Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeasure C - Charter Section 612 - Policy Amendment for vote lr 9 . maw Council/Agency Meeting Held: 7115(q(, Deferred/Continued to: �y� ❑ Approved ❑ ndit onall Approved 9'6enied City Clerk's Sig tune Council Meeting Date: 7/15/96 Department ID Number: CS 96-033 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator PREPARED BY: RON HAGAN, Director, Community Service SUBJECT: POLICY AMENDMENT FOR CHARTER SECTION 612 VOTE REQUIREMENTS (MEASURE "C") Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: There is a need for City Council to amend the policy adopted on July 5, 1994 regarding procedures for putting projects to a vote of the people under the terms and conditions of Charter Section 612, the Measure "C" amendment to exclude city projects. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Amend the policy as follows: It is the intent of Charter Section 612, the Measure "C" amendment, that a vote of the people be the final approval of projects approved by the city for construction on parkland or beaches. Therefore, all noncity projects falling under the criteria of Charter Section 612 must obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people. The cost for the ballot shall be borne by the applicant for the project. If the project requires a lease or other financial consideration, the terms and conditions of the lease and/or financial aspect of the project shall be included in the information provided for the Charter Section 612 vote. Alternative Action(s): Do not amend the policy and make city projects use the same policy criteria as outside commercial projects. z *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT N MEETING DATE: 7/15196 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS 96-033 Analysis: On July 5, 1994, the City Council adopted a policy regarding the terms, conditions and procedures for putting projects to a Charter Section 612 (Measure C) vote. At that time, it was the intent of the Council that there be a policy adopted that would insure that outside commercial projects would follow a procedure that would include obtaining entitlements and necessary permits prior to being put to a vote of the people for use of public property. Council now wishes to proceed with a sports facility improvement district that will require two Measure C votes for two of the six projects proposed in the assessment district. If it wishes to proceed with the Measure C votes, the policy should be amended to exempt city projects from the process established in 1994. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number I Approved July 5, 1994 Request for Council Action Document4 -2- 07/11/96 10:28 AM REQUES I' IJR CITY COUNCIL TION Date July 5, 1994 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted to: Submitted by: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator I �-�--- Prepared by: Ron Hagan, Director, Community Service Subject: POLICY FOR CHARTER SECTION 612 VOTE REQUIREMENTS (MEASURE 'C' ) 7 —//- 5 � /,f P�uvPD Ll �v o Consistent with Council Policy? [ I Yes [ ) New Policy or Exception (S, lUq Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: ¢' STATEMENT OF ISSUE There is a need for City Council to adopt a policy regarding procedures for putting projects to a vote of the people under the terms and conditions of Charter Section 612, the Measure "C" amendment. RECOMMENDATION Approve the following language as policy direction to staff for Charter Section 612 projects: It is the intent of Charter SeAtion 612 the Measure "C" amendment, that a vote of the people be the final approval of projects approved by than city for construction on park land or beaches. Therefore, all projects falling under the criteria of Charter Section 612 must obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people. The cost for the ballot measure shall be borne by the applicant for the project. If the project requires a lease or other financial consideration, the terms and conditions of the lease and/or financial aspect of ttfCw project shall be included in the information provided for the Charter Section 612 vote. ANALYSIS Recently, the City Council has been faced with the issue of whether to approve a resolution authorizing a Charter Section 612 (Measure "C") vote on proposed projects for city parks. An issue arose as to whether a Charter Section 612 vote should be an "advisory" vote on a master plan or a final vote on an approved project. Plo 5/85 • 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION July 5, 1994 Page two The reason for the issue is inherent in the cost of gaining entitlements (project approvals) prior to knowing whether the public would approve of the proposed project. There are two schools of thought -- the first would be that Council would adopt a master plan for a project and direct a Charter Section 612 vote on the master plan. After the vote, the project uvould still be subject to public input and approval through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) process. The second method would have a project go through the CUP or CDP process first and, after Council approval, be put to a vote of the people. Since most projects that fall under Charter Section 612 criteria require extensive environmental studies, engineering analysis, soils testing, and landscape or architectural drawings, the CUP or CDP process can become quite expensive. On the other hand, charter language specifically states that the voters "will have an opportunity to vote on projects that have been authorized by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the total membership of the City Council." A Council subcommittee recently met with staff and the City Attorney's Office and determined that the definition of the charter language in Section 612 means that the project has gone through the environmental, lease and/or financing, and the CUP or CDP process, and has been approved by the city. It was the subcommittee's recommendation that this be the Council's policy with regard to projects subject to a Charter Section 612 vote. The findings for this policy are that the public must know the exact site plan, including environmental concerns, the terms and conditions of any lease or financial package, and the specific design and architecture before it can make an informed decision. Following the May 2, 1994, Council consideration of this issue, staff was directed to develop a Charter Section 612 information form as a method to obtain an advisory vote prior to expending funds for the entitlement process. After reviewing this form, the subcommittee continued to support the wording as proposed in the above recommendation. It is the subcommittee's contention that the form could be used for Council to determine whether the city water bill could be used to poll the public on a proposed project. In other words, a project would be put to the test of the information form and, if Council felt that adequate information were available on the project, it could authorize a polling of the public through the water bill. This poll would be nonbinding and purely advisory to the City Council and the applicant to determine if the project were worth pursuing. The applicant would make this determination and either proceed with the expense of the entitlement process or drop the project at that point. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION July 5 , 1994 Page three Consequently, staff is recommending that Charter Section 612 votes be authorized only for projects for which full entitlements have been obtained. Further, any project that falls under the charter criteria may use the city water bill polling technique as an advisory tool if Council feels enough information about the project is contained in the form so as to present a' true and accurate picture of the project to those responding to the poll. FUNDING SOURCE Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Adopt a policy whereby Council approves a Charter Section 612 vote for a project prior to the execution of the environmental, CUP/CDP, or financial agreement process. ATTACHMENT Water Bill Information Form RH:cs • i Page 20 - Council/Agency Minutes - 07/11/94 A motion was made by Silva, seconded by Sullivan, to continue the reclassification of Walnut Avenue to August 1, 1994. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Robitaille, Leipzig See page No. 21 for reconsideration and final action. (City Council) CONTINUED FROM JULY 5, 1994- POLICY REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR PUTTING PROJECTS TO VOTE OF PEOPLE - MEASURE "C" VOTE REQUIREMENTS_: PURSUANT TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CHARTER- CONTINUED FROM MAY 2, 1994- APPROVED (1204e)- �;.?0,50 The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator dated July 5, 1994 regarding the Policy for Charter Section 612 vote requirements for Measure "C". The Community Services Director presented a staff report regarding the need for Council to adopt a policy regarding procedures for putting projects to a vote of the people under the terms and conditions of Charter Section 612, the Measure "C" charter amendment approved by the voters on November 6, 1990. Councilmember Silva questioned the effect on an organization such as the Ocean View Little League if they were allowed by the city to develop a sports field and facilities on five acres. The Community Services Director reported. Discussion was held by Council and staff regarding an opinion poll to assess public support for proposed projects, check list of project questions, poll through water bill, professional pollsters, non-profit agency projects, support for ball fields, environmental work and entitlement process. A motion was made by Winchell, seconded by Sullivan, to approve the following language as policy direction to staff for Charter Section 612 projects: "It is the intent of Charter Section 612, the Measure "C" amendment, that a vote of the people be the final approval of projects approved by the city for construction on park land or beaches. Therefore, all projects falling under the criteria of Charter Section 612 must obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people. The cost for the ballot measure shall be borne by the applicant for the project. If the project requires a lease or other financial consideration, the terms and conditions of the lease and/or financial aspect of the project shall be included in the information provided for the Charter Section 612 vote." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Sullivan NOES: Silva 1 y ABSENT: Robitaille, Leipzig 7-15-19.9E 12:58PH FPUP1 COOK,/FI3HEP 7148414484 Debbie Cook, Esq. 6692 Shetland Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 842-187 3 July 15, 1996 xa Huntington Beach City Council City of Huntington Beach r 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Council: It has come to my attention that you intend to adopt certain policies regarding procedures for placing projects on the ballot with respect to Measure C (Charter Section 612). Measure C does not, nor was it ever intended to, distinguish between private projects on public land and public projects on public land. The purpose of Measure C was to protect the public's park and beach property from commercialization, lease, sale, or exchange. It is immaterial who the proponent of the project is, whether private citizen, corporation, or local government. Section 612 requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the total membership of the City Council and a majority of the electors voting on such a proposition. As stated in the preamble to the measure, "citizens cannot participate in these vital decisions without the needed information." It is only logical that any information the council would rely upon to make these important decisions is the same information the citizens would rely upon to make these decisions. A brief glimpse at the history surrounding Measure C demonstrates that our City government can be just as errant in protecting the parks and beaches as any prospective developer. It is not surprising that this City would attempt to place itself in a more favorable position than other project proponents. No matter who the project proponent, the appropriate timing for the public vote is when all the information has been ; athered and the City Council vote is either pending or has just been ascertained. Sincerely, 4A" Debbie Cool: s REQUER FOR CITY COUNCIPACT N Date July -5, 1994 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted to: ---___—_ Submitted by: g Y Michael Uberua a City Administrator Prepared by: Ron Hagan, Director, Community Service Subject: POLICY FOR CHARTER SECTION 612 VOTE REQUIREMENTS (MEASURE 'C' ) 7,//-5 � ilw?D q Consistent with Council Policy? [ I Yes [ I New Policy or Exception (S, luq Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: 4'-W STATEMENT OF ISSUE There is a need for City Council to adopt a policy regarding procedures for putting projects to a vote of the people under the terms and conditions of Charter Section 612, the Measure "C" amendment. RECOMMENDATION Approve the following language as policy direction to staff for Charter Section 612 projects: It is the intent of Charter Section 612, the Measure "C" amendment, that a vote of the people be the final approval of projects approved by the city for construction on park land or beaches. Therefore, all projects falling under the criteria of Charter Section 612 must obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people. The cost for the ballot measure shall be borne by the applicant for the project. If the project requires a lease or other financial consideration, the terms and conditions of the lease and/or financial aspect of the project shall be included in the information provided for the Charter Section 612 vote. ANALYSIS Recently, the City Council has been faced with the issue of whether to approve a resolution authorizing a Charter Section 612 (Measure "C") vote on proposed projects for city parks. An issue arose as to whether a Charter Section 612 vote should be an "advisory" vote on a master plan or a final vote on an approved project. 3 P10 5/85 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION July S, 1994 Page two The reason for the issue is inherent in the cost of gaining entitlements (project approvals) prior to knowing whether the public would approve of the proposed project. There are two schools of thought -- the first would be that Council would adopt a master plan for a project and direct a Charter Section 612 vote on the master plan. After the vote, the project would still be subject to public input and approval through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) process. The second method would have a project go through the CUP or CDP process first and, after Council approval, be put to a vote of the people. Since most projects that fall under Charter Section 612 criteria require extensive environmental studies, engineering analysis, soils testing, and landscape or architectural drawings, the CUP or CDP process can become quite expensive. On the other hand, charter language specifically states that the voters "Will have an opportunity to vote on projects that have been authorized by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the total membership of the City Council." A Council subcommittee recently met with staff and the City Attorney's Office and determined that the definition of the charter language in Section 612 means that the project has gone through the environmental, lease and/or financing, and the CUP or CDP process, and has been approved by the city. It was the subcommittee's recommendation that this be the Council's policy with regard to projects subject to a Charter Section 612 vote. The findings for this policy are that the public must know the exact site plan, including environmental concerns, the terms and conditions of any lease or financial package, and the specific design and architecture before it can make an informed decision. Following the May 2, 1994, Council consideration of this issue, staff was directed to develop a Charter Section 612 information form as a method to obtain an advisory vote prior to expending funds for the entitlement process. After reviewing this form, the subcommittee continued to support the wording as proposed in the above recommendation. It is the subcommittee's contention that the form could be used for Council to determine whether the city water bill could be used to poll the public on a proposed project. In other words, a project would be put to the test of the information form and, if Council felt that adequate information were available on the project, it could authorize a polling of the public through the water bill. This poll would be nonbinding and purely advisory to the City Council and the applicant to determine if the project were worth pursuing. The applicant would make this determination and either proceed with the expense of the entitlement process or drop the project at that point. L . • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION July '5', 1994 Page three Consequently, staff is recommending that Charter Section 612 votes be authorized only for projects for which full entitlements have been obtained. Further, any project that falls under the charter criteria may use the city water bill polling technique as an advisory tool if Council feels enough information about the project is contained in the form so as to present a true and accurate picture of the project to those responding to the poll. FUNDING SOURCE Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Adopt a policy whereby Council approves a Charter Section 612 vote for a project prior to the execution of the environmental, CUP/CDP, or financial agreement process. ATTACHMENT Water Bill Information Form RH:cs Attachment #1 INFORMATION FORM FOR PROJECTS REQUIRING CHARTER SECTION 612 VOTE Is the proposed development on a public utility, park or beach? YES [ ] NO [ ] If so, what is the address? Name Location Describe the proposed project: (Attach map) Has the City Council adopted a master plan for this site? YES [ ] NO [ ] Is the proposed project consistent with the adopted master plan? YES [ ] NO ( ] Has the City Council approved a specific plan for this site? YES [ ] NO [ ] If so, has the specific plan been through the CEQA process? (Attach CEQA check list) YES [ ] NO [ ] Does the project need a CUP or CDP? YES [ ] NO [ ] If so, have entitlements been approved? (Attach action) YES [ ] NO [ ] Is there a proposed lease for any property involved in the project? (Attach summary of terms and conditions) YES [ ] NO [ ] Page two Has the City Council approved the lease? (Attach action) YES [ ] NO [ ] Does the project require the city to sell any property? (Attach appraisal) YES [ ] NO [ ] Has the City Council approved the sale? (Attach action) YES [ ] NO ( ] Does the project require any other agency approval other than the city? YES [ ] NO ( ] If so, what agencies and what is the status of their approval? Agency YES [ ] NO [ ] Agency YES ( ] NO [ ] Agency YES [ ] NO [ ] What is the total cost of the project? $ What is the funding source(s)? Name $ Name $ Name $ Has the City Council approved the funding? YES [ ] NO [ ] /cs 5/94 ;IX) , REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIPACTION Date May 2, 1994 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted to: I Submitted by: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator��� C�., Prepared by: Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services Subject: POLICY FOR MEASURE 'C' VOTE REQUIREMENTS I Consistent with Council Policy? Yes New Policy or Exception Statement of issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE There is a need for City Council to adopt a policy regarding procedures for putting projects to a vote of the people under the terms and conditions of the Measure "C" charter amendment. RECOMMENDATION Approve the following language as policy direction to staff for Measure "C" projects: It is the intent of Measure "C" that a vote of the people be the final approval of projects approved by the city for construction on park land or beaches. Therefore, all projects falling under the criteria for a Measure "C" vote must obtain all city approvals prior to being sub- mitted to a vote of the people. The cost for the ballot measure for a Measure "C" vote shall be borne by the applicant for the project. If the project requires a lease or other financial consideration, the terms and conditions of the lease and/or financial aspect of the proj- ect shall be included in the information provided for the Measure "C" vote. ANALYSIS Recently, the City Council has been faced with the issue of whether to approve a resolution authorizing a Measure "C" vote on proposed projects for city parks. An issue arose as to whether a Measure "C" should be an "advisory" vote on a master plan or a final vote on an approved project. The reason for the issue is inherent in the cost of gaining entitlements (project approvals) prior to knowing whether the public would approve of the proposed project. P10 5/85 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION May 2, 1994 Page two There are two schools of thought -- the first would be that Council would adopt a master plan for a project and direct a Measure "C" vote on the master plan. After the Measure "C" vote, the project would still be subject to public input and approval through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) process. The second method would have a project go through the CUP or CDP process first and, after Council approval, be put to a vote of the people. Since most projects that fall under the Measure "C" criteria require extensive environmental studies, engineering analysis, soils testing, and landscape or architectural drawings, the CUP or CDP process can become quite expensive. On the other hand, Measure "C" language specifically states that the voters will have an opportunity to vote on projects that have been "approved by the city". A Council subcommittee recently met with staff and the City Attorney's Office and determined that the definition of "approved city project means that the project has gone through the environmental process, lease and/or financing process, and the CUP or CDP process, and has been approved by the city. It was the subcommittee's recommendation that this be the Council's policy with regard to projects subject to a Measure "C" vote. The findings for this policy are that the public must_know the exact site plan, including environmental concerns, the terms and conditions of any lease or financial package, and the specific design and architecture before it can make an informed decision. FUNDING SOURCE Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Adopt a policy whereby the Council approves a master plan fora project that is put to a Measure "C" vote prior to the execution of the environmental, CUP/CDP, financial agreement process. ATTACHMENT None. RH:cs SENT BY: 5- 2-94 ; 13:19 ; PACIFIC MUTUAL- 3741557;# 2/ 3 0 May 2, 1994 The Honorable Linda Moulton-Patterson City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92646 Subject: Proposed Clarification of Measure C Dear Mayor and City Council members: I am writing to let you know of my deep concern over the proposed clarification of Measure C which, if enacted, would essentially stop most plans from ever being considered by the voters of Huntington Beach. Measure C was approved by the voters in 1990 because they wanted the opportunity to debate any projects proposed for beach or park land. As you know, it takes years and thousands of dollars for projects to go through the permit and approval process. Non-profit organizations such as the Huntington Beach surfing Museum could never afford to go through that process and then face the possibility of being rejected by the voters. I am also concerned that the City may require these organizations to pay for the cost of placing their projects on the ballot which could cost anywhere from $50, 000 - $100, 000. l do not believe this was the intent of Measure C. In addition, why waste thousands of hours of staff time and tax dollars on projects that may or may not be approved by the voters? I agree with Mr. Hagan that the public must know the details of any plan and its impact on the community. But the whole reason for Measure C is to allow the voters the opportunity to say whether they want the project to occur. Not to get into architectural details such as construction materials, detail design and other issues which are worked out in the conditional use permit over several public hearings. Most plans that are first presented to the city council already have adequate information for voters to make an intelligent decision. what is required is enough information to write ballot arguments along with a financial analysis of how the project will be funded. Any other issues that come up regarding the project can be debated during the election. 1 � SENT BY: 5- 2-54 ; 13:24 ; PACIFIC MUTUAL- 3741557;# 3/ 3 The Ho°h&?> _alle L,in*oul ton-Patters on May 2 , 1994 Page 2 An enormous effort has begun at the City, County and State level to promote tourism. The Huntington Beach Surfing Museum is just one of the many projects which will help us meet our city's cultural needs . If this proposal is adopted, all chances of this project and others moving forward will go away. Please do not deprive the voters the opportunity to vote can these projects within a reasonable time frame and without wasting staff time and tax dollars. S ' ely► s4 T onas J. Mays rormer Mayor and State semblyman 6392 Gloria Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 2 ..a M PROJECTION a C INTERNATIONAL SURFING MUSEUM n � ;C,' HUNTINGTON BEACH Zo {� om rn OPERATING INCOME & EXPENSES r" r' C7) JANUARY 4,1992 INCOME ---------------------- x Number of Annual Visitors 300,000 500, 00 rn Ticket Price $3.00 -$3 00 z Income from Visitors 900,000 77 .3`k 11500, 00 � 77.9% Gift Shop 8.0%of Visitor $10.00 240,000 20.6% 400,000 20. 8% Income Sponsor TBD 0 . 0% TBD 0.0% Other: Donations Fundraisers 25,000 2. 1% 25,000 1. 3`k Interest Income TBD 0.0% TBD 0 .0% TOTAL INCOME 1,165,000 100.0% 1,925,000 100.0% OPERATING-EXPENSES ---- Payroll 285,000 24. 5% 310,000 16.1% ` Insurance 12,000 1.0% 19,000 1.0`k Utilities 5, 400 0.5% 6,600 0.3% Professional Services 7,000 0.6% 12,000 0.6% Office Expenses 5,000 0.4% 8,000 0. 4% Advertsing 48,000 4.1% 60,000 3.1% � Equipment Maintenance 8,000 0.7% 13,000 0.7% F.F.& E. Replacement/Renewal 6,000 0 . 5% 10,000 0.5% Exhibit change-overs 12,000 1.0% 19,000 1.0% Acquisitions 17,000 1. 5% 29,000 1. 5% Set-Aside for New films 40,000 3.4% 200,000 10.4% Gift Shop Products 96,000 8.2`6 160,000 8 . 3% � Surfing Hall of Fame 17, 000 1_ -5% 29,000 --1_5% - -- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 558, 400 47 .9% 875,600 45.5% -------- ----- -------- --- NET OPERATING INCOME $606,600 52.1% $1,049,400 54.5% DEBT SERVICE -- --------------- Loan payments ** Princple 5,000,000 Interest 7.3% 413,000 413,000 Term 30 Years NET CASH INCOME/(LOSS) $193,600 16.6% $636,400 33.1% Amount and related data shown herein are all conjecture based upon assumed building areas proposed. DOCUMENT State of California-The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Huntington Beach Surfing Museum, 'A Site Analysis',April 1988.p11. 9. Does the project have potential for commercial success? The proponents have expressed a high degree of confidence in their ability to raise adequate funding to set up and operate the museum. They intend to tap both general business and surfing-specific industries for financial contributions and corporate sponsorships as well as donations of exhibit and archival materials. They also plan to charge an admission fee of $2 to $3 as a means of generating additional operating capital. While "willingness-to-pay" will depend in part on the scale and caliber of the facility, most visitors would probably be receptive to a fee in this range (Demetrak)*. They have also indicated that they hope to entice 3-5% of all annual visitors to Southern California into visiting the surfing museum. A more realistic projection, again depending on the size and qualify of the museum, would be 300,000-500,000 annual visitors (Demetrak)*. Assuming these figures are practical,admission fees could generate roughly $1.25 million in annual revenue. In addition, the proponents wish to operate a gift shop on the premises where visitors may purchase books, videos, posters, postcards, and other educational and/or memorabilia items. Profits form this operation would also become part of the museum's operating capital. In addition to employing some key managerial and professional staff, the proponents hope to make intensive use of volunteers--as docents, salespeople, historians, restoration, restoration specialist, and the like. While not without cost, volunteer programs can certainly enhance the viability of a museum project. However, it would be unrealistic to assume that a facility of the size proposed can be operated without a considerable investment in both paid and volunteer staff. *Demetrak,Keith,Chief,Office of Interpretive Services,DPR. Personal Interview-March 13,1988. r PROJECTION INTERNATIONAL SURFING MUSEUM H UNTI NGTON BEACH OPERATING INCOME & EXPENSES JANUARY 4,1992 INCOME ---------------------- Number of Annual Visitors 300,000 500,000 Ticket Price $3.00 -$3.00 Income from Visitors 900,000 77 . 3% 1, 500,000 77.9% Gift Shop 8.0%of Visitor $10. 00 240,000 20. 6`k 400,000 20.8% Income Sponsor TBD 0 . 0% TBD 0.0`k Other: Donations Fundraisers 25,000 2 .1% 25,000 1. 3`k Interest Income TBD 0. 0% TBD 0. 0% TOTAL INCOME 1,165,000 100 .0% 1,925,000 100.0% OPERATING EXPENSES ---------------------- Payroll 285,000 24 . 5% 310,000 16.1% Insurance 12,000 1.0% 19,000 1.0`k Utilities 5, 400 0.5% 6,600 0.3% Professional Services 7,000 0.6% 12,000 0.6% Office Expenses 5, 000 0. 4% 8, 000 0. 4% Advertsing 48,000 4 .1% 60,000 3.1% Equipment Maintenance 8,000 0.7% 13,000 0.7% F.F.& E. Replacement/Renewal 6,000 0 . 5% 10,000 0 .5% Exhibit change-overs 12,000 1.0% 19,000 1.0% Acquisitions 17,000 1. 5% 29,000 1. 5% Set-Aside for New films 40,000 3. 4% 200,000 10.4% Gift Shop Products 96,000 8. 2% 160,000 8. 3% Surfing Hall of Fame 17,000 1.5% 29,000 1.5% ------- ----- ------- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 558,400 47 .9% 875,600 45. 5% -------- ----- -------- ----- NET OPERATING INCOME $606,600 52.1% $1,049,400 54.5% DEBT SERVICE ---------------------- Loan payments ** Princple 5,000,000 Interest 7.3`b 413,000 413,000 Term 30 Years -------- ----- -------- ----- NET CASH INCOME/(LOSS) $193,600 16. 6% $636,400 33.1% Amount and related data shown herein are all conjecture based upon assumed building areas proposed. DOCUMENT State of California-The Resources Agency �B f DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Huntington Beach Surfing Museum, 'A Site Analysis',April 1988.p11. 9. Does the project have potential for commercial success? The proponents have expressed a high degree of confidence in their ability to raise adequate funding to set up and operate the museum. They intend to tap both general business and surfing-specific industries for financial contributions and corporate sponsorships as well as donations of exhibit and archival materials. They also plan to charge an admission fee of $2 to $3 as a means of generating additional operating capital. While "willingness-to-pay" will depend in part on the scale and caliber of the facility, most visitors would probably be receptive to a fee in this range (Demetrak)*. They have also indicated that they hope to entice 3-5% of all annual visitors to Southern California into visiting the surfing museum. A more realistic projection, again depending on the size and qualify of the museum, would be 300,000-500,000 annual visitors (Demetrak)*. Assuming these figures are practical,admission fees could generate roughly $1.25 million in annual revenue. In addition, the proponents wish to operate a gift shop on the premises where visitors may purchase books, videos, posters, postcards, and other educational and/or memorabilia items. Profits form this operation would also become part of the museum's operating capital. In addition to employing some key managerial and professional staff, the proponents hope to make intensive use of volunteers--as docents, salespeople, historians, restoration, restoration specialist, and the like. While not without cost, volunteer programs can certainly enhance the viability of a museum project. However, it would be unrealistic to assume that a facility of the size proposed can be operated without a considerable investment in both paid and volunteer staff. *Demetrak, Keith,Chief,Office of Interpretive Services,DPR. Personal Interview-March 13,1988. PROJECTION INTERNATIONAL SURFING MUSEUM HUNTI NGTON BEACH OPERATING INCOME & EXPENSES JANUARY 4,1992 INCOME ---------------------- Number of Annual Visitors 300,000 500,000 Ticket Price $3.00 -$3.00 Income from Visitors 900, 000 77 . 3% 1, 500,000 77.9% Gift Shop 8. 0%of Visitor $10.00 240,000 20. 6% 400, 000 20. 8% Income Sponsor TBD 0 . 0% TBD 0.0% Other: Donations Fundraisers 25,000 2.1% 25,000 1. 3% Interest Income TBD 0. 0% TBD 0 .0% --------- ----- --------- ----- TOTAL INCOME 1,165,000 100 .0% 1,925,000 100.0% OPERATING EXPENSES ---------------------- Payroll 285,000 24 . 5% 310,000 16.1% Insurance 12,000 1.0% 19,000 1.0% Utilities 5, 400 0 .5% 6,600 0. 3% Professional Services 7,000 0.6% 12,000 0.6% Office Expenses 5,000 0.4% 8,000 0. 4% Advertsing 48,000 4.1% 60,000 3.1% Equipment Maintenance 8,000 0.7% 13,000 0.7% F.F.& E. Replacement/Renewal 6,000 0. 5% 10,000 0.5% Exhibit change-overs 12,000 1.0% 19,000 1.0% Acquisitions 17,000 1. 5% 29,000 1. 5% Set-Aside for New films 40,000 3. 4% 200,000 10.4% Gift Shop Products 96,000 8. 2% 160,000 8. 3% Surfing Hall of Fame 17,000 1. 5% 29,000 1. 5% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 558, 400 47 .9% 875,600 45.5% NET OPERATING INCOME $606,600 52.1`k $1,049,400 54.5% DEBT SERVICE ---------------------- Loan payments ** Princple 5,000,000 Interest 7.3% 413,000 413,000 Term 30 Years NET CASH INCOME/(LOSS) $193,600 16.6% $636,400 33.1% Amount and related data shown herein are all conjecture based upon assumed building areas proposed. DOCUMENT State of California-The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Huntington Beach Surfing Museum, 'A Site Analysis',April 1988.p11. 9. Does the project have potential for commercial success? The proponents have expressed a high degree of confidence in their ability to raise adequate funding to set up and operate the museum. They intend to tap both general business and surfing-specific industries for financial contributions and corporate sponsorships as well as donations of exhibit and archival materials. They also plan to charge an admission fee of $2 to $3 as a means of generating additional operating capital. While "willingness-to-pay" will depend in part on the scale and caliber of the facility, most visitors would probably be receptive to a fee in this range(Demetrak)*. They have also indicated that they hope to entice 3-5% of all annual visitors to Southern California into visiting the surfing museum. A more realistic projection, again depending on the size and qualify of the museum, would be 300,000-500,000 annual visitors (Demetrak)*. Assuming these figures are practical,admission fees could generate roughly $1.25 million in annual revenue. In addition, the proponents wish to operate a gift shop on the premises where visitors may purchase books, videos, posters, postcards, and other educational and/or memorabilia items. Profits form this operation would also become part of the museum's operating capital. In addition to employing some key managerial and professional staff, the proponents hope to make intensive use of volunteers--as docents, salespeople, historians, restoration, restoration specialist, and the like. While not without cost, volunteer programs can certainly enhance the viability of a museum project. However, it would be unrealistic to assume that a facility of the size proposed can be operated without a considerable investment in both paid and volunteer staff. *Demetrak,Keith,Chief,Office of Interpretive Services,DPR. Personal Interview-March 13,1988. Fourth. The *ing additional paragraph is MEASURE C added to Section 612 of the City Charter: (d) If any section, subsection, part, subpart, paragraph, clause or phrase of First. Section 612 of the City Charter is amended this amendment, or any amendment or to read as follow: revision of this amendment, is for any reason held to be invalid or $AM0F/?W0V.J¢/IpTHJTy unconstitutional, the remaining sections, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PARKS AND BEACHES. subsections, parts, subparts. paragraphs, clauses or phrases shall not be affected (a No public utility or park or beach or but shall remain in full force and effect. portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the City shall be sold, leased, exchanged or otherwise transferred or disposed of unless authorized by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total membership of the City Council and IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS by the affirmative vote of at least a majority OF MEASURE C of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted. This proposed ballot measure would amend section 612 of the City Charter to impose a restriction Second. The following additional paragraph is on the disposition and use of park and beach lands of added to Section 612 of the City Charter: the city. (b) No golf course, driving range. road. Any sale, lease or other disposition of park or building over three thousand square feet in beach lands or portion thereof now owned or hereafter floor area nor structure costing more than owned or operated by the city would be subject to the $100.000.00 may be built on or in any park prior affirmative vote of a majority of the members of } or beach or portion thereof now or the City Council and of the electors voting thereon at j hereafter owned or operated by the City an election mandated by the measure. Council and unless authorized by the affirmative votes voter approval is also required prior to construction of of at least a majority of the total any road, golf course, driving range, building larger { membership of the City Council and by the than 3000 square feet in floor area or of any structure affirmative vote of at least a majority of the costing more than $100,000.00 within any city owned electors voting on such proposition at a or operated park or beach. { general or special election at which such Exempted from approval requirement are I roposition is submitted. libraries, piers, existing leases, franchise and concession agreements or other contracts in cases Third. The following additional paragraph is where: added to Section 612 of the City Charter: 1. a contract is to perform an actor provide a (c) Section 612(a)and U shall not ap2lly: service in a public park or beach, which act 1. to libraries or piers: or service was already being performed on 2. to any lease, franchise. concession January 1, 1989; and agreement or other contract where: 2. there is no increase in the quantum of park the contract is to perform an act or or beach land dedicated to or used by the provide a service in a public l2ark or party performing such act or used for such beach AND previously authorized act or service. such act was being performed or service provided at the same GAIL HUTTON location prior to Januaryy 1. 1989 AND City Attorney _ the proposed lease, franchise, concession agreement or other contract would not increase the �� amount of p � Tm parkland or beach t 1 6,+e� Cw\C4 dedicated to or used by the party performing such act or providing Cl �h4 j� , such service. I ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN MEASURE C FAVOR OF MEASURE C The Amendment before you allows the citizens of Don't be fooled by Measure C. If you read the fine Huntington Beach to have a direct vote in any future print, it is designed to exclude the majority of commercial development or sale of the city's parks residents, young and old alike, from enjoying the full and beaches. Currently, citizen participation is use of our parks and beaches. The sponsors have a indirect. Knowledgeable citizens may contact their vested interest in keeping our park system elected city council with opinions. The city council incomplete. They are a special interest group, a then makes their final decisions. minority of residents, who want to keep our kids, This system has failed. Information concerning seniors and the rest of us out! potential commercial development within the city's MEASURE C will require a general election or costly parks and beaches, and information concerning any expansion or important park land transactions, has not been im10ro e0menttocour Bark system than 3,000 sq. reaching the citizens of Huntington Beach. The p p y g q� ft.or costing more than$100,000. citizens cannot participate in these vital decisions unless our elected officials disseminate the needed MEASURE C will jeopardize the proposed Rodgers information. Senior's Center Expansion, the Youth Shelter, the The, Charter Amendment will correct these Youth Sports Center and the implementation of the deficiencies. The Amendment will require that any Unear Park in the Bolsa Chica. In addition, most major commercial development or land sale within the improvements such as landscaping, restrooms, bike parks and beaches of Huntington Beach be approved Paths, basketball courts, baseball diamonds, soccer by a majority of the voters at a general election. A fields cannot be done if costing over$100,000 without special election is not required. The Charter a general election or special election. Amendment guarantees the public be informed of any MEASURE C is unwieldy, restrictive,expensive,flawed proposed park changes, allows full public debate on and poorly written. It is a divisive and costly solution to these matters, and, finally, allows the public a direct a non-existent problem and is guaranteed to be a vote on development or sale of these public lands. bureaucratic nightmare. Improvements such as landscaping, restrooms, We taxpayers don't need the expense of additional paths, picnic tables, basketball courts, baseball elections and political campaigns. Let's spend our diamonds, soccer fields, etc. can be done without a money on park improvements for all of us. vote. Future pier and library projects are exempt from VOTE NO ON MEASURE C and protect our kids, the Charter Amendment as are existing leases. p Within a decade Huntington Beach will reach build- seniors and the majority of our residents' rights to out. The only remaining vacant land will be your parks enjoy the full use of our parks and beaches. and beaches. Voting YES on the Charter Amendment will place control of your public park land in the voter's hands and out of the reach of developers and special Tom Duchene, H.B.Youth Sports Committee interest groups. James Townsend, Citizen/Senior Grace Winchell,H.B.Councilmember Art Aviles Jr., President, H.B.Chamber of Commerce Ruth Finley,former H.B.Mayor . Jim Silva, Councilman Geri Ortega,Chairman H.B.Planning Commission Wes Bannister, Councilman Debbie Cook,Chairman SAVE OUR PARKS Norma Brandel Gibbs,former Mayor /t 4 � i ARGUMENT AGAINST REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT MEASURE C AGAINST MEASURE C i The only threat to our parks and beaches is this Those who are opposed to Measure C have either not measure. The Huntington Beach parks and recreation read this measure or are intentionally trying to mislead system now has over 1700 acres and an additional you. Here are the facts. 1100 recreational acres are to be added. The City of H.B. owns 641 acres of park land, half of Unfortunately over 500 acres of existing park land is which is Central Park. Central Park was created by the still dirt lots and abandoned oil fields. citizens at the ballot box. Special interests are Voting for this measure will: constantly pressuring our elected officials to surrender Stop expansion of recreational facilities for our kids. public land for their private use. Thirty-five separate projects ranging from RV parks to toxic transfer Jeopardize the completion of much needed park stations to hotels have been studied for the and recreation improvements. undeveloped portions of Central Park. Require money to be spent on elections rather than The City owns one mile of beach. Developers are on the enhancement of our park system. proposing lease agreements to build semi-private All sports and recreation facilities, whether they be clubs and exclusive restaurants on the ocean side of kids' ball fields, an extension of the bike path, the Pacific Coast Highway. youth sports center or additional equestrian trails and Those opposed to Measure C are the special interest nature centers,will require either a general election,or groups seeking to take our recreation land for the a $100,000 special election. You and I will bear the purpose of their financial gain. cost of these elections. What Measure C does do is give the voters the right to Who will organize and run the campaigns? Our kids? review sales, leases, transfers and exchanges of park How will park and recreation improvements make the and beach land. ballot? Who will convince the voter across town to pay for the park improvements in your neighborhood? Will Ball fields, bike paths, sports fields, equestrian trails, you vote and pay for improvements in theirs? nature centers, basketball courts, small restaurants, restrooms, showers, picnic tables, and landscaping Our representative government has proven itself to be are permitted under Measure C and a vote is not the most effective and responsive. If we don't like our required. Special elections are never required. representatives' decisions, we can replace them. The sponsors of Measure C want to overthrow the system, Join every public interest group,environmental group, not improve it! the overwhelming majority of residents, and respected This measure is a divisive and costly solution to a non- public officials. Vote yes on Measure C. SAVE OURPARKS AND BEACHES! existent problem. Don't let special interest groups politicize our park system and divide our community. The sponsors of Grace Winchell, Councilwoman this measure have a vested interest in keeping our Geri Ortega, Chairman, Huntington Beach Planning park system incomplete and unsafe. They are the few Commission who want to keep you and our kids out! Mark Porter, Former Chairman, Huntington Beach LET'S SPEND OUR MONEY ON PARK Planning Commission IMPROVEMENTS FOR OUR KIDS, NOT COSTLY POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS FOR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. VOTE NO ON MEASURE C Jim Silva,Councilman,City of Huntington Beach Pat Davis,Citizen,Huntington Beach Tom Duchene, Huntington Beach Youth Sports Committee Art Aviles, Jr., President, Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce i