers(CPI-W)from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS)(1982-84=100).
Real dollars calculated using the CPI index for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area.
Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996);US Department of Labor,Bureau of the Census.
report information on hours worked,the data in Tables 2-1 through 2-4 combine part-time and full-time workers.
34
Table 2.3: Total Yearly Employment for the General Merchandise
Industry
(SIC Code#53)
Area 1993 1994 1995 1996
Imperial 1,629 1,505 1,451 1,264
Los Angeles 57,738 51,873 56,264 55,797
Orange 21,031 19,101 21,041 19,797
Riverside 10,843 10,203 10,726 10,236
San Bernardino 11,991 12,018 12,903 12,976
San Diego 18,388 17,662 18,953 18,612
Ventura 5,190 5,340 5,484 5,221
Southern CA Region 126,810 117,702 126,822 123,903
Statewide 220,198 209,937 222,399 216,454
Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996),US Department of Labor,Bureau of the Census.
Table 2.4: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the General
Merchandise Industry
(SIC Code#53)
Area 1993 1994 1995 1996
Imperial $13,002 $13,725 $13,637 $15,259
Los Angeles $13,998 $15,483 $14,404 $14,290
Orange $14,023 $15,724 $14,300 $14,753
Riverside $12,520 $13,567 $13,595 $13,745
San Bernardino $13,537 $14,230 $14,055 $14,300
San Diego $13,783 $14,784 $14,436 $14,983
Ventura $12,761 $14,239 $13,630 $14,235
Southern CA Region $13,737 $15,044 $14,245 $14,432
Statewide $14,284 $15,119 $14,579 $14,609
Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996);US Department of Labor,Bureau of the Census.
*Payroll includes all forms of compensation:salaries,wages,reported tips,commissions,bonuses etc.
All figures adjusted for inflation using the June 1999 Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers(CPI-W)from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS)(1982-84=100).
Real dollars calculated using the CPI index for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area.
35
In Tables 2-5 and 2-6, we present employment and annual per employee wages in the
variety retail sector(SIC code 533). The Securities and Exchange Commission classifies
Wal-Kart as being in SIC code 533, which is a subset of general merchandise retail (SIC
code 53).4 In 1996, per employee annual pay in variety retail was $15,733 in Orange
County and $14,147 in Los Angeles County. Overall, the wage differential between
groceries and variety retail is similar to the differential between grocery employment and
the broader general merchandise retail category.
Table 2.5: Total Yearly Employment for the Variety Store
Industry
(SIC #533)
Area 1993 1994 1995 1996
Imperial 104 107 99 n/a
Los Angeles 2,342 2,140 1,937 1,768
Orange 231 164 151 134
Riverside 158 71 n/a n/a
San Bernardino 239 136 102 84
San Diego 561 444 304 203
Ventura 62 51 58 53
Southern CA 3,697 3,113 n/a n/a
Region
Statewide 6,681 5,186 4,486 3,735
Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996);US Department of Labor,Bureau of the
Census.
4 Variety retail is defined as"establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of a variety of merchandise in the
low and popular price ranges." We caution that the low employment figures shown in Table 2-5 suggest that Wal-
Mart and other major discount retailers may not be reflected in the variety retail category,regardless of SEC
classification. Comparison to the wages for general merchandise retail shown in Table 2-4 may be more appropriate.
36
Table 2.6: Total Yearly Payroll Per Employee for the Variety Store Industry.
(SIC # 533)
Area 1993 1994 1995 1996
Imperial $10,228 $9,234 $7,778 n/a
Los Angeles $12,484 $12,276 $13,312 $14,147
Orange $12,143 $13,137 $13,573 $15,733
Riverside $10,355 $7,811 n/a n/a
San Bernardino $11,008 $10,166 $11,491 $11,143
San Diego $10,661 $10,435 $10,853 $10,262
Ventura $11,862 $11,785 $10,599 $10,762
Southern CA Region $11,926 $11,752 n/a n/a
Statewide $11,507 $11,414 $11,831 $12,399
Note:Source:County Business Patterns Annual(1993-1996);US Department of Labor,Bureau of the Census.
*Payroll includes all forms of compensation:salaries,wages,reported tips,commissions,bonuses etc.
All figures adjusted to 1999 dollars using the CPI index for the Los An eles-Riverside-Oran a County area.
Wages vary substantially across the general merchandise and food retail sectors. Any discount
retailer, if it enters the food sector in southern California and then pays its grocery employees a
wage that is comparable to what it pays its discount retail employees, will, in effect, be
converting high wage jobs into low-wage jobs. As an example, we compare grocery wages and
benefits to those offered by Wal-Mart, because Wal-Mart is the discount retail chain that is most
aggressively entering the retail food business.
Because Wal-Mart's hourly employees are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement
(unlike southern California grocery employees), it was difficult to obtain wage information for
Wal-Mart. What we do know suggests that hourly employees at Wal-Mart earn a starting wage of
approximately $6.00 to $7.00 per hour. Newspaper and consulting reports suggest that Wal-Mart
hourly employees earned $5.00 per hour in 1991 (Stockton Record, 1991) and $6.00 per hour in
the San Francisco Bay Area more recently than 1995 (Golman, 1997). For the background
research for this study, a Wal-Mart discount center in Orange County reported that starting hourly
employees earn$7.00 per hour 5 Telephone conversations with Wal-Mart Supercenter managers
in other states revealed that hourly employees at stores in Ohio and Missouri earned starting
wages of approximately $6.00 per hour. The manager of an Ohio Wal-Mart Supercenter
contacted for this study estimated that salaried employees in the bakery and meat departments
received only a small wage premium over other store employees-earning $0.25 more per hour?
5 Telephone interview with personnel manager,Wal-Mart,Foothill Ranch,California discount center,July 22, 1999.
6 This information is from telephone interviews with managers of Wal-Mart Supercenters in Alliance,Ohio and
Springfield Missouri on July 8, 1999.
Telephone interview,manager of Springfield,Missouri Wal-Mart Supercenter,July 8, 1999.
37
These data are not extensive, but the picture is consistent. Wal-Mart's Supercenter employees
appear to be paid wages that are similar to wages earned by Wal-Mart's discount store employees,
with hourly wages starting in the range of$6.00 to $7.00 per hour.
The pay scales of grocery workers at the major chains in southern California are listed in Table 2-
7. Most hourly employees are divided into one of three broad categories—general merchandise
clerks, food clerks, and meat cutters. Both the meat cutters and the food clerks earn starting
wages that are substantially higher than the $6.00 to $7.00 per hour starting salary at
Supercenters.
Effective October 4, 1999, food clerks at the major grocery chains will earn a starting wage of
$9.78 per hour, while beginning meat cutters will earn$11.43 per hour. (The Food Employers
Council, the collective bargaining unit for southern California grocery chains, estimates that as of
July, 1999, half of all hourly employees in southern California grocery chains are in the meat
cutter and food clerk categories. (Bailey, 1999))
For the grocery industry in southern California, only general merchandise clerks earn a wage that
is similar to Wal-Mart wages; general merchandise clerks start at $7.07 per hour. General
merchandise clerks are a special category designed to allow grocery stores to compete in non-
perishable items with other, lower paying, retail outlets. General merchandise clerks do not
handle food items. The general merchandise pay scale at the major chains is, in some ways,
suggestive of what happens when grocery stores must compete with competitors who have lower
labor costs.
38
Table 2-7: Dourly Wage Structure of the Major Grocery Chains in Southern California*',
10/4/99 10/2/00 10/1/01 10/7/01,
Meat Cutters
Head Meat Cutter $18.98 $19.38 $19.78 $20.18
Journeyman Meat Cutter $17.98 $18.3 8 $18.78 $19.18
Apprentices: 4th six months $15.82 $15.82 $15.82 $15.82
3rd six months $14.06 $14.06 $14.06 $14.06
2nd six months $12.31 $12.31 $12.31 $12.31
1 st six months $11.43 $11.43 $11.43 $11.43
Food Clerics
Department Head $17.70 $18.10 $18.50 $18.90
Experienced Clerk $16.70 $17.10 $17.50 $17.90
Apprentices: 4th 26 weeks $14.67 $14.67 $14.67 $14.67
3rd 26 weeks $13.04 $13.04 $13.04 $13.04
2nd 26 weeks $11.41 $11.41 $11.41 $11.41 .
1 st 26 weeks $9.78 $9.78 $9.78 $9.78
General Merchandise Clerks
Department Head $12.37 $12.67 $12.97 $13.27
Experienced Clerk $11.27 $11.57 $11.87 $12.17
Apprentices: 4th 26 weeks $9.78 $9.78 $9.78 $9.78
3rd 26 weeks $8.70 $8.70 $8.70 $8.70
2nd 26 weeks $7.61 $7.61 $7.70 $7.85
1 st 26 weeks $7.07 $7.25 $7.40 $7.55
*Source:Food Employers'Council,1999
The gap in starting hourly pay understates the full wage differential that exists between nearly all
current grocery workers and Wal-Mart employees. The current prevailing wage structure increases
rather rapidly-food clerks, for example, will earn 33% more than their starting salary after one year
of employment. It also guarantees part-time employees a minimum of twenty hours of work per
week, and in October, 1999 that part-time guarantee rises to twenty-four hours per week. Part-time
members currently usually work considerably more than the minimum guarantee-as of July of
1999, part time employees at the major grocery chains averaged 35.5 hours of work per week
(Bailey, 1999).
For those reasons, and because these employees receive an attractive benefits package (summarized
later in this chapter), current grocery employees often pursue a career in the grocery industry. What
we know about Wal-Mart suggests that, as compared with current practice in the southern California
grocery industry, the Wal-Mart pay scale increases less rapidly with experience, Wal-Mart is a
heavier user of part-time work, part-time employees likely work fewer hours per week, and the
typical Wal-Mart employee stays with the company for a shorter time. The net effect of both the
rapid increase in wages with experience and the longer average job tenure for current southern
California grocery employees implies that the wage differential between Wal-Mart and southern
California employees will be larger than what is suggested by Table 2-7.
39
Yet hourly wages are only part of the story. The current major grocery chain labor contract offers
full health insurance coverage for all southern California grocery employees (full and part-time)
and their dependents,with no co-payments or deductibles. Health plan costs are paid by the
employer. Wal-Mart, iii comparison, requires that employees share the cost of health insurance
premiums. Insurance coverage is only available to full time employees. Wal-Mart health plans
have deductibles that range from $250 to $1000, and employees must pay the full premium for
dependents. A summary of Wal-Mart and the current southern California grocery benefit plans is
shown in Table 2-8.
40
Table 2-8: Comparative'l3enefit Analysis
Chain Grocery Stores Wal-Mart
Annual nine paid holidays per year six paid holidays per year
Paid
Holidays:
Vacations:. One week after 1 year. Two weeks after 2 One week after 1 year. Two weeks after 2 years.
years. Three weeks after 5 years. Four weeks Three weeks after 7 years.
after 15 years. Five weeks after 20 years.
SickLeave: Accrues at 4 hours/month, or 6 days/year. Accrues at.023077 hours for each hour worked(approx.
4 hours per month)or 6 days per year,to a maximum of
Annual cash buyout for unused sick leave. 192 hours(24 days). No cash buyout for accrued sick
leave in excess of maximum. 50%of accrued sick leave
may be used as personal time off from work.
Medical Several plans are offered. Most extensive Employer paid with employee sharing premium. Four
Insurance: coverage is the PPO Plan. Under PPO plan, deductible options are offered ranging from
employer pays full premium for employee and $250 to$1,000 with varying employee premium share.
all dependents. No deductible. Most Employee part of premium ranges from $5.50 to $18.50
procedures reimbursed at 90- 100%; $10 bi-weekly depending on deductible.
doctor's office visits.
Maximum out-of-pocket expense is $500. Employee pays full premium for any dependents.
Plan includes employee co-insurance.
Dental Employer pays full premium for employee and Employee shares in premium payment($2.50 bi-
Insurance•. all dependents. No deductible and weekly)and pays full premium for dependents.
no co-insurance. Plan includes annual deductible and co-insurance.
Pension Provides a defined benefit retirement plan. Offers an employee stock ownership plan.
Plan:
Employer's contribution is$1.225 per hour. Company pays 15%of employee company stock
purchases to an annual maximum stock purchase of
$1,800. (approximately$0.135 per hour)
Other: No-cost vision insurance coverage. Offers employee-paid life insurance.
Retiree medical insurance coverage. Provides profit-sharing plan.
Provides employee, 10%discount card on Wal-Mart
purchases. Offers reduced-cost medical plan for eligible
retirees.
Sources: 1998 Wal-Mart Associate Benefit Book. Summary Plan Description.Food Employers'Council(Bailey, 1999).
41
Many Wal-Mart employees are not covered by any of the company's health benefit plans. In
1995, 38% of Wal-Mart employees were covered by one of the company's health plans; another
35%were eligible but did not elect coverage, likely because of the employee cost-sharing and
large deductibles; the remaining 27%were not eligible for health benefits (Source: IRS 5500
forms.)
By comparison, in June of 1999, the health plans covered 77,540 employees at the major southern
California grocery stores and 103,388 of their dependents at no out-of-pocket cost to the employee
(Bailey, 1999).
The contribution of benefits (health care included) to prevailing labor costs is shown in Chart 2-1.
Taking account of job classification and experience, the average hourly wage at the major chains
in southern California is $12.82, as of July, 1999. Employer contributions to health benefit plans
are the equivalent of another $2.36 per hour. Pension and other employer trust contributions add
another $0.32 to labor costs. Premium pay, including overtime, Sunday, and holiday premium
pay, is the equivalent of$1.74 per hour. Vacation and unused sick leave come to $1.01 per hour.
Totaling the value of employee wages and benefits, a unionized grocery employee earns an
equivalent of$18.25 per hour, which translates to an annual average wage of$37,960. Excluding
benefit payments and focusing only on wages paid to employees, the average grocery employee at
a major chain store earns $15.57 per hour, or $32,386 on an annual basis.
Chart 2-1: Components of Hourly Wage
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00 -
$2.00 -
M
$0.00
hourly pay health other trust premium pay vacation and
benefits contributions unused sick
leave pay
El components of hourly wage of$18.25
42
An informative comparison with Wal-Mart wages and benefits can be made with the information
available. Assuming Wal-Mart hourly employees earn an average wage of$7.50 per hour, and
assuming that Wal-Mart employees earn premium, vacation, and unused sick leave pay in the same
proportion to base wages that most southern California grocery employees now earn (likely an
overestimate, given that Wal-Mart offers fewer vacation days than the current southern California
contract), total Wal-Mart average hourly cash wage would be $9.11 per hour.
Given that only 38% of Wal-Mart employees are covered by health care, compared with virtually
all employees at the major chains in our region, the ratio of health care costs to base wages was
scaled down by a factor of 0.38 to account for the lower share of employees covered by Wal-Mart
health plans.8 This resulted in an estimated cost of Wal-Mart health benefits of$0.56 per hour.
Overall, this exercise suggests that Wal-Mart employees might earn the equivalent of$9.63 per
hour, or$20,038 on a full-time, annual basis. Given Wal-Mart's heavy use of part-time labor,
converting the wage to a full-time basis is likely an overestimate of the value of wages and benefits
available to the typical Wal-Mart employee. Average hourly and the full-time annual equivalent
wages are shown for grocery workers and Wal-Mart workers,under different assumptions about
Wal-Mart wages, in Table 2-9.
8 Chart 2-1 shows that health benefits provided by the major grocery chains are,on an hourly basis,the equivalent of
18.4%of base hourly pay. That percentage was multiplied by 0.38,the fraction of Wal-Mart employees actually
covered,to obtain an estimate of Wal-Mart benefit payments as a fraction of hourly pay. The resulting estimate is
that Wal-Mart health benefits are the equivalent of 7%of base hourly pay. This is likely an overestimate. The Wal-
Mart benefit plan requires an employee cost share,has high deductibles compared to the union plan,and does not
cover dependents. All these factors imply that the Wal-Mart plan will be less expensive,and less valuable,on a per-
covered-employee basis,than that covering the employees of the major grocery chains.
43
Table 2-9: Comparison of Southern California Grocery and Wal-Mart Discount Center Wages
Hourly Health Other Premium Vacation Total Total Annual
Wage Benefits Trust Pay Sick Wage/Hr Annual Pay,
Leave Pa '
Southern.California grocery $12.82 $2.36 $0.32 $1.74 $1.01 $18.25 $37,960 $32,385
chain employees
Wal-Mart--high estimate $8.00 $0.56 N/A $1.09 $0.63 $10.28 $21,373 $20,209
Wal-Mart--medium $7.50 $0.52 N/A $1.02 $0.59 $9.63 $20,037 $18,946
estimate
Wal-Mart--low estimate $7.00 $0.52 N/A $0.95 $0.55 $8.99 $18,702 $17,683
Notes: Wages are for typical,or average,employees. Wal-Mart high estimate is based on an average hourly wage of$8.00 per hour. Wal-Mart medium
estimate is based on average hourly wage of$7.50 per hour. Wal-Mart low estimate is based on an average hourly wage of$7.00 per hour. Total annual pay
includes value of benefits. Annual pay is restricted to wages,premium pay,and vacation and sick leave benefits only. Wal-Mart hourly equivalents for
benefits,premium pay,and vacation and unused sick leave pay are assumed to be in the same proportion to base wages as for employees of the major chains in
California
44
me EXAMPLES OF THE CAPON MARKET IMPACT OF WAGE
DIFFERENTIALS- CASES FROM CANADA
Wal-Mart Supercenters are an exceptionally new phenomenon in the United States. Five
years ago, there were only 34 Supercenters nationwide. Supercenters have not likely reached
market penetration anywhere in the United States, and to infer what can happen in a market
with a mature presence of Supercenters it is useful to look elsewhere. An excellent example
can be found in Canada.
Loblaws, a Canadian grocery and retail chain, opened Real Canadian Super Stores (RCSS) in
Canada several years ago. RCSS combines food and discount retail under one roof, paying
wages that are typical of the discount retail industry, as do Supercenters in the United States.
RCSS entered the market in Alberta in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Safeway has been the
primary unionized supermarket in Alberta for years, and Safeway wages in Alberta were
considerably higher than RCSS. By the early 1990s, competition with the lower labor-cost
RCSS began to have a dramatically negative impact on Safeway profits.
Safeway executives estimated that the wage gap between their employees and RCSS workers
was between $8.00 and$12.00 per hour in Canadian dollars.10 In 1993, Safeway concluded
it could no longer compete without drastically cutting pay and benefits. Management
presented employees with two choices—either Safeway would cut its losses and leave the
Alberta market, or cut pay and benefits by the equivalent of$5.00 per hour(Canadian).
Eventually, the unionized employees agreed to the pay and benefit cuts. Safeway
implemented the pay cuts both by reducing pay and benefits and by buying out the contracts
of 4,000 experienced employees and replacing those workers with persons earning
approximately $6.00 per hour with no benefits." In 1997, Safeway employees went on strike
in an effort to restore wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement.
The strike ended without the union regaining the wage and benefit concessions that were part
of the 1993 agreement.12
In 1996, similar competition between grocery chains with dramatically different labor costs
sparked a labor dispute in Vancouver, British Columbia. RCSS operated with a lower cost
union contract than either of the two primary Vancouver chains -- Safeway and Overwaitea
(a Canadian firm).13 Safeway estimated the labor cost differential, including benefits, at
9 Andreef(1997);Laghi(1997); Smith(1997).
10 The exchange rate for the Canadian dollar varied from a low of 0.7516 US dollars per Canadian dollar in
December of 1993 to a high of 0.8020 US dollars per Canadian dollar in March of 1993. (Exchange rate
information is from the Pacific Exchange Rate Service of the University of British Columbia,
http://blacktusk.commerce.ubc.ca.) Taking the midpoint of that range,this implies that the wage differential,in
1993 U.S.dollars,was between$6.21 and$9.32.
" Andreef(1997);Levant(1997); Smith(1997).
12 Kent(1997).
13 "The Changing Face of Labor,"Grocer Today,September, 1996.
45
$11.58 (Canadian)per hour. The cost differential greatly reduced Safeway's and
Overwaitea's ability to compete in the Vancouver market, and from 1985 through 1996
RCSS gained nine percentage points in market share in that urban area. Having already
faced similar competition with RCSS in Alberta, Safeway was committed to closing the labor
cost gap before profits turned to staggering losses. After a bitter strike,Vancouver Safeway
employees accepted a new contract that reduced pay and benefits.14
As another example, A&P faced similar competition from low labor-cost competitors in
greater Toronto in the early 1990s. Non-union competitors such as Sobey's had lower labor
costs, as did the "No Frills" warehouse grocery chain operated by Loblaw's. (The "No Frills"
stores were unionized, but under a different contract that allowed lower wages and benefits
compared with what A&P's union contract required.)
A&P felt that it was at a competitive disadvantage and forced a strike to gain contract terms
more comparable to the lower wages paid to the non-union and "No Frills" competitors. The
strike lasted from November, 1993 to February, 1994. The resolution was a compromise that
did not fully satisfy either party. A&P came out of the strike in a weaker position, and was
less able to renovate, expand, and open new stores than it would have otherwise. The union
wages and benefits were also downgraded as part of the resolution of the labor strife.15
Supermarket News stated in June of 1996 that, "Partly because of the residual effect of that
strike, A&P converted 19 of its Ontario stores to Food Basics, a lower-cost format that it
operates under a separate bargaining agreement."16
The lesson is that major grocery chains will compete, and compete vigorously, for market
share and profit when faced with low-cost competition. That competition takes the form of
both short-term and long-term labor disputes. In the short-run,the Canadian chains (A&P,
Canada Safeway, and Overwaitea) sought immediate wage and benefit concessions once
competitors with lower labor costs became clear competitive threats. The short-run
concessions often took the form of buy-outs of more experienced, higher-paid workers
combined with a two-tiered wa e structure that included substantially less valuable pay and
benefit packages for new hires. 7 In some instances those buy-outs were combined with
wage and benefit reductions for existing employees. In most of the labor disputes, the chains
involved sought immediate labor cost reductions. For example, in Alberta Safeway appeared
to try to close between forty percent and sixty percent of the labor cost gap with RCSS.
(Recall that the 1993 concessions reduced Safeway labor costs by roughly $5.00 per hour,
approximately forty to sixty percent of the estimated$8.00 to $12.00 per hour gap.) Yet that
estimate ought not be taken as firmly indicative of the type of response that would occur in
14 Canada Safeway Limited,Press Release,July 8, 1996.
15 "The Changing Face of Labor,"Grocer Today, September, 1996,pp. 13-18.
16 As quoted in"The Changing Face of Labor,"Grocer Today,September, 1996,p. 14.
17 "An Open Letter to Safeway Employees,"newspaper advertisement placed by Canada Safeway Limited,
Vancouver Sun,June 8, 1996;Andreef(1997); Smith(1997).
46
other markets. Given the dynamics of union bargaining, it is possible that the concessions
observed in Canada were interim steps, and that grocery chains will continue to seek labor
cost reductions until they have parity with low cost competitors.
3.
Labor represents approximately 60%of the controllable costs (excluding the cost of product)
in the grocery industry, so competition often takes the form of meeting a rival's labor costs.
Safeway argued in British Columbia that parity with RCSS in new hire labor costs was the
only fair solution to the labor dispute.18 A&P converted 19 stores in Ontario to a low-cost
format to take advantage of the lower-cost union contract for such stores.19 The mediator of
the labor dispute in British Columbia was quoted after the strike as saying, "Safeway and
Overwaitea are legitimately frustrated with the substandard collective agreement in place
between Real Canadian Superstore and UFCW Local 777 and that issue must be
addressed."20 Overall,the experience in Canada suggests that major chains will seek parity
with lower labor cost competitors, if not immediately then certainly in the long run through
mechanisms such as two-tiered contracts that reduce costs for new hires or changes in
collective bargaining agreements.
The ability of grocery chains to obtain wage and benefit parity with low cost competitors
hinges on the relative bargaining power of a chain and the union in any particular market.
Yet the evidence suggests that wage and benefit differentials across stores that compete
vigorously with each other will lead to substantial downward wage pressure until those
differentials are closed. The same will almost certainly be true in southern California if Wal-
Mart Supercenters enter the market; paying lower wages and offering limited benefit plans.
An estimate of the labor market impact of Wal-Mart's entry into the southern California
grocery market is given below.
C. WAGE AND BENEFIT IMPACTS OF WAL-MART SUPERCENTERS
IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In the rest of this chapter, we derive estimates of the wage and benefit impact of Wal-Mart
supercenters in southern California. Three types of estimates are developed—a low
estimate, based on uniformly conservative criteria, a medium estimate, and a high estimate.
The low and high estimates provide, respectively, reasonable lower and upper bound
impacts, although the low estimate, designed to be conservative, could quite possibly
understate the full impact of supercenter competition in southern California.
The logic of each estimate follows a two step process. First, we estimate, in Section D
18 "An Open Letter to Safeway Employees,"newspaper advertisement placed by Canada Safeway Limited,
Vancouver Sun,June 8, 1996;"The Facts: A Message to Safeway Customers,"newspaper advertisement placed
by Canada Safeway Limited,Vancouver Sun, 1996.
19 "The Changing Face of Labor,"Grocer Today, September, 1996,pp. 13-18.
20 "The Changing Face of Labor,"Grocer Today, September, 1996,pp. 13-18.
47
below, the market share that Wal-Mart supercenters can be expected to capture in southern
California. From that, we estimate, in Section E, the impact on wages and benefits both for
Wal-Mart employees and for employees in other chains that will see the need to meet Wal-
Mart's labor costs.
D. PROJECTED MARKET IMPACT OF WAL-MART SUPERCENTERS IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Wal-Mart typically builds stores within one day's drive of its distribution centersz',
suggesting that southern California Supercenters built by the chain will be served by a
southern California distribution center. Wal-Mart currently is seeking approval for a
distribution center in Riverside County. The corporation has looked into sites near the
intersection of Interstate 15 and State Route 60 that can accommodate buildings ranging from
300,000 to over 1 million square feet.22 To the best of our knowledge, Wal-Mart has not
stated publicly whether that center will be for food distribution, but the impact on the
southern California grocery businesses, if the new distribution center serves Wal-Mart
Supercenters, can be substantial.
What follows below is a simulation predicated on the assumption that Wal-Mart builds one
distribution center to serve Supercenters in southern California. Whether the currently
planned Wal-Mart distribution center is for groceries is beside the point, as the below
exercise demonstrates what can happen if Wal-Mart decides to bring Supercenters to
southern California at any time in the near future.
In 1998, Wal-Mart had twelve distribution centers serving 564 Supercenters—an average of
47 Supercenters per distribution center.23 If Wal-Mart enters southern California, it is quite
reasonable to expect the firm to attempt to achieve a similar scale economy in distribution.
Wal-Mart is unlikely to build a distribution center, open two or three stores, and then
abandon a local market. The current average of 47 stores per distribution center is suggestive
of what to expect once Wal-Mart opens a distribution center for groceries in southern
California.
Yet 47 stores is a lower bound of the number of stores that can be supported by a distribution
center. The economics of grocery retailing allows a much larger number of stores to be
served by a distribution center, depending on the strategy of a particular firm. Furthermore,
Wal-Mart Supercenters are so new that it is possible that the chain has not achieved their
desired scale economy in food distribution. By comparison, Wal-Mart serves 1,889 discount
stores with 33 non-food distribution centers—an average of 57 stores per distribution
21 Telephone interview with Dr.Kenneth E. Stone of Iowa State University on 29 July 1999.
22 Telephone interview with Shawn Purcell,Riverside Planning Office,July, 1999.
23 Phone interview with Dr.Kenneth E. Stone of Iowa State University on 29 July 1999. (Original Sources of
Data: Combination of various SEC Form 10-K reports and Discount Store News issues.)
48
center.24 If Wal-Mart eventually seeks comparable scale in food distribution, this suggests
that eventually an average of 57 Supercenters will be supported by one distribution center.
That number could be higher, but it is unreasonable to believe that Wal-Mart would open a
food distribution center and seek less than their current average of 47 stores per distribution
center.
Overall, we simulate the impact of Wal-Mart on southern California market share by
assuming that a food distribution center will support either 47 or 57 stores. Given Wal-
Mart's desire to place stores within a day's drive of a distribution center, it is likely that
virtually all Supercenters served by a southern California distribution node will be in this
region. Of course, Wal-Mart could build more than one distribution center in southern
California, or could serve more than 57 stores from a single center. The estimates below are
purposefully a conservative estimate of the possible impact of Wal-Mart Supercenters in the
southern California market.
The next step in estimating Wal-Mart's impact is to assess how much market share can be
expected from 47-57 stores in southern California. Our logic will flow from estimating Wal-
Mart's market share to the impact of that market share on grocery employment, wages, and
benefits. What follows is an estimate of Wal-Mart Supercenter market share associated with
one distribution center in southern California.
Table 2-10 lists market share and number of stores for major chains in the Los Angeles
urbanized area from 1996 through the first half of 1999.
24 Phone interview with Dr.Kenneth E. Stone of Iowa State University on 29 July 1999. (Original Sources of
Data: Combination of various SEC Form 10-K reports and Discount Store News issues.)
49
i Table 2-10: LA Metro Area Market Share l nformation
LOS ANGELES 1996 1997 1998 Jul-99
No. of % Mkt No. of % Mkt No. of:.% Mkt No. of % Mkt
Stores Stores Share , Stores Share Stores Share Stores Share,
Ralphs 143 20.53 183 25.86 212 30.89 201 29.21
Vons, 118 16.74 117 19.39 116 18.82 119 20.07
Lucky Stores 82 14.25 84 13.89 86 13.87 86 13.99
Albertson's 23 3.25 34 4.74 35 5.02 36 5.19
.Smart& Final , 57 5.79 55 2.97 53 2.76 54 2.92
Superior Super - - - - 8 1.93 8 2.14
Stater Bros - - - - 13 1.87 13 1.87
Hughes 29 4.70 30 5.84 - - - -
Food 4 Less 40 6.43 - - - - - -
Source: Shelby Report various years).
Based on the information in Table 2-10, we calculate market share points per store for each
chain, shown in Table 2-11. Market share points per store are also shown in Table 2-11.
Market share per store is remarkably similar across the major chains (Ralphs, Vons, Lucky,
and Albertsons.) In 1999, market share per store ranged from 0.144 for Albertsons to 0.169
market share points per store for Vons. For comparison, Table 2-12 gives market shares for
several California urban areas, but the data source used for Table 2-12 does not report the
number of stores, and so it as not possible to calculate market share points per store for other
California urban areas.
50
Table 2-11: Market Share Points Per Store
(LOS ANGELES REGION)
Stores 1996 1997 1998 1999
Ralphs 14.4% 14.1% 14.6% 14.5%
Vons 14.2% 16.6% 16.2% 16.9%
Lucky Stores 17.4% 16.5% 16.1% 16.3%
Albertson's 14.1% 13.9% 14.3% 14.4%
Smart& Final 10.2% 5.4% 5.2% 5.4%
Superior Super - - 24.1% 26.8%
Stater Bros - - 14.4% 14.4%
Hughes 16.2% 19.5% - -
Food 4 Less 16.1% - - -
Source: Authors' calculations,based on data from Shelby Report(various
years)
For comparison, Tables 2-13 lists market shares and number of stores for major chains in
three urban areas with Wal-Mart Supercenters-Atlanta, Dallas, and Fort Worth.25 Market
share per store is also listed for each chain in each urban area. Market share per store varies
much more across urban areas than within urban areas. For example, an average (or typical)
store in Dallas can garner approximately 0.4 market share points, and an average (or typical)
store in Fort Worth can claim 0.9 market share points-both substantially higher than market
shares per store in Los Angeles. This reflects the smaller size of the Dallas and Fort Worth
urban areas and the fact that those markets are served by fewer stores.
25 The comparison MSAs were chosen based on the availability of data for urban areas with a relatively large
number of Wal-Mart Supercenters. Currently, Supercenters are predominantly in the South and Midwest.
Many food industry data sources,such as Progressive Grocer,do not gather market share information on Wal-
Mart and other discount retailers. The data in Table 2-13 is from the Shelby Report,which does gather market
share data for both grocery stores and discount retailers,but only in a limited number of urban areas. Choosing
urban areas with both Wal-Mart Supercenters andShelby Report data led to the MSAs listed in Table 2-13.
51
Table'2-12: Regional Supermarket Market Share Percentages 1
Orange Riverside/ San San.
Company County San Diego Sacramento Francisco Oakland
Bernardino
Ralph's 29 20 19 - - -
Vons 18 11 30 - - -
Lucky 18 14 23 20 16 34
Albertson's 12 - - 11 - -
Stater Bros - 30 - - - -
Food-4-Less - - - - - -
Oth Cert Groc - - - - - -
Pavillion - - - - - -
Raley's/Bel Air - - - 38 - -
Safeway - - - - 42 35
Cala Foods - - - - 12 -
Non Reporting-* 13 15 18 21 20 21
All others <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
1 Source: Progressive Grocer 1998 Market Scope (http://www.americanstores.com) unless otherwise
noted. .
* - estimated
Importantly, market share per store does not vary much across chains within an urban area;
the variation is much more stark across urban areas. Looking specifically at market shares
per Wal-Mart Supercenter in Atlanta, Dallas, and Fort Worth, Supercenters perform slightly
better(on a per store market share basis)than some other chains, but the difference is not
dramatic.
Again, the primary determinant of market share per store appears to be the size of the urban
area, and Table 2-13 suggests that Supercenters can be expected to capture market shares on
a per store basis that are typical of, or at best slightly better than, other chains in the same
city.
52
Table 2=13: Market'Share Information,Selected Comparison=MSAs
ATLANTA, GA 1996 1997 1998 . Jul-99 1999";��..
No. of % Mkt ,No. of % Mkt No. of % Mkt,,NO'.'No: of;%-Mkt mk �sl"ire
Stores Stores Share Stores Share Stores Share -Stores",,::Share per:,store,
Kroger 88 31.33- 95 31.72 97 32.30 100 32.54 0.33
Publix 52 17.09 63 18.34 70 20.35 71 20.26 0.29
Winn-Dixie 63 11.43 65 11.21 59 10.01 56 9.80 0.18
Ingles 45 6.95 44 6.18 49 6.87 46 6.63 0.14
Super Disc (Club) - - 13 5.22 17 6.19 18 5.91 0.33
A& P 37 6.21 37 5.82 36 5.44 31 4.78 0.15
Wal-Mart 7 2.34 8 3.26 10 3.57 9 3.13 0.35
Harry's 3 2.38 3 2.41 6 2.75 7 2.59 0.37
Cub Food 13 6.15 - - - - - - -
Bruno's 19 4.62 18 4.22 - - - - -
DALLAS, TX 1996 1997 1998 Jul-99 1999��:.
No. of % Mkt No. of % Mkt No. of % Mkt No.,of % Mkt mkt=shki6�
Stores Stores Share Stores Share Stores Share Stores -.Share per,st i,re;
Albertson's 47 21.08 52 22.31 57 23.71 57 22.62 0.40
Tom Thumb 42 20.19 41 16.67 42 20.30 42 20.09 0.48
Kroger 40 14.76 40 15.31 38 14.43 39 14.92 0.38
Minyard 60 15.20 60 15.23 60 15.29 60 14.66 0.24
Brookshire 26 7.54 27 7.81 27 8.36 27 7.92 0.29
Wal-Mart 5 2.42 8 4.85 8 4.13 11 5.06 0.46
Winn-Dixie 14 3.22 14 3.11 12 2.97 13 3.51 0.27
Fiesta Mart - - - - 5 1.83 5 1.75 0.35
Food Lion 25 3.54 24 3.11 - - - - -
Wal-Mart Hype 1 1.31 - - - - - - -
FT. WORTH,TX" 1996 1997 1998 Jul-99 1999��
No. of % Mkt No. of % Mkt No. of % Mkt No. of %Mkt mkt-share
Stores Stores Share Stores Share Stores Share "Stores:.;Share per<store`
Albertson's 21 21.18 24 23.07 24 22.68 26 24.46 0.94
Winn-Dixie 31 17.24 32 18.63 34 19.08 35 18.46 0.52
Kroger 25 19.32 27 18.71 23 16.70 23 15.02 0.65
Minyard 21 10.47 22 10.06 22 9.76 25 10.93 0.43
Tom Thumb 9 8.16 9 6.26 11 10.84 12 10.91 0.90
Wal-Mart 5 6.90 5 7.32 6 8.10 6 6.48 1.08
Food Lion 9 2.80 10 3.28 - - - - -
Wal-Mart Hype 1 2.65 - - - - - - -
11 Source: The Shelby Report
53
To be conservative, we assume that Wal-Mart Supercenters capture per-store market share that is
typical, but not better than, the range observed for existing southern California chains. We
bound projected Supercenter per-store market share to be equal to both the lowest number
(0.144) and the highest number (0.169) for major chains in the first half of 1999.26 Combining
that information with two estimates for the number of southern California stores served by one
distribution center, we get overall projected Los Angeles area market shares associated with one
Wal-Mart food distribution center, shown in Table 2-14.
These are conservative estimates, both because the number of stores for one distribution center
could be higher and because the market share per store, based on experience in Atlanta, Dallas,
and Fort Worth, could be slightly higher than even the upper bound shown in Table 2-14.
Table 2-14: Estimated Wal-Mart
Southern California Market Share
Share per Store
14% 17%
Number of 47 6.77% 7.94%
Stores: 57 8.21% 9.63%
Note: Share per store is market share points per
each store,estimated as described in the text.
Numbers in bold are estimated southern California
market shares for Wal-Mart Supercenters,for one
distribution center supporting the number of stores
shown in the two rows.
The largest estimate in Table 2-14, still a conservative number, suggests that Wal-Mart can
capture approximately 10% of the Los Angeles metropolitan area market. We take that as a
lower bound for the possible market share of Wal-Mart Supercenters in the southern
California market. The estimates that lead to a 10% market share—one distribution center,
serving from 47 to 57 stores, with each store capturing market share comparable to other
chains in the region—are all conservative. Should Wal-Mart choose to enter the southern
California market more aggressively,they could likely operate more than 57 stores from one
distribution center or build additional distribution centers.
As a high estimate of possible Wal-Mart market share in southern California, we use 20%. This
is based on the observation, from Table 2-10, that the three largest southern California chains
currently average slightly more than 20%market share. Wal-Mart's efficiency in its core
discount retail business, plus their quick expansion pace into groceries, suggests that in the long-
term the firm could potentially compete with the largest of the southern California food chains.
26 For major chains,we exclude Smart and Final, Superior Super,and Stater Brothers because each chain has a small
number of stores in the Los Angeles MSA in the first half of 1999.
54
Below we use the two estimates of market share— 10% and 20%—to obtain estimates of
the economic impact of Wal-Mart Supercenters in southern California. We start by
providing some discussion of how quickly the estimated market shares might be realized, and
what Wal-Mart competition means for existing southern California grocery chains.
Because the time span of our data are limited, we are not able to estimate when or how
quickly Wal-Mart might build to a ten or twenty percent market share in Los Angeles. Much
of that depends on company strategy. For example, Wal-Mart now has 6.5% of the market in
Fort Worth, and Supercenters are, for all practical purposes, a six-year-old phenomenon.
Given Wal-Mart's exceptionally aggressive history of building Supercenters, and their
expansion pace, the chain could reach a ten percent share in Los Angeles, or most likely
other markets that it targets, much more quickly than would be expected for other
competitors.
In other markets, Wal-Mart has typically built Supercenters first in exurban areas and then in
the rapidly growing urban fringe. This reflects both Wal-Mart's traditional emphasis on
small towns and suburban markets and the difficulties of obtaining land for Supercenters that
are, on average, 180,000 square feet, in central portions of urban areas. Given the exurban
and suburban focus of Wal-Mart, it is likely that their plans for Supercenters in southern
California will focus most heavily on Orange County, the Inland Empire, the western San
Fernando Valley and eastern Ventura County, and Santa Clarita and the high desert areas to
the north.
This puts Supercenters in the most rapidly growing portions of southern California,
suggesting that Wal-Mart will be a major competitor in the region's grocery industry. Given
the fact that Los Angeles County contains almost two-thirds of southern California's
population, and the fact that the market share estimates in Table 2-14 are quite conservative,
it is reasonable to assume that the estimated Supercenter market shares of ten and twenty
percent can be applied to all of southern California. Doing that, we next examine the
competitive pressure exerted by a new entrant that has the potential to achieve market shares
similar to those shown in Table 2-14.
One way to get a good intuitive feel for the type of competition represented by a new firm
with, for example, a ten or twenty percent market share is to ask how much growth in the
market is lost to the new competitor. Southern California is projected to grow rapidly over
the next twenty years. Population growth projections, from the Southern California
Association of Governments, are shown in Table 2-15. Southern California grocery chains
are no doubt aware of this future growth, and have likely built growth projections into their
long-range business plans.
While Supercenter market share will not all come at the expense of future growth, it is a
useful exercise to assume that all Supercenter market share is part of the overall growth in the
southern California market, and to then ask how much growth would be captured by
Supercenters.
55
Table 2-15: SCAG County Population Forecasts
COUNTY 1994 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 MOO
2020
Imperial 138,400 149,000 172,000 207,000 241,000 280,000 87.92%
Los Angeles 9,231,600 9,818,200 10,329,500 10,868,900 11,513,400 12,249,100 24.76%
Orange 2,595,300 2,859,200 3,005,800 3,105,300 3,165,400 3,244,600 13.48%
Riverside 1,376,900 1,687,800 1,976,900 2,265,300 2,531,700 2,816,000 66.84%
San Bernardino 1,558,600 1,772,500 2,005,400 2,239,600 2,512,700 2,830,100 59.67%
Ventura 709,900 712,700 744,900 804,300 861,600 932,300 30.81%
SCAG 15,610,700 16,999,000 18,234,000 19,491,000 20,826,000 22,352,000 31.49%
Source:SCAG,1998 RTP'Adopted Forecast,April 1998
For illustrative purposes, we assume that the grocery market in southern California will grow
in proportion to population growth, and that Wal-Mart Supercenters can achieve either the
lower bound estimate of 10% market share or the higher estimate of 20%market share for
southern California. If all of that market share comes at the expense of future growth in the
grocery market,this implies that Wal-Mart Supercenters will capture between 42% (for a
10% total market share) and 84% (for a 20%market share) of the growth in the market.
We do not mean to imply that all Supercenter sales will be come from market growth. No
doubt Wal-Mart, or any new entrant, can also take sales away from existing stores. Yet as an
exercise it is useful to ask what would happen if all Supercenter sales were strictly from
serving the growth in the southern California market. The answer is that, under that scenario,
Wal-Mart would capture from 42%to 84% of all growth in one of the nation's fastest
growing grocery markets over the next twenty years.
The entry of Wal-Mart into southern California will be, for its competitors the equivalent of
an event that would cut projected growth in sales by, using reasonable estimates, anywhere
from 42% to 84%. The implication is that Wal-Mart's entry into southern California will
almost certainly be perceived by existing chains as a major competitive threat, and they will
almost certainly respond. The response, given the labor cost differential between Wal-Mart
and southern California grocery chains, will most likely take the form of the type of wage
and benefit cuts witnessed in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada.
56
E: LABOR MARKET IMPACTS
Competition from Wal-Mart Supercenters will result in lower wages for southern
California grocery employees through two channels of influence—(1) employees that would
have otherwise worked in higher paying union jobs will earn lower wages and benefits, and
(2) competition with Supercenters will cause unionized employers to lower their wages and
benefits. We examine each channel of influence in turn below.
1. Economic Impact of Lower !La
ges Paid to Supercenter
Employees
Approximately 80,000 of the 128,000 southern California grocery employees are employed
by the major grocery chains. As shown in Table 2-9, these employees receive a considerably
more valuable wage and benefit package than Wal-Mart employees, based on the
assumptions about Wal-Mart wages and benefits listed in the note for Table 2-9. If Wal-Mart
captures southern California grocery market share, some grocery employees who otherwise
would have been employed by the major food chains will take jobs in Supercenters, at
substantially lower wages. Thus, the first channel of economic impact is that low paying
Supercenter jobs crowd out higher paying jobs.
We assume that the number of grocery jobs displaced is in direct proportion to the market
share of Wal-Mart Supercenters; for example, if Wal-Mart captures a ten percent market
share,ten percent of existing jobs at the major chains will be converted into lower-paying
Supercenter jobs. For the three values of wage gaps implied by Table 2-9, we calculate the
total annual wage bill lost for different assumptions about Wal-Mart market share. The
results are shown in Table 2-16, below.
Table 2-16: Direct Economic Impact of Lower Wages Paid to Supercenter Employees
in Lost Wages, Per Year($ millions)
Hourly Wage Gan
$7.97 $8.62 $9.26
Estimated 10% $118 $127 $137
Supercenter Market
Share: 20% $235 $255 $274
Note: Annual lost wages are calculated by multiplying the wage gaps in Table 2-9 by the estimated
annual hours worked by employees of the major grocery chains. Currently,these employees average
35.5 hours of work per week(Bailey, 1999).
57
2. Economic Impact of Lower Wages Paid to Grocery
Employees
Large labor cost differentials cannot be sustained in the grocery industry. The experience in
Canada demonstrates that major grocery chains will ultimately close much of the labor cost
gap. The implication is that the entry of Supercenters into southern California will affect the
wages of all grocery employees in southern California, whether or not they work at
Supercenters.
The fact that low labor cost competitors exert downward wage pressure on an entire industry
is not surprising. In a 1989 study of pay in the grocery industry,Paula Voos, an economist at
the University of Wisconsin, found that as the fraction of the metropolitan labor force that is
unionized drops, wages among the remaining union members fall (Voos, 1992). She noted
that this relationship is common in many industries, and is indicative of the tendency of firms
to lower wages to meet the labor costs of competitors.
Using data for southern California, we estimate the annual impact of the downward wage
pressure that would result from Wal-Mart Supercenters entering southern California. We
assume that major chains in the region lower their wage and benefit package to immediately
close part, but not all, of the pay gap shown in Table 2-9. Based on the experience of
Safeway in Alberta(discussed in Section B), we estimate chains would seek to close between
forty and sixty percent of the wage gap in the near-term. We later estimate the long-run
impact on workers if major chains achieve wage parity with lower cost supercenters, closing
all of the wage gap. We calculate the total annual value of reductions in pay and benefits in
chains that compete with Supercenters, under different assumptions, below.
58
Table 2-17: Near-Term Indirect Economic Impact from bower Wages Paid to Grocery Employees
in Lost Wages, Per Year ($millions)
Total Wage Gap: $7.97 $8.62 $9.26
Amount of Gap Closed: 40% 60% 40% 60% 40% 60%
Estimated 10% $424 $636 $458 $687 $492
Supercenter $738
Mar"fShar,"e: 20% $377 $565 $407 $611 $438
$656
Note:Annual lost wages are calculated by assuming that of the 80,000 union members in 1999,the fraction not in Supercenter market share(90%or 80%)remain
employed by the major grocery chains. They are assumed to experience wage cuts that close the difference between the wage gap shown on the top row and the "amoun
of gap closed"shown on the second row. So,e.g.,in the first column the per hour wage cut is$5.03. That wage reduction is multiplied by 35.5 hours per week for the
average union member,and then annualized and multiplied by union membership less the fraction assumed to be working at Wal-Mart.
59
Grocery chains in southern California are likely to seek to close the entire wage gap if Wal-
Mart, or any low cost competitor, enters the market. In Table 2-18, we show the indirect
wage impact on major grocery chain employees if all of the wage gap between current
wage and behefit standards and Wal-Mart supercenter pay is closed.
Table 2"18: Indirect Economic Impact of Dower Wages Paid"to`Supercenter Employees
in Value of Lost Wages;Pear Fear Assuihini g Full Wage Gab'is:Closed ($nnalllOnS) ',.;
Total Wage Gap
$7.97 $8:62 $9.26,_r�:'.
Estimated 10% $1,059 $1,146 $1,231
Supercenter - o
Market Share 20% $942 $1,018 $1,094
Note: Annual lost wages are calculated by assuming that of the 80,000 union members in 1999,the
fraction not in Supercenter market share(90%or 80%)remain members of the union. Those members
are assumed to experience wage cuts that close the full amount of wage gap shown on the top row.
E.g., in the first column the per hour wage cut is$7.97. That wage reduction is multiplied by 35.5
hours per week for the average union member,and then annualized and multiplied by union
membership less the fraction assumed to be working at Wal-Mart.
In Table 2-19, we present low, medium, and high estimates of the total wage and benefit
impact of Wal-Mart supercenters entering the southern California grocery market.
(Illustrated graphically in Chart 2-2.) These are derived by summing the direct impact on
supercenter employees, shown in Table 2-16, with the indirect impact on employees of
other major chains, shown in Tables 2-17 and 2-18. The low estimates use the most
conservative assumptions, and so represent a lower bound of possible impacts.
As we mentioned earlier, the economic impact will likely exceed what is reflected in the
low estimates. The medium estimates are calculated based on a 20% Wal-Mart market
share while assuming that existing grocery chains do not close all of the wage and benefit
gap with Wal-Mart. The medium estimates assume that the amount of wage gap closed is
the average of the gaps used in Table 2-17.
The use of a 20% supercenter market share for the medium estimate reflects a reasonable
long-run outcome, while the assumption that existing chains close only a fraction of the wage
gap is more reasonable in the near-term than in the long-run. Thus the medium estimates mix
both long-run and near-term responses in the grocery market. Given that it is impossible to
predict the exact timing of near-term versus long-run impacts, this mixing has the advantage
of reflecting the influence of both, in some sense averaging effects that cannot be precisely
attributed to specific years and effectively reflecting a"middle range" scenario.
60
The high estimate assumes that Wal-Mart obtains a 20% market share and that all of the
wage gap with competitors is closed.
Table 2-19: Estimates of Total Wage and 13enefit.Impact
SU,m'wing DirectEffect'for Wal-Mart Employees and-IndirectEffect on other Grocery
Employees ($millions)
Total Wage'Gap Closed-_.
$7.97 $8.62 $9.26
Low $541 $586 $629
1Vlediu' In $706 $764 $821
High, $1,177 $1,273 $1,368
Note: Low estimate incorporates the most conservative estimates-- 10%supercenter market
share and 40% of wage gap closed. Medium estimate is based on 20% supercenter market share
and half of the wage gap(average of 40%and 60%)closed. This is an average of impacts in
Table 2-17. High estimates assume that all wage gap will be closed, as shown in Table 2-18.
61
Chart 2-2: Estimates of Total Wage and Benefit Impact
$1 400
V
$1,200
$1,000 T
Total —°- -_ E
Wage $800 = = s
Impact -
NO F
($millions) $600 }
V-_
$400
$200
»m,
$7.97 $8.62 $9.26
Wage Gap Between Major Grocery Chains and Discount Retailers
13 Low Estimate ■ Medium Estimate ❑ High Estimate
62
F: REGIONAL INDUCED IMPACTS AND LAND MARKET IMPACTS
1. Re
gi®nalImpacts
The overall impact of lower wages in the grocery sector goes beyond the impacts on grocery
workers. Each dollar lost to the region in wages lowers the spending of grocery employees on
goods and services in the region, and in turn reduces the income and hence spending of others.
This effect is known as the multiplier impact of a change in local wages—a lost dollar locally
generates more than a dollar in overall economic impacts as it ripples through the economy.
The most common estimate of the multiplier impact of wage dollars in our region is provided by
the regional council of governments, the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG). SCAG's wage multiplier is currently 2.08. That is, each dollar increase in wages in
the southern California economy is calculated to generate a total of$2.08 of new spending: The
$1 increase plus another$1.08 in indirect multiplier impacts. The total impact is about twice the
direct effect.
The same relationship is calculated by SCAG analysts to hold for wage losses. Thus, every $1 lost
in wages in the region induces a total loss of$2.08. As an example, Table 2-20 calculates the total
regional impact the SCAG multiplier generates for the wage losses estimated in Table 2-19.
If the wage gap between Wal-Mart and southern California grocery chains is $9.26 per hour, for
example,then the regional impacts are calculated to range between about$1.6 billion to nearly $3
billion per year, depending on the big box grocer market share
Table 2-20: Estimates of Total Regional Wage and Benefit"ImpaeYof=BigBox .
Grocer Eritry.into Southern California
Total Wage"Gap Closed
$7.97 $8.62 $9.26`,;
Low $1,179 $1,379 $1,575
Medium $1,602 $1,801 $1,999
High $2,448 $2,648 $2,845
Note: These are the total regional economic impact estimated to result from the wage and
benefit losses calculated in Table 2-19. They include the losses to grocery employees and the
multiplier effect of those losses due to the reduced localspending by those employees.
63
20 Land Market Impacts
Because they remain vulnerable to changes in the real estate market,there is a risk that big box
retailers and supermarket operators will opt to vacate one or more sites when they are no longer
cost-effective. A survey of vacant supermarket properties in Orange County provides an
example of the county-wide impacts of corporate restructuring and consolidation. Table 2-21
lists vacant supermarkets located in Orange County. Note that much of this unused property
became vacant when Alpha-Beta Grocers was purchased by Ralph's.
Table 2-21 Lai rge-Scale Vacancies in Orange County and Site Inf6rmation
Site )Former Vacancy Site Building IRemains : City
Owner or Vacant
241 East 17` Street Alpha-Beta August 1994- 2.44 Remains Costa
present acres Mesa
6011 Chapman Alpha-Beta 1985-1999 3.83 Vacant Garden
Avenue acres Grove
17482 Yorba Linda Ralph's June 30, 1997- 3.01 Remains Yorba
Boulevard present acres Linda
23641 La Palma Ralph's July 1998- 9.4 Remains Yorba
Avenue present acres Linda
11382 Beach Alpha-Beta 1997-present 3.88 Vacant Stanton
Boulevard acres
The first site, located in Costa Mesa, neighbors a thriving Rite-Aid and specialty retailers, and
serves to impede pedestrian traffic between the two (Figure 2-1). The pathology of this
underutilized property stems from its attraction of parking lot vendors with excessive signage
(the parking lot in front of this site is leased for the sale of fireworks), its offering of temporary
shelter to homeless persons, and its symbolic message to passing traffic on East 17th Street.
64
i
i
a
a
K
A
N0�SING
111760.9150
p
Usually the largest store in a complex(referred to as the "base" or"anchor"tenant), big box and
supermarket retailers will remain vacant longer than other shopping center components because
they take the longest to sell. When a base tenant is empty, the property owner will either sell
land or lease to a new tenant. Often,the owner will want to sell after a base tenant has vacated.
This is difficult, given the less frequent turnover rates and the square footage involved. When
the owner does try to lease, potential lessees desire to lease the property for at least ten years,
given the capital investment required to fix up the property and ready it for use.
The owner, on the other hand, will typically want to lease a property for five years or less,
especially when the market hasn't proven itself in the past for a given property. Therefore, lease
arrangement difficulties encourage longer vacancies for base tenants. The vacant site in Figure
2-2, located in Garden Grove, has fallen victim to such a dilemma, remaining unimproved for
more than a decade.
65
a
ref
s I' - ,-
dice
e
Vacancies for base tenants are further complicated by the cost to retrofit, zoning and
environmental concerns. The cost of retrofitting, combined with unfavorable lease terms, limits
the perceived ROI as determined by potential business partners. Zoning is also a concern. A
base tenant vacancy may spark interest in rezoning the property for alternative uses. The time
and resources required for commercial rezoning add further time to the vacancy.
If the site was shared with a gas station, the EPA is required to perform a risk assessment, and
past, current, and future site owners as well as lenders are potentially liable for any
encouragement of environmental harm or health effects. This constraint on redevelopment
would apply to base tenants that vacate a property, encouraging the adjoining station to vacate as
well.
66
i
FOR -THEFT,
FIRE OR --------------------------
®A6M1AQE IN
FDARKINO
AREA.
yre 2-3. 1748 Yorba L
67
Chapter 2 Appendix: Health Care
Coverage Issues
A. INTRODUCTION
The incredible strength of the U.S. economy has shown no signs of abating despite the slowdown
in many overseas markets. Since 1992, the U.S. has enjoyed an unprecedented combination of a
rising budget surplus, low interest rates,virtual price stability,rising wages and salaries, and low
unemployment. Optimistic U.S. consumers and investors served as the main engine of national
growth last year as they pushed the growth rate in domestic demand up from 4.5 percent in 1997
to 5 percent in 1998. Thus, it is no surprise that Americans also accounted for nearly half of the
growth in world demand (and output) last year(International Monetary Fund (IMF), 1999).
Yet despite the unprecedented economic boom in the U.S. during this past decade,the erosion of
health care coverage in the U.S. is taking Americans down a dangerous path(Findlay and Miller,
"Down a Dangerous Path: The Erosion of Health Insurance Coverage in the United States,"
National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC), May 1999). While it is true that businesses have
increased wages and expanded fringe benefits27 during this economic boom, the number of
Americans with no health insurance has risen over 20 percent since 1990. In 1990, 35.6 million
of the non-elderly population lacked health insurance. By 1997, the number of uninsured below
the age of 65 had risen to 43.1 million(Findlay and Miller, 1999). In 1997,this translated into
approximately one in six Americans being without health insurance in a typical month. Over the
course of the year, around one in five Americans were without health insurance coverage for
some period of time (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1998, and Kaiser/Commonwealth, 1997; as cited in
NCHC, 1999a).
Even if the U.S. economy continues on its path of strong growth, conservative estimates indicate
that at least 47 million Americans will be uninsured by 2005 (NCHC, "The Uninsured
Phenomenon," available from http://www.nchc.org/know/uninsured_Myths.html; accessed 22
July 1999b). It is also projected that 52 to 54 million non-elderly Americans, or one in five,will
be uninsured in the year 2009. In the event of an economic downturn, as many as 61.4 million
non-elderly Americans, or one in four, could be uninsured in 2009 (Findlay and Miller, 1999).
Figure A2-1 illustrates the steady growth in the number of uninsured non-elderly Americans
since 1990 (table from Findlay and Miller, 1999; original data from Employee Benefits Research
Institute (EBRI)).
27 An increasing number of large-and mid-sized companies now offer their employees retirement plans,child care
services,flexible spending accounts,and various forms of insurance.
68
Figure A2-1:
Growth in the Number of Uninsured, 1990-1997
Millions of Non-elderly Uninsured
One of the more commonly believed myths about the uninsured population is that those that are
uninsured are unemployed, but the reality is that most of the uninsured either work or are
dependents of workers. In 1997, 57 percent of those aged 18 to 64 who had no health insurance
worked either full- or part-time (Findlay and Miller, 1999). Recent studies indicate that although
the economy generated 5.5 million jobs between 1993 and 1995,the number of uninsured
Americans continued to grow by one million in each of these years (NCHC, 1999b).
Additionally, from 1996 to 1997,the number of uninsured Americans increased by 1.7 million,
the largest annual increase since 1992 (Findlay and Miller, 1999).
Thus,the fact that the national unemployment rate recently dipped to a 29-year low of 4.2
percent(IMF, 1999) does little to remedy the uninsured problem in this country. In many of the
nation's largest metropolitan areas,the situation is particularly grim. In twenty-one of the
nation's largest metropolitan areas, at least 20 percent of the non-elderly population currently
lacks health insurance. Table A2-1 presents uninsured statistics for seven major U.S.
metropolitan areas, including Los Angeles.
69
Table A2-1: The Uninsured in Major
Metropolitan Areas
% of Residents Lacking
Metropolitan Area Health Insurance.
El Paso, TX 39
Los Angeles, CA 31
Houston, TX 29
Tucson,AZ 29
Miami, FL 28
New York City,NY 25
New Orleans, LA 22
Source: Levan,et at.(1999)
In sixteen states, the number of uninsured residents exceeds the national overage of 16 percent of
all residents. Additionally, in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Mississippi,New Mexico, and
Texas, more than one in five non-elderly residents do not have health insurance (U.S. Bureau of
Census, 1998; as cited in Findlay and Miller, 1999). Thus, despite California's decline in the
unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in 1993 to 5.6 percent in February 1999 (Kimbell, Dhawan
and Lieser, 1999), sustained economic growth in California cannot be relied upon to address the
uninsured problem.
B. THE UNINSURED
For over a decade, researchers have agreed that income level is positively correlated to health
insurance coverage. Simply stated, low-income Americans are at a much greater risk of lacking
health insurance than the affluent. In 1996,three in five of the uninsured population were low-
income: 28 percent were living below the poverty level, while another 32 percent were near-
poor with incomes between poverty and twice poverty (Davis, 1996). But the relationship
between income and insurance coverage has become increasingly complex in recent years. More
and more of the middle-income population are at risk of becoming uninsured because of the
rising cost of health insurance since the mid-1980s. Today, adequate health insurance for many
middle-income Americans is just not affordable (Findlay and Miller, 1999).
The following three tables provide an overview of some recent trends in health insurance
coverage. Table A2-2 illustrates that nearly one-half of uninsured Americans live in households
earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty line,where the poverty line is defined as a
single person earning less than$9,800 a year or a family of four earning less than $20,000 a year
in income. Table A2-2 also illustrates that the largest percentage increase occurred among
families with incomes of around$50,000 to $60,000 (or 351-400 percent of poverty). The
second largest percent increase occurred among families earning approximately $10,000 to
$15,000 in income (or 0-99 percent of poverty) (Thorpe, 1997).
70
Table A2-2: Percent Distribution of Uninsured Households
by Income Level, 199071995
1990 1995
% Uninsured in %Total %Uninsured in % Total
%Poverty Income Threshold Uninsured Income Threshold Uninsured
0-99% 0.34 34.1% 0.343 36.6%
100-133% 0.346 12.2% 0.322 11.5%
134-150% 0.293 4.9% 0.307 5.0%
151-185% 0.267 10.5% 0.251 9.0%
186-200% 0.211 3.6% 0.234 3.9%
201-300% 0.138 15.1% 0.148 13.4%
301-350% 0.052 15.1% 0.060 14.5%
351-400% 0.064 2.7% 0.095 3.9%
400+% 0.051 1.8% 0.073 2.2%
100.0% 100.0%
Source: Table reproduced from Thorpe (1997). (Original
tabulations from the Current Population Survey, March 1991.)
Table A2-3 points out that middle income families with children were more likely to be without
health insurance coverage in 1995 versus 1990 if their earnings were between $20,000 and
$60,000.
71
Table A::-3: Trends in Health Insurance Coverage
by Household Composition and Income, 1990-19,95
(Mullions of"People)
Income as a Percent of Poverty
Year 0-100% 101- 151-- . 201- 301=-. 400+%.'
150% 200% 300% 400% '
Single
1990
No. Uninsured 5.5 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.0 0.9
%Uninsured 38.2% 26.0% 26.4% 19.8% 13.7% 7.4%
1995
No. Uninsured 7.2 2.3 2.0 2.0 0.9 1.0
%Uninsured 38.3% 26.4% 27.1% 19.5% 14.7% 8.6%
Single Adult w/Children
1990
No. Uninsured 2.8 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.2
% Uninsured 18.8% 27.8% 22.4% 13.7% 9.0% 9.0%
1995
No. Uninsured 3.8 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.2
% Uninsured 20.9% 25.5% 19.3% 16.6% 12.0% 8.6%
Two Adults,No
Children
1990
No. Uninsured 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7
% Uninsured 28.3% 14.7% 15.2% 9.4% 6.6% 2.7%
1995
No. Uninsured 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.5 1.1
%Uninsured 31.3% 16.3% 12.3% 9.8% 6.4% 4.4%
Two Adults w/Children
1990
No. Uninsured 3.5 2.6 2.0 2.2 0.9 1.1
%Uninsured 37.4% 29.4% 19.1% 9.6% 4.5% 3.0%
1995
No. Uninsured 4.1 2.8 2.3 2.2 1.0 1.2
% Uninsured 36.4% 28.2% 19.9% 10.2% 5.1% 3.2%
Source: Table reproduced from Thorpe (1997). (Original tabulations
from the Current Po ulation Surve , March 1991 and 1996.
72
Table A24 illustrates that the probability of being uninsured increased for men and women of all
age cohorts (with men aged fifty through fifty-nine serving as the only exception). The largest
percentage increase in uninsured occurred among adults aged thirty through thirty-nine. Table
A24 also illustrates that the pattern of insurance coverage among young adults is changing. In
particular, young adults aged nineteen through twenty-nine were at great risk of being uninsured.
Table A24: Percent Uninsured by Age and Gender,1990-1995
1990 1995
Male Female _Male Female
Age Number Percent Number . Percent Number Percent Number Percent:
0-18 4.7 13.4% 4.4 13.2% 5.3 14.0% 5.1 14.1%
19-29 6 28.5% 4.4 20.5% 6.4 31.7% 4.8 23.5%
30-39 3.9 18.6% 2.7 12.6% 4.7 21.7% 3.6 16.1%
40-49 2.1 13.3% 2.1 12.4% 3 15.7% 2.7 13.7%
50-59 1.3 12.6% 1.5 12.6% 1.5 12.4% 1.8 13.8%
60-64 0.5 10.6% 0.8 14.2% 0.6 12.4% 0.8 14.5%
Total 18.5 17.0% 15.9 14.5% 21.5 18.6% 18.8 16.1%
Source: Table reproduced from Thorpe (1997). (Original tabulations from
Supplements of the Current Population Survey,March 1991 and 1996.)
Although it is commonly believed that the uninsured are typically middle-aged,unemployed,
lower-income, and able to obtain care from primary care providers through acute care hospitals,
this is not the case. Of those who will be lacking health insurance coverage sometime this year,
only 15 percent will be unemployed, on welfare, or live in a household where no one is working.
The majority of the uninsured live in households with an annual income under$30,000 (NCHC,
1999a). Counting both uninsured children and adults,approximately 85 percent of the uninsured
population are in households where the head of the family works full- or part-time (Davis, 1996).
The typical uninsured American is actually a young adult,between the ages of nineteen and
thirty-nine28, with children and an annual income between$40,000 and $60,000. This young
adult is generally a contingent worker in a small business or in the service sector(Thorpe, 1997).
C. SOURCES AND TYPES OF HEALTH INSURANCE
The primary source of health insurance coverage in the U.S. is through employers. The
government is also a large provider of health insurance both as an employer and through public
health insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid (NCHC, 1999a). Table A2-5
provides a breakdown of the sources of health insurance for Americans.
28 Because Medicare coverage applies to nearly every elderly American,most of the uninsured population is under
the age of sixty-five(Rowland,Feder,and Keenan, 1998). j
73
t
4
1
Table A2-5: Sources of HealtH Insurance
Number of People
Source of Insurance Millions
Private Employers 120
Federal Government as Employer(Includes Military) 17.3
State and Local Government as Employer 21.9
Retired People with Employer-Based Coverage 13.2
Medicare 38
Medicaid 41
Purchased Individually 16
No Insurance 43.3
Source: Table reproduced from NCHC, "Health Care Facts,"available from
(Original data from The U.S.Census Bureau,the Department of Labor,
EBRI,and the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.)
In recent years, employers have quickly switched to managed care plans in an effort to save
money while pushing for improvements in the quality of care. As a result, most have abandoned
the traditional "fee-for-service"health insurance coverage that often paid medical bills with no
questions asked. Three of the more popular forms of managed care are HMOs,PPOs and POS
plans. HMOs provide comprehensive coverage for a fixed payment given that patients and
physicians and hospitals within their"network." PPOs,or Preferred Provider Organizations,
enable a patient to pay less for care obtained through providers that the health plan has
contracted to accept discounted fees. Service fees increase if care is obtained outside of the
network. POS, or Point-of-Service,plans are often affiliated with HMOs. Like PPOs, doctors
and hospitals outside of the HMO's network can be used for an additional fee (NCHC, 1999a).
A DECLINING EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
Employer-sponsored health care coverage has been declining slowly but steadily since it peaked
in the late 1970s, and recent trends indicate that the uninsured population is likely to increase as
employment-sponsored health insurance continues to erode (EBRI, 1996; as cited in Davis,
1996). In 1987, 69.2 percent of the non-elderly population had health insurance through a job or
a family member's job, but by 1996 this percentage declined to 64 percent(NCHC, 1999a). This
decline in employer-sponsored health care coverage has been fueled in part by a reduction in the
percentage of workers accepting coverage when it is offered (Thorpe and Florence, 1999).
Ineligibility is another reason that employees are not taking health insurance through their
employers. In 1997, 9.1 percent of wage-and-salary and alternative workers, or ten million
workers, were ineligible for health coverage through their place of employment. Table A2-6
74
outlines some reasons for this ineligibility. Table A2-7 then outlines coverage by type,
eligibility, and acceptance.
Table A2-6: Reasons for Ineligibility of Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance
When Offered (1997),
Actual Insurance Status
%Citing Other Family Individual
Reason for This Employment Member Purchase Public Uninsured.
,,Ineligibility Reason
Doesn't work enough 53.3% 2.6% 56.5% 5.9% 10.4% 24.6%
hours per week or
weeks per year
Contract or temporary 7.7% 3.2% 41.0% 11.0% 13.0% 31.7%
employees not allowed
in plan
Hasn't worked for 27.2% 4.5% 21.2% 4.4% 5.7% 64.4%
employer long enough
Has preexisting 1.1% 8.8% 30.5% 3.7% 30.3% 26.6%
condition
Other 10.8% 2.1% 38.6% 6.7% 22.6% 30.1%
Total ' 100.0% 3.2% 43.5% 6.0% 10.9% 36.5%
Source: Table reproduced from Thorpe and Florence, 1999. (Original tabulations from the Contingent Worker Supplement
to the Current Population Survey,February 1997.)
Note: Number of workers is 108.5 million,and the number of ineligible workers is 9.9 million.
Totals exclude the self-employed and independent contractors.
75
Table A2-7: Number of Workers Offered[,Accepting,Ineligible,
and not Offered Health In�iurance,By Primary Source of Coverage, 1997
(Millions of Workers)
Firms Offering Insurance
Eligible Eligible Workers' Firms"Not__
Workers , Workers Not Offee=ing E
Primary Source of Coverage Total Accepted Declined Eligible Insurance-.
Own Employment 66.7 66.7 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Family Member 21.9 0.0 7.5 4.4 10.0
Individual Purchase/Other 9.6 0.0 0.8 0.9 7.9
Employment I
Public and Other 2 4.5 0.0 0.6 1.1 2.8
Uninsured 20.3 0.0 2.5 3.7 14.1
All Workers 123.0 66.7 11.4 10.1 34.8
Source: Table reproduced from Thorpe and Florence, 1999. (Original tabulations from the
Contingent Worker Supplement to the Current Population Survey,February 1997.)
I Includes individually purchased coverage,as well as coverage from previous employers,other employer,or own
company.
2 Includes Medicare,Medicaid,labor union,association or club,school or university,and other.
Many workers opt not to buy coverage through their employers because it is not affordable. In
1980, 74 percent of U.S. employers paid the entire cost of health insurance for their employees.
By 1993,this figure had dropped to 37 percent(NCHC, 1999a). As the price of health care
coverage has risen, many employers have passed along some of the cost increases to their
employees. In 1998, for example, employees of small businesses (fewer than 200 workers)paid
an average of 44 percent of the premium for family coverage, up from 34 percent just a decade
earlier. Employees of larger businesses (more than 200 workers) have also been hit by the rising
costs of health insurance through their employers. They paid an average of 28 percent of
premium costs for family coverage in 1998 (Gabel et al., 1999). Additionally, a recent study
found that in 1996, 9.1 million employees who were considered to have employer-sponsored
coverage did not even get any help from their employers in paying for that coverage
(Carrasquillo et al., 1999; as cited in Findlay and Miller, 1999).
An indication of the extensive health care cost shifting is the fact that so many employees now
opt for health insurance through a spouse's or parent's health plan. This is often done if the
spouse's plan is cheaper, and employers are well aware of this occurrence. Employers have
responded to this phenomenon in a couple of different ways. Some employers now restrict
spouses from joining their healthcare plan if their own job also offers them coverage. Other
employers have instead raised the cost for spousal and dependent care coverage (Meyer and
Naughton, 1996; as cited in Findlay and Miller, 1999).
76
Employers also pass along the rising cost of health care in a few less obvious ways. As an
employee, a consumer, and a taxpayer,Americans are feeling the effects of some hidden costs of
rising health care costs. Employers pass along some health insurance costs to their employees in
the form of lower wage increases. In 1996, for example, employees earning between $30,000
and$50,000 were paid an average of$2,000 less because of the rising cost of health care.
Consumers feel the effects of increased health insurance costs by paying more for products and
services. Because government programs fund 47 percent of Americans' health care coverage,
taxpayers eventually end up footing much of the bill. In 1998,health care accounted for
approximately 20 percent of the federal budget, as well as around 20 percent of most state
budgets (NCHC, 1999a).
The decline in the number of workers covered by union contracts is yet another reason that the
share of workers with health care coverage is on the decline. Studies indicate that union
members are significantly more likely to have health insurance than non-union workers. In
1995, for example, 16.8 percent of non-union workers were without health insurance, while only
5.9 of union members lacked coverage. Also contributing to this non-union coverage problem is
the fact that many of the economic sectors experiencing the largest employment growth (e.g.the
service and retail trade industries)tend to have few union members (Thorpe, 1997).
E. THE CONSEQUENCES OF BEING UNINSURED
Although the uninsured are sometimes able to obtain health care when needed,the means
through which the uninsured obtain their care (e.g. community health centers or public hospitals)
do not guarantee access and health outcomes that are comparable to the insured(Rowland, Feder
and Keenan, 1998). Some of the consequences of being uninsured include failure to obtain
preventive care, postponement of care,preventable hospitalizations, lack of a regular source of
continuing care, inadequate maintenance of chronic conditions, lower utilization levels for
physician care, and higher mortality rates (Davis, 1996; and Rowland, Feder and Keenan, 1998).
Table A2-8 and the discussion that follows presents statistics on some of these consequences of
being uninsured. (See Table A2-9, for a closer look at some of the aforementioned consequences
of lacking health insurance.)
77
Table A2=8: (netting Medical Attention
Had Had Gaps Currently
Insurance in Uninsured
Coverage
[Didot Fill Prescription 6% 21% 24%
Had Difficulty Getting Needed 10% 27% 51%
Care (Assessed By Self)
No Physician Visit in Past Year 17% 19% 42%
Postponed Care Due to Cost 12% 40% 55%
Had Trouble Paying Medical 11% 33% 33%
Bills
Had to Change Life 4% 13% 17%
Significantly to Pay for Medical
Bills
Source: Table reproduced from NCHC(1999)
Studies indicate that the uninsured are much less likely to receive preventive care. In 1995, for
example, 52 percent of uninsured women did not obtain a Pap smear, while only 36 percent of
insured women failed to receive this preventive care. Additionally, only 38 percent of insured
women between the ages of 40 and 64 did not get a mammogram in 1995, compared to 69
percent of uninsured women (Brown, 1995; as cited in Davis, 1996.)
Due to financial reasons,the uninsured are more likely to postpone care. A recent study found
that 71 percent of the uninsured delayed seeking care due to financial constraints, while only 23
percent of the privately insured population postponed care for the same reason. 34 percent of the
uninsured reported going without needed care in the prior year due to financial constraints, while
only 9 percent of the insured faced this dilemma (Davis et al., 1995; as cited in Rowland, Feder
and Keenan, 1998).
The uninsured have higher hospitalization rates for health conditions and chronic illnesses that
do not typically necessitate hospital care. The uninsured are 2.8 times as likely to be hospitalized
for diabetes than the insured, 2.4 times as likely to be hospitalized for hypertension, and 2.0
times as likely to be hospitalized for immunizable conditions. Given proper continued care, all
three of these conditions can generally be treated and managed without hospitalization
(Weissman, Gastonis, and Epstein, 1992; as cited in Rowland,Feder and Keenan, 1998).
78
Table A2-9: Studies Examining the:Relationship Between Health:Insurance and health
Citation Study Population 1V)<a or;Findin s; .-.
Ayanian et al., 1993 Matched hospital discharge data and Upon diagnosis, uninsured women had significantly more advanced disease .
New Jersey State Cancer Registry for than privately insured women. Adjusted risk of death was 49 percei'lt higher
4,675 women followed for up to for uninsured women than for privately insured women during the four to
seven years. seven years following breast cancer diagnosis.
Billings,Anderson, Hospital discharge data from 15 U.S. Across all urban areas in the U.S., low-income patients experienced higher
and Newman, 1996. urban areas and 3 urban areas in rates of preventable hospitalizations than patients of higher incomes.
Ontario, Canada. Data are from 1990 Smaller differences in rates were found in the urban areas of Ontario, Canada.
for all areas except New York City,
from 1982-1993.
Donelan et al., 1996. Survey interview data from 3,993 The uninsured were four times more likely than the insured to report an
interviews of randomly selected adult episode of needing and not getting medical care and three times more likely
respondents. to report a problem in paying for medical bills.
Franks, Clancy, and National Health and Nutrition Adjusted risk of death was 25 percent higher for uninsured patients than for
Gold, 1993. Examination Survey Epidemiologic privately insured.
Study that followed 6,913 adults from
1971 through 1987.
Hadley, Steinberg, National sample of 592,598 hospital The uninsured were up to three times more likely to die in the hospital than
and Feder, 1991. discharge abstracts in 1987. comparable privately insured patients. The uninsured were 29 percent less
likely to undergo a coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and 45 percent less
likely to undergo a total hip replacement than the privately insured,
procedures subject to high physician discretion.
Weissman, Gastonis, Maryland and Massachusetts hospital In both states, uninsured patients with malignant hypertension had twice the
and Epstein, 1992. discharge data from 1987. rate of hospitalization than the privately insured. In Massachusetts,
uninsured patients with diabetes had nearly three times the rate of
hospitalization of the privately insured.
Source: Table from Rowland,Feder,and Keenan,"Uninsured in America: The Causes and Consequences,"In: The Future U.S. Healthcare System: Who Will Care for the
Poor and Uninsured?(eds Altman,Reinhardt,and Shields), 1998.
79
Chapter 3: Municipal Finance Impacts
This chapter considers another issue of great importance to local officials, one often playing a
central role in the evaluation of retail projects in particular: municipal tax revenues. Big box
retail is often characterized as a no-brainer, fiscally speaking. These projects are described as
needing little in the way of public services yet generating enormous sums of sales taxes, a
substantial part of which goes directly into the city's general fund.
But this view is not always accurate, as an undetermined share of the new tax revenue will
simply reflect a loss of sales to existing businesses in the community. Tax rebates and other tax
incentives reduce this revenue stream further. More to the point of this report, big box retailers
who shift some floor space to groceries are migrating toward a sales base that generates
substantially less tax revenue. Food sales are, for the most part, not subject to sales taxation.
This chapter reviews these issues to draw three principle lessons:
1. Discount retail is a competitive and fluid business, with implications for the stability of
municipal revenues. Local officials should be cautioned that a single store they lure today
comprising a huge share of the local retail base might soon relocate to another location, either
in search of a better incentive deal or to find room to expand.
2. Supercenters are often built by either expanding a discount center or closing a discount center
and building a supercenter nearby. Local officials should consider the impact of possible
future expansions on land use, community character, local employment base and local tax
revenues.
3. The fiscal impacts of Supercenters are uncertain, both because many grocery items are non-
taxable and because the net impact on localities must balance service costs and shifts in local
retail base with any net gain in municipal taxable sales.
The chapter explores these issues in detail in five sections: (A)The fiscalization of land use
planning, (B) big box fiscal issues, (C)taxable sales and tax revenues, (D)the fiscal impacts of
big box grocers, and (E) a short summary.
A. THE FISCALIZATION OF LAND USE PLANNING
Local governments in California have little direct control over their revenues. Property tax rates
are largely fixed and property assessments are market based only the year in which the property
changes hands. One thing local governments can control is permitted land development patterns,
which in turn influences the amount of land generating sales tax revenues.
While the sales tax rate varies throughout the state, and sales tax revenues are collected by the
state, a penny from each dollar of taxable sales is returned directly to the jurisdiction where the
sale took place. This is known as the situs rule. So, it is not surprising that local officials have
tended to seek out retail to bolster local finances. Some are better able, or more inclined, to do
so and the end result is that the fiscal position of cities varies dramatically across the state.
80
One consequence is that the fiscal strategy of many communities is to seek retail development,
particularly high volume retail such as automobile dealerships and big box retail. This trend
toward using land use planning to generate revenues is known as the "fiscalization" of land use
(e.g., Lewis and Barbour, 1999).
31
In this setting, large individual retailers have become the apparent"cash cows" of the municipal
fiscal environment. In case after case, communities agreed to accept big box retail development
as revenue generators rather than as means to meet other community demands.
But the actual fiscal benefits of such efforts are unclear and undocumented. They may indeed
backfire in some instances. Four problems are most apparent:
® New retail development in a city is somewhat at the expense of existing retail in a
city. Thus, a share of the sales taxes generated by new retail is not new to the city
at all. In addition, some cities experience only a short term spike in sales tax
revenues associated with big box retail, with tax revenues leveling off after only 2
or 3 years. ,
® This is even more true at a regional level. Tax competition among jurisdictions
can even have negative regional economic impacts, especially when tax rebates
and other locational incentives are involved.
Large retail sites do impose additional community costs in the form of traffic,
security, environmental, and other impacts (e.g., Altshuler and Gomez-Ibanez, 1993).
0 Most grocery sales are.not taxed, so the tax base of the host city will suffer as
existing retail uses shift to groceries. The use of redevelopment zones further
complicates the property tax part of this story, as redevelopment zones can divert
some portion of any increase in property tax revenues within a zone away from
municipal governments (e.g., Dardia, 1998).
1B. BIG Box FISCAL, EXPEDIENCES
California municipalities have for years engaged in fierce cross-city competition for sales tax
revenues. This fiscalization of land use raises several concerns. Are communities offering deals
that are worth more than the local benefits generated? Even if localities end up better off,do
regions suffer as retail stores play one city off against another in search of the best deal? Do
fiscal concerns cause local governments to devote more land to retail uses than they otherwise
might? Now, with the entry of discount retail into the grocery business in other parts of the
country,the already complicated questions of local fiscal policy and land use become even
murkier. Several points can be gleaned from recent experience:
1. Tax incentive deals are often large. The Los Angeles Times (Shuit, 1998)reports that Long
Beach rebated half of the city's share of sales taxes generated by a recently built automobile
dealership. The deal was viewed by city officials as necessary to encourage the car dealer to
relocate from Signal Hill. In Ventura, K-Mart requested dismissal of$1.5 million in
81
development fees for a Super-K,K-Mart's version of a supercenter(Sommer, 1995). The
Super-K development was proposed for a site across the street from an existing K-Mart.
Ventura council members acknowledged pressure to meet K-Mart's terms because nearby
Oxnard had recently lured Price Club and Wal-Mart with similar deals (Sommer, 1995).
Lake Elsinore's redevelopment agency, in 1993, agreed to reimburse Wal-Mart$2.2 million
out of the city's share of sale and property tax to encourage the development of a discount
store in that city (Perkes, 1999).
2. The tax deals, like the one involving Long Beach,often move businesses from one city to
another. In the Bay Area, Costco recently relocated from Martinez to Concord(Finz, 1999).
When Costco announced the move, officials in Martinez, faced with the loss of their single
largest source of sales tax revenue, responded by trying to interest other discount retail firms,
including Wal-Mart, in the site (Finz, 1999).
3. Some tax incentive agreements exact unexpected costs from government coffers. In 1986,
the Colton Redevelopment Agency agreed to reimburse Price Club $2.5 million for the cost
of land for the store. The $2.5 million payment,plus interest,was to be paid by rebating to
the company half of all sales tax revenue generated for no more than fifteen years. The
agreement specified that Price Club would pay the city a penalty if it opened other stores
within a twelve mile radius. In 1992, because Price Club wanted to open two stores within
the twelve mile radius,the agreement was changed to both lower the fraction of sales taxes
rebated to 31 percent and remove the fifteen year time limit. In 1996,the store,then owned
by Costco, was closed. Costco officials said that the Colton store's low sales were due, in
part, to competition from other Price Club and Costco stores in the area. Yet the original
incentive agreement had been tied to the store site, not to the store itself, and Colton owed
$900,000 of the $2.5 million agreement when Costco closed in 1996. The$900,000 debt
remains,and interest is accruing on the debt,despite the fact that Price/Costco has not
occupied the site for three years (Perkes, 1999).
The above examples illustrate that any tax incentive deal is complicated and risky, and should be
evaluated carefully. Efforts to lure the newly emerging supercenters are even more complex, for
several reasons.
1. Supercenters are often expansions of existing discount centers. In Macon, Georgia, Wal-
Mart closed a discount center to open a new Supercenter across the street (Krause, 1999).
2. A K-Mart near Omaha added grocery aisles without increasing floor space, likely in part to
compete with a nearby Wal-Mart Supercenter(Olson, 1999). Had that occurred in
California,the loss of retail floor space to groceries (most of which are not taxable) could
have led to'a reduction in sales tax revenue generated at the site.
3. In some cases, relocations of big-box retail outlets leave behind vacant store sites and smaller
shops that lose customer traffic without an anchor tenant. Richland Hills, outside of Fort
Worth, recently saw their Sam's Club membership discount store relocate to nearby North
Richland Hills (Hornaday, 1999). In Lake Wales,Florida, Wal-Mart closed a discount center
when it constructed a Supercenter two blocks away. Store owners in the complex that
included the old discount center expressed concern about the loss of customer traffic to the
82
new Supercenter location (Circelli, 1999).
4. The conversion of a discount center to a Supercenter can have unanticipated land use
consequences. In-Pi nellas Park,Florida,Wal-Mart recently sought permission to double the
size of a'discount center as part of a conversion to a Supercenter. The firm proposed
expanding onto six acres of wetlands adjacent to the discount center site. The expansion
plans have generated heated opposition, as residents have argued that the wetlands should be
preserved(Lindberg, 1999).
The next section looks at broader regional trends.
C. TAXABLE SALES AND TAX REVENUES
Local governments share an increasing concern for the fiscal impacts of land use decisions.
"Land"in this respect represents a resource that can be vacant, improved(i.e., it contains a man-
made structure that is in use), or abandoned. Due to the impact of Proposition 1329 on the ability
of jurisdictions to generate sufficient property taxes on commercial and residential land uses,
land is increasingly gauged in terms of total and taxable sales generated by an owner or lessee.
Of course, the ability of a locale to support a land use will be based in part on its potential market
for items sold or distributed from a given site. Thus, cities are also concerned with the effects of
different categories of land usage on employment and the overall vitality of impacted
communities. This section concerns both the fiscalization of land use and the subsidiary impacts
of land use decisions on community vitality, should the ability of a given square footage to
generate sales and tax revenue fall short,yielding of vacancy.
Two categories of retail land use were chosen for purposes of comparison: general merchandise
and food stores. General merchandise is defined as any retail establishment permitted to operate
as a limited price variety, department, drug, or other general merchandise store (State of
California Board of Equalization, 1997). Food Stores comprise supermarkets, grocery stores
with or without alcohol, grocery stores with beer and wine, and specialty grocers, such as
bakeries.
In order to estimate the impact of these categories on a local government, let us consider their
relative abilities to generate sales, and more importantly, taxable sales. Total sales generated by
29 Proposition 13,passed in 1979,limits the assessed value of property for tax purposes to its 1977 value,or its
purchase price if sold after 1979,plus a maximum of 2%appreciation per year.
83
general merchandise and food stores in Orange County were calculate using taxable sales and the
Census of Retail Trade(United States Department of Commerce, 1992) data. Since data
pertaining to total sales are only available for 1987 and 1992, these figures were used to calculate
the percentage of total sales by category that are taxable in Orange County. It was determined
that in 1992 70%of total general merchandise sales are taxable, compared to 38.6%for food
stores. These percentages mirror those derived from 1987 data(State of California Board of
Equalization, 1987). Data was compiled in an Excel spreadsheet for taxable sales Orange
County city, and the above percentages were used to determine total sales. Figure 3-1 represents
these estimates for 1990 through 1997.
Figure 3-1 illustrates that following 1992, total food store sales began to fall, while general
merchandise sales remained relatively constant throughout most of the County's recession
period. Total estimated sales were $4.5 billion for general merchandise and$3.26 billion for
food stores in 1997. It can be concluded that general merchandise has a far greater potential
impact on the County's economy.
Figure 3-1. Estimated Total Sales: Food Stores and General Merchandise Stores in
Orange County ($ thousands)
$5,000,000
$4,500,000
$4,000,000 0�
$3,500,000  - -
Sales $3,000,000
(in $000s) $2,500,000
$2,000,000 <
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000 . R
$0
❑Food 1990 1991
1992 1993
1994 1995
1996 1997
■ General
D. THE FISCAL IMPACTS OF BIG BOX GROCERS
To better understand the fiscal impacts of these categories that are realized by city governments,
taxable sales were investigated. The State Board of Equalization maintains statistics for taxable
sales as well as the number of store permits from which they are generated. Through use of such
information, one can better understand the potential impact of a single land use decision, though
84
it remains potentially skewed by the range of store size in each category. It can also suggest
previous impacts of big box retail sitings within individual jurisdictions. Figure 3-2 and Figure
3-3 show the percentage of taxable sales that are accounted for by general merchandise and food
stores in Orange County,respectively.
Figure 3-2. Taxable Sales: General Merchandise as a Percentage of Total Retail
16.5
16.0
15.5
% of -
Total 15.0 =
Retail
14.5 =
14.0
13.5 -
1990 1991 -_ - -
1992 1993
1994 1995
1996 1997
85
Figure 3-3: Food Taxable Sales as a Percentage of Total Retail Taxable Sales
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
%of 5.0
Total
go
Retail 4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
--------------------------------
1990 1991 —---------
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 represent taxable sales per permit for the two groups.
Figure 3-4: General Merchandise Taxable Sales per Permit($ thousands)
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
Sales Per
Permit
(in 000s) $3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
1990 1991 1992 1993 wpm=
1994 1995 1996 1997
86
Figure 3-5: Food Stores Taxable Sales per Permit($ thousands)
$1,000 -
$800
Sales Per $600 } --
Permit
(in 000s) $400
$200
$0
dM
1990 1991
1992 1993 1994
1995 1996
1997
While general merchandise taxable sales per permit fell significantly in 1997, they remain more
than four times higher than food store taxable sales. It remains evident that both industry groups
are susceptible to economic and market shifts, although the trend for per permit taxable sales for
general merchandise appears to be one of gradual and then accelerated decline. This decline
suggests either a change in the industry mix in terms of the relative size of general retail
establishments (i.e., a growing proportion of smaller vendors could reduce sales per permit), or
in the efficiency of permit operators. For instance, if big box retailers do not continue to account
for their high floor-to-area ratios (FAR) and intensive usage of parking space with similar gravity
effects (Le., the attraction of a proportionately larger market radius) and merchandise turnover,
then lower sales per square feet would ensue. Another possibility would be that the mix of goods
sold and purchased at larger retail establishments might be shifting to one that includes more
non-taxable items, such as prescription drugs.
To further investigate the impact of big box retail on a local economy, taxable sales per permit
were calculated for two cities that have experienced the introduction of a Wal-Mart within the
last ten years. Table 3-1 gives the opening dates for Wal-Mart stores within Orange County.
97
' `a lew3= WaL-TY a Loeaho sin D=aiiA a ounty
e'w' Datesi=
`?V 1-1Vlarf Location- F, ' : u: :::� eaied.
440 N. Euclid Street, Anaheim 1/31/95
27470 Alicia Parkway, Laguna Niguel 1/95
2595 E. Imperial Highway, Brea 1/98
2300 N. Tustin Street, Orange 1/98
3600 W. McFadden Avenue, Santa Ana 1/98
13331 Beach Boulevard,Westminster 6/20/98
Source: Cities of Anaheim,Laguna Niguel,Brea,Orange,Santa Ana,and
Westminster Planning Departments
Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 show taxable sales per permit for general merchandise and food stores
in Anaheim, while Figure 3-8 and Figure3-9 provide the same information for Laguna Niguel.
The remaining Wal-Mart locations within Orange County were opened in 1998, for which
complete sales tax data were not available.
88
Figure 3-6: General Merchandise Taxable Sales per Permit in Anaheim ($ thousands)
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
Sales Per
$
Permit 22000
(in 000s) $1,500
$1,000
$500
--own
N=4
1990 1991 -------------------
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997
Figure 3-7: Food Stores Taxable Sales per Permit in Anaheim ($ thousands)
$800
$700 ...........
$600
Sales
$500
Per
$400
Pen-nit
$300
(in ON
$200
MEWTM
$100
$0
1990 1991
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 -
1997
89
Figure 3-8: General Merchandise Taxable Sales per Permit in Laguna Niguel thousands)
"$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
Sales Per $5,000
Permit $4,000
(in 000s) $3,000
$2,000-
am=
1,000
1990
1996 1997
Figure 3-9: Food Stores Taxable Sales per Permit in Laguna Niguel thousands)
�,-,
$700
$600
4,
$500
Sales Per $400 ------
Permit
(in 000s)
$300
$200
$100
$0
1990 1991 -------------------------- -
1992 1993 1994 --7.......
1995 1996 1997
90
The rapid increase in taxable sales per permit in 1995 suggests that the shear size of a Wal-Mart
can change the fiscal landscape of even a large city. Amazingly, gains in taxable sales per
permit made through the addition of a big box retailer were all but erased by 1997. This, too,
reflects the volatility of large-scale retail operations, where establishments that would appear to
be the"anchor" of a given location are not immune to downturns or closures. Laguna Niguel is
also instructive, as it represents a relatively small retail market. Between January, 1995 and
December, 1996, general merchandise sales per square foot doubled. Again, these per-square
footage gains were erased by the end of 1997.
One lesson that can be gleaned from even a cursory glance at Figure 3-6, Figure 3-7, Figure 3-8,
and Figure 3-9 is that in spite of the inevitable fluctuations in taxable sales caused in part by the
entry and exit of big box retail, sales per permit will always overshadow that which is generated
by food stores. When we shift our analysis from permits to square footage,however, we find
that much of this discrepancy is caused by the fact that big box retailers operate such vast
facilities. While on a per square footage basis these stores may not be as efficient as grocery
stores (see Table 3-2), the size of the store, coupled with differential sales to taxable sales ratios,
will result in the taxable sales gap presented.
'�able.3-2 �Sales`Per.Square.;,Foot":and Se I t SgaareIF66t for,..;:
Discount,Stores and Superahakets
,<.,.. „.
k r„
„Store. Sales.Per Selling Square:;
. SS. care Feet Foota a Per Stoic®
JC Penny 210 39,689
Kmart 211 70,692
Sears 318 26,912
Target 234 109,296
Wal-Mart 355 97,475
Discount Store Average 264 68,813
Avera e Su ermarket 398 27,723
When considering the siting of a big box retailer such as Wal-Mart, fiscal impacts will
undoubtedly come into play. While these facilities can offer the promise of large aggregate tax
revenue, they also pose some serious risks. Pearson correlations were used to calculate the linear
association between total taxable retail sales change from 1990 through 1997 and the component
parts of general merchandise and food stores. Such a relationship will suggest the ability of one
industry to weather changes in the overall retail market. While correlation does not necessarily
prove causation, it can theoretically suggest the effects of one variable on another.
91
For instance, a significant and positive correlation between two variables would suggest that as
one variable increases, the other will do the same. Table 3-3 presents the results of Pearson's
correlations. Correlations were also run for change in taxable sales per permit from 1990 through
1997, between total retail and the two variables.
_.��• :: ��- fix, � � ;.
$able 3=3:,Peai•sons":Correlaons;fadrange County`)taxable"Sales:�QfChan �aridSales.Per
,.:.-
-.
KII � ;:Per a .J C
Pearson 1.000 .591 .374 .944 .786 .062
nItetait Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .005** .066 .000** .000** .769
N 25 21 25 25 21 25
°lo:Clange "G.eneral`.' Pearson .591 1.000 .301 .645 .832 .068
1Vlerchancase".: Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .005** .185 .002** .000** .771
;e,: ;s;a. ,y,.:.; •; >' N 21 21 21 21 21 21
Pearson .374 .301 1.000 .224 .415 .515
' =;Stores Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .066** .185 .282 .062 .008**
N 25 21 25 25 21 25
% Change in,TerPearson .944 .645 .224 1.000 .780 .093
Permit'Salesr TofaL Correlation
Retail
Sig. (2-tailed) .000** .002** .282 .000** .659
N 25 21 25 25 21 25
/o,Change in,Per Pearson 786 .832 .415 .780 1.000 .042
x ,` v Permit Sales: Correlation
General
lYlercl ankd see ,
77
,.: Sig. (2-tailed) .000** .000** .062 .000** .858
N 21 21 21 21 21 21
hange in'Per; Pearson .062 .068 .515 .093 .042 1.000
Permit=4Sale"s: "Fooii'; Correlation
r" ^S"tores:w
"'Sig. (2-tailed) 769 .771 .008** 659 .858
-< �,..
:-` h N 25 21 25 25 21 25
-
x:- ;;.;
rr 1 i i.. :t.,;t lhi:0 0 :lever-2=t i1 d
Co e ation.sign f can a mil'
These correlations suggest that as total taxable retail sales increase, total retail sales per permit
and total general merchandise taxable sales will also increase. No such relationships were found
between total retail sales and taxable retail sales or sales per permit for food stores. In addition,
changes in taxable sales per permit for the entire retail industry were significantly related to
changes in total retail sales, changes in general merchandise sales, and changes in per permit
general merchandise sales. Again, similar relationships were not found between total retail and
food stores categories.
92
E. SUMMARY
The risk implied by these results is twofold: general merchandise stores are far more vulnerable
to market shifts than food stores, and changes in sales per permit is related to total sales. Thus,
the tradeoff presents itself: big box retailers will most likely enter a community,boosting overall
retail sales and tax revenues, only to be among the first to consolidate or fold when conditions
begin to change. If a big box retailer were to include food sales in its operations, these
relationships might also hold true. Free-standing food stores would likely yield market share and
in some cases become vacant, while taxable sales from grocery operations would shift to
locations that are much more prone to the impacts of regional business cycles.
Large-scale retailers present a cost-benefit assessment problem to an interested city. Consider
the typical public hearing for the siting of a Wal-Mart in Orange County: concerns over
potential clientele, crime, design changes and character are raised(Wolfe, 1999). The fiscal
impacts of the facility are often seen as clear-cut,but they are not,particularly when a big-box
retailer expands into food sales. This threatens to lower the taxable sales per square feet for a
land use that is already riddled with inefficiencies and great risks should market conditions
become unfavorable.
93
Chapter 4: Concluding Comments
The grocery industry in the United States and California is currently changing rapidly. One of the
most important trends is the combination of big-box discount retail and grocery sales into
supercenters. Wal-Mart stands out as the most aggressive entrant into the supercenter market. In
1990, Wal-Mart operated six supercenters. By the year 2000, Wal-Mart is projected to have 714
such stores, solidifying its position as the leading owner and operator of supercenters nationwide.
What does this mean for Orange County and Southern California?
Three sets of policy issues are important.
1. Supercenters, especially Wal-Mart Supercenters, are often conversions of existing
discount retail stores, and local officials should be aware of that possibility. In 1999,
Wal-Mart estimated that 72% of all new Supercenters would be built by converting existing
Wal-Mart discount centers. Because the grocery and general retail industries differ
dramatically in their pay scales, function within the community, and ability to generate sales
tax revenues, this is far from a simple expansion of an existing business. Local officials
should be aware of the possibility for conversions of existing discount centers into
supercenters.
2. The grocery industry in Southern California pays substantially higher wages, and
offers better benefits, than Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart or other low labor cost food retailers
enter the southern California market, the ability of the grocery industry to provide high-
paying, entry-level jobs will be considerably reduced. By far the largest controllable cost in
the grocery industry is wages and benefits. Large labor cost differentials do not persist.
Should a discount retailer enter the southern California grocery market and compete
effectively while paying wages below the current norm for the industry, the pressure on
existing chains to lower wages and benefits would be immense. Estimating that Wal-Mart
supercenters could capture from 10%to 20% of the southern California grocery market, we
calculate the direct value of lost wages and benefits to range to nearly $1.4 billion per year.
Accounting for the multiplier effect as those wage and benefit cuts ripple through the
economy, the total economic impact on the southern California economy could
approach$2.8 billion per year.
3. The fiscal benefits of Supercenters, and of discount retail more generally, are often
complex. Supercenters in particular combine many non-taxable food items under one roof
with general merchandise. Furthermore, any discount retail outlet potentially shifts sales
from existing local retail, and the net impacts on local sales tax revenues are far from certain.
94
What did we find?
♦ The aggressive entry of supercenters such as those operated by Wal-Mart into the
regional grocery business is expected to depress industry wages and benefits at an
estimated impact ranging from a low of$500 million to a high of almost$1.4 billion per
year, potentially effecting 250,000 grocery industry employees. (Chapters 2 and 4)
♦ The full economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout southern
California could approach $2.8 billion per year. (Chapters 2 and 4)
♦ Discount retail chains that operate supercenters, including Wal-Mart, typically offer much
less comprehensive health care coverage than major California grocery chains. One
negative economic impact of Supercenters could be a dramatic reduction in health coverage
for most of the 250,000 grocery employees in California. This can lead to lower quality care
for grocery employees whose health insurance benefits are reduced. (Chapter 2)
♦ The fiscal benefits of supercenters, and of discount retail more generally, are often
much more complex, and lower, than they first appear. This is particularly true when
big box retailers close existing stores to move into larger quarters elsewhere, when they
expand an existing store into food, and when retailers reconfigure an existing store to
sell food without expansion. In each case the additional tax revenues generated will in
part come from existing businesses elsewhere in the city in the form of lost market
share. (Chapter 3)
♦ Supercenters, especially Wal-Mart supercenters, are often conversions of existing
discount retail stores. Thus local officials should carefully consider the possibility of a
future conversion to a supercenter, and any attendant negative economic, fiscal, or land
use impacts, when approving big box discount retail projects, even when the proposed
land use does not include immediate plans for grocery sales. (Chapter 1)
The wage and benefit impacts of the entry of big box groceries into the region are estimated
using a two step process. First, we estimate the market share that Wal-Mart supercenters are
expected to capture in southern California, based on current averages of between 47 and 57
stores per distribution center. Using data on market share and number of stores in several urban
areas, we conclude that one distribution center roughly translates to an 10%market share for
Wal-Mart supercenters in southern California. The assumptions that led to that estimate were
uniformly conservative, and so we also use an estimate of 20%long-run market share for
supercenters, comparable to the major existing chains in southern California.
We then calculate the wage impacts of these market share estimates. Even a 10% market share
for supercenters is a substantial competitive threat to existing chains, and those chains are likely
to respond aggressively. Case studies of similar competition between low and high labor cost
grocers illustrate that grocery chains cannot tolerate large labor cost gaps. This evidence
indicates that in the short-term grocery chains typically seek to close approximately one half of
the wage gap with major competitors. Over the long term, the grocery chains may seek to lower
wages to their workers to eliminate the entire difference between their pay and that of discount
95
retail employees, an average difference of over$9 an hour currently.
Using data on current wages and benefits, we calculated that the direct impact on workers in
southern California would likely fall in the range of about$500 million to $1.4 billion per year in
lower pay, depending on the big box food sales market share. Using the Southern California
Association of Governments estimates of how these lowered wages would impact the regional
economy, the total regional drop in spending ranges from about $1 billion to over$2.8 billion per
year (Chart 4-1). The numbers will rise the larger the market share of big box grocers, and
could well top even these figures over time.
Chart 4-1: Estimates of Regional Income Losses
From Lower Wages Paid by Big Box Grocers(from Table 2-20)
$3,000
PER,W17-
$2,500 ' X
$2
J
000
Total '
Regional $1,500
Income -
Impact
($millions) $1,000 V
$500a
$0
$7.97 $8.62 $9.26
Wage Gap Between Major Grocery Chains and Discount Retailers
®Low Estimate ®Medium Estimate ❑High Estimate
In addition, we find that the tax revenue impacts of big box grocers are uncertain. While big box
retail does typically capture taxable sales from outside the jurisdiction, it also captures business
from local retail, thus hurting the local economic base of the community. There is evidence as
well that the initial growth in sales tax revenues from the big boxes may not be either steady or
sustained in some situations (e.g., Figure 3-8).
96
Figure 3-8: General Merchandise Taxable Sales per Permit in Laguna Niguel (from page 88)
(Note: The Wal-Mart Opened in 1995)
$8,000 s -
$7,000 -
$6,000 4 ,
Sales Per $5,000
Permit $4,000
(in 000s) $3,000
$2,000 -
$1,000
$0
1990 1991 1992
1993 1994 1995
1996 1997
More to the point of this report, a much larger share of food sales are not taxable at all. Most of
the Wal-Mart supercenters result from the conversion of existing Wal-Marts into a combination
of general merchandise and food sales. Thus, the floorspace devoted to taxable sales may
actually fall as these conversions continue.
There is also evidence that general merchandise stores are far more vulnerable to market shifts
than food stores. Thus, this tradeoff presents itself: big box retailers will most likely boost
overall retail sales and tax revenues on entry, only to be among the first to consolidate or fold
when conditions begin to change. If a big box were to include food sales in its operations, then
free-standing food stores would likely yield market share and in some cases become vacant,
while taxable sales from grocery operations would shift to locations that are much more prone to
the impacts of regional business cycles.
How should local officials proceed?
These potential impacts are significant, with respect to both the vitality of the local economy and
the public budget bottom line. The transformations in the grocery industry thus present local
officials with some key policy considerations. The grocery business is a vital part of the
economic and the community fabric of most every municipality in the region. The changes
occurring in that business have the potential to quickly and adversely affect the economic health
of localities, and officials should be aware of that potential as they evaluate future discount retail
proj ects.
97
In particular, the following questions are important in evaluating discount retail projects.
1. Is there potential for changes in the use of the property? Discount retail chains are
increasingly taking on the functions of grocery stores. In light of that trend, local officials
should both be aware of the potential for the conversion of discount retail sites into
supercenters and inquire about future plans for discount retail stores seeking local planning
commission and city council approval.
2. How will the discount retail store affect the local labor force? Discount retail chains
traditionally pay substantially less than the grocery industry in southern California. Local
officials should carefully assess the possibility that a particular discount retail project might
depress wages in other stores in the municipality.
3. What are the fiscal impacts of a discount retail store? At the most general level, local
business both require public services and have the potential to produce local tax revenues—a
point often missed when officials focus exclusively on the tax revenue side of the equation.
Any land use, even big box retail outlets that are perceived as municipal "cash cows", must
be carefully evaluated. Some land uses do not generate tax revenue that outweighs municipal
costs. In other instances, the data in Chapter 3 suggest that discount retail stores produce
only short-term increases in local sales tax revenue. And the cyclical nature of retail sales
tax revenue suggests that the revenue streams from supercenters might be highly variable
over time. Local officials should carefully evaluate these and related issues when they assess
the fiscal impact of a discount retail outlet or supercenter.
For decades, grocery stores have been hidden but important parts of the health of many southern
California municipalities. Recent changes in the grocery industry have the potential for catching
local officials unaware of the possible impacts in their communities. This report highlights the
potential for economic impacts as discount retail chains develop supercenters, while also
emphasizing the uncertain nature of any local fiscal benefits. Local officials should carefully
evaluate the implications for their communities.
98
References
Altshuler, A. and J. G6mez-Ibanez. (1993) Regulation for Revenue: The Political Economy of
Land Use Exactions. The Brookings Institution an d The Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.
Andreeff, Monica (1997) "Safeway Employees Picket Hiring Centre." Calgary Herald. March
20.
Bailey, Bill. (1999)Food Employers Council. Telephone interview, Anaheim, California, July
29.
Brown et al., Women's Health-Related Behaviors and Use of Clinical Preventive Services, New
York: The Commonwealth Fund, October 1995.
California State Board of Equalization (1990-1997). Taxable Sales in California (sales and use
tax). Sacramento, California.
Canada Safeway Limited (1996) Press Release: Safeway Reaches New Tentative Settlement
with UFCW Local 2000 in British Columbia. July 8.
Canada Safeway Limited (1996)"An Open Letter to Safeway Employees," advertisement
placed by Canada Safeway Limited, Vancouver Sun, June 8, p. A-28.
Canada Safeway Limited (1996)"The Facts: A Message to Safeway Customers," advertisement
placed by Canada Safeway Limited, Vancouver Sun, May.
Carrasquillo, et al. (1999)"A Reappraisal of Private Employers' Role in Providing Health
Insurance," New England Journal of Medicine, 14 January.
Circelli, Deborah. (1999). When Wal-Mart Leaves, Other Businesses Suffer. Lakeland,
Florida Ledger. July 17. News, p. A-1.
Dardia, M. (1998) Subsidizing Redevelopment in California. Public Policy Institute of
California.
Davis (1996)"Uninsured in an Era of Managed Care," AHSR Presidential Address.
Davis et al. (1995) "Health Insurance: The Size and Shape of the Problem," Inquiry.
Dayton Hudson (1998) Corp Annual Report, 1998
EBRI (1996)"Sources of Health Insurance and Characteristics of the Uninsured: Analysis of the
March 1995 Current Population Survey," EBRIIssue Brief, February.
Finz, Stacy (1999) "Big Costco Store Applies to Move From Martinez to Concord." San
Francisco Chronicle. February 4. News, p. A-17.
99
Food Employers Council (1999) Summary Plan Description, Collective Bargaining Agreement
for Major Southern California Food Chains, Anaheim, California.
Gabel, et al. (1998) "Health Benefits in 1998 for Small Employers," A report to the Henry J.
Kaiser"Family Foundation, February; as cited in Findlay and Miller (1999).
Golman, Robert (1997)A Re-examination of Some Key Impacts of a Wal-Mart Store in the City
of San Leandro, April.
Grocer Today (1996) "The Changing Face of Labour,"in Grocer Today, September, pp. 13-18.
Hannaford Bros' (1998) 1998 Annual Report.
Hornaday, Bill W. (1999) Richland Hills Set to Fill Sam's Void. Fort Worth Start Telegram.
January 26. Metro, p. 1.
International Monetary Fund (IMF), "World Economic Outlook," May 1999
Kent, Gordon(1997) "Union May Buy Ads to Help Woo Safeway's Customer's Back" Calgary
Herald. June 9.
Kimbell, Dhawan and Lieser(1999)"The UCLA Anderson Forecast for the Nation and
California," March.
Kmart(1999)web site: www.kmart.com.
Kmart Corp (1998)Annual Report, 1998.
Krause, Thomas W. (1999) Wal-Mart Store to Close, Reopen Across Street. Macon
Telegraph. August 7.
Kroger(1999)Press Release, May 27.
Laghi, Brian (1996)" Strike by Safeway Workers Stirs Emotions" The Globe and Mail. April
11, p. A-2.
Levan, R., et al. (1998) "Nearly One-Fifth of Urban Americans Lack Health Insurance," UCLA
Center for Policy Research, December, as cited in Findlay and Miller(1999).
Levant, Ezra (1997) "Safeway Union Playing Chicken" Calgary Sun, May.
Lewis, P. and E. Barbour. (1999) California Cities and the Local Sales Tax. Public Policy
Institute of California.
Lindberg, Anne (1999) Pinellas Park Wal-Mart Turns in Expansion Plan. St. Petersburg Times.
June 9. Seminole Times, p. 6.
Meijer(1999)Web site: (www.meijer.com).
Meyer and Naughton(1996) "Assessing Business Attitudes on Health Care," A report issued by
100
the Economic and Social Research Institute, October.
NCHC, "Health Care Facts," available from www.nchc.org/know/coverage.html, Internet;
accessed 22 July 4999
Olson, Jeremy. (1999) K-Mart Conversion Adds Grocery Area. Omaha World Herald. July
26. News, p. 11.
Perkes, Courtney (1999) Warehouse Store is Gone, but City's Debt Still Grows. Riverside
Press-Enterprise, Moreno Valley Edition. July 4. Local, p. B-1.
Personal Communication with each of the planning departments listed on the Wal-Mart openings
table on July 26-28, 1999.
Post, Kathy (1999) Planner with the City of Anaheim, Personal Communication, July 28.
Progressive Grocer(1998) Market Scope(www.americanstores.com)
Progressive Grocer(1998-1999). Annual Report of the Grocery Industry. Progressive Grocer
as cited in http://www.fmi.org/food/superfact.html
Progressive Grocer(1999) 6e Annual Report of the Grocery Industry, April.
Rowland, Feder, and Keenan(1998) "Uninsured in America: The Causes and Consequences,"
In: The Future U.S Healthcare System: Who Will Care for the Poor and Uninsured?
(eds Altman, Reinhardt, and Shields).
S & P's Industry Surveys (1998) Supermarkets &Drugstores, September 24.
Safeway (1999)Press Release, 23 July.
SCAG (1998) RTP Adopted Forecast, April.
Shelby Report(various years) The Shelby Report, Shelby Publishing, Atlanta, Georgia.
Shuit, Douglas P. (1998) The Retail Wags the Dog. Los Angeles Times. July 17. Metro, p. B-
2.
Smith, Andrew (1997) "Strike Looms." Calgary Sun. March 25.
Sommer, Constance. (1995) Super K Developers Urge City to Waive $1.5 Million in Fees. Los
Angeles Times. March 9. Metro, p. B-1.
Stockton Record(1991)Feb. 28, p. B-5
Stone, Dr. Kenneth E. (1999) Iowa State University, Telephone interview, 29 July.
Thorpe (1997)"The Rising Number of Uninsured Workers: An Approaching Crisis in Health
Care Financing," NCHC. (Original tabulations from the Current Population Survey,
March 1991.)
101
Thorpe and Florence (1999)"Why are Workers Uninsured? Employer-Sponsored Health
Insurance in 1997," Health Affairs, March/April.
US Department of Commerce (1992) Census of Retail Trade.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of the Census (1993-1996) County Business Patterns Annual.
Voos, Paula B. (1992)"The Relationship Between the Earnings of Individuals Working in the
Grocery Industry and the Percent of Such Workers Organized in a Given Metropolitan
Area in 1987 and 1989," Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
February.
Wal-Mart (1998)Wal-Mart Associate Benefit Book. Summary Plan Description
Wal-Mart(1999)web site: www.wal-mart.com.
Weissman, Gastonis, and Epstein (1992)Journal of the American Medical Association.
Wolfe, Joan(1999)Planner with the City of Orange, Personal Communication, July 26.
102
Appendices
The following appendices are "Supermarket Fact Sheets", one page "summary of operations" on
each of the fifteen supermarkets highlighted in the background section of the report.
These fact sheets include information on such things as employment, size, average weekly sales
per store, growth in number of stores, recent mergers, presence in Southern California, and labor
union affiliations where applicable and when available.
103
Appendix A: Albertson's Inc
Sources: Albertson's 1998 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K for the Year Ended
28 January 99,and S&P's Standard Corp.Descriptions, Cumm.News, 1998.
Employment:
80,000 FT+20,000 PT= 100,000 employees
Year End 1994 M im 1497 im
Number of FT employees 60,000 66,000 71,000 76,000 80,000
Total number of employees 76,000 80,000 88,000 94,000 100,000
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 983 (Note that this value increased to 1,580 following the merger with American Stores)
Number of stores in California: 128 in Southern California and 48 in Northern California
Number of distribution centers: 11
Location(square footage)and type of center in California:
1. Brea(1.0 million sq.ft.): groceries,frozen food,produce,liquor,meat,and deli
2. Sacramento(0.4 million sq.ft.): groceries,frozen food,produce,meat,and deli
Average store size: 49,200 square feet
Size of the Co's super grocery/super drugstores: 35,000 to 82,000 square feet
Store Count:
Year End L"I im Im 1'�t,!'Z 129$
Combination Food-Drug 588 646 715 768 866
Conventional stores 88 78 72 72 86
Warehouse stores 44 40 39 38 31
Total number of stores 720 764 826 878 983
Geographic Location:
26 Western,Midwestern,and Southern states,including CA
Recent Mergers:
Albertson's and American Stores Co merger completed in June 1999.
Albertson!s acquisition of Buttrey completed in October 1998.
Albertson's acquisition of Bruno's completed in August 1998.
Albertson's acquisition of Smitty's completed in April 1998.
Albertsods acquisition of Seessel's completed in January 1998.
Sales:
Year End o 1991 ,Q� M
Net sales(million$) $ 8,219 $ 8,680 $ 10,174 $ 11,284 $ 11,895 $ 12,585 $ 13,777 $ 14,690
104
Appendix B: American Stores Co
Source: American Stores Co's SEC Form 10-K for the Year Ended 30 January 99,S&P's
Standard Corp.Descriptions, Cumm.News,1998,and Albertsods News Release,24 June 99.
The Company:
The Co's stores operate under the following names: Acme Mkts,Jewel Food Stores,Lucky Stores,Osco Drug,and Sav-on
Employment:
121,000 FT and PT employees
Labor Issues:
"Approx.75 percent of the Co's employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements negotiated with local unions affiliated with one
of seven different international unions. There are approximately 118 such agreements,typically having three to five-year terms.
Accordingly,the Co renegotiates a significant number of these agreements every year... The largest collective bargaining agreement,which
covers approx. 17 percent of the Co's labor force,expires in October 2002" (SEC Form 10-K) .
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 527 supermarkets+773 stand-alone drug+283 combination food/drug= 1,580 stores
Number of stores in California: 363 supermarkets+283 stand-alone drug+48 combination food/drug=694 stores
Number of warehouse,distribution,and maintenance facilities: 15
Location(square footage)and types of warehouse,distribution,and maintenance facilities in California:
1. Buena Park(1.2 million sq.ft.): grocery,meat,frozen food,deli
2. Irvine(1.0 million sq.ft.): grocery,produce
3. La Habra(1.2 million sq.ft.): general merchandise,liquor,bulk,pharmacy,reclaim
4. San Leandro(0.6 million sq.ft.): meat,produce,frozen food,bulk
5. Vacaville(0.9 million sq.ft.): grocery
Year End 1224 1 L42f 123Z I=
Total selling area(thousands of sq.ft.) 31,179 32,523 33,823 35,114 36,043
Year End 1999 Grocer Dxmg Combo T4Ld
Average square footage(thousands) 34 19 60 31
Total square footage(thousands) 17,727 14,366 16,979 49,072
Geographic Location:
26 U.S.states,including supermarkets and/or combination food/drug stores in CA,DE,IL,IN,IA,MD,NV,NJ,NM,PA,UT,WI
Recent Mergers
American Stores and Albertson's merger completed in June 1999.
Sales:
Year End M
Net sales(million$) $ 22,156 $ 20,823 $ 19,051 $ 18,763 $ 18,355 $ 18,309 $ 18,678 $ 19,139 $ 19,867
105
Appendix C: Food Lion, Inc
Sources: Food Lion,Inc's 1996, 1997, and 1998 Annual Reports and SEC Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended 02 Jan 99.
Employment:
32,991 FT+59,134 PT=92,125 employees
Year End 1990 LQ�j j� 1993 1994 1995 1996 19g7 19gg
Number of FT and PT employees 47,276 53,583 59,721 65,494 64,840 69,345 73,170 83,871 92,125 r
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 1207
Number of warehouse distribution centers: 8
Year End Im 1221 L29� 1 1 4 1�,2� 122f 1997 1228
Average store size(sq.ft.) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 28,011 29,330 31,207 32,218
Total store area(million sq.ft.) 19.4 22.5 26.4 29.0 27.3 30.1 32.6 36.1 38.9
Store Count(* =expected):
Year End 1Q90 j;�i L4,Q� 1g93 j�,Q4 1995 1996 1997 �,q$ 1999*
Opened/Acquired 121 ill 140 100 30 47 64 164 79 80
Enlargements/Remodels n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 124 99 141 140
Relocated 5 6 4 4 3 12 22 25 17 n.a.
Closed 1 2 5 12 84 1 3 94 12 n.a.
Total number of stores 778 881 1,012 1,096 1,039 1,073 1,112 1,157 1,207 n.a.
Geographic Location(U.S.state and number of stores):
NC(409),VA(266),FL(186),SC(112),TN(81),GA(56),MD(49),WV(17),DE(12),KY(12),PA(7)
Recent Mergers:
Food Lion acquisition of Kash n'Karry Food Stores completed in December 1996.
Sales:
Year End 1990 Im 1992 Im 1994 Im
Net sales(million$) $ 5,584 $ 6,439 $ 7,196 $ 7,610 $ 7,933 $ 8,211 $ 9,006 $ 10,194 $ 10,219
106
Appendix D: The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, Inc
Sources: A&P's 1998 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year
Ended 27 Feb 99, and S&P's Standard Corp. Descriptions, Cumm.News, 1998.
Employment:
25,236 FT+58,178 PT=83,414 employees
Labor Issues:
Approx.73,392=88 percent of the employees are covered by union contracts
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 839
Number of warehouse distribution centers: 14
Average store size: 35,247 square feet
Average store size of most recent new stores and planned new stores: approx. 55,000 square feet
Selling area: approx. 21.2 million square feet=74 percent of the total square footage
Year End 1994 lgg5 L9M �,q1 1998
Total store area(million sq.ft.) 33.3 31.1 30.6 30.6 28.7
Store Count(*=expected):
Year End L"fi im LM 1999* 2000* 2001*
New store openings 30 40 46 55 65 75
Enlargements/Remodels 72 45 69 75 75 75
Closings n.a. 74 143 100 n.a. n.a.
Total number of stores 973 936 839 n.a. n.a.
n.a.
Geographic Location:
18 U.S. states (CT, MA,NH,VT,DE,MD,NJ,NY,PA,MI,Wl,AL, GA, LA,MS,NC, SC,VA),D.C.,and Ontario,Canada
Sales:
Year End 1996 im 199g
Average weekly sales $ 195,200 $ 199,400 $ 210,500
Year End M M M 1994 19�1 l�s$
Net Sales(million$) $ 11,591 $ 10,499 $ 10,384 $ 10,332 $ 10,101 $ 10,089 $ 10,262 $ 10,179
107
Appendix E: Hannaford Bros Co
Sources: Hannaford Bros Co's 1998 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K for the
Fiscal Year Ended 02 Jan 99,and S&P's Standard Corp. Descriptions, Cumm. News , 1998.
Employment:
23,600 associates
Size and Scope: t
Number of stores: 150
Total square footage of selling area of existing stores: 5.2 million
Average square footage of selling area of new food stores planned for 1999: 42,300
Year End 1994 1995 1996 1997 M
Average selling area per store(sq.ft.) 30,100 31,100 32,300 33,400 34,500
Total selling area(sq.ft.) 3,547,000 4,166,000 4,490,000 4,947,000 5,171,000
Store Count(*=expected):
Year End 1994 1995 1996 1997 199g 1999*
Opened 10 13 13 15 11 4
Closed 5 3 7 6 9 n.a.
Sold 0 0 1 0 0 n.a.
Acquired 20 6 0 0 0 n.a.
Total number of stores 118 134 139 148 150 n.a.
Geographic Location(U.S.state and number of stores)
ME(46),NC(27),NY(23),NH(21),VA(18),VT(8),MA(6), SC(1)
Sales:
Year End 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199g
Net Sales(million$) $ 2,008 $ 2,066 $ 2,055 $ 2,292 $ 2,568 $ 2,958 $ 3,226 $ 3,324
108
Appendix F: The .Kroger Co
Sources: Kroger s 1998 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K for the Year Ended 02 January 99,
Kroger Press Release. ,27 May 99,and S&P's Standard Corp.Descriptions, Cumm.News,1998.
The Company:
The Co's food store banners are as follows: Kroger,Ralphs Supermarkets,Smith's Food&Drug Stores,Fred Meyer,Quality Food Centers(QFC),King Snoopers,Dillion
Stores,Fry's Food&Drug Stores,City Market,Gerbes,Food 4 Less,Cala Foods,Bell Markets,PriceRite,FoodsCo,Owen's Supermarkets,and Hilander Food Stores.
Employment:
Approx.213,000 FT and PT employees
Labor Issues:
"[Kroger is]party to more than 160 collective bargaining agreements with local unions representing approximately 158,000 employees. During 1998[Kroger]negotiated
I 1 labor contracts without any material work stoppages. Typical agreements are 3 to 5 years in duration and,as agreements expire,[Kroger expects]to enter into new
collective bargaining agreements. In 1999,35 collective bargaining agreements will expire" (SEC Form 10 K) .
Size and Scope:
Number of supermarkets: 1,410 (Note that this value increased to 2,200 following the merger with Fred Meyer)
Number of convenience stores: 797
Store Count(food stores only):
Year End Im 1581 im
New stores 38 37 26
Relocated stores 35 25 31
Acquisitions(new) 4 10 10
Acquisitions(relocations) 3 5 8
Expansions 36 19 21
Closings 13 11 18
Total number of stores n.a. n.a. 1,410
Geographic Location:
31 U.S.states,including CA
Recent Mergers:
Kroger and Fred Meyer merger completed in May 1999.
Sales:
Year End 1996 L"I im
Food store sales per sq.ft. $ 401 $ 398 $ 405
Year End 1990 1"i L"Z 1994 im 1996 im L"a
Net sales(million$) $ 20,261 $ 21,351 $ 22,145 $ 22,384 $ 22,959 $ 23,938 $ 25,171 $ 26,567 $ 28,203
109
Appendix G: Pulblix Super Markets, Inc
Source: SEC Form 10-K for the Year Ended 26 December 98.
Employment:
Approx. 46,600 FT+70,400 PT= 117,000 employees
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 586
Number of distribution centers: 8
Store size:.From 27,000 to 60,000 square feet
Total retail space: 26.3 million square feet
Store Count(* =expected):
Year End 1.m M 1999*
Opened n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 31 n.a.
Expanded/Remodeled n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 45 n.a.
Closed n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8 n.a.
Total number of stores 470 508 534 563. 586 634
Geographic Location (U.S.state and number of stores):
FL(471),GA(91), SC(21),AL(3)
Sales:
Year End 1994 M% jet 1997 j�;�$
Net sales(million$) $ 8,665 $ 9,393 $ 10,431 $ 11,224 $ 12,067
110
Appendix HI: Ralphs Grocery Co
Source: SEC Form 10-K for the Year Ended 01 February 98.
The Company:
Prior to the Kroger-Meyer merger,Ralphs was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Food 4 Less Holdings,Inc.
and an indirect,wholly-owned subsidiary of Fred Meyer,Inc. The Co operates under the following retail
formats: Ralphs,Cala,Bell,Falley's,Food 4 Less,FoodsCo
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 409
Number of main distribution and warehouse centers in Southern California: 3
Total Ave,sq.ft.
Division sq, L per store
Southern California 13,914,000 40,400
Northern California 654,000 24,200
Midwestern 1,423,000 37,400
Store Count:
Southern Northern
Retail Format California California Midwestern Total
Ralphs 264 - - 264
Cala - 8 - 8
Bell - 13 - 13
Falley's - - 5 5
Food 4 Less 80 - 33 113
FoodsCo - 6 - 6
Total number of stores 344 27 38 409
Geographic Location:
Southern California,Northern California,and certain areas of the Midwest
Sales:
Year End Y996 im
Net sales(million$) $ 5,516 $ 5,488
111
Appendix I: Ruddick Corp (Harris'Teeter)
Sources: Ruddick Corp's 1998Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended 27 Sept 99.
The Corporation:
Ruddick Corp is a holding company which is engaged in two primary businesses:
1. Harris Teeter,Inc.operates a regional chain of supermarkets;and
2. American&Efird,Inc.manufactures and distributes industrial and consumer sewing thread. Data is for Harris Teeter only,unless otherwise noted.
Employment: r
9,500 FT+7,800 PT= 17,300 employees
Labor Issues:
"Warehouse employees and drivers at Hams Teeter's warehouse near Charlotte,NC,are represented by a union,but Harris Teeter
is not part to a collective bargaining agreement covering such employees" (SEC Form 10-K) .
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 144
Year End 1994 1995 1996 1997 199g
Average square footage per store n.a. 36 38 39 n.a.
Average square footage per new store(thousands) 40 47 58 50 46
Total square footage(millions) 4.3 4.7 4.9 5.3 5.6
Store Count(*=expected):
Year End 1996 1997 LM 1999*
New store openings n.a. 13 10 n.a.
Enlargements/Remodels n.a. n.a. 27 32
Closings n.a. 4 4 n.a.
Total number of stores 134 138 144 n.a.
Geographic Location(U.S.state and number of stores):
NC(93),SC(22),VA(17),GA(9),TN(3)
Sales:
Year End 1994 1995 1996 1g97 jam$
Average weekly net sales per store $ 223 $ 235 $ 259 $ 273 $ 292
Y.ar End L'1;11 M M
Harris Teeter net sales(million$) $ 1,213.1 $ 1,270.4 $ 1,412.3 $ 1,578.9 $ 1,711.8 $ 1,833.0 $ 1,931.2 $ 2,132.2
American&Efird net sales(million$) $ 208.6 $ 243.3 $ 264.8 $ 277.0 $ 298.0 $ 309.5 $ 368.9 $ 355.1
Total net sales(million$) $ 1,421.8 $ 1,513.8 $ 1,677.1 $ 1,855.9 $ 2,009.8 $ 2,142.5 $ 2,300.1 $ 2,487A
112
Appendix J: Safeway Inc
Sources: Safeway Inc's 1998 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended 02 Jan 99,Safeway
Press Releases,the Safeway 1999 Fact Book ,and S&P's Standard Corp.Descriptions, Cumm.News ,1998.
Employment:
Year End im L4;3Z M
Number of FT and PT employees 110,000 114,000 119,000 147,000 170,000
Labor Issues:
"Approx.90 percent of Safeway's employees in the U.S.and Canada are covered by collective bargaining agreements negotiated with local unions affiliated with
one of twelve different international unions. There are approx.400 such agreements,typically having three-year terms,with some agreements having terms of
up to five years. Accordingly,Safeway renegotiates a significant number of these agreements every year"(SEC Form 10-K) .
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 1,497(including 324 Vons stores in Southern California)
Average square footage of new stores: 55,000
1998 Store size(sq.f j No.of stores %of total
less than 30,000 348 23%
30,000 to 50,000 770 52%
more than 50,000 379 25%
Year End 1994 im
Total retail square footage(millions) 39.5 40.1 40.7 53.2 61.6
Store Count(* =expected):
Year End M DM 1'M 1W Lqu 1999*
Remodels Completed 71 108 141 181 234 150
Dominick's stores acquired - - - - 113 -
Vons stores acquired - - - 316 - -
Stores opened 20 32 30 37 46 55-60
Stores Closed or Sold 36 35 37 37 30 n.a.
Total number of stores 1,062 1,059 1,052 1,368 1,497 n.a.
Geographic Location:
17 U.S.states(CA,OR,WA,AK,HI,NV,ID,MT,NM,AZ,CO,WY,NE,SD,IL,VA,MD)and Western Canada
Recent Mergers and Acquisitions:
Safeway and Randall's Food Mkts signed a definitive merger agreement in July 1999.
Safeway acquisition of Carr-Gottstein completed in April 1999.
Safeway acquisition of Dominick's completed in November 1998.
Safeway and Vons merger completed in April 1997.
113
Appendix K: Stater Bros Holding Inc
Source: SEC Form 10-K for the Year Ended 27 September 98.
Employment:
Approx. 2,700 FT+6,000 PT=8,700 employees
Labor Issues:
"Substantially all of the Co's [8,100]hourly employees are members of either the United Food&Commercial Workers or International
Brotherhood of Teamsters labor unions and are represented by several different collective bargaining agreements. The Co's collective
bargaining agreements,with the United Food&Commercial Workers,which covers the largest number of employees,were renewed
in October 1995 and expire in October 1999. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters agreement was renewed in September 1998
and expires in September 2002" (SEC Form 10-K) .
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 112
Year End 1994 1995 MW 1997 1998
Average store selling area(sq.ft.) 20,708 20,773 20,845 20,845 20,991
Average overall store size(sq.ft.) 28,617 28,717 28,809 28,809 29,061
Store Count(* =expected):
Year End 104 1997 IM 1999*
Opened 3 - 1 - 2 2-4
Replaced 1 - 1 - - n.a.
Closed - 1 - - - n.a.
Total number of stores 111 110 110 110 112 114-116
Geographic Location(Southern California counties and number of stores):
San Bernardino(46),Riverside(35),Orange(16),Los Angeles(13),and Kern(2)
Sales:
Year End M
Average sales per stores(thousand$) $ 13,997 $ 14,298 $ 15,503 $ 15,617 $ 15,551
Average sales per selling square feet $ 492 $ 499 $ 538 $ 542 $ 537
Average sales per total square feet $ 680 $ 689 $ 744 $ 749 $ 743
Year End M im im M M
Net sales(million$) $ 1,540 $ 1,580 $ 1,705 $ 1,718 $ 1,726
114
Appendix L: Supervalu Inc
Source: Supervalu's 1999 Annual Report for the Year Ended 27 February 99.
Employment:
50,000 FT and PT employees
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 345 (including 20 Save-A-Lot stores in California)
The number of Supervalu retail food stores operating under the following banners is as follows:
1. Save-A-Lot: 142 (Note that Save-A-Lot also has 630 licensed stores)
2. Cub Foods: 65 (Note that Cub Foods also has 52 franchised stores)
3. Shop'n Save: 45
4. Scott's Foods: 22
S. Laneco: 19
6. biggs/bigg's Foods: 10
7. Hornbachers: 5
8. Other stores: 37
Geographic Location:
Supervalu is the nation's leading food distributor,serving 48 U.S. states. Save-A-Lot currently operates in 33 states,including California.
Recent Acquisitions:
Supervalu acquired 48 stores in 1998,including 29 Randall's Food Mkts and 12 Shop'n Save stores.
Sales:
Year End 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 ]�q� ) 96 1997 199g 1999
Net sales(million$) $ 9,735 $ 10,105 $ 10,632 $ 12,568 $ 15,937 $ 16,564 $ 16,486 $ 16,552 $ 17,201 $ 17,421
115
I stiti�:iaaraA lwl. vval-lvaal't Jtua'es, 111C
Sources: Wal-Mart's 1999 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K for the Year Ended 31 January 99.
Employment:
Number of FT and PT associates: 780,000 in the U.S.+130,000 internationally=910,000 associates
Year End
Number of associates 328,000 371,000 434,000 528,000 622,000 675,000 728,000 825,000 910,000
Size and Scope:
Number of U.S.stores: 1,869 Discount stores+564 Supercenters+451 SAM's Clubs=2,884 stores
Average store size: Discount stores: 94,300 sq.ft.;Supercenters: 181,200 sq.ft.;and SAM's Clubs: 121,200 sq.ft.
U.S.Store Count(*=expected):
Year End 122(! 1;ZS] 1992 1993 1 'Q j,�Q� 1996 1997 1998 lg9g*
Wal-Mart stores 1,568 1,714 1,848 1,950 1,985 1,995 1,960 1,921 1,869 1,819
Supercenters 9 10 34 72 147 239 344 441 564 . 714
SAM's Clubs 148 208 256 417 426 433 436 443 451. 458
Geographic Location:
Discount stores in all 50 U.S.states,Canana,and Mexico
Supercenters in 29 U.S.states(excluding CA),Argentina,Brazil,China,Germany,Korea,Mexico
SAM's Clubs in 48 U.S.states(including CA),Argentina,Brazil,China,Mexico,and Puerto Rico
Sales:
nisynant stores&Supercenters categories %of Sales SAM's CI uhs categories %of Sales
Hardgoods 22% Food 32.8%
Softgoods/Domestics 21% Sundries 31.6%
Grocery,candy,and tobacco 16% Hardlines 22.1%
Pharmaceuticals 9% Service Businesses 7.8%
Electronics 9% Softlines 5.7%
Sporting goods and toys 7%
Health and beauty aids 7%
Other 9%
Net Sales(million$1 1990 1991 Lq,QZ Im MA LR,2M jam$
Discount stores&Supercenters n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $ 74,840 $ 83,820 $ 95,395
SAM's Clubs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $ 19,785 $ 20,668 $ 22,881
International n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $ 5,002 $ 7,517 $ 12,247
Other n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. $ 5,232 $ 5,953 $ 7,111
All Wal-Mart stores $ 32,602 $ 43,887 $ 55,484 $ 67,344 $ 82,494 $ 93,627 $ 104,859 $ 117,958 $ 137,634
116
nau�tlNyIIICIIG ''
Over 14,000 employees
Labor Issues:
"The employees of the Company are not represented by a labor union or collective bargaining agreement"(SEC Form 10-K) .
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 87
Number of distribution centers: 8
Average store size: 24,000 square feet
Average store size of most recent new stores and planned new stores: 30,000 to over 50,000 square feet e
Store Count(*=expected):
Year End Im 1994 Im 1996 1999* Z000*
Number of stores 42 49 61 68 75 87 97 112-117 ,
Geographic Location:
19 U.S.states(including CA)and D.C.
Sales:
Sales/Labor Hour
Store Team 1997 1998 %Change im Lm %Change
Grocery $ 204 $ 210 2.9% $ 10.84 $ 11.34 4.6%
Produce $ 118 $ 120 1.7% $ 11.18 $ 11.62 3.9%
Meat/Seafood $ 93 $ 96 3.2% $ 12.86 $ 13.50 5.0%
Specialty $ 110 $ 115 4.5% $ 11.21 $ 11.52 2.8%
Nutrition $ 159 $ 175 10.1% $ 11.65 $ 12.00 3.0%
Prepared Foods $ 37 $ 35 -5.4% $ 9.38 $ 9.92 5.8%
Front End $ 339 $ 376 10.9% $ 9.01 $ 9.48 5.2%
Weighted Average $ 77 $ 78 1.3% $ 10.31 $ 10.78 4.6%
*-Note that the a verage pay shown includes both gainsharing bonuses and pay for all store teams but does
not include Store Team Leaders or regional and national support staff, who typically earn higher hourly wages.
Year Rod 1993. 139.4 1m 1996 1gg7 I=
Store sales per square foot $ 597 $ 639 $ 625 $ 636 $ 638 $ 670
Average weekly sales per store $ 217,116 $ 243,520 $ 238,776 $ 253,555 $ 277,141 $ 291,690
Year End 1993 1994 1945. M M MR
Net sales(million$) $ 332 $ 402 $ 496 $ 892 $ 1,117 $ 1,390
117
Appendix ®: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc
Sources: Winn-Dixie's 1998 Annual Report and SEC Form 10-K for the Year Ended 24 June 98.
Employment:
57,000 FT+82,000 PT= 139,000 employees
Year End 1994 1995 19;�& 1997 1,2R$
Number of employees 112,000 123,000 126,000 136,000 139,000
Size and Scope:
Number of stores: 1168
Year End 1997 M
Average store size(thousand sq.ft.) 35.1 37.3 38.3 40.7 42.4
Total retail area(million sq.ft.) 40.7 43.8 45.7 47.8 49.6
Store Count(*=expected):
Year End 1994 1995 1M MI 1998 1999*
Opened/Acquired 60 108 61 83 84 85
Enlarged/Remodeled 87 86 128 79 136 90
Closed/Sold 66 92 58 87 90 n.a.
Total number of stores 1159 1175 1178 1174 1168 n.a.
Geographic Location(location and number of stores):
FL(427),NC(126), GA(119),AL (101), SC(77),LA(77),TX(67),KY(61),VA(35),TN(23),OH(20),MS (15),
OK(5),IN(2)and the Bahamas(13)
Sales:
Year End 1997 18,R$
Net sales(million$) $ 11,082 $. 11,788 $ 12,955 $ 13,219 $ 13,617
118
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MEETING DATE: October 4, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-007
Res Ak. 9 y X8 .9do7ay�edS-1 Green-.,o, Su/liLri c -a 6ser,�
,Qes. A& 99-77 ddm�c�5-/ Teen-nog 5a//iv<.,r-a,,Gs enf
A/o. 99-90 4W- tec1 5- t
ou/!di/mem�bersTi�yen, a�cer,Vre V ,/�7�•y�pPno7ersr <j.crc�a!o it.t.s�ed fo white
Council/Agency Meeting Held: ✓O- -Y - ! 9 aj msi,*,_, a�a+�st proposed mrdii�anee
Deferred/Continued to: /_
UJ'Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signafure
Council Meeting Date: October4, 1999 Department ID Number: CK99-007
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: Connie Brockway, City Clerk 31is,5 #_ ?�- �?
PREPARED BY: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Rr-C-`S _
i?�_s 9�
SUBJECT: INITIATIVE PETITION REGARDING INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING &
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO
PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL
USES ONLY/PRESENTATION OF SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
RESOLUTIONS 99-88, 99-89, AND 99-90
[statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: 1
i
Transmitted are resolutions for adoption by the City Council to schedule a special municipal
election for March 7, 2000 to submit an ordinance, without alteration, to the voters to amend
the zoning and General Plan designation of Crest View School site to prohibit commercial
development and permit residential uses only. On September 7, 1999, the initiative petition
was certified to the City Council as containing sufficient signatures to require the holding of a
special municipal election or in the alternative to introduce the ordinance, without alteration,
for adoption by Council within 10 days after introduction.
Fundinq Source:
General Fund — approximately $90,000 to $100)000.
Available Actions:
There Are Two Available Actions Pursuant To Elections Code S.9114:
(A) Introduce the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which it is
presented, and adopt the ordinance within ten (10) days after it is presented.
CK99007 -2- 09/29/99 12:53 PM a
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: October 4, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-007
Ordinance No.
Initiative To Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest View School Site to
Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residential Uses Only.
The People of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows:
1. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is hereby amended to change the
general plan designation for the 13.89 acre site located on the South side of Talbert
Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95 from CG-F1 (Commercial
General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre).
2. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) to rezone the property described
above from CG (General Commercial) to R-L (Low Density Residential).
3. The above may not be amended except by vote of the people.
4. Should any provision or application of the above be invalidated by a court of law, it
shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance.
or
(B) Adopt Resolution No. 99-88 — "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special
Municipal Election on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 for the Submission of a Proposed
Ordinance"-
Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan
Designation of the Crest View School site from YES
CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum
floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with
a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and
to change the Zoning Designation of the Crest
View School site from CG (Commercial General) NO
to R-L (Low Density Residential) be adopted?
CK99007 -3- 09/29/99 8:37 AM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIQl,
MEETING DATE: October 4, '1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-007
And adopt Resolution No. 99-89 — "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Orange to Consolidate a Special Municipal Election to be Held on March 7, 2000, with
the Statewide Primary Election to be Held on the Date Pursuant to § 1405 of the
Elections Code."
And adopt Resolution No. 99-90 — "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California Setting Priorities for Filing a Written Argument Against a
City Measure and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis of Said
Measure."
Analysis:
At the September 7, 1999 City Council meeting, pursuant to State Elections Code S.9114,
the City Clerk's report of sufficiency of signatures on the above referenced initiative petition
was presented to the City Council. The County Registrar of Voters Certificate As To
Verification of Signatures on Petition dated September 2, 1999 was also submitted. The City
Council on September 7, 1999 approved a motion to order a report pursuant to Elections
Code S.9212 to be presented to Council on October 4, 1999 on the effect of the proposed
initiative (see Agenda Item F-2a).
At the September 20, 1999 Council meeting, the City Council called a special municipal
election submitting an advisory measure to the voters relative to the spending of sales tax
income from the Crest View site. Because the advisory special municipal election will be
held on March 7, 2000 (consolidated with the statewide primary), an election on this initiative
petition can be consolidated with the advisory special municipal election (Elections Code
S.1405).
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
CK99007 -4- 09/29/99 8:37 AM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIOi,
MEETING DATE: October 4, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-007
Attachment(s):
City CWW's
. - Number . Description
1. Resolutions No. 99-88, 99-89, and 99-90
2. Registrar's Certificate As To Verification of Signatures for the
,p Petition Entitled "Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan
- Designation of Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial
Development and Permit Residential Uses Only.
3. Ballot Title and Summary of Proposed Ballot Measure Prepared by
City Attorney on February 12, 1999, Notice of Intent to Circulate
Petition, and Initiative Measure To Be Submitted Directly to the Voters.
4. Elections Code Sections 9112, 9114, 9212; 9214
5. Memorandum from the City Clerk Clarifying Resolution No. 99-90 —
Filing of Written Argument
RCA Author: CB
CK99007 -5- 09/29/99 8:37 AM
A TTA CHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. g g_R R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2000 FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by statute, a petition has been filed with the
legislative body of the City of Huntington Beach, California, signed by more than 15 percent of
the number of registered voters of the City to submit a proposed ordinance relating to an
initiative to amend the zoning and General Plan designations of the Crest View School site to
prohibit commercial development and permit residential uses only; and
The City Clerk examined the records of registration and ascertained that the petition is
signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and
The City Council has not voted in favor of the adoption of the ordinance; and
The City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed ordinance
to the voters;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
1. That pursuant to the requirements of the Charter and pursuant to California
Elections Code S.1405, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Huntington Beach,
California, on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 a Special Municipal Election to be consolidated with the
March 7, 2000 Special Municipal Election called by the City Council on September 20, 1999 by
its adoption of Resolution No. 99-77. The purpose of calling this election is to submit the
following proposed ordinance to the voters:
Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan YES
Designation of the Crest View School site from
CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum
floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to
change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View NO
School site from CG (Commercial General) to R-L
(Low Density Residential)be adopted?
1
4/sA-99Resolution:Notice 0924
9/24/99
2. That the text of the ordinance submitted to the voters is as follows:
INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES ONLY.
The People of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows:
1. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is hereby amended to
change the general plan designation for the 13.89 acre site located on the
South side of Talbert Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95
from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35)
to RL-7 (residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre).
2. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by
amending District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) to rezone the
property described above from CG (General Commercial) to R-L (Low
Density Residential).
3. The above may not be amended except by vote of the people.
4. Should any provision or application of the above be invalidated by a court of
law, it shall be severed and have no effect.on the remainder of this ordinance.
3. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required
by law.
4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish
any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia
that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
5. That the polls shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. on the day of the election and
shall remain open continuously from that time until 8 o'clock p.m. of the same day when the
polls shall be closed, except as provided in § 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of
California.
6. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and
conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
7. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City
Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in
time, form and manner as required by law.
8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
2
4/sA-99ResolutionNotice 0924
9/24/99
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of October , 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7
City Clerk City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Clerk
3
4/sA-99ResolutionNotice 0924
9/24/99
Res. No. 99-88
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 4th day of October, 1999 by the following
vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff, Harman
NOES: Green
ABSENT: Sullivan
ABSTAIN: None
a
City Clerk and ex-officio C erk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 9 9—8 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO
CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON MARCH 7, 2000,
WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD
ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO § 1405 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach called a Special Municipal
Election to be held on March 7, 2000, for the purpose of submitting to the voters a proposed
ordinance relating to an initiative to amend zoning and General Plan designations of the Crest
View School site to prohibit commercial development and permit residential uses only; and
It is desirable that, pursuant to Election Code § 1405, the Special Municipal Election be
consolidated with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on the same date and that within the
City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that
the County Election Department of the County of Orange canvass the returns of the Special
Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as of there were only one election;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve,
declare, determine and order as follows:
I. That pursuant to the requirements of§ 1405 of the Elections Code, the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Orange is hereby requested to consent and agree to the
consolidation of a Special Municipal Election with the Statewide Primary Election.on Tuesday,
March 7, 2000, for the purpose of submitting to the voters a proposed ordinance relating to an
initiative to amend zoning and General Plan designations of the Crest View School site to
prohibit commercial development and permit residential uses only.
2. That a measure is to appear on the ballot as follows:
Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan YES
Designation of the Crest View School site from CG-
F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area
ration of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to
change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View NO
School site from CG (Commercial General)to R-L
(Low Density Residential)be adopted?
4/s:4-99 Resol uti ons:Spec i al 0924
9/28/99
3. That the County Election Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the
Special Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one
election, and only one form of ballot shall be used.
4. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County
Election Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated
election.
5. That the City of Huntington Beach recognizes that additional costs will be
incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for
any costs.
6. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution
with the Board of Supervisors and the County Election Department of the County of Orange.
7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of October , 1999.
rs
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4wc4fi
wjo"� �
City Clerk 4V City Attorney
C�z6�Cf
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Clerk
2
4/s:4-99 Resol uti ons:Spec i al 0924
9/28/99
Res. No. 99-89
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 4th day of October, 1999 by the following
vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff,Harman
NOES: Green
ABSENT: Sullivan
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio C rk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 9 9-9 0
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT
AGAINST A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
OF SAID MEASURE
WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach,
California, on March 7, 2000, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following
measure:
Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan YES
Designation of the Crest View School site from
CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum
floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to
change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View NO
School site from CG (Commercial General) to R-L
(Low Density Residential)be adopted?
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
1. That the City Council authorizes
Councilmember Julien (Council Member Against)
Councilmember Bauer (Council Member Against)
rnunc-; 1 mPmhPr Ga rnf a 1 n (Council Member Against)
Councilmember Dettloff (Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
members of that body, to file written arguments regarding the City measure as specified above in
accordance with Article 4 and 1, Chapter 3, 5.9219, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State
of California and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk
after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.
2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney are
affected. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect
of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the measure affects the
1
4/s:4-99Resolution:Imp.Analysis 0924
9/24/99
organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall prepare the
impartial analysis. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the
filing of primary arguments.
3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of October , 1999.
Mayor T
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
a445�!� G%` AZeeo-�- .
City Clerk City Attorney �Y
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Clerk
2
4/sA-99Resolution:Imp.Analysis 0924
9/24/99
Res. No. 99-90
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 regulgr meeting thereof held on the 4th day of October, 1999 by the following
vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff
NOES: Harman
ABSENT: Sullivan
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-off cio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
A TTA CHMENT 2
JANICE M. cube 0 5cer
. IER
Cour„y Exzcutyz Ofi!cer
4.� N T Y O F ROSALYN LEVER
2 Re-gist,ar of Voters
s 3 A N G E P.O.Su rse
`'� Sara N�a,C'cGC�ld 92711
V ?/ REGISTRATION&ELECTIONS DEPARTNIENT
1 � 1300 Se��Gc?r:�Avznue,a*5.C
S3�a"r!a Cd forria 970;
p14J 887.760)
T00 V14)ae7.7E08
FAX(714):�1.7b27
September 2, 1999
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
city of Huntington Geac�
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. Brockway,
Enclosed is our Certificate as to Verification of Signatures for the petition
entitled "Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest
View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residmtiel
Uses Only"for the city of Huntington Beach.
The number of registered voters in the city of Huntington Beach as of the
report of registration to the Secretary of State dated February 10, 1999 is
100,913.
Very/truly yours,
Rosalyn Lever
Registrar of Voters
Enc.
CERTIFICATE AS TO VERIFICATION
OF SIGNATURES ON PETITION
State of California)
) SS.
County of Orange )
I, Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters of the County of Orange, do
hereby certify that I am the county officer having charge of the registration
of voters in the County of Orange, and 1 have examined, or caused to be
examined,,the attached initiative petition submitted to the City of Huntington
Beach entitled "Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of
Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit
Residential Uses Only."
I further certify that from said examination I have determined the
following facts regarding these documents:
Number of signatures submitted: 22,366
Number of signatures examined: 22,169
Number of signatures verified: 15,445
Number of signatures found invalid: 6,724
Number of signatures found invalid
because of being duplicate: 1,337
WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 2"d day of September, 1999.
,',11111ItI101d81B� 0/�
.. �511RAR of y�,�•.,, � �.-�--
•°•`� ROSALYN LEVER
•4 ° r
d a
Registrar of Voters
County of Orange
0 Ty
•'O • � ;o
� • 0
d1111116`S1b
A TTA CHMENT 3
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Communication
TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk
FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney
DATE: February 12, 1999
SUBJECT: Ballot Title and Summary—Crest View Site
RLS 99-052 and 99-086
are
Attached hereto A the proposed ballot title and summary for the attached
referenced petition.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions.
Gail Hutton
City Attorney
Attachment
c: Ray Silver, City Administrator
Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator
Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
David Biggs, Director of Economic Development
. � c
cam.: �',`,'�•-,,.,-:
J I
N c7
N �
4/s/4-99 Memos:99-086
E
.T
BALLOT TITLE:
A BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE
CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG-F1 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH A
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.35) TO RL-7 (RESIDENTIAL WITH A
MAXIMUM OF 7 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE), AND TO-CHANGE THE
ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG
(COMMERCIAL GENERAL) TO R-L (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
SUMMARY:
This proposed ballot measure would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan
of the City of Huntington Beach to change the General Plan designation of the Crest
View School site. The General Plan designation would be changed from CG-F1
(Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with
a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of
the City of Huntington Beach would also be amended to change the zoning designation
of the Crest View School site. The zoning designation would be changed from CG
(Commercial General) to RL (Low Density Residential). A vote of the people would be
required to change the general plan and zoning designations as amended by this
measure. If a court invalidates a portion of the proposed measure, that portion shall be
severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed measure.
" _ T
�
n �
N n
N D
A TTA CHMENT 4
Chapter 2.County Eleci 9112.
9108. Circulation of petition.
The proponents may commence to circulate the petitions among the vot-
ers of the county for signatures by any registered voter of the county after
publication of the title and summary prepared by the county counsel.Each
section of the petition shall bear a copy of the notice of intention,and the title
and summary prepared by the county counsel.
(Added by Stats. I994,c.920,§2.)
9109. Form of petition.
Each petition section shall have attached to it an affidavit to be completed
by the circulator.The affidavit shall be substantially in the same form as set
forth in Section 104.
-(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
9110. Time limit for securing signatures.
Signatures shall be secured and the petition shall be presented to the
county elections official for filing within 180 days from the date of receipt of
the title and summary,or after termination of any action for a cunt of mandate
pursuant to Section 9106 and,if applicable,after receipt of an amended title
or summary or both,whichever occurs later.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9111. Report on effect of proposed initiative to Board of Supervisors.
(a)During the circulation of the petition or before taking either action
described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9116, or Section 9118, the
board of supervisors may refer the proposed initiative measure to any county
agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
(1)Its fiscal impact.
(2)Its effect on the internal consistency of the county's general and
specific plans including the housing element,the consistency between plan-
ning and zoning,the limitations on county actions under Section 65008 of the
Government Code,and Chapters 4.2(commencing with Section 65913)and
4.3(commencing with Section 65915)of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Govern-
ment Code.
(3)Any other matters the board of supervisors request to be in the
report.
(b)The report shall be presented to the board of supervisors within the
time prescribed by the board of supervisors but no later than 30 days after the
county elections official certifies to the board of supervisors the sufficiency of
the petition.
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
9112. Report on county initiatives submitted to Secretary of State;time.
On or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year,the county elections
official of each county shall file a report with the Secretary of State containing
the following information:
(a)The number of county initiative petitions circulated during the pre-
ceding two calendar years that did not qualify for the ballot,and the number
of these proposed initiatives for which reports were prepared pursuant to
Section 9111.
(b)With respect to county initiative measures that qualified for the ballot
in the preceding two calendar years,the number that were approved by the
voters,and the number of these ballot measures for which reports were pre-
253 1999
9112. DIVISIOI IEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
pared pursuant to Section 9111.
(c)With respect to county initiative measures that qualified for the ballot
in the preceding two calendar years,the number which were not approved
by the voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports
were prepared pursuant to Section 9111.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9113. Filing of petition.
The petition shall be filed by the proponents,or by any person or persons
authorized in writing by the proponents.All sections of the petition shall be
filed at one time.Any sections of the petition not so filed shall be void for all
purposes.Once filed,no petition section shall be amended except by order of
a court of competent jurisdiction.
When the petition is filed, the county elections official shall determine
the total number of signatures affixed to the petition.If,from this examina-
tion,the county elections official determines that the number of signatures,
prima facie, equals or is in excess of the minimum number of signatures
required, the county elections official shall examine the petition in accor-
dance with Section 9114 or 9115.If,from this examination,the county elec-
tions official determines that the number of signatures,prima facie,does not
equal or exceed the minimum number of signatures required, no further
action shall be taken.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9114. Examination of signatures.
Except as provided in Section 9115,within 30 days from the date of filing
of the petition, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, the elections
official shall examine the petition,and from the records of registration ascer-
tain whether or not the petition is signed by the requisite number of voters.A
certificate showing the results of this examination shall be attached to the
petition.
In determining the number of valid signatures,the elections official may
use the duplicate file of affidavits maintained,or may check the signatures
against facsimiles of voters'signatures,provided that the method of prepar-
ing and displaying the facsimiles complies with law.
The elections official shall notify the proponents of the petition as to the
sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition.
If the petition is found insufficient,no further action shall be taken.How-
ever,the failure to secure sufficient signatures,shall not preclude the filing of
a new petition on the same subject,at a later date.
If the petition is found sufficient,the elections official shall certify the
results of the examination to the board of supervisors at the next regular
meeting of the board.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9115. Sample examination of signatures.
(a)Within 30 days from the date of filing of the petition,excluding Satur-
days,Sundays,and holidays,if,from the examination of petitions pursuant
to Section 9114 shows that more than 500 signatures have been signed on the
petition,the elections official may use a random sampling technique for veri-
fication of signatures.The random sample of signatures to be verified shall be
drawn so that every signature filed with the elections official shall be given an
equal opportunity to be included in the sample.The random sampling shall
1999 254
Chapter 3. Municipal Electio. 9212.
9209. Affidavit attached to petition.
Each section shall have attached thereto the declaration of the person
soliciting the signatures.This declaration shall be substantially in the same
form as set forth in Section 9022,except that the declaration shall declare that
the circulator is a voter of the city, and shall state the voter's residence
address at the time of the execution of the declaration.
(Added by Stats. I994,c.920,§2.)
9210. Filing of petition.
The petition shall be filed by the proponents or by any person or persons
authorized in writing by the proponents.All sections of the petition shall be
filed at one time.Once filed,no petition section shall be amended except by
order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
When the petition is presented for filing,the elections official shall do all
of the following:
(a)Ascertain the number of registered voters of the city last reported by
the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187
effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published.
(b)Determine the total number of signatures affixed to the petition.If,
from this examination, the elections official determines that the number of
signatures,prima facie,equals or is in excess of the minimum number of sig-
natures required,he or she shall accept the petition for filing.The petition
shall be deemed as filed on that date.Any petition not accepted for filing shall
be retuned to the proponents.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9211. Examination of signatures.
After the petition has been filed,as herein provided,the elections official
shall examine the petition in the same manner as are county petitions in
accordance with Sections 9114 and 9115,except that for the purposes of this
section,references to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to
the legislative body of the city.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
®� 9212. Report on effect of proposed initiative to legislative body.
(a)During the circulation of the petition,or before taking either action
described in subdivisions(a)and(b)of Section 9214,or Section 9213,the leg-
islative body may refer the proposed initiative measure to any city agency or
agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
(1)Its fiscal impact.
(2)Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and spe-
cific plans,including the housing element,the consistency between planning
and zoning,the limitations on city actions underSection 65008 of the Govern-
ment Code,and Chapters 4.2(commencing with Section 65913)and 4.3(com-
mencing with Section 65915)of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3)Any other matters the council requests to be in the report.
(b)The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time
prescribed by the legislative body but no later than 30 days after the elections
official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
265 1999
9213. DIVISIC,. MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
9213. Report on municipal initiatives submitted to Secretary of State;.
time.
On or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year,the elections official of
each legislative body shall file a report with the Secretary of State containing
the following information:
(a)The number of municipal initiative petitions circulated during the
preceding two calendar years which did not qualify for the ballot,and the
number of these proposed initiatives for which reports were prepared pursu-
ant to Section 9212.
(b)With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the
.ballot in the preceding two calendar years,the number that were approved
by the voters, and the number of these ballot.measures for which reports
were prepared pursuant to Section 9212.
(c)With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the
ballot in the preceding two calendar years, the number that were not
approved by the voters,and the number of these ballot measures for which
reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9214. Petition signatures;adopt ordinance or order special election.
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 15 percent of the voters
of the city according to the last report of registration by the county elections
official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187 effective at the time
the notice specified in Section 9202 was published,or in a city with 1,000 or
less registered voters the signatures of 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of
the city,whichever is the lesser number,and contains a request that the ordi-
nance be submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a special election,
the legislative body shall do either of the following:
(a)Introduce the ordinance,without alteration,at the regular meeting at
which it is presented,and adopt the ordinance within 10 days after it is pre-
sented.
(b)Immediately order a special election,to be held not less than 88 nor
more than 103 days after the date of the order,at which the ordinance,with-
out alteration,shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the city.
(c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at
which the ordinance is presented.When the report is presented to the legisla-
tive body,the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days
or order an election pursuant to subdivision(b).
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9215. Petition signatures;ordinance submitted at next regular
municipal election.
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters
of the city,according to the last report of registration by the county elections
official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187,effective at the time
the notice specified in Section 9202 was published,or,in a city with 1,000 or
less registered voters,by the signatures of 25 percent of the voters or 100 vot-
ers of the city,whichever is the lesser number,and the ordinance petitioned
for is not required to be,or for any reason is not,submitted to the voters at a
special election, and is not passed without change by the legislative body,
then the ordinance,without alteration,shall be submitted by the legislative
body to the voters at the next regular municipal election occurring not less
1999 266
A TTA CHMENT 5
a
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk c
DATE: September 29, 1999
SUBJECT: Election—Written Arguments—Resolution No. 99-90
Attached is Elections Code Article 4,Arguments Concerning City Measures, Sections 9280
through 9287.
The City Council may only authorize Councilmembers to write arguments—up to five (5)
Councilmember names may be inserted within Resolution 99-90. This establishes the City
Council's priority status.
At the time the argument is filed with the City Clerk at least one of the Councilmembers whose
name appears in the resolution must sign the argument (to retain priority status in the selection
procedure). This name (signature) may be followed by signatures of up to four individual"s in the
city. The same process is followed for rebuttal arguments.
Attachments
CB:le
G:CBMemos\99-1931e.doc
9263. DIVISION 9.MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
9263. Petition section sheets fastened together.
The sheets comprising each petition section shall be fastened together
securely and remain so during circulation and filing.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9264. Voter may withdraw name from petition.
A voter may withdraw his or her signature from a petition in the manner
prescribed in Section 9602.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9265. Time and method of filing petition.
The petition shall be filed with the elections official by the proponents,or
by any person or persons authorized in writing by the proponents.All sec-
tions of the petition shall be filed at one time,and no petition section submit-
ted subsequently shall be accepted by the elections official.The petition shall
be filed not more than 200 days after the date on which the notice of intent to
circulate was published or posted,or both.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9266. Examination of petition.
After the petition has been filed,the elections official shall examine the
petition in the same manner as are county petitions in accordance with Sec-
tions 9114 and 9115,except that,for the purposes of this section,references in
those sections to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to the
legislative body of the city or city and county.The expenses of signature veri-
fication shall be provided by the governing body receiving the petition from
the elections official.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9267. Petitions not accepted.
Petitions that do not substantially conform to the form requirements of
this article shall not be accepted for filing by the elections official.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9268. Conduct of election and publication requirements.
The conduct of election and publication requirements shall substantially
conform with Part 1(commencing with Section 10000)and Part 2(commenc-
ing with Section 10100)of Division 10.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9269. Resolution upon completion of canvass.
Upon the completion of the canvass of votes,the governing body of a city
or city and county shall pass a resolution reciting the fact of the election and
such other matters as are enumerated in Section 10264.The elections official
of the city or city and county shall then cause the adopted measures to be sub-
mitted to the Secretary of State pursuant to Sections 34459 and 34460 of the
Government Code.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
Article 4.Arguments Concerning City Measures
9280. City attorney to prepare impartial analysis.
Whenever any city measure qualifies for a place on the ballot,the govern-
ing body may direct the city elections official to transmit a copy of the mea-
sure to the city attorney,unless the organization or salaries of the office of the
1999 274
Chapter 3.Municipal Elections 9283.
city attorney are affected.The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analy-
sis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and
the operation of the measure.If the measure affects the organization or sala-
ries of the office of the city attorney,the governing board may direct the city
elections official to prepare the impartial analysis. The analysis shall be
printed preceding the arguments for and against the measure.The analysis
shall not exceed 500 words in length.
In the event the entire text of the measure is not printed on the ballot,nor
in the voter information portion of the sample ballot,there shall be printed
immediately below the impartial analysis,in no less than 10-point bold type,
a legend substantially as follows:
"The above statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or Measure
_.If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure,please call the elec-
tions official's office at(insert telephone number)and a copy will be mailed at
no cost to you."
(Added by Stats.1994,e.920,§2.)
9281. If not otherwise provided,voters may submit arguments.
If no other method is provided by general law,or,in the case of a char-
tered city,by the charter or by city ordinance,arguments for and against any
city measure may be submitted to the qualified voters of the city pursuant to
this article.If a method is otherwise provided by general law,or,in the case of
a chartered city,by charter or city ordinance,for submitting arguments as to a
particular kind of city measure,that method shall control.
(Added by Stats.1994,e.920,§2.)
9282. Written arguments.
The legislative body,or any member or members of the legislative body
authorized by that body,or any individual voter who is eligible to vote on the
measure,or bona fide association of citizens,or any combination of voters
and associations,may file a written argument for or against any city measure.
No argument shall exceed 300 words in length.The city elections official shall
cause an argument for and an argument against the measure to be printed
along with the following statement on the front cover,or if none,on the head-
ing of the first page,of the printed arguments:
"Arguments in support or opposition of the proposed laws are the opin-
ions of the authors."
The city elections official shall enclose a printed copy of both arguments
with each sample ballot;provided,that only those arguments filed pursuant
to this section shall be printed and enclosed with the sample ballot. The
printed arguments are"official matter"within the meaning of Section 13303.
Printed arguments submitted to voters in accordance with this section
shall be titled either"Argument In Favor Of Measure^" or"Argument
Against Measure accordingly, the blank spaces being filled in only
with the letter or number,if any,designating the measure.At the discretion
of the elections official,the word "Proposition" may be substituted for the
word"Measure"in such titles.Words used in the title shall not be counted
when determining the length of any argument.
(Added by Stats.1994,e.920,§2.)
9283. Argument not accepted without names.
A ballot argument shall not be accepted under this article unless accom-
panied by the name or names of the person or persons submitting it,or,if sub-
275 1999
9283. DIVISION 9. MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
mitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization and the
name of at least one of its principal officers.
No more than five signatures shall appear with any argument submitted
under this article.In case any argument is signed by more than five persons,
the signatures of the first five shall be printed.
(Added by Stats.1994,e.920,§2.)
9285. Rebuttal arguments.
(a)If any person submits an argument against a city measure, and an
argument has been filed in favor of the city measure, the elections official
shall immediately send copies of that argument to the persons filing the argu-
ment in favor of the city measure.The persons filing the argument in favor of
the city measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding
250 words.The elections official shall send copies of the argument in favor of
the measure to the persons filing the argument against the city measure,who
may prepare and submit a rebuttal to the argument in favor of the city mea-
sure not exceeding 250 words.The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the
elections official not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct
arguments.Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the
direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the
direct argument it seeks to rebut.
(b)Subdivision(a)shall only apply if,not later than the day on which the
legislative body calls an election,the legislative body,adopts its provisions
by majority vote,in which case subdivision(a)shall apply at the next ensuing
municipal election and at each municipal election thereafter, unless later
repealed by the legislative body in accordance with the procedures of this
subdivision.
(Added by Stats.1994,e.920,§2.)
9286. Final date for arguments.
Based on the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the argu-
ments and sample ballots and to permit the 10-calendar-day public examina-
tion as provided in Article 6 (commencing with Section 9295) for the
particular election,the city elections official shall fix and determine a reason-
able date prior to the election after which no arguments for or against any city
measure may be submitted for printing and distribution to the voters,as pro-
vided in this article.Arguments may be changed or withdrawn by their pro-
ponents until and including the date fixed by the city elections official.
(Added by Stats. 1994,e.920,§2.)
9287. Elections official to select if more than one argument.
If more than one argument for or more than one argument against any
city measure is submitted to the city elections official within the time pre-
scribed,he or she shall select one of the arguments in favor and one of the
arguments against the measure for printing and distribution to the voters.In
selecting the argument the city elections official shall give preference and pri-
ority,in the order named,to the arguments of the following:
(a)The legislative body,or member or members of the legislative body
authorized by that body.
(b)The individual voter,or bona fide association of citizens,or combina-
tion of voters and associations,who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents
of the measure.
(c)Bona fide associations of citizens.
1999 276
Chapter 3.Municipal Elections 9295.
(d)Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
Article 5.Mailings
9290. One copy of official material per household.
Whenever the elections official is required to mail official matter,as pro-
vided in Sections 9219,9220,9223,9280,9281,9282,and 9285,only one copy of
each piece of official matter shall be mailed to a postal address where two or
more registered voters have the same surname and the same postal address.
This section shall only apply if the legislative body of the city adopts this
section and the election official conducting the election approves of the pro-
cedure.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
Article 6.Public Examination
9295. Public examination of arguments,ordinance and analysis.
Not less than 10 calendar days before the elections official submits the
official election materials referred to in Sections 9219,9220,9223,9280,9281,
9282, and 9285 for printing, the elections official shall make a copy of the
material available for public examination in the elections official's office.Any
person may obtain a copy of the materials from the elections official for use
outside of the election official's office.The elections official may charge a fee
to any person obtaining a copy of the material.The fee shall not exceed the
actual cost incurred by the elections official in providing the copy.
During the 10-calendar-day examination period provided by this sec-
tion,any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held,or the
elections official,himself or herself,may seek a writ of mandate or an injunc-
tion requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted.A peremp-
tory writ of mandate or an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and
convincing proof that the material in question is false,misleading,or incon-
sistent with the requirements of this chapter,and that issuance of the writ or
injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of
official election materials as provided by law.The elections official shall be
named as respondent,and the person or official who authored the material in
question shall be named as real parties in interest.In the case of the elections
official bringing the mandamus or injunctive action,the board of supervisors
of the county shall be named as the respondent and the person or official who
authored the material in question shall be named as the real party in interest.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
277 1999
I
t
RESOLUTION NO. _ g
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2000 FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by statute, a petition has been filed with the
legislative body of the City of Huntington Beach, California, signed by more than 15 percent of
the number of registered voters of the City to submit a proposed ordinance relating to an
initiative to amend the zoning and General Plan designations of the Crest View School site to
prohibit commercial development and permit residential uses only; and
The City Clerk examined the records of registration and ascertained that the petition is
signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and
The City Council has not voted in favor of the adoption of the ordinance; and
The City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed ordinance
to the voters;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
1. That pursuant to the requirements of the Charter and pursuant to California
Elections Code S.1405, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Huntington Beach,
California, on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 a Special Municipal Election to be consolidated with the
March 7, 2000 Special Municipal Election called by the City Council on September 20, 1999 by
its adoption of Resolution No. 99-77. The purpose of calling this election is to submit the
following proposed ordinance to the voters:
Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan YES
Designation of the Crest View School site from
CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum
floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to
change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View NO
School site from CG (Commercial General)to R-L
(Low Density Residential) be adopted?
1
4/sA-99Resolution:Notice 0924
9/24/99
2. That the text of the ordinance submitted to the voters is as follows:
INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
OF CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES ONLY.
The People of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows:
1. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is hereby amended to
change the general plan designation for the 13.89 acre site located on the
South side of Talbert Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95
from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35)
to RL-7 (residential with a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre).
2. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by
amending District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) to rezone the
property described above from CG (General Commercial) to R-L (Low
Density Residential).
3. The above may not be amended except by vote of the people.
4. Should any provision or application of the above be invalidated by a court of
law, it shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance.
3. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required
by law.
4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish
any and all official ballots,notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia
that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
5. That the polls shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. on the day of the election and
shall remain open continuously from that time until 8 o'clock p.m. of the same day when the
polls shall be closed, except as provided in § 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of
California.
6. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and
conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
7. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City
Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in
time, form and manner as required by law.
8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
2
4/s:4-99Reso1ution:Notice 0924
9/24/99
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of October , 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
s
City Clerk City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Clerk
4
yr�
t
3
4/s:4-99Resolution:Notice 0924
9/24/99
Res. No. 99-88
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 4th day of October, 1999 by the following
vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo,Dettloff,Harman
NOES: Green
ABSENT: Sullivan
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio C erk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 9 9—8 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO
CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON MARCH 7, 2000,
WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD
ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO § 1405 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach called a Special Municipal
Election to be held on March 7, 2000, for the purpose of submitting to the voters a proposed
ordinance relating to an initiative to amend zoning and General Plan designations of the Crest
View School site to prohibit commercial development and permit residential uses only; and
It is desirable that,pursuant to Election Code § 1405, the Special Municipal Election be
consolidated with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on the same date and that within the
City the precincts,polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that
the County Election Department of the County of Orange canvass the returns of the Special
Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as of there were only one election;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve,
declare, determine and order as follows:
1. That pursuant to the requirements of§ 1405 of the Elections Code, the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Orange is hereby requested to consent and agree to the
consolidation of a Special Municipal Election with the Statewide Primary Election on Tuesday,
March 7, 2000, for the purpose of submitting to the voters a proposed ordinance relating to an
initiative to amend zoning and General Plan designations of the Crest View School site to
prohibit commercial development and permit residential uses only.
2. That a measure is to appear on the ballot as follows:
Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan YES
Designation of the Crest View School site from CG-
F 1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area
ration of 0.35)to RL-7 (Residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to
change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View NO
School site from CG(Commercial General) to R-L
(Low Density Residential) be adopted?
1
4/s:4-99 Resol utions:Special 0924
9/28/99
/(eS -P.9-'-f?
3. That the County Election Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the
Special Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one
election, and only one form of ballot shall be used.
4. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County
Election Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated
election.
5. That the City of Huntington Beach recognizes that additional costs will be
incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for
any costs.
6. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution
with the Board of Supervisors and the County Election Department of the County of Orange.
7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4 th day of October , 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4wa0
46;�
City Clerk dw City Attorney
4- r
t
ci
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
K"W� 6Kd!'��
City Clerk
2
4/s:4-99Resoluti ons:Special 0924
9/28/99
Res. No. 99-89
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 4th day of October, 1999 by the following
vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff, Harman
NOES: Green
ABSENT: Sullivan
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio C rk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 9 9—9 0
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT
AGAINST A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
OF SAID MEASURE
WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach,
California, on March 7, 2000, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following
measure:
Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan YES
Designation of the Crest View School site from
CG-F 1 (Commercial General with a maximum
floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to
change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View NO
School site from CG (Commercial General)to R-L
(Low Density Residential)be adopted?
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
1. That the City Council authorizes
Councilmember Julien (Council Member Against)
Councilmember Bauer (Council Member Against)
Cnunci 1 mPmbPr Carnfa 1 n (Council Member Against)
Councilmember Dettloff (Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
members of that body, to file written arguments regarding the City measure as specified above in
accordance with Article 4 and 1, Chapter 3, S.9219, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State
of California and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk
after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.
2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney are
affected. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect
of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the measure affects the
1
4/s:4-99Resolution:Imp.Analysis 0924
9/24/99
�es. q 9- pD
organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall prepare the
impartial analysis. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the
filing of primary arguments.
3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of October , 1999.
7?t�—�4 Q A�—,
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
��valq"f
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Clerk
2
4/s:4-99Resolution:Imp.Analysis 0924
9/24/99
Iles. No. 99-90
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 4th day of October, 1999 by the following
vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff
NOES: Harman
ABSENT: Sullivan
ABSTAIN: None
9�x�
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE
HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2000, FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED MEASURE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, desires to
submit to the voters of the City at a Special Municipal Election a proposed measure relating to an
advisory vote regarding the use of the sales tax income from the Crest View site; and
The City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed measure to
the voters;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, does
resolve, declare, determine and order as follows:
1. That pursuant to the requirements of the Charter, there is called and ordered to be
held in the City of Huntington Beach, California, on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, a Special
Municipal Election for the purpose of submitted the following measure:
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY. Shall 50% of the sales YES
tax income from the Crest View site be spent to
acquire, develop, improve, maintain sports fields for
soccer, football, softball, baseball, and other sports;
replace restrooms, bicycle/pedestrian trails, lighting,
and showers on city beach; acquire senior center NO
site; develop swim complex, and improve
neighborhood narks and tot lots?
2. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required
by law.
3. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish
any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia
that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
4. That the polls shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. of the day of the election and
shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock p.m. of the same day
when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in § 14401 of the Elections Code of the State
of California.
1
4/s:4-99Resol uti ons:Notice
09/20/99
,QcS 59- 7 7
5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be
held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
6. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the
City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of September , 1999.
7�t-- 4, A
14 ayor
ATTEST: APPROVED A$ TO FORM:
f--- >� 20 y
City Clerk AV 74---- City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
ey4 =�
Cit dministrator
2
4/s:4-99Resolutions:Notice
09/20/99
Res. No. 99-77
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 20th day of September, 1999 by the
following vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff
NOES: Green, Harman, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
i
e
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 99_78
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO
CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON MARCH 7, 2000,
WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD
ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO § 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach called a Special Municipal
Election to be held on March 7, 2000, for the purpose of submitting to the voters the question
relating to an advisory vote regarding the use of the sales tax income from the Crest View site;
and
It is desirable that the Special Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide Primary
Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and
election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the County Election Department of
the County of Orange canvass the returns of the Special Municipal Election and that the election
be held in all respects as of there were only one election;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve,
declare, determine and order as follows:
l. That pursuant to the requirements of§ 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Orange is hereby requested to consent and agree to the
consolidation of a Special Municipal Election with the Statewide Primary Election on Tuesday,
March 7, 2000, for the purpose of an advisory vote regarding the use of the sales tax income
from the Crest View site.
2. That a measure is to appear on the ballot as follows:
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY. Shall 50% of the sales YES
tax income from the Crest View site be spent to
acquire, develop, improve,maintain sports fields for
soccer, football, softball,baseball, and other sports;
replace restrooms,bicycle/pedestrian trails, lighting,
and showers on city beach; acquire senior center NO
site; develop swim complex, and improve
neiphborhood narks and tot lots?
3. That the County Election Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the
Special Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one
election, and only one form of ballot shall be used.
1
4/s:4-99Resolutions:Spec ial Election
9/20/99
/Ees r4 78
4. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County
Election Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated
election.
5. That the City of Huntington Beach recognizes that additional costs will be
incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for
any costs.
6. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution
with the Board of Supervisors and the County Election Department of the County of Orange.
7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of September , 1999.
7�k-, � . . .
NA M or
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ro�
City Clerk for City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
C4Ty Administrator
2
4/s:4-99Resolutions:Special Election
9/20/99
Res. No. 99-78
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 20th day of September, 1999 by the
following vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff
NOES: Green, Harman, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
•
City Clerk and ex-officio Cl rk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
x
RESOLUTION NO. 99-79
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENT
REGARDING A CITY MEASURE
AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach,
California, on March 7, 2000, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following
measure:
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY. Shall 50% of the sales YES
tax income from the Crest View site be spent to
acquire, develop, improve, maintain sports fields for
soccer, football, softball, baseball, and other sports;
replace restrooms, bicycle/pedestrian trails, lighting,
and showers on city beach; acquire senior center NO
site; develop swim complex, and improve
neighborhood narks and tot lots?
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, does
resolve, declare, determine and order as follows:
1. That the City Council authorizes
Counci lmember Julien (Council Member In Favor/Anst)
Councilmember Bauer (Council Member In Favor/Agail;st)
Mayor Pro Tem Garofalo tCouncil Member In Favor/Against)
Mayor Dettloff (Council Member In Favor/Ag.,qffst)
(Council Member In Favor/Against)
members of that body, to file written arguments regarding the City measure as specified above in
accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California
and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no
arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.
2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney are
affected. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect
of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the measure affects the
1
4/s:4-99Resolution:Impartial Analysis
9/20/99
�E'cs Q f 79
organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall prepare the
impartial analysis. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the
filing of primary arguments.
3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of Se tember , 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk i City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
C Administrator
2
4/s:4-99Resol ution:Impartial Analysis
9/20/99
Res. No. 99-79
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 20th day of September, 1999 by the
following vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff
NOES: Green, Harman, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
4
City Clerk and ex-officio rk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MEETING DATE: September 7, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-005
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to:
Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature
Council Meeting Date: September 7, 1999 Department ID Number: CK99-005
ICITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL, ACTION
TO be, 0-3
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk �SC����j��/ � �
PREPARED BY: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk q6 rG
SUBJECT: City Clerk's Certification of Results to City Council of Sufficiency of
Initiative Petition Regarding Initiative to Amend Zoning & General Plan
Designation of Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial
Development and Permit Residential Uses Only/Presentation of
Special Municipal Election Resolutions 99-67, 99-68, 99-69
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Pursuant to State Elections Code S.9114, the City Clerk's report of the sufficiency of the
initiative petition is presented to the City Council - Initiative to Amend Zoning and General
Plan Designation of Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit
Residential Uses Only. The County Registrar of Voters Certificate as to Verification of
Signatures on Petition dated September 2, 1999 is hereby submitted to Council
Pursuant to Elections Code S.9211 and S.9114, when the initiative petition is found to be
sufficient, the City Clerk must certify a sufficient petition to the City Council at its next regular
meeting. r.
Funding Source:
Special Elections Cost — approximately $125,000 - $150,000— General Fund.
CK99005.doc -2- 09/03/99 3:13 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: September 7, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-005
There Are Three Available Actions Pursuant To Elections Code S.9114:
(A) Introduce the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which it is
presented, and adopt the ordinance within ten (10) days after it is presented.
Ordinance No.
Initiative To Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest View School Site to
Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residential Uses Only.
The People of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows:
1. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is hereby amended to change the
general plan designation for the 13.89 acre site located on the South side of Talbert
Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95 from CG-F1 (Commercial
General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre).
2. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) to rezone the property described
above from CG (General Commercial) to R-L (Low Density Residential).
3. The above may not be amended except by vote of the people.
4. Should any provision or application of the above be invalidated by a court of law, it
shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance.
or
(B) Adopt Resolution No. 99-67 to immediately order a special election, to be held not less
than 88 nor more than 103 days after the date of the order, at which the ordinance,
without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the city. (Election dates
possible — December 7, 1999 or December 14, 1999.)
And adopt Resolution No. 99-68 requesting the Board of Supervisors to render
specified services to city to conduct special municipal election.
(Continued Next Page)
CK99005.doc -3- 09/03/99 3:13 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: September 7, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-005
or
(C) Order a report* pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at which the ordinance
is presented. When the report is presented to the legislative body, the legislative body
shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Elections Code S.9214.
* See Election Code S.9212 (Report on effect of proposed initiative to legislative body).
Alternative Action(s):
Available actions are as above listed.
Analysis:
On Wednesday, September 2, 1999, the Registrar of Voters informed the City Clerk that the
aforementioned initiative has been signed by not less than 15% of the voters of the city
according to the last report of registration by the county to the Secretary of State pursuant to
Elections Code S.2187. Pursuant to Elections Code S.9211 and S.9114 the City Clerk must
certify a sufficient petition to the City Council at its next regular meeting.
Environmental Status:
N/A
Attachment(s):
Page Number NO. Description
City Clerk's
1. Registrar's Certificate As To Verification of Signatures for the
Petition Entitled "Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan
- Designation of Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial
3�3
Development and Permit Residential Uses Only."
2. Resolutions No. 99-67, 99-68, 99-69
3. Ballot Title and Summary of Proposed Ballot Measure Prepared by
City Attorney on February 12, 1999, Notice of Intent to Circulate
Petition, and Initiative Measure To Be Submitted Directly to the Voters.
4. Elections Code Sections 9112, 9114, 9212, 9214 (G.C.S. 65008,
Chapter 4.2 (commencing with S.65913) and Chapter 4.3
(commencing with S.65915). This government code is related to
Elections Code S.9214 .
RCA Author: CB
CK99005.doc -4- 09/03/99 3:13 PM
A TTA CHMENT 1
CITY OIL HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
September 2, 1999
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Connie Brockway, City Clerk
Regarding: City Council Agenda Item F-4 (Regarding Special Municipal Election)
Transmitted pursuant to State Elections Code S.9114 is the Certificate As To Verification of
Signatures for the Petition Entitled "Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of
Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residential Uses
Only."
The City Clerk's RCA (Request for Council Action) and the election resolutions as they are
reflected on the City Council Tuesday, September 7, 1999 agenda will be provided to Council
under separate cover and will be available to the public at the City Clerk's.Office on Friday,
September 3, 1999.
,?�a�4�7-- -
Connie Brockway, CMC
City Clerk
Attachments: Copy of letter from Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters, dated September 2, 1999
Copy of Certificate as to Verification of Signatures on Petition
cbmemos/99-177cg
(Telephone:714-536.5227)
JANICE M.MITTERMEIER
Counit Executive Officer
f' _a.� b I J N T Y O F ROSALYN LEVER
2 `'^� � ReCist,-arof Voters
� ltzTrg Addrzss:
3 RANGE
P,O. azit2.9
Santa Aaa,Calftrnia 92711
REGISTRATION&ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT
l� 1300 Sod Grad Avenue,9rg.C
Santa Ana,California 92705
(714)567JE00
TOOV14)Sc-7•7M
FAX(714)$67.7627
September 2, 1999
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. Brockway,
Enclosed is our Certificate as to Verification of Signatures for the petition
entitled "Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of Crest
View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit Residential
Uses Only"for the city of Huntington Beach,
The number of registered voters in the city of Huntington Beach as of the
report of registration to the Secretary of State dated February 10, 1999 is
100,913.
Very truly yours,
Rosalyn Lever
Registrar of Voters
Enc.
CERTIFICATE AS TO VERIFICATION
OF SIGNATURES ON PETITION
State of California)
) SS.
County of Orange )
I, Rosalyn Lever, Registrar of Voters of the County of Orange, do
hereby certify that I am the county officer having charge of the registration
of voters in the County of Orange, and 1 have examined, or caused to be
examined, the attached initiative petition submitted to the City of Huntington
Beach entitled "Initiative to Amend Zoning and General Plan Designation of
Crest View School Site to Prohibit Commercial Development and Permit
Residential Uses Only."
I further certify that from said examination I have determined the
following facts regarding these documents:
Number of signatures submitted: 22,366
Number of signatures examined: 22,169
Number of signatures verified: 15,445
Number of signatures found invalid: 6,724
Number of signatures found invalid
because of being duplicate: 1,337
WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 2"d day of September, 1999.
`,`tire tet ue�eo®r�s�
Od
ROSALYN LEVER
Registrar of Voters
County of Orange
m O ee s0 a eti a
Po"
eeeteatabsig
A TTA CHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 99-67
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON'BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1999,E FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE �fr
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by statute a petition has been filed with the
legislative body of the City of Huntington Beach, California, signed by more than 15 percent of
the number of registered voters of the city to submit a proposed ordinance relating to initiative to
amend zoning and General Plan designation of Crest View School sit�to prohibit commercial
development and permit residential uses only; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk examined the records of registTtion and ascertained that the
petition is signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has not voted in favor of/the adoption of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the
proposed ordinance to the voters;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the Charter, there is called and
ordered to be held in the City of Huntington Beach, California, on Tuesday, December 7, 1999,
a Special Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting the following proposed ordinance:
Shall the Ordinance to�ehange the General Plan
Designation of the Crest View School site from YES
CG-F1 (Commercia�General with a maximum floor
area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to
change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View
School site from CG (Commercial General) to R-L NO
(Low Density Residential) be adopted?
SECTION 2. That the text of the ordinance submitted to the voters is as follows.
INITIATIVE TP AMEND ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF CREST
VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT
RESIDENTIAL USES ONLY.
t
The People of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows:
1. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is hereby amended to change the
general plan designation for the 13.89 acre site located on the South side of Talbert
Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95 from CG-F1 (Commercial General
with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (residential with a maximum of 7
dwelling units per net acre).
2. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) to rezone the property described
above from CG (General Commercial) to R-L (Low Density Residential).
3. The above may not be amended except by vote of the people.
4. Should any provision or application of the above be invalidated by a court of law, it
shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance.
SECTION 3. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as
required by law.
SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and
furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and
paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
SECTION 5. That the polls shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. on the day of the
election and shall remain open continuously from that time until 8 o'clock p.m. of the same day
when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in §14401 of the Elections Code of the State
of California.
SECTION 6. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be
held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 7. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the
City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
Section 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution
and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1999.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�I�q
F,,City,Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 99-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTIN�GTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7,�1999
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California/, has
commenced proceedings for.the calling of a Special Municipal Election in the City to be held on
Tuesday, December 7, 1999; and ,
WHEREAS, Resolution 73-1452 of the County of Orange authorizes the Registrar of
Voters of the County of Orange to render specified services relating to/the conduct of an
election to any city or district which has by resolution requested the Board of Supervisors to
permit the Registrar to render the services subject to requirements;set forth in that section.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AN,D ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the above cited provisions, the Orange County Board of
Supervisors is hereby requested to permit the Registrar o�Voters to perform and render all
services and proceedings incidental to and connected with the conduct of the subject election of
the City, with the cooperation and assistance of the City'Clerk, such services to include, but not
limited to the following activities as are appropriate y he subject election:
1. Furnish a tabulation of the number of registered voters in each precinct.
2. Establish voting precincts, secure location/for polling places, secure the services of election
officers for each precinct as required by law, and furnish a list of precincts, polling places,
and election officers for filing in the office"of the City Clerk.
3. Prepare and furnish to the election o., icers necessary election supplies for the conduct of
the election.
4. Cause to be translated, as app,priate, and printed the requisite number of sample ballots,
official ballots, polling place slips, roster, tally sheets, and other necessary forms.
5. Furnish and address sampl ballots for mailing to the registered voters of the City.
6. Cause the sample ballots to be mailed, as required by law.
7. Assemble the election material and supplies into ballot containers and make necessary
arrangements for their delivery to the various precincts.
8. Distribute absent voter ballots as required by law.
s
9. Receive the retur s of the elections and supplies.
1
10. Sort and assemble the election material and supplies in preparation for the canvassing of
the returns of the election.
11. Canvass the returns of the election, including the absent voters ballots.
12. Furnish a tabulation of the number of votes given in each precinct.
13. Make all arrangements and take the necessary steps to pay the members of the precinct
boards, the polling place rentals, the persons returning the ballot containers, and to pay all
other costs of the election incurred as the result of services performed for the City and pay
for the election officials the amounts prescribed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Orange.
SECTION 2. That the initiative to appear on the ballot is as follows:
Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan
Designation of the Crest View School site from YES
CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor
area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to
change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View
School site from CG (Commercial General) to R-L NO
(Low Density Residential) be adopted?
SECTION 3. That the County of Orange shall be reimbursed in full for the services performed
by the Registrar of Voters for this in connection with the election services herein described
including the estimated costs to conduct the election plus an amount to cover contingencies
which could occur to increase costs beyond those normally to be anticipated.
SECTION 4. That the City agrees to indemnify and to save free and harmless the County, its
officers, agents and employees from expense of liability, including reasonable attorneys fees, as
the result of an election contest arising after conduct of this election.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to deliver forthwith certified copies of this
resolution to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange and to the Registrar
of Voters of the County of Orange.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting thereof held on the day of , 1999.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�G City Attorney , 113111
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
F
City Clerk
J. �► ,�P��in - UISCUSSe�-
/Vo vrJ TaJ en
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Tom Harman, City Council Member
DATE: September 3, 1999
SUBJECT: "H"Item for the September 7, 1999, City Council Meeting
1. Rezoning Crestview School Site to R-1
2. Call for a Special Election
ISSUE:
Twenty-two thousand registered voters of Huntington Beach have expressed opposition
to a Wal-Mart being built on the Crest View School Site. Yesterday,the Developer
challenged the legal validity of the voter-sponsored initiative in court. This legal
challenge may delay action on the initiative and it might very well be tied up in the courts
for many months. I believe this issue should be decided once and for all by a vote of the
people. A quick and speedy resolution of this issue would be important to the community
as a whole.
In order to guarantee that the citizens will have the right to decide the question of whether
or not there should be a Wal-Mart built on the Crest View School Site, it is necessary to
immediately rezone the property prior to Wal-Mart starting construction of their proposed
project. I propose that the property be rezoned R-1 and at the same time a special
election be immediately called by the City Council for the purpose of submitting to the
voters the question of whether or not a Wal-Mart should be built on the Crest View
School Site. The developer and not the citizens should pay the cost of any such election.
If the developer refuses to pay for the cost of the election the property should remain R-1.
MOTION:
1. Staff be directed to take the action necessary to bring to the City Council the "
required ordinance to rezone the Crest View School Site to R-1.
2. Staff be directed to take action necessary for the City Council to call a specials,.
election to determine whether or not a Wal-Mart should be built on the Crest W
View School Site.
5,•... f)
TH:lp ,
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver ;.
Melanie Fallon
1?/7 L4 Ix cou/)ef/
'Me e-l-in
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH aL) e'da Ilely? F_ �
HUNTINGTON BEACH q1-7
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION 15 � Y d
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Dave Garofalo, Mayor Pro Tem;l
DATE: September 2, 1999
SUBJECT: "If'Item for the September 7, 1999, City Council Meeti
Wal-Mart
ISSUE: Ji- >1
Congratulations go out to all involved in the recent successful Petition/Initiative effort.
At least 15,000 people have spoken. Let all the people vote. It's the democratic process.
As well, every action has a consequence. The voters and this legislative body need to
know all the consequences of all major decisions and the issue of an abandoned school
site and its future is certainly a major issue consuming hundreds of staff, Council, and"
community hours.
This is a monumental and important concept important to all the residents. All the
residents should know the consequences of citywide decisions;this one at the top of the
list of concerns. 1, again, applaud the leadership of the citizens involved in this process.
I feel obligated to support them in the pursuit of all the facts surrounding this obviously
important event.
MOTION:
I propose that we refer the proposed initiative action to the City Administrator requesting
that a report be prepared covering the following issues:
1. Its financial impact.
2. Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and specific plans,
including the housing element;the consistency between planning and zoning; and
the limitations on the city actions under various Government codes.
3. Alternative land use concepts and the impact of them.
DG:lp
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon
oi'm toV I )9ye e l
�I6CO3-55 eat Nd
` CITY Off' HUN1TINIGTON BEACH �f%L� )9-ken/,/
HUNriNoroNeencH See 1��/Y7 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION 7
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members `7
FROM: Dave Garofalo Mayor Pro Tern
_J
DATE: September 2, 1999
SUBJECT: "If' Item for the September 7, 1999, City Council Meeting
Petition/Initiative Process
i�
ISSUE:
Assuming the City Council moves forward with a Special Election as indicated in the
recently successful Petition/Initiative Process,the opportunity that avails itself to this
legislative body is significant.
These are only offered as examples. None of them are proposed for more than that. The
intent is to fairly distribute an effort to secure advisory opinions in several major areas of
interest, public health and safety, ongoing environmental concerns and causes, and an
attempt to deal with the all-important cultural, informational, and educational aspects of
public policy issues.
MOTION:
I move the city Council add to the Special Election Ballot several issues that could
include a series of issues that would be advisory statements to help all of us better
govern. Some examples, but not necessarily real issues follow to Assist in our debate''
A. "The infrastructure of this community has been the subject of great investigations
this past year. A citizen's body has reviewed the condition of the City's
infrastructure and has determined that there is over$1.2 billion of public health
and safety issues to be resolved. The City has identified about $600 million in
cash reserves available to apply to this issue leaving a balance of about $600
million unfounded. Do you support a tax increase to offset this potential
unfounded liability? YES — NO
B- "The Cityhas for a long time been an advocate for environmental and open space
g p P
preservation issues. The city has identified an opportunity to create an Urbane
Forest on existing public land. The proposed cost to accomplish this
environmental event is estimated at $ Should the City make as an
important priority the establishment of this Urban Forest? YES NO
•r ^
B. "The City has a well respected and well run library system. The Huntington
Beach Central Library and its branch system are effective and well used.
Currently,the operation of the Library system is paid for, in the main, from the
General Fund, primarily from the community's tax bas. Would you support a
$5.00 annual Library Card for residents as a way to offset cost? YES _ NO
DG:1p
Xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon
From: Robert rolkooi+l(7id)9o2-4910 To: City C1erk+1(714)379-1557 Page 2 of 2, Friday, September 03, 1999 7:50am
BOBEIff L POLKOW
21772 Oceanview Lane
I Iuntingtion Reach,Ca.92646-8215
U S.
Phone 714 962-4810
Fax 7)4 962-4810
e-mail:RPolkow@aol.com
September 03, 1999
Subj: Wal-Mart Hysteria
FROM:R Polkow
TO. Huntington Beach City Council
August 30(Monday)My wife and I attended what was supposed to be an informative presentation by our city's staff
on the status of the impending Crest View school site development. We watched the staff continually interrupted by
verbal abuse and obvious far fetched assumptions. As it turned out we found that the attendees aparently thought the
meeting was intended for the sole purpose for them to continue their hysterical objections. I found it difficult to voice
any opinion because of their conduct but finally found the opportunity to suggest they let staff continue their
presentation and allow the people of our city voice their opinion at the polls. After all wasn't that their intent when
the initiative was formed? My suggestion fell on dead ears and all I received was the same treatment as staff. It
seems that because they have obstenably secured 22,000 signatures the council should reverse the zoning change. In
my opinion many were solicited fraudently. When I was asked to sign the request for the initiative petition I was told
that it was to save our open space. Just when did 22,000 signatures constitute the majority of 125,000 registered
voters in our city? Why are the STOP people,headquartered in Fountain Valley and some of the Crest View area
residents afraid to let the initiative go to all the people in Huntington Beach? My guess is that they know their
initiative will be soundly defeated and want the council members to be the"scapegoat"when the rest of our city ask
why Wal-Mart was denied. Our city's name is not Crestviewville or is it a suburb of Fountain Valley. The die has
been cast,let the system work. I believe the majority in Huntington Baech want the council to perform like elected
representatives for all.of the city not for a neighboring city or a small vocal minority. However,this vocal minority
have somehow forced the city to schedule another public heating on the entire issue. How long is our city going to
be held hostage by this small group of people that are clearly self serving for a principal that has yet to be surfaced.
They would deny our city and school board the process to proceed in an effort to upgrade a blighted area by raising
every conceivable objection they can that is,in my opinion,nothing more than a facade for their basic objection if
aired would not justify their position. Another public meeting on this issue is just another ploy they have managed to
arrange in order to hoodwink the people of our city that look for a positive future for our city. This has to stop. Will
it only stop when this small group is satisfied to the determent of the majority in our city?? They know full well that all
the speakers will he their small group. We have heard their arguments ad museum. The majority of our city's
population are relying on the city council to perform for the greatest good for Huntington Beach and will not add to
the list of speakers. This small group is well aware of this,thus again our staff and the rest of us will be painted a5
the villians in this fiasco and some of the city council members will probably take this opportunity to make the
cavalier decision to appease this group that purports to speak for all of the city.
BOB POLKOW
Z
C C
>
ATCH 1
From: Pohert Polkom Fax: +1(714)9e2-4810 To: City Clerk Fax, +1(714)374-1557 Page 1 of 2, Friday, September 03, 1999 7:50aia
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: City Clerk
Company:
Phone:
Fax: +1(714)374-1557
From: Robert Polkow
Company:
Phone: +1(714)962-4810
Fax: +1(714) 962-4810
Date: 9/3f99
Pages including this
cover page: 2
Comments:
Is there possibly an attempt to get the zoning changed before all
council members are present . The Crestview and STOP people have pulled
every other dirty trick possible to achieve their goal . A vote on this
issue without full council presence would be an underhanded and
egregious insult to the majority of the voters in Huntington Beach .
Robert Pol k-)-,v-1 PIC 9162-4810 C--ty C!erk+1(714)374-1557 Page I of 1, Thursdq, be pzerd I:af 02, 1999 1; 21p
TEAM POLUW
21772 0=nview I Ane
Huntingtion Beach,Ca.92646--8215
U.S.
Phone 714'%2-4810
Fax 714 962-48 10
September 02, 1999
Orange County Register
Olivia Hawkinson
Hawkinson@hnk.fireedom.com
My husband and I are not happy about the lawsuit filed by the Arnel Retail Group inc.however,we are forced to
admit they may have fertile grounds to present to the courts. Each time we were approached by the clip board
carrying signature seekers we were told that they were gethering signatures to protect our open space and the
environment. When we asked if it involved the Crest View school site and Wal-Mart the individual would say
something Eke"yes,but thats a side issue". After experiencing the first attempt to secure our signatures we
immediately asked the same question and without exception received the same evasive answer, We did not sign any
petition but wonder how many Huntington Beach residems that want a Wal-Mart were coaxed to sign the petition
not knowing what the contents really were intended to do. Yes,in my opinion the Arnel people have good grounds
for their grievance. It is unfortunate though that our city's clerk who we hold in high esteem should be innocently
drawn into what may become a nasty legal mess.
JEAN POLKOW
Note to Connie: I am sending this for your information. This letter was sent to Olivia in response to her column in
Thursday's paper, In our estimation you are the only shining jewell in city had.You have been helpful to us in the,
past.This copy was sent to you so you would not be blind sighted about any legal action. JP ptlz.-,
-j
C'Q
U-,
-:7
I
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-006
Council/Agency Meeting Held: �"?-�-�9
Deferred/Continued to:
❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature
Council Meeting Date: cl,-7_ Department ID Number: CK99-006
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: Connie Brockway, City Clerk(-
PREPARED BY: Connie Brockway, City ClerkC-b � - '-
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SETTING PRIORITIES FOR A WRITTEN ARGUMENT
IN OPPOSITION TO CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE
PREPARATION OF IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS — DECEMBER 7, 1999
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
IEmenEssue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Written Arguments
If Council wishes to have first priority to file an argument in opposition to the proposed
measure to amend zoning and General Plan designation relative to Crest View School site,
the Council may vote to authorize Councilmembers to file an argument against.
(Note: No more than 5 Councilmembers can sign an argument.)
Should Council choose not to authorize its members to file a written argument in opposition,
a written argument shall be selected by the City Clerk pursuant to § 9219 of the State
Elections Code.
Impartial Analyses
The City Council may direct the preparation of an impartial analysis by directing the City
Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure.
CK99006 -2- 09/03/99 12:53 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CK99-006
Resolution No. 99-69 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
California, Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments Regarding a City Measure and
Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis."
Actions Available to Council:
(a) Adopt Resolution No. 99-69 after naming Councilmembers authorized to file a
written argument.
OR
(b) Adopt Resolution No. 99-69 as amended to not give Council first priority to file a
written argument but to direct preparation of an impartial analysis of the proposed
ordinance.
OR
(c) Do not adopt Resolution No. 99-69 which would result in no impartial analysis nor
Councilmembers authorized to file an argument in opposition.
Analysis:
The City Charter provides for city elections to be held pursuant to the State Elections Code.
The Elections Code provides that Council may authorize members of its body to file written
arguments regarding city measures; also that whenever any city measure qualifies for a
place on the ballot, the governing body may direct the city elections official to transmit a
copy of the measure to the City Attorney unless the organization or salaries of the Office of
the City Attorney are affected. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the
measure.
Attachment(s):
Numbercity Q*OrWs
1. Resolution No. 99-69
2. Election Code § 9219
CK99006 -3- 09/03/99 12:53 PM
RESOLUTION NO. 99-69
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT AGAINST A
CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL
ANALYSIS OF SAID MEASURE.
WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach,
California, on December 7, 1999, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following
measure:
Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan
Designation of the Crest View School site from YES
CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor
area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to
change the Zoning Designation of the Crest View
School site from CG (Commercial General) to R-L NO
(Low Density Residential) be adopted?
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
members of that body, to file written argument regarding the city measure as specified above in
accordance with Article 4 and 1, Chapter 3, S.9219, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the
State of California and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City
Clerk after which no arguments for or against the city measure may be submitted to the City
Clerk.
SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney are
affected. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the
effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the measure
affects the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall prepare
the impartial analysis. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for
the filing of primary arguments.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting thereof held on the day of , 1999.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�v City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
/,9*� UC�uGI'P
City Clerk
A TTA CHMENT 3
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
} Inter-Department Communication
TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk
FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney
DATE: February 12, 1999
SUBJECT: Ballot Title and Summary—Crest View Site
RLS 99-052 and 99-086
are
Attached hereto A-the proposed ballot title and summary for the attached
referenced petition.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions.
Gail Hutton
City Attorney
Attachment
c: Ray Silver, City Administrator
Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator
Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
David Biggs, Director of Economic Development
G s
N �
N �
4/s/4-99 Memos:99-086
^Y
BALLOT TITLE:
A BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE
CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG-F1 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL WITH A
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.35)TO RL-7 (RESIDENTIAL WITH A
MAXIMUM OF 7 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE), AND TO CHANGE THE
ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG
(COMMERCIAL GENERAL)TO R-L (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
SUMMARY:
This proposed ballot measure would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan
of the City of Huntington Beach to change the General Plan designation of the Crest
View School site. The General Plan designation would be changed from CG-F1
(Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (Residential with
a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre). The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of
the City of Huntington Beach would also be amended to change the zoning designation
of the Crest View School site. The zoning designation would be changed from CG
(Commercial General) to RL (Low Density Residential). A vote of the people would be
required to change the general plan and zoning designations as amended by this
measure. If a court invalidates a portion of the proposed measure, that portion shall be
severed and have no effect on the remainder of the proposed measure.
tom--t~r;
r
tv �
•
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
HUNTWGTON BEACH
TO: Gail Hutton
City Attorney
FROM: Connie Brockway
City Clerk
DATE: February 12, 1999
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION FILED BY
ROBERT CRONK (WAL-MART)
In order to meet the requirements of the State Elections Code, I am immediately transmitting
the attached document to your office to prepare a Ballot Title and Summary to be returned to
my office.
cbmemos/99-44cg
0
Dated: —1/1z
TO: City Clerk of Huntington Beach
FROM: ' Huntington Beach Residents
RE: INITIATIVE PETITION
I file herewith a proposed initiative petition and request
that the City Attorney prepare a ballot title and summary, as
required to do within 15 days by Cal . Elections Code §92*03 .
� C
rn
CD <
r•
7�
s=
c1 i n
_ D
I
O
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the person (s) G-.:^ose names appear hereon
of their intention to circulate a peti-_ion within the City of
Huntington Beach for the purpose of amending the City' s General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance .
A statement of the reasons for the proposed action
contemplated in the petition is as follows :
For many years, the community has relied on the Crestview
school site for educational uses and a park. This site is near a
residential neighborhood.
However, recently the City Council voted to rezone the land
and amend the general plan to allow a huge discount store on this
site.
This would add thousands of cars to Beach Boulevard and the
area surrounding the site, clogging streets with traffic and adding
air pollution.
Such a store would unfairly compete with existing stores by
not providing family health benefits . Existing stores would end up
laying off employees .
We do not oppose all development : the development should
simply be consistent with the character o^ r ommunity.
Nam /�o%3r`�T 'C'2v�✓ec
A,--;dress: j�'3i•Z /��i�7.�r1��D ��t/
i
f r
rT
=ter
C
Ln n
1.
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS :
INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF
CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES ONLY.
The People of the City- of Huntington Beach do ordain as
follows :
1 . The Land Use Element of the City' s General Plan is
hereby amended to change the general plan designation
for the 13. 89 acre site located on the South side of
Talbert Avenue described in City Council Resolution
98-95 from CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum
floor area ratio of 0 . 35) to RL-7 (Residential with a
maximum of 7 dwelling unites per net acre) .
2 . The City' s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby
amended by amending District Map 40 (Sectional
District Map 36-5-11) to rezone the property described
above from CG (General Commercial) to R-L (Low Density
Residential) .
3 . The above may not be amended except by vote of the
people .
4 . Should any provision or application of the above be
invalidated by a court of law, it shall be severed and
have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance.
.:ram G
L`3 C
M ;;
A TTA CHMENT 4
Chapter 2.County Elections 9112.
9108. Circulation of petition.
The proponents may commence to circulate the petitions among the vot-
ers of the county for signatures by any registered voter of the county after
publication of the title and summary prepared by the county counsel.Each
section of the petition shall bear a copy of the notice of intention,and the title
and summary prepared by the county counsel.
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
9109. Form of petition.
Each petition section shall have attached to it an affidavit to be completed
by the circulator.The affidavit shall be substantially in the same form as set
forth in Section 104.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9110. Time limit for securing signatures.
Signatures shall be secured and the petition shall be presented to the
county elections official for filing within 180 days from the date of receipt of
the title and summary,or after termination of any action for a writ of mandate
pursuant to Section 9106 and,if applicable,after receipt of an amended title
or summary or both,whichever occurs later.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9111. Report on effect of proposed initiative to Board of Supervisors.
(a)During the circulation of the petition or before taking either action
described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9116, or Section 9118, the
board of supervisors may refer the proposed initiative measure to any county
agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
(1)Its fiscal impact.
(2)Its effect on the internal consistency of the county's general and
specific plans including the housing element,the consistency between plan-
ning and zoning,the limitations on county actions under Section 65008 of the
Government Code,and Chapters 4.2(commencing with Section 65913)and
4.3(commencing with Section 65915)of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Govern-
ment Code.
(3)Any other matters the board of supervisors request to be in the
report.
(b)The report shall be presented to the board of supervisors within the
time prescribed by the board of supervisors but no later than 30 days after the
county elections official certifies to the board of supervisors the sufficiency of
the petition.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9112. Report on county initiatives submitted to Secretary of State;time.
On or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year, the county elections
official of each county shall file a report with the Secretary of State containing
the following information:
(a)The number of county initiative petitions circulated during the pre-
ceding two calendar years that did not qualify for the ballot,and the number
of these proposed initiatives for which reports were prepared pursuant to
Section 9111.
(b)With respect to county initiative measures that qualified for the ballot
in the preceding two calendar years,the number that were approved by the
voters,and the number of these ballot measures for which reports were pre-
253 1999
9112. DIVISION 9.MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
pared pursuant to Section 9111.
(c)With respect to county initiative measures that qualified for the ballot
in the preceding two calendar years,the number which were not approved
by the voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports
were prepared pursuant to Section 9111.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9113. Filing of petition.
The petition shall be filed by the proponents,or by any person or persons
authorized in writing by the proponents.All sections of the petition shall be
filed at one time.Any sections of the petition not so filed shall be void for all
purposes.Once filed,no petition section shall be amended except by order of
a court of competent jurisdiction.
When the petition is filed, the county elections official shall determine
the total number of signatures affixed to the petition.If,from this examina-
tion,the county elections official determines that the number of signatures,
prima facie, equals or is in excess of the minimum number of signatures
required, the county elections official shall examine the petition in accor-
dance with Section 9114 or 9115.If,from this examination,the county elec-
tions official determines that the number of signatures,prima facie,does not
equal or exceed the minimum number of signatures required, no further
action shall be taken.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9114. Examination of signatures.
Except as provided in Section 9115,within 30 days from the date of filing
of the petition, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, the elections
official shall examine the petition,and from the records of registration ascer-
tain whether or not the petition is signed by the requisite number of voters.A
certificate showing the results of this examination shall be attached to the
petition.
In determining the number of valid signatures,the elections official may
use the duplicate file of affidavits maintained,or may check the signatures
against facsimiles of voters'signatures,provided that the method of prepar-
ing and displaying the facsimiles complies with law.
The elections official shall notify the proponents of the petition as to the
sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition.
.If the petition is found insufficient,no further action shall be taken.How-
ever,the failure to secure sufficient signatures,shall not preclude the filing of
a new petition on the same subject,at a later date.
If the petition is found sufficient,the elections official shall certify the
results of the examination to the board of supervisors at the next regular
meeting of the board.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9115. Sample examination of signatures.
(a)Within 30 days from the date of filing of the petition,excluding Satur-
days,Sundays,and holidays,if,from the examination of petitions pursuant
to Section 9114 shows that more than 500 signatures have been signed on the
petition,the elections official may use a random sampling technique for veri-
fication of signatures.The random sample of signatures to be verified shall be
drawn so that every signature filed with the elections official shall be given an
equal opportunity to be included in the sample.The random sampling shall
1999 254
Chapter 3. Municipal Elections 9212,
9209. Affidavit attached to petition.
Each section shall have attached thereto the declaration of the person
soliciting the signatures.This declaration shall be substantially in the same
form as set forth in Section 9022,except that the declaration shall declare that
the circulator is a voter of the city, and shall state the voter's residence
address at the time of the execution of the declaration.
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.926,§2J
9210. Filing of petition.
The petition shall be filed by the proponents or by any person or persons
authorized in writing by the proponents.All sections of the petition shall be
" filed at one time.Once filed,no petition section shall be amended except by
order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
When the petition is presented for filing,the elections official shall do all
of the following:
(a)Ascertain the number of registered voters of the city last reported by
the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187
effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published.
(b)Determine the total number of signatures affixed to the petition.If,
from this examination,the elections official determines that the number of
signatures,prima facie,equals or is in excess of the minimum number of sig-
natures required,he or she shall accept the petition for filing.The petition
shall be deemed as filed on that date.Any petition not accepted for filing shall
be returned to the proponents.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9211. Examination of signatures.
After the petition has been filed,as herein provided,the elections official
shall examine the petition in the same manner as are county petitions in
accordance with Sections 9114 and 9115,except that for the purposes of this
section,references to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to
the legislative body of the city.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9212. Report on effect of proposed initiative to legislative body.
(a)During the circulation of the petition,or before taking either action
described in subdivisions(a)and(b)of Section 9214,or Section 9215,the leg-
islative body may refer the proposed initiative measure to any city agency or
agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
(1)Its fiscal impact.
(2)Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and spe-
cific plans,including the housing element,the consistency between planning
and zonin91the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Govern-
ment Code;and Chapters 4.2(commencing with Section 65913)and 4.3(com-
mencing with Section 65915)of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3)Any other matters the council requests to be in the report.
(b)The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time
prescribed by the legislative body but no later than 30 days after the electiors
official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.) -
265 1999
9213. DIVISION 9.MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
9213. Report on municipal initiatives submitted to Secretary of State;
time.
On or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year,the elections official of
each legislative body shall file a report with the Secretary of State containing
the following information:
(a)The number of municipal initiative petitions circulated during the
preceding two calendar years which did not qualify for the ballot,and the
number of these proposed initiatives for which reports were prepared pursu-
ant to Section 9212.
(b)With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the
ballot in the preceding two calendar years,the number that were approved
by the voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports
were prepared pursuant to Section 9212.
(c)With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the
ballot in the preceding two calendar years, the number that were not
approved by the voters,and the number of these ballot measures for which
reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
71 9214. Petition signatures;adopt ordinance or order special election.
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 15 percent of the voters
of the city according to the last report of registration by the county elections
official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187 effective at the time
the notice specified in Section 9202 was published,or in a city with 1,000 or
less registered voters the signatures of 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of
the city,whichever is the lesser number,and contains a request that the ordi-
nance be submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a special election,
the legislative body shall do either of the following:
(a)Introduce the ordinance,without alteration,at the regular meeting at
which it is presented,and adopt the ordinance within 10 days after it is pre-
sented.
(b)Immediately order a special election,to be held not less than 88 nor
more than 103 days after the date of the order,at which the ordinance,with-
out alteration,shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the city.
(c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at
which the ordinance is presented.When the report is presented to the legisla-
tive body,the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days
or order an election pursuant to subdivision(b).
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9215. Petition signatures;ordinance submitted at next regular
municipal election.
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters
of the city,according to the last report of registration by the county elections
official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187,effective at the time
the notice specified in Section 9202 was published,or,in a city with 1,000 or
less registered voters,by the signatures of 25 percent of the voters or 100 vot-
ers of the city,whichever is the lesser number,and the ordinance petitioned
for is not required to be,or for any reason is not,submitted to the voters at a
special election, and is not passed without change by the legislative body,
then the ordinance,without alteration,shall be submitted by the legislative
body to the voters at the next regular municipal election occurring not less
1999 266
L
CA Codes (gov:65000-65010) Page 1 of 1
65008 (a) Any action pursuant to this title by any city, county,city and
county, or other local governmental agency in this state isnull and void if it
denies to any individual or group or individualsthe enjoyment of residence,
landownership, tenancy, or any other landuse in this state because of any of the
following reasons: (1) The race, sex, color, religions, ethnicity, national
origin,ancestry, lawful occupation, or age of the individuals or group of
individuals. (2) The method of financing of any residential development of the
individual or group of individuals . (3) The intended occupancy of any
residential development bypersons or families of low, moderate, or middle
income. (b) No city, county, city and county, or other local governmental
agency shall, in the enactment or administration of ordinance spurs uant to this
title, prohibit or discriminate against anyresidential development or emergency
shelter because of the method offinancing or the race, sex, color, religion,
ethnicity, nationalorigin, ancestry, lawful occupation, or age of the owners or
intendedoccupants of the residential development or emergency shelter. (c) (1)
No city, county, city and county, or other, localgovernmental agency shall, in
the enactment or administration ofordinances pursuant to this title, prohibit or
discriminate against aresidential development or emergency shelter because the
developmentor shelter is intended for occupancy by persons and families of low
and moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health andSafety Code,
or persons and families of middle income. (2) For the purposes of this
section, "persons and families ofmiddle income" means persons and
families whose income does. notexceed 150 percent of the median income for the
county in which thepersons or families reside. (d) (1) No city, county, city
and county, or other localgovernmental agency may impose different requirements
on aresidential development or emergency shelter which is subsidized,financed,
insured, or otherwise assisted by the federal or stategovernments or by a local
public entity, as defined in Section 50079of the Health and Safety Code, than
those imposed on nonassisteddevelopments, except as provided in subdivision (e) .
(2) No city, county, city and county, or other local governmentalagency may,
because of the race, sex, color, religion, ethnicity,national origin, ancestry,
lawful occupation, or age of the intendedoccupants, or because the development
is intended for occupancy bypersons and families of low, moderate, or middle
income, imposedifferent requirements on these residential developments than
thoseimposed on developments generally, except as provided in subdivision(e) .
(e) Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this section or thistitle shall be
construed to prohibit either of the following: (1) The County of Riverside
from enacting and enforcing zoning toprovide housing for older persons, in
accordance with state orfederal law, if that zoning was enacted prior to January
1, 1995. (2) Any city, county, or city and county from extendingpreferential
treatment to residential developments or emergencyshelters assisted by the
federal or state governments or by a localpublic entity, as defined in Section
50079 of the Health and SafetyCode, or other residential developments or
emergency sheltersintended for occupancy by persons and families of low and
moderateincome, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or
persons and families of middle income, or agricultural employees, asdefined in
subdivision (b) of Section 1140.4 of the Labor Code, andtheir families. This
preferential treatment may include, but neednot be limited to, reduction or
waiver of fees or changes inarchitectural requirements, site development and
property linerequirements, building setback requirements, or vehicle parking
requirements which reduce development costs of these developments. (f)
"Residential development, " as used in this section, means a
single-family residence or a multifamily residence, includingmanufactured homes,
as defined in Section 18007 of the Health andSafety Code. (g) This section
shall apply to chartered cities. (h) The Legislature finds and declares that
discriminatorypractices which inhibit the development of housing for persons and
families of low, moderate, and middle income, or emergency sheltersfor the
homeless, are a matter of statewide concern.
1 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=64001-65000&file=65000-6501 6/29/99
CA Codes (gov:65913-65914) Page 1 of 4
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65913-65914
65913 (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there exists a
sever shortage of affordable housing, especially for persons and
families of low and moderate income, and that there is an immediate
need to encourage the development of new housing, not only through
the provision of financial assistance, but also through changes in
law designed to do all of the following:
(1) Expedite the local and state residential development process.
(2) Assure that local governments zone sufficient land at
densities high enough for production of affordable housing.
(3) Assure that local governments make a diligent effort through
the administration of land use and development controls and the
provision of regulatory concessions and incentives to significantly
reduce housing development costs and thereby facilitate the
development of affordable housing, including housing for elderly
persons and families, as defined by Section 50067 of the Health and
Safety Code.
These changes in the law are consistent with the responsibility of
local government to adopt the program required by subdivision (c) of
Section 65583.
(b) The Legislature further finds and declares that the costs of
new housing developments have been increased, in part, by the
existing permit process and by existing land use regulations and that
vitally.needed housing developments have been halted or rendered
infeasible despite the benefits to the public health, safety, and
welfare of those developments and despite the absence of adverse
environmental impacts . It is, therefore, necessary to enact this
chapter and to amend existing statutes which govern housing
development so as to provide greater encouragement for local and
state governments to approve needed and sound housing developments.
65913.1. In exercising its authority to zone for land uses, a city,
county, or city and county shall designate and zone sufficient
vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards, in
relation to zoning for nonresidential use, and in relation to growth
projections of the general plan to meet housing needs as identified
in the general plan. For the purposes of this section, "appropriate
standards" shall mean densities and requirements with respect to
minimum floor areas, building setbacks, rear and side yards, parking,
the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a structure,
amenities, and other requirements imposed on residential lots
pursuant to the zoning authority which contribute significantly to
the economic feasibility of producing housing at the lowest possible
cost given economic and environmental factors, the public health and
safety, and the need to facilitate the development of housing for
persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section
50093 of the Health and Safety Code. However, nothing in this
section shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of a
city, county, or city and county to require a developer to construct
such housing.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a city,
county, or city and county in which less than 5 percent of the total
land area is undeveloped to zone a site within an urbanized area of
http://www.leginfo.ca,gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65913-6591 6/29/99
CA Codes (gov:65913-65914) Page 2 of 4
such city, county, or city and county for residential uses at
densities which exceed those on adjoining residential parcels by 100
percent. For the purposes of this. section, "vacant land" shall not
include agricultural preserves pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with
Section 51200) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5. For the purposes - -
of this section, "urbanized area" means a central city or cities and
surrounding closely settled territory, as defined by the United
States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census in the Federal
Register, Volume 39, Number 85, for Wednesday, May 1, 1974, at pages
15202-15203, and as periodically updated.
65913.2. In exercising its authority to regulate subdivisions under
Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) , a city, county, or city
and county shall:
(a) Refrain from imposing criteria for design, as defined in
Section 66418, or improvements, as defined in Section 66419, for the
purpose of rendering infeasible the development of housing for any
and all economic segments of the community. However, nothing in this
section shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of a
city, county, or city and county under other provisions of law to
permit a developer to construct such housing.
(b) Consider the effect of ordinances adopted and actions taken by
it with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the
local jurisdiction is situated.
(c) Refrain from imposing standards and criteria for public
improvements including, but not limited to, streets, sewers, fire
stations, schools, or parks, which exceed the standards and criteria
being applied by the city, county, or city and county at that time to
its publicly financed improvements located in similarly zoned
districts within that city, county, or city and county.
65913.5. (a) As part of implementation of the demonstration program
established pursuant to Section 14045 of the Government Code, a
city, county, or city and county participating in the demonstration
program shall grant a density bonus to a developer of housing within
one-half mile of a mass transit guideway station unless the locality
finds that granting of the density bonus would result in a specific,
adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no
feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (f) of Section 65915, as used in
this section, "density bonus" means a density increase of at least 25
percent over the otherwise maximum residential density allowed under
the general plan and any applicable zoning and development
oi.dinances.
(c) A city, county, or city and county may require a developer to
enter into a development agreement pursuant to Article 2.5
(commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7
to implement a density bonus granted pursuant to this section.
(d) In an action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or
annul a density bonus granted pursuant to this section, a court shall
uphold the decision of a city, county, or city and county to grant
the density bonus if the court finds that there is substantial
evidence in the record that the housing development will assist the
city, county, or city and county to do all of the following:
(1) Meet its share of the regional housing needs determined
pursuant to Article 10. 6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 4
of Division 1 of Title 7.
(2) Implement its congestion management plan adopted pursuant to
http://www.le0crinfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65913-6591 6/29/99
CA Codes (gov:65913-65914) Page 3 of 4
Chapter 2. 6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve any
local agency from complying with the provisions of the Congestion _
Management Program required by Chapter 2. 6 (commencing with Section
65088) of Division 1 of Title 7.
65913.7. If a court finds that an action of a city, county, or city
and county is in violation of Section 65913. 1 or 65913.2, the city,
county, or city and county shall bring its action into compliance
within 60 days. However, the court shall retain jurisdiction to
enforce its decision. Upon the court's determination that the 60-day
period for compliance would place an undue hardship on the city,
county, or city and county, the court may extend the time period for
compliance by an additional 60 days.
65913.8. A fee, charge, or other form of payment imposed by a
governing body of a local agency for a public capital facility
improvement related to a development project may not include an
amount for the maintenance or operation of an improvement when the
fee, charge, or other form of payment is required as a condition of
the approval of a development project, or required to fulfill a
condition of the approval. However, a fee, charge, or other form of
payment may be required for the maintenance and operation of an
improvement meeting the criteria of either subdivision (a) or (b) , as
follows:
(a) The improvement is (1) designed and installed to serve only
the specific development project on which the fee, charge, or other
form of payment is imposed, (2) the improvement serves 19 or fewer
lots or units, and (3) the local agency makes a finding, based upon
substantial evidence, that it is infeasible or impractical to form a
public entity for maintenance of the improvement or to annex the
property served by the improvement to an entity as described in
subdivision (b) .
(b) The improvement is within a water district, sewer maintenance
district, street lighting district, or drainage district. In these
circumstances, a payment for maintenance or operation may be required
for a period not to exceed 24 months when, subsequent to the
construction of the improvement, either the local agency forms a
public entity or assessment district to finance the maintenance or
operation, or the area containing the improvement is annexed to a
public entity that will finance the maintenance or operation, .
whichever is earlier. The local agency may extend a fee, charge, or
other form of payment pursuant to this section once for whatever
duration it deems reasonable beyond the 24-month period upon making a
finding, based upon substantial evidence, that this time period is
insufficient for creation of, or annexation to, a public entity or an
assessment district that would finance the maintenance or operation.
As used in this section, "development project" and "local agency"
have the same meaning as provided in subdivisions (a) and (c) of
Section 66000.
65913.9. This chapter shall apply to all cities, including charter
cities, counties, and cities and counties.
The Legislature finds and declares that the development of a
sufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of all Californians is
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65913-6591 6/29/99
CA Codes (gov:65913-65914) Page 4 of 4
a matter of statewide concern.
r
65914. (a) In any civil action or proceeding, including but not - -
limited to an action brought pursuant to Section 21167- of the Public
Resources Code, against a public entity which has issued planning,
subdivision, or other approvals for a housing development, to enjoin
the carrying out or approval of a housing development or to secure a
writ of mandate relative to the approval of, or a decision to carry
out the .housing development, the court, after entry of final judgment
and the time to appeal has elapsed, and after notice to the
plaintiff or plaintiffs, may award all reasonably incurred costs of
suit, including attorney's fees, to the prevailing public entity if
it finds all of the following: .
(1) The housing development meets or exceeds the requirements for
low-and moderate-income housing as set forth in Section 65915.
(2) The action was frivolous and undertaken with the primary
purpose of delaying or thwarting the low- or moderate-income nature
of the housing development or portions thereof.
(3) The public entity making application for costs under this
section has prevailed on all issues presented by the pleadings, and,
if an intervenor, the public entity actively, through counsel or
otherwise, took part on a continuing basis in the defense of the
lawsuit.
(4) A demand for a preliminary injunction was made by the
plaintiff and denied by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
denial not having been reversed on appeal, or the action or
proceeding was dismissed as a result of a motion for summary judgment
by any defendant, and not reversed on appeal.
(b) In any appeal of any action described in subdivision (a) , the
reviewing court may award all reasonably incurred costs of suit,
including attorney's fees, to the prevailing public entity if the
court reviews and upholds the trial court's findings with respect to
paragraphs (1) to (4) , inclusive, of subdivision (a) .
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65913-6591 6/29/99
CA Codes (gov:65915-65918) Page 1 of S
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65915-65918
65915. (a) When a developer of housing proposes a housing
development within the jurisdiction of the local government, the
city, county, or city and county shall provide the developer
incentives for the production of lower income housing units within
the development if the developer meets the requirements set forth in
subdivisions (b) and (c) . The city, county, or city and county shall
adopt an ordinance which shall specify the method of providing
developer incentives.
(b) When a developer of housing agrees or proposes to construct at
least (1) 20 percent of the total units of a housing development for
lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health
and Safety Code, or (2) 10 percent of the total units of a housing
development for very low income households, as defined in Section
50105 of the Health and Safety Code, or (3) 50 percent of the total
dwelling units of a housing development for qualifying residents, as
defined in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code, a city, county, or city
and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus and at least one of
the concessions or incentives identified in subdivision (h) unless
the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding that the
additional concession or incentive is not required in order to
provide for affordable housing costs as defined in Section 50052.5 of
the Health and Safety Code or for rents for the targeted units to be
set as specified in subdivision (c) , or (2) provide other incentives
of equivalent financial value based upon the land cost per dwelling
unit.
(c) A developer shall agree to and the city, county, or city and
county shall ensure continued affordability of all lower income
density bonus units for 30 years or a longer period of time if
required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance
program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program.
Those units targeted for lower income households, as defined in
Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be affordable at
a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median
income. Those units targeted for very low income households, as
defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be
affordable at a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 50 percent of
area median income. If a city, county, or city and county does not
grant at least one additional concession or incentive pursuant to
paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) , the developer shall agree to and
the city, county, or city and county shall ensure continued
a-ffordability for 10 years of all lower income housing units
receiving a density bonus.
(d) A developer may submit to a city, county, or city and county a
preliminary proposal for the development of housing pursuant to this
section prior to the submittal of any formal requests for general
Plan amendments, zoning amendments, or subdivision map approvals.
The city, county, or city and county shall, within 90 days of receipt
of a written proposal, notify the housing developer in writing of
the procedures under which it will comply with this section. The
City, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for
carrying out this section, which shall include legislative body
approval of the means of compliance with this section. The city,
county, or city and county shall also establish procedures for
waiving or modifying development and zoning standards which would
otherwise inhibit the utilization of the density bonus on specific
http://wWW.lec,info.ca.gov/.../displaycode?seCtion=gov&croup=65001-66000&file=65915-6591 6/29/99
CA Codes (gov:65915-65918) Page 3 of 5
county, or city and county pursuant to this section, the city,
county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus or
(2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. A city,
county, or city and county may place such reasonable conditions on
the granting of a density bonus or other incentives of equivalent "
financial value as it finds appropriate, including, but not limited
to, conditions which assure continued affordability of units to
subsequent purchasers who are persons and families of low and
moderate income or lower income households.
(b) For purposes of this section, "density bonus" means an
increase in units of 25 percent over the number of apartments, to be
provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for
conversion.
(c) For purposes of this section, "other incentives of equivalent
financial value" shallfnot be construed to require a city, county, or
city and county'"to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary
compensation but may. include the reduction or waiver of requirements
which the' city, county, or city and county might otherwise apply as
conditions of conversion approval.
(d) An 'applicant for approval to convert apartments to a
condominium project may submit to a city, county, or city and county
a preliminary proposa1-, p.drsuant to this section prior to the
submittal of any" formal requests for subdivision map approvals. The
city, county, or city a,nd�'county shall, within 90 days of receipt of
a written proposal, notify the applicant in writing of the manner in
which it will comply with this section. The city, county, or city
and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section,
which shall include legislative body approval of the means of
compliance with this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a city,
county, or city and county 'to approve a proposal to convert
apartments to condominiums.
(f) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other
incentives under this section if the apartments proposed for
conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus
or other incentives were provided under Section 65915.
65916. Where there is a direct financial contribution to a housing
development pursuant to Section 65915 through participation in cost
of infrastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost
of construction, the city, county, or city and county shall assure
continued availability for low- and moderate-income units for 30
years. When appropriate, the agreement provided for in Section 65915
shall specify the mechanisms and procedures necessary to carry out
this section.
65917. In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature
that the density bonus or other incentives offered by the city;
county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute
significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in
Proposed housing developments. In the absence of an agreement by a
developer in accordance with Section 65913.5 or 65915, a locality
shall not offer a density bonus or any other incentive that would
undermine the intent of this chapter.
65917.5. (a) As used in this section, the following terms shall
have the following meanings:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=goV&group=65001-66000&file=65915-6591 6/29/99
CA Codes (gov:65915-65918) 'Page 2 of 5
sites . These procedures shall include, but not be limited to, such
items as minimum lot size, side yard setbacks, and placement of
public works improvements .
(e) The housing developer shall show that the waiver or
modification is necessary to make the housing units economically - -
feasible. .
(f) For the purposes of this chapter, "density bonus" means a
density increase of at least 25 percent over the otherwise maximum
allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance
and land use element of the general plan as of the date of
application by the developer to the city, county, or city and county.
The density bonus shall not be included when determining the number
of housing units which is equal to 10 or 20 percent of the total.
The density bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of
five or more dwelling units .
(g) "Housing development, " as used in this section, means one or
more groups of projects for residential units constructed in the
planned development of a city, county, or city and county. . For
purposes of calculating a density bonus, the residential units do not
have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. The
density bonus shall be permitted in geographic areas of the housing
development other than the areas where the units for the lower income
households are located.
(h) For purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive means
any of the following:
(1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of
zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements which
exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California
Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing
with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code,
including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square
footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces
that would otherwise be required.
(2) Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing
project if commercial, office, industrial, 'or other land uses will
reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial,
office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the
housing project and the existing or planned development in the area
where the proposed housing project will be located.
(3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the
developer or the city, county, or city and county which result in
identifiable cost reductions.
This subdivision does not limit or require the provision of direct
financial incentives for the housing development, including the
provision of publicly owned land, by the city, county, or city and
county, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements.
(i) If a developer agrees to construct both 20 percent of the
total units for lower income households and 10 percent of the total
units for very low income households, the developer is entitled to
only one density bonus and at least one additional concession or
incentive identified in Section 65913.4 under this section although
the city, city and county, or county may, at its discretion, grant
more than one density bonus .
65915.5. (a) When an applicant for approval to convert apartments
to a condominium project agrees to provide at least 33 percent of the
total units of the proposed condominium project to persons and
families of low or moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the
Health and Safety Code, or 15 percent of the total units of the
Proposed condominium project to lower income households as defined in
Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and agrees to pay for
the reasonably necessary administrative costs incurred by a city,
http://www.leginfo-.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65915-6591 6/20/99
CA Codes (gov:65915-65918) Page 5 of 5
the density bonus.
(d) If the developer uses space allocated for child care facility
purposes, in accordance with subdivision (b) , for any purposes other
than for a child care facility, an assessment based on the square
footage of the project may be levied and collected by the city -
council, including a charter city council, city and county board of
supervisors, or county board of supervisors. The assessment shall' be
consistent with, the market value of the space. If the developer
fails to have the space allocated for the child care facility within
three years, from the date upon which the first temporary certificate
of occupancy is granted, an assessment based on the square footage
of the project may be levied and collected by the city council,
including a charter city council, city and county board of
supervisors, or county board of supervisors in accordance with
procedures to be developed by the legislative body of the city
council, including a charter city council, city and county board of
supervisors, or county board of supervisors. The assessment shall be
consistent with the market value of the space. Any penalty levied
against arconsortium of developers shall be charged to each developer
in an� amo`unt ,equal to the developer's percentage square feet
participation. , Funds collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be
deposited by the city council, including a charter city council,
city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors
into a special account to be used for childcare services or child
care facilities.
(e) Once th'e child care facility has been established, prior to
the closure, chiange in use, or reduction in the physical size of, the
facility, the city, city council, including a charter city council,
city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors
shall be required to make a finding that the need for child care is
no longer present, or is not present to the same degree as it was at
the time the facility was established.
(f) The requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000)
and of the amendments made to Sections 53077, 54997, and 54998, by
Chapter 1002 of the Statutes of 1987 shall not apply to actions taken
in accordance with this section.
(g) This section shall not apply to, a voter-approved ordinance
adopted by referendum or initiative.
65918. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to charter
cities.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65915-6591 6/29/99
CA Codes (gov:65915-65918) Page 4 of 5
(1) "Child care facility" means a facility installed, operated,
and maintained under this section for the nonresidential care of
children as defined under applicable state licensing requirements for
the facility.
(2) "Density bonus" means a floor area ratio bonus over the '
otherwise maximum allowable density permitted under the applicable
zoning ordinance and land use elements of the general plan of a city,
including a charter city, city and county, or county of: ti
(A) A maximum of five square feet of floor area for each' one
square foot of floor area contained in the child care facility for
existing structures.
(B) A maximum of 10 square feet of floor area for each one square
foot of floor area contained in the child care facility for new
structures.
For purposes of calculating the density bonus under this section,
both indoor and outdoor square footage requirements for the child
care facility as set forth in applicable state child care licensing
requirements shall be included in the floor area of the child care
facility.
(3) "Developer" means the owner or other person, including a
lessee, having the right under the applicable zoning ordinance of a
city council, including a charter city council, city and county board
of supervisors, or county board of supervisors to make application
for development approvals for the development or redevelopment of a
commercial or industrial project.
(4) "Floor area" means as to a commercial or industrial project,
the floor area as calculated under the applicable zoning ordinance of
a city council, including a charter city council, city and county
board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors and as to a
child care facility, the total area contained within the exterior
walls of the facility and all outdoor areas devoted to the use of the
facility in accordance with applicable state child care licensing
requirements .
(b) A city council, including a charter city council, city and
county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors may
establish a procedure by ordinance to grant a developer of a
commercial or industrial project, containing at least 50, 000 square
feet of floor area, a density bonus when that developer has set aside
at least 2, 000 square feet of floor area and 3,000 outdoor square
feet to be used for a child care facility. The granting of a bonus
shall not preclude a city council, including a charter city council,
city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors
from imposing necessary conditions on the project or on the
additional square footage. Projects constructed under this section
shall conform to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review,
site plan review, fees, charges, and other health, safety, and
zoning requirements generally applicable to construction in the zone
in which the property is located. A consortium with more than one
developer may be permitted to achieve the threshold amount for the
available density bonus with each developer's density bonus equal to
the percentage participation of the developer. This facility may be
located on the project site or may be located offsite as agreed upon
by the developer and local agency. If the child care facility is not
located on the site of the project, the local agency shall determine
whether the location of the child care facility is appropriate and
whether it conforms with the intent of this section. The child care
facility shall be of a size to comply with all state licensing
requirements in order to accommodate at least 40 children.
(c) The developer may operate the child care facility itself or
may contract with a licensed child care provider to operate the
facility. In all cases, the developer shall show ongoing
coordination with a local child care resource and referral network or
local governmental child care coordinator in order to qualify for
http://www.leginfo.ca,gov/.../displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65915-6591 6/29/99
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
LAD
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK
FROM- GAIL HUTTON, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: BALLOT QUESTION— SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIOP��
DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 1999
Today you requested a ballot question for the special municipal election resolutions for
the City Council meeting of September 7, 1999. The language for the ballot question is
below. When you have incorporated it into the draft resolutions, please forward the
resolutions to me for approval as to form.
SHALL THE ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE FROM CG-FI (COMMERCIAL GENERAL
WITH A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.35) TO RL-7 (RESIDENTIAL
WITH A MAXIMUM OF 7 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE), AND TO
CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE
FROM CG(COMMERCIAL GENERAL) TO R-L (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
BE ADOPTED?
I believe the above ballot question contains 63 words, which is below the 75 word limit.
GAIL HUTTON
City Attorney
GA99memos:cIerk903
Shall the Ordinance to change the General Plan Designation of the Crest View School site from
CG-F1 (Commercial General with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35)to RL-7 (Residential with
a maximum of 7 dwelling units per net acre), and to change the Zoning Designation of the Crest
View School site from CG(Commercial General)to R-L(Low Density Residential) be.adopted?
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Tom Harman, City Council Member
DATE: September 3, 1999
SUBJECT: "H" Item for the September 7, 1999, City Council Meeting
1. Rezoning Crestview School Site to R-1
2. Call for a Special Election
ISSUE:
Twenty-two thousand registered voters of Huntington Beach have expressed opposition
to a Wal-Mart being built on the Crest View School Site. Yesterday,the Developer
challenged the legal validity of the voter-sponsored initiative in court. This legal
challenge may delay action on the initiative and it might very well be tied up in the courts
for many months. I believe this issue should be decided once and for all by a vote of the
people. A quick and speedy resolution of this issue would be important to the community
as a whole.
In order to guarantee that the citizens will have the right to decide the question of whether
or not there should be a Wal-Mart built on the Crest View School Site, it is necessary to
immediately rezone the property prior to Wal-Mart starting construction of their proposed
project. I propose that the property be rezoned R-1 and at the same time a special
election be immediately called by the City Council for the purpose of submitting to the
voters the question of whether or not a Wal-Mart should be built on the Crest View
School Site. The developer and not the citizens should pay the cost of any such election.
If the developer refuses to pay for the cost of the election the property should remain R-1.
MOTION:
1. Staff be directed to take the action necessary to bring to the City Council the
required ordinance to rezone the Crest View School Site to R-1.
2. Staff be directed to take action necessary for the City Council to call a special y
election to determine whether or not a Wal-Mart should be built on the Crest
View School Site.
TH:lp u-<'n c
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon /�
• A
Ji
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Dave Garofalo, Mayor Pro Tem'�U-`�
DATE: September 2, 1999
SUBJECT: "H"Item for the September 7, 1999, City Council Meeting
Wal-Mart
ISSUE:
Congratulations go out to all involved in the recent successful Petition/Initiative effort.
At least 15,000 people have spoken. Let all the people vote. It's the democratic process.
As well, every action has a consequence. The voters and this legislative body need to
know all the consequences of all major decisions and the issue of an abandoned school
site and its future is certainly a major issue consuming hundreds of staff, Council, and
community hours.
This is a monumental and important concept important to all the residents. All the
residents should know the consequences of citywide decisions;this one at the top of the
list of concerns. I, again, applaud the leadership of the citizens involved in this process.
I feel obligated to support them in the pursuit of all the facts surrounding this obviously
important event.
MOTION:
I propose that we refer the proposed initiative action to the City Administrator requesting
that a report be prepared covering the following issues:
1. Its financial impact.
2. Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and specific plans,
including the housing element;the consistency between planning and zoning; and
the limitations on the city actions under various Government codes.
3. Alternative land use concepts and the impact of them.
DG:lp
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon
d J
CITE'OF la UNTINGT ON BEACH
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney
Paul D'Alessandro, Deputy City Attorney
FROM: Connie Brockway
City Clerk
DATE: September 3, 1999
SUBJECT: ELECTION RESOLUTIONS AND BALLOT QUESTION RELATIVE TO
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION—AGENDA ITEM F-4 (9/7/99 COUNCIL
AGENDA)
Please review the three election resolutions that I have prepared for the 9/7/99 Council meeting.
Please approve as to form. A ballot question is needed before I can put these in the Council
packet.
Attached is material which I hope your office will use in preparing the ballot question. I have
attached Res. 98-95 referenced in the proposed ordinance. If the ballot question does not need
to be known or done until the meeting Tuesday night, please tell me and I will transmit the
resolutions with the ballot question remaining blank.
Attachments: Resolutions No. 99-67, 99-68, 99-69
Copy of Public Notice-Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition
Copy of Resolution No. 98-95
cbmemos/99-179cg
RESOLUTION NO. 99-67
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, DIECEMBER 7, 1999 FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by statute a petition has been filed with the
legislative body of the City of Huntington Beach, California, signed by more than 15 percent of
the number of registered voters of the city to submit a proposed ordinance relating to initiative to
amend zoning and General Plan designation of Crest View School site to prohibit commercial
development and permit residential uses only; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk examined the records of registration and ascertained that the
petition is signed by the requisite number of voters, and has so certified; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has not voted in favor of the adoption of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the
proposed ordinance to the voters;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of'the Charter, there is called and
ordered to be held in the City of Huntington Beach, California, on Tuesday, December 7, 1999,
a Special Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting the following proposed ordinance:
Shall the ordinance (stating the nature thereof) be YES
Adopted? Limited to 75 words NO
SECTION 2. That the text of the ordinance submitted to the voters is as follows:
INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF CREST
VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT
RESIDENTIAL USES ONLY.
The People of the City of Huntington Beach do ordain as follows:
1. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is hereby amended to change the
general plan designation for the 13.89 acre site located on the South side of Talbert
Avenue described in City Council Resolution 98-95 from CG-F1 (Commercial General
with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35) to RL-7 (residential with a maximum of 7
dwelling units per net acre).
2. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
District Map 40 (Sectional District Map 36-5-11) to rezone the property described
above from CG (General Commercial) to R-L (Low Density Residential).
3. The above may not be amended except by vote of the people.
4. Should any provision or application of the above be invalidated by a court of law, it
shall be severed and have no effect on the remainder of this ordinance.
SECTION 3. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as
required by law.
SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and
furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and
paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
SECTION 5. That the polls shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. on the day of the
election and shall remain open continuously from that time until 8 o'clock p.m. of the same day
when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in §14401 of the Elections Code of the State
of California.
SECTION 6. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be
held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 7. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the
City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
Section 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution
and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of 11999.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 99-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1999
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, has
commenced proceedings for the calling of a Special Municipal Election in the City to be held on
Tuesday, December 7, 1999; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 73-1452 of the County of Orange authorizes the Registrar of
Voters of the County of Orange to render specified services relating to the conduct of an
election to any city or district which has by resolution requested the Board of Supervisors to
permit the Registrar to render the services subject to requirements set forth in that section.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the above cited provisions, the Orange County Board of
Supervisors is hereby requested to permit the Registrar of Voters to perform and render all
services and proceedings incidental to and connected with the conduct of the subject election of
the City, with the cooperation and assistance of the City Clerk, such services to include, but not
limited to the following activities as are appropriate to the subject election:
1. Furnish a tabulation of the number of registered voters in each precinct.
2. Establish voting precincts, secure locations for polling places, secure the services of election
officers for each precinct as required by law, and furnish a list of precincts, polling places,
and election officers for filing in the office of the City Clerk.
3. Prepare and furnish to the election officers necessary election supplies for the conduct of
the election.
4. Cause to be translated, as appropriate, and printed the requisite number of sample ballots,
official ballots, polling place slips, roster, tally sheets, and other necessary forms.
5. Furnish and address sample ballots for mailing to the registered voters of the City.
6. Cause the sample ballots to be mailed, as required by law.
7. Assemble the election material and supplies into ballot containers and make necessary
arrangements for their delivery to the various precincts.
8. Distribute absent voter ballots as required by law.
9. Receive the returns of the elections and supplies.
10. Sort and assemble the election material and supplies in preparation for the canvassing of
the returns of the election.
11. Canvass the returns of the election, including the absent voters ballots.
12. Furnish a tabulation of the number of votes given in each precinct.
13. Make all arrangements and take the necessary steps to pay the members of the precinct
boards, the polling place rentals, the persons returning the ballot containers, and to pay all
other costs of the election incurred as the result of services performed for the City and pay
for the election officials the amounts prescribed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Orange.
SECTION 2. That the initiative to appear on the ballot is as follows:
Shall the ordinance (stating the nature thereof) be YES
Adopted? Limited to 75 words NO
SECTION 3. That the County of Orange shall be reimbursed in full for the services performed
by the Registrar of Voters for this in connection with the election services herein described
including the estimated costs to conduct the election plus an amount to cover contingencies
which could occur to increase costs beyond those normally to be anticipated.
SECTION 4. That the City agrees to indemnify and to save free and harmless the County, its
officers, agents and employees from expense of liability, including reasonable attorneys fees, as
the result of an election contest arising after conduct of this election.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to deliver forthwith certified copies of this
resolution to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange and to the Registrar
of Voters of the County of Orange.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting thereof held on the day of 11999.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 99-69
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT AGAINST A
CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL
ANALYSIS OF SAID MEASURE.
WHEREAS, a Special Municipal--Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach,
California, on December 7, 1999, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following
measure:
Shall the ordinance (stating the nature thereof) be YES
Adopted? Limited to 75 words NO
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
(Council Member Against)
members of that body, to file written argument regarding the city measure as specified above in
accordance with Article 4 and 1, Chapter 3, S.9219, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the
State of California and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City
Clerk after which no arguments for or against the city measure may be submitted to the City
Clerk.
SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney are
affected. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the
effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the measure
affects the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall prepare
the impartial analysis. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for
the filing of primary arguments.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting thereof held on the day of 11999.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Clerk
T H E O nt A 11 6 E C O U N T Y
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
V 'CIV r
625 N. Grand Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92701
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
ss.
County of Orange, )
Proof of Publication of
THE CfTY ATTORNEY HAS PREPARED
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of THE FOLLOWING:
PUBLIC NOTICE ISALLOT TITLE:
NOTICE OF INTENT A BALLOT MEASURE TO CHANGE
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of twenty TO CIRCULATE PETITION OF THE CREST PLAN DESIGNATION OOL I
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the FROM CG-Fl(COMMERCIAL GEN-
MUM FLOOR
one years, and not a party to or interested in the onSofter tentioitooalrcu- AREA RATIO OF0.ppear ERAL WITH A 5 ORL•7(R
kale a petition within the City of DENTIAL WITH A MAXIMUM OF 7
Huntington Beach for DWELLING purpose DWENG UNITS PER NET ACRE),
above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the of amending the Chtys General AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING
Plan and Zoning Ordnance. DESIGNATION OF THE CREST VIEW
A statement of the reasons for the SCHOOL SITE FROM CG (COM-
printer of The Orange Count Register, a MERCIAL GENERAL)TO R-L(LOW
9 y 9 ) proposed action contemplated
in the petrtlon is as falOws: DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
newspaper of general circulation, published in the For marry years,the communtty SUMMARY:has relied on the Crestview school This proposed ballot measure.
site for educational uses and a would amend the Land Use Ele-1
city of Santa Ana, County of Orange, and which ig mr batbod near a resdentol Ct t of ot hH Huntington
Plan Bea h the
nylon Beach to
However,recently the City Coun- change the General Plan des
-
cE voted to rezone the kind and gnaAon of the Crest View School
newspaper has been adjudged to be a newspaper of amend,tegeneoiplontooaw site.The General Plandesignatiort
Fl
a huge discountstore on this sre. would be ial General
from 1h a
This would odd thousands of cars (Commercial General w th a
general circulation b the Superior Court of the to Beach Boulevard and the area mmdmum floc;area ratio of0.35)
9 Y P to RL•7(Residential with a mmd-
streetstwM the site, ddincloggn r mum of 7 dwelling units per net,
sheets w th tar and adding alr acre).The Zoning and Subdivision I
County of Orange, State of California, under the poAution• Ordinance of the City ofHunting-
Such a store would unfairly com- . ton Beach would also be!
Pete with e>osting stores by not amended to change the zoning
date of November 19 1905, Case No.A-21046 that a°^`'"g fame �°'rl'�� desgnatlon of me Crest view
r 6ashng stores would end up laying Schad sae.The zoning designo-
oK empbyeea Iton would be changed from CG
We do not oppose all develop-
the notice, of which the annexed is a true printed meat; the cl-elopment Maud (Commercial General)to RL(Low;
simply be consistent w11h the char• �`!Resldentlall.A vote of the i
otter of our community. people would general required d
copy, has been published in each regular and entire Robert F,Crank Z«° designations mn,�
18312 Hartland Ln. by this measure.ti a court Invali-
issue of said an newspaper and not in supplement Huntington Beach,CA 92646 dates a portion of the proposed
Y PP !INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMIT• measure, that portion shall be
TED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS: severed and have no effect on
the remainder of the proposed
-I
thereof on the following dates, to wit: INITIATIVE TO AMEND ZONING AND measure.
iGENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF Publish:Orange County Register
CREST VIEW SCHOOL SITE TO PRO- February 15, 1999.
HINT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES 2C3100200 R-267
ONLY,
The People of the City of Hunting
ton Beach do ordain as follows:
1.'The Land Use Element of the
Chtys General Plan Is hereby
F P.b r i a r 15 , 19 9 9 amended to change the general
y plan desigration for the 13.89
acre site located on the South
side of Talbert Avenue described -�
m City Council Resolution 98.95 �, C
from CG-F1(Commercial General �q
with a maximum floor area ratio of - -•i
0.35)to RL-7 (residential WM a -- r
ma7amum of 7 dwelling units per
net acre).
2. The C1fys Zoning and SubcE• C•.:' -- i
vision Ordnance is hereby —
amended by amending District
`I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury Map 40(Sectional Dekt Map 36-
5-11)to rezone the property de-
under the laws of the State of California that the scrbedobovehomCG(Gened
Commercial)to R•L(Low Denny - -
foregoing is true and correct": Resde`tt'ol).-
'3. The above may not be
amended except by vote of the
Date February 15 1999 4. Id any provision or open-i , >
cation of the above be Invai•
dated by a court at law,ht shall tx
severed and have no effect ai
the remainder of this ordnance.
Sigma re
�" OF OF PUBLICATION
i
2Ocl
01.
CITY OF FlllNTING'r®N BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL.COMMUNICATION90-1
i�
CORRECTED ,
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Dave Garofalo, Mayor Pro Tern
DATE: September 29, 1999
-TT-IjEr m- `�T�" T�Pm fnr tha (lrtnhar 4 QA-.,City CAumcil l- eetineg
Ame vc CW,z4 T!) , vs. et. al..
V
iSRFE
e av y .�rr caw
tD �e4(llV�tla�'r�rtzr'r�iai�iauiu �. ;�� W.
N
Direct the Mayor to send a letter to both Arnel and S.T.O.P. t® b to h +hP�r la�xts
� n use issue, iro�tlre-Ir�it' •aid-resin
fir-Eli€fefef es-througirthe-etc-cHion process in lurch-,
NOTE:
I have agreement from Arnel that they would cooperate at our request subject to all
parties doing same.
N
DG:lp
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon ?,
tom.
J Me
U '�'LD CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH C
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION'S
f
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
t
FROM: Dave Garofalo, Mayor Pro Tern
DATE: September 29, 999
SUBJECT: "H" Item fo?the October 4, 1999, City Council Meeting
Arnel vs,Cit rest View vs. t. al..
� y
ISSUE , S �, l�?. Ps
We have finally moved tow ar a relationship with the potential tenant at the Crest View
abandoned school site to cooperate with the City and work toward a March election date
to resolve the ultimate lay use issues regarding Crest View.
MOTION
Direct the Mayor to send a letter to both Arnelrand Crest View United to both drop their
law suits subjeg7o the land use issue, validation of the Initiative, etc., and work toward
resolution of Sheir differences through the election process in March.
NOTE:
I have, greement from Arnel that they would cooperate at our request subject to all
parti s doing same.
D)G:lp
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon
1N 6wj"-e/j Real Estate and Engineering--West
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2001 SE 10`�'Street
Bentonville,AR 72712-6489
On Line: www.wal-marLcoin
Michael Gardner,Real Estate N1gr. David Gilmore,Engineering Mgr. Sue Robinson,Asst.501-273-8727
RE Phone:501-273-4713 -- Engineering Phone: 501-273-34627 FAX 501-273-8380
E-Mail: me ardn wal-mart.com E-Mail:dwgiiino@rwal-mart.com E-Mail: sarobin gwal-m wt coin
September 20, 1999
T
Mr.David Biggs p f=
Director of Economic Development
City of Huntington Beach --
Huntington Beach, California 92648 _4 _-
r_.
Mr.Biggs: `"-
O _
j This letter shall serve to memorialize the commitment I made at the City Council meeting of'S:tsptei ber
7"'. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is willing to commit that we will pull no building permit and will do no
construction or demolition on the Crestview School site prior to an election on the initiative petition.
Wal-Mart would want to continue to work with your staff to ensure that we have satisfied all the
conditions of the Council's approval with the intent that we would pull our building permit once the
results of the election are known. Understand this commitment varies slightly from that which I made at
your Council meeting. We are now willing to also commit to wait until a vote of the people takes place
regardless of the resolution of the pending challenge to the initiative by Amel Development.
If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me.
j Respectfully, - q-9 ---
WAL-MARTS RES C. O�' 20_�w , �,
t "
Michael E. Gardner
Real Estate Manager
CC: Thomas F.Love,Arnel Development
Joe Meyer,Pacific Retail Partners
Cynthia Lin,Wal-Mart
F:IPUBUCUXaGAADMLETtERS\RBCommitmmt u noc Yer_doc � ....y
SEP-20-1999 15:14 96% P.02
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
_7
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Dave Sullivan, City Council Member
DATE: September 14, 1999
SUBJECT: 'Tr'Item for the September 20, 1999 City Council Meeting
Wal-Mart
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Several members of the City Council have said that they want the Wal-Mart question to
be decided by the voters of Huntington Beach,
I
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Huntington Beach City Council agrees to put the Wal-Mart question on the ballot in
a special election, even if the Wal-Mart Initiative is successfully challenged. This will
assure that the voters of Huntington Beach can decide this issue.
DS:lp
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon
:a1yl9 1
Y-r— --n op d -k7 ►moo l c vT ,✓�-.�
� � 4`74� vtr-/1-t•-a�_L !mac : �- /�✓'s.-Lr✓�t�t /�v-L a=�d��.�
Gvt./)vL b� �s.�..<l �ro ,l yo .Y+iro-a /v l ✓sa.u /-n a-h 00 raj/ .l A_-_ -
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -
HUNTINOTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
�7
TO: Honorable Maygr and City Council Members -
4
FROM: Dave Sullivan, City Council Member
DATE: September 14, 1999
SUBJECT: "H" Item for the September 20, 1999 City Council Meeting
Wal-Mart
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
If the Wal-Mart Initiative is successfully challenged on a technicality, Wal-Mart could'
become vested before the voters have a chance to decide this issue at the Ballot Box.
RECOMMENDED ACThON:
Direct staff to craft a building moratorium for the Crest View School site so the voters
will have an opportunity to vote on the Wal-Mart question.
DS:lp
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon
Fronli: Rcfbert UQlkow Fix: +1('14)962-4810 To: City Clerk Fax: +1(714)374-1557 Page I of 1, Monday, September 20, 1999 10:15iifi
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: City Clerk
Company:
Phone:
Fax: +1(714)374-1557
From: Robert Polkow
Company:
Phone: +1(714)962-4810
Fax: +1(714)962-4810
Date: 9/20/99
Pages including this
cover page:
Comments:
Agendized item H2(b) 20 Sept 1999.
I oppose any moratorium to be crafted to impede the development of the
Crest View school site. This is a blighted area that could easily be
classified as an attractive nuisance by the courts should anyone be
injured on the site. This could be costly to the public school system
and possibly the city if the city impedes any action to remove the
blight.
LO'-J4
(211
CITY OF HUNT IN BEACH
HUNTINOTCM BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
(7D-
FROM: Dave Sullivan, City Council Member DATE: September 14, 1999
SUBJECT- 'If' Item for the September 20, 1999 City Council Meeting
Wal-Mart
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Almost 16,000 registered voters have signed indicating that they want an opportunity to
vote on the Wal-Mart issue. The election code provides that, if petitioners gather a
certain percentage of valid signatures,there will be a special election within
approximately 100 days. This is a protection so decisions by an elected body, which may
not be in agreement with the majority view of the governed, may be quickly overturned.
The Crest View petitioners have earned the right to a special election by spending
hundreds of hours collecting signatures.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Huntington Beach City Council commits to calling a special election on Wal-Mart
within approximately 100 days of receiving the fiscal report as required by law.
DS:lp
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon
From: Robert Polkow Fax: +1(714)961-4810 To: City Clerk, Fax: +1(714)374-i557 Page I of i, Monday, September 20, 1999 10:30atr
Facsimile Over Sheet
To: City Clerk
Company:
Phone:
Fax: +1(714)374-1557
From: Robert Polkow
Company:
Phone: +1(714) 962-4810 _71
Fax: +1(714)962-4810
Date: 9/20/99
Pages including this
cover page:
_C>
Comments:
Agendized iten H2(c) 20 Sept 1999 .
I oppose any action by the city council to expedite the action to place
the Wal-mart issue on a ballot prior to the primary election in March.
Why should we be anxious to spend thousands of dollars to hold an
election just a month and a half earlier than the primaries? The
proponents of the anti Wal-mart issue are trying to take advantage of a
likely lower "turn-out" of voters by evading a general election at a
cost to the city.
Bob Polkow
21772 Oceanview Lane
Huntington Beach, Ca 92646=8215
714 962-4810
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Dave Garofalo, Mayor Pro Tem
DATE: September 17, 1999
SUBJECT: 'H'Item for the September 20, 1999, City Council Meeting
Primary Election in March 2000
ISSUE:
There will be a Primary Election in March of the year 2000. This might be the perfect
time to consider community-wide issues that could be presented to the general electorate
for Advisory Votes.
MOTION:
The City Council decides on issues to be included in the March 2000 election cycle for
Advisory Votes.
DG:lp
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon
Robert Folkow Fix: +1(714)962-4810 To: City Clerk Fax: +1(714)371-1557 Page 1 of 1, Monday, Sep-ember 20, 1999 10:43afft
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: City Clerk
Company:
Phone:
Fax: +1(714)374-1557
From: Robert Polkow
Company:
Phone: +1(714)962-4810
Fax: +1(714)962-4810
Date: 9/20/99
Pages including this
cover page: 1 7-11
Comments:
Agendized Item H-4 on the 20 September 1999 Council meeting.
I support Mayor Pro Tem Garofalo's issue to include community wide
issues during the Primary Election in March of the year 2000. This is
a true democratic approach to obtain a city wide opinion on issues
proposed by small special interest groups.
Bob Polkow
21772 Oceanview Lane
Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6215
714 962-4810
F,
171RID CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Council Member
DATE: September 17, 1999
SUBJECT: "H"Item for the September 17, 1999 City Council Meeting
Primary Election in March 2000
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
It is requested that the below resolutions be approved so as to place an advisory vote on
the March 7, 2000, Ballot with regards to funding of public facilities from sales tax
income derived from the Crestview site.
RB:lp
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon
V- �
RESOLUTION NO. 99 77
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE
HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
ON TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2000, FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED MEASURE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, desires to
submit to the voters of the City at a Special Municipal Election a proposed measure relating to an
advisory vote regarding the use of the sales tax income from the Crest View site; and
The City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed measure to
the voters;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, does
resolve, declare, determine and order as follows:
1. That pursuant to the requirements of the Charter, there is called and ordered to be
held in the City of Huntington Beach, California, on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, a Special
Municipal Election for the purpose of submitted the following measure:
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY. Shall 50% of the sales YES
tax income from the Crest View site be spent to
acquire, develop, improve, maintain sports fields for
soccer, football, softball,baseball, and other sports;
replace restrooms,bicycle/pedestrian trails, lighting,
and showers on city beach; acquire senior center NO
site; develop swim complex, and improve
neighborhood narks and tot lots?
2. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required
by law.
3. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish
any and all official ballots, notices,printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia
that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
4. That the polls shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. of the day of the election and
shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock p.m. of the same day
when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in § 14401 of the Elections Code of the State
of California.
1
4/s:4-99Resolutions:Notice
09/20/99
5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be
held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
6. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the
City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of September , 1999.
ayor
ATTEST: APPROVED A$ TO FORM:
04$64�
a � `
City Clerk City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Cit dministrator
2
4/sA-99ResolutionsNotice
09/20/99
Res. No. 99-77
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 20th day of September, 1999 by the
following vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff
NOES: Green, Harman, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
i
City Clerk and ex-off cio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 99_78
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO
CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON MARCH 7, 2000,
WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD
ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO § 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach called a Special Municipal
Election to be held on March 7, 2000, for the purpose of submitting to the voters the question
relating to an advisory vote regarding the use of the sales tax income from the Crest View site;
and
It is desirable that the Special Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide Primary
Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and
election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the County Election Department of
the County of Orange canvass the returns of the Special Municipal Election and that the election
be held in all respects as of there were only one election;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve,
declare, determine and order as follows:
1. That pursuant to the requirements of§ 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Orange is hereby requested to consent and agree to the
consolidation of a Special Municipal Election with the Statewide Primary Election on Tuesday,
March 7, 2000, for the purpose of an advisory vote regarding the use of the sales tax income
from the Crest View site.
2. That a measure is to appear on the ballot as follows:
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY. Shall 50% of the sales YES
tax income from the Crest View site be spent to
acquire, develop, improve, maintain sports fields for
soccer, football, softball, baseball, and other sports;
replace restrooms, bicycle/pedestrian trails, lighting,
and showers on city beach; acquire senior center NO
site; develop swim complex, and improve
neiphborhood narks and tot lots?
3. That the County Election Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the
Special Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one
election, and only one form of ballot shall be used.
1
4/s:4-99 Resolutions:Spec ial Election
9/20/99
4. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County
Election Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated
election.
5. That the City of Huntington Beach recognizes that additional costs will be
incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for
any costs.
6. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution
with the Board of Supervisors and the County Election Department of the County of Orange.
7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of September , 1999.
NA
M yor
AT ST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
e
City Clerk City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
y Administrator
2
4/s:4-99Resolutions:Special Election
9/20/99
Res. No. 99-78
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 20th day of September, 1999 by the
following vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff
NOES: Green, Harman, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 99-79
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENT
REGARDING A CITY MEASURE
AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach,
California, on March 7, 2000, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following
measure:
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY. Shall 50% of the sales YES
tax income from the Crest View site be spent to
acquire, develop, improve, maintain sports fields for
soccer, football, softball, baseball, and other sports;
replace restrooms, bicycle/pedestrian trails, lighting,
and showers on city beach; acquire senior center NO
site; develop swim complex, and improve
t NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, does
resolve, declare, determine and order as follows:
1. That the City Council authorizes
(Council Member In Favor/Against)
(Council Member In Favor/Against)
(Council Member In Favor/Against)
(Council Member In Favor/Against)
(Council Member In Favor/Against)
members of that body, to file written arguments regarding the City measure as specified above in
accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California
and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no
arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.
2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney are
affected. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect
of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the measure affects the
1
4/s:4-99Resolution:Impartial Analysis
9/20/99
organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall prepare the
impartial analysis. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the
filing of primary arguments.
3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and
enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day ofil;
r , 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/ 1 g
City Clerks City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Ci Administrator
2
4/s:4-99Resolution:Impartial Analysis
9/20/99
Res. No. 99-79
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 20th day of September, 1999 by the
following vote:
AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Dettloff
NOES: Green, Harman, Sullivan
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
e
City Clerk and ex-officio CAk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California