Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Huntington Central Park - Final Report on an Economic Feasib
OVERVIEW The City' s park system presents two major problems : how to complete park development as prescribed by the General Plan and hove to finance park mainte- nance once developed. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan was adopted prior to Proposition 13, the Gann Initiative and double-digit inflation. On August 13, 1979, the City Council directed staff to develop a schematic plan for Huntington Central Park utilizing passive , non-revenue producing active and revenue-producing recreation as a means of financing the park system and its maintenance. On August 25, 1980, staff was directed to investigate interim funding sources for park maintenance. Staff recommended establishment of assessment districts which was unacceptable to Council . Early in 1980, a schematic plan was prepared by staff with the input of many citizens , organized sports groups and potential investors. This schematic plan received considerable public exposure and created some controversy in the community. The major issue of controversy was the utilization of commercial activity versus passive use. The schematic plan created recreational facili- ties for the community, preserved the passive use and provided commercial recreation that would be developed by the private sector. Contractual agree- ments with the private sector would provide income to the City that could be used to help finance the maintenance of Central Park and possibly part o1- the City' s park system, In early 1981 , the City Council authorized the firm of Ultrasystems to conduct an economic feasibility analysis of proposed revenue-producing uses for Huntington Central Park. The Ultrasystems report indicates that if the City is desirous of developing commercial recreation in Central Park, it ;rill generate a sizable amount of income. The uses recommended in the report are based on the highest economic return to the City. Some of those uses might be unacceptable to the community and the Council , but Ultrasystems was h-; red to investigate the best financial alternatives, not the most popular uses. While preparing its report, Ultrasystems representatives met every month to bring City staff of the Community Services , Development Services , Public Works and Administrative Services Departments an update of its findings and to allow the City to interface with comments and recommendations to Ultra- systems. When the final draft was complete, additional comments were presented to Ultrasystems by Public Works and Development Services (see attached) . A meeting was also held on June 3, 1981 , with Mr. John Rau of Ultrasystems who was presented with those questions and comments. Attached is an addendum to the Ultrasystems report responding to the concerns of Public Works and Development Services , as well as to the questions of the Community Services Commission Huntington. Central Park Committee. This committee and the Commission have been provided with copies of this material , along with a history and chronological sequence of past Council and Commission actions related to this subject. The Commission will review this material at its June 10, 1981 : meeting and make a recommendation to Council . After these many months of study and with the completion of the Ultrasystems report, the question is , should the City develop commercial recreation in Huntington Central Park? If commercial uses are desirable, a decision needs to be made as to what uses the Council wants in the park and what revenues would be generated. This is a very important issue in that it will deter- mine if supplemental revenue will be necessary to support the park system. If Council chooses to have no commercial recreation in the park, is it willing to subsidize the maintenance from other sources? If commercial recreation is unacceptable or, if the funds are not available to underwrite park maintenance, the City could choose to reduce the park' s proposed boundaries, As the Director of Community Services , I would like to advise the City Administrator and the City Council that I personally feel Central Park is a very important asset to this city and all of its citizens. The City 's excellent park system helps increase property values in this city. As the population density increases , the need for active recreation and open space will also increase, The availability of open space is becoming limited. Huntington Central Park, in conjunction with the County Linear Park, will ultimately provide an essential environment and quality of life for the public. Therefore, I seriously feel that whatever the Council decides regarding Central Park development, we should preserve the greatest amount of open space possible at this time in order to insure a wholesome environ- ment for our future, HISTORY The idea of a large central park in the heart of Huntington Beach was conceived in the early 1 960's by a council-appointed citizen's advisory committee for parks, recreation, cultural development and libraries. The committee's recommendations included purchase of the old county dumpsite south of the current central library which became the nucleus of the park. Purchase of the eighteen acre library site, which linked . the dump site with the five acre city water department property, and dedication of the twelve acre Huntington Lake site on the west side of Golden West Street from the William Lyons Company, added incentive to our City Council, Commission, staff and citizenry to pursue the potential of creating a park of regional significance in the geographical center of the city. For many years, gravel had been mined from the west side of Go►den West Street along with peat from the east side. Private owners were beginning to fill the lowlands with concrete and rubble in preparation for mobile home parks. Auto junk yards, old shacks, gravel crushing operations and fertilizer mixing plants existed on future park property. In the national election of November, 1968, the city proposed a $6 million G.O. Bond Issue for the city park system and a $3.15 million G.O. Bond for a new central library ',vhich would be located in the heart of the park. With an 85% voter turnout, 62% voted in favor of the park bonds and 61% in favor of the library bonds, a solid majority but not the 2/3% majority required to pass. In June, 1969, the park bonds were tried again at a special election which drew only 20'% of the registered voters. Success was attained, however, with 74% voting in favor, well over the 2/3% majority required. The library was financed by the city through formation of a public facilities corporation since the majority of Huntington t3each residents were in favor of the library in 1969. Upon approval of the park bonds, a bond prospectus was prepared which included the plan advertised in the bond campaign for development of Huntington Central Park. The proposed facilities included areas for migratory birds, camping, community centers, rustic village, liibrary, multi-purpose fields, basketball, volleyball and tennis courts, picnicking, boating and fishing, nature center, gardens, theme playground, archery and gun ranges. The bonds were sold to Bank of America in early 1971 but the city had already received over $1 million in federal grants for property acquisition and was well on its way in planning early park boundaries. The architectural landscape firm of Eckbo, Dean, Austin and Williams (EOA'N) .vas retained to master plan both city-owned land and future potential park expansion south to the then proposed coast freeway. In the three year time period between the schematic design done for the purpose of promoting the park bonds and the preparation of the schematic design prepared by EDAW quite a few parcels of property were acquired with HUD grants and Park Acquisition and Development Funds. Additional potential expansion of the park was considered which mainly consisted of a camping and fishing lake, a children's animal farm, a casting pool and an eighteen hole regulation golf course and driving range. Most of the other facilities shown in the original plan were retained in the revised version which became the basic development plan completed in June, 1974 of approximately 170 acres. In 1978, a survey card was sent to all Huntington Reach water customers (approximately 40,000) asking for opinions on what facilities should be incorporated into HCP. Predicated on results received, the schematic master plan was created. _ Previous Council Action : The Council moved on August 13, 1979, to take a positive policy position on the three portions of Huntington Central Park, the "passive" , "non-revenue producing active" and "revenue producing active" . On January 21 , 1980, a conceptual plan reflecting Ellis Avenue as the southerly park boundary was approved and direction given to prepare a resolu- tion to amend the General Plan . At this same time, Development Services was directed to initiate rezoning to recreational open space on all parcels within park boundaries . Resolution No. 4853 was approved by Council establishing Ellis Avenue as the southerly boundary of HCP for the sole purpose of planning and feasibility study for master planning of such park. On August 25, 1980, as a result of a joint meeting with Community Services , Council directed staff to proceed with recreational open space rezoning of all property north of Ellis Avenue . In addition, authorization was given to secure an appraisal on Parcel "A" , recreational vehicle campground facility. Community Services Commission Recommendation : On July 9, 1980, the Commission conducted a public hearing on the schematic master plan and recommended that the City Council approve the plan and authorize staff to develop a preliminary master plan and hire a qualified economist or firm to prepare an economic or marketing analysis report prior to preparation of a preliminary master plan. Continued Council Action: At the Council meeting of August 25, 1980, staff was directed to investi- gate interim funding sources for park maintenance in excess of current funding until Central Park begins to generate funds for park maintenance and further, that the solutions offered be included in the water bills with a request for public comments . On September 15, 1980, a committe was appointed to study the possibility of constructing an amphitheater in HCP. At the December 15, 1980 Council meeting , the appeal to the Planning Commission to delete area 2 .1 from open space and conservation element amend- ment 80-1 ; a request to redesignate approximately 65 .3 acres of land located north of Ellis Avenue between Edwards Street and Sully Miller Lake from planned open space development to a recreation area , and to designate approxi- mately 10 acres of land north of Ellis and west of Gothard as a recreation area was continued until an economic study has been made of the HCP schematic plan . Also at this meeting , the appeal to the Planning Commission to delete area 2 .5 from land use element amendment 80-2 ; a request to redesignate 10 acres of land located north of Ellis and west of Gothard from industrial to open space was continued until an economic study has been made of the HCP schematic plan . The Council on January 5 , 1981 , requested Equestrian Trails Inc . be contacted regarding an equine consultant for HCP. On January 5, 1981 , Council continued consideration to an adjourned. meeting to be held January 12 , 1981 , of a contract between the City and Ultrasystems , Inc . for performance of a feasibility analysis of proposed revenue producing elements to be located in HCP. Also , Council requested Equestrian Trails , Inc. be contacted regarding an equine consultant for Huntington Central Park. At the January 12, 1981 , Council meeting which was a joint meeting with Community Services Commission, Council approved and authorized execution of a contract with Ultrasystems, Inc. for the performance of a feasibility analysis of proposed revenue-producing elements to be located in Huntington Central Park and to authorize an appropriation of $32,973.00 contract amount from Park Acquisition and Development funds. Vj 0 r^ �::;s t E TY OF HUNTINGTON I IA dam"2 2000 MAIN STREET P. 0. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Paul E. Cook Public Works Department Director (714) 536-5431 June 1 , 1981 John Rau li,_trasystelr.s, Inc . 2400 Michelson Dr. Irvine, CA 92715 Re : Huntington Central Park Feasibility Study Dear John : I have completed an analysis of the subject report dated May 7 , 1981 and nave the following continents : Pa^e 2-22 I ' ve never expc2 rlenced a RV park that charged $115 per nlg:nt. Table 2 . 10 shows only One that Charges this amount- and It se-rves Disney- land visitors . I feel that $10 per night would IDe more re.asonabl.e . Page 2-59 Land val,_ie of $120 , 000 per square foot is incorrect. It shoulu read per acre . Pace 2-61 100 , 000 attendees each paving $5 would generate $500 , 000 , not $165 , CJ0 . 100 , 000 atter.aees ;could average 300 per day for 365 days . The shoOt- ing range would have to be much larger to handle that many people . Page 4-1 Since the City Council has not officially approved expansion of the park southerly o- 660 feet north of Ellis , why isn ' t one of the con- figurations tine existing official boundaries of the park? Page 4-6 The type of golf course which you are recommending on plage 2-25 is Called a "chaI"i3ionshlp" Course, not "executive. " An eXectltive C011l"SG is o_1v about par 58 . A1so, Seacliff Golf Course in liuntlnaton Beach is over 130 acres . I don' t feel that 110-120 acres ;ould be enouch for a championship course . Pace 5-3 The cievelo,-)ment of a ciolf course On both sides of Golde: .,,est ::oolcl John Rau June 1 , 1981 Page 2 require the construction of an underpass for golf carts at a cost of $500 , 000 or more. Do you propose the golr course developer to pay for this? Page 5-6 You are assuming that everyone (adults and children) who uses the fishil:a, 1a}.e �:i11 visit the bait shop and spend $5 each . This is very unrealistic . Probably only 10-20% of -those using the lake will Spend money in the bait shop. Page 5-7 A par 72 "championship" golf course should provide well over $150 , 000 revenue per year, probably $300 , 000 to $500 , 000 . Page 5-8 If you recorullend the RV park be operated privately, why did you assume City operation for the purposes of the report? Pare 5-10 It' s hard to be!--eve that the YMCA would provide nearly as muC.i revenue as the gol;_ course. Two YMCA' s 1n other cities w?lere I have wol-Ked were constantly asking the City for money so tile., could stay in business . Page 5-1.2 The operation of the sports fields would cost considerable sums for recreation supervision and umpires which haven ' t been included in your costs . Page 5-15 It is not the City' s intention to maintain any land which is leased to the yl"Ci'i. Pace 5-21 You discuss a land ex.chancle as if it' s Land a lr ea dv devoted to pari:s . The City o•-.ns considerable land which, if declared Surplus , could be sold with the money goina into necessary capital_ improvements not in- cluding parks . If the City has surplus park land , it should consider exchanglnc( it- for the %la rion land or "the D1S te:).lano land , rather than a parcel_ which ,you say will "not be worth the e:•:tra investment involved . " Pane 5-22 The attached memo from Daryl Smith e:-:plains that Your calculations regarding j parr lr:a_-nte.nance are not accu;-aL-e because of sonic zaulty a s stii?':',.�'�i OnS , ,'IIeSe 1g :.reS Sl-ioul_C: be COI .-ecLed '1S]_-I- aCCura+ c aSSl.^,p- tions . John Rau June 1 , 1981 Page 3 Page 6-1 I feel that a 111 or 116 acre par 72 golf course is marginal . I thin: more research on the ideal size of this type of golf course is necessary. Page 6-2 None of your alternatives include a realignment of Ellis Ave . through the park to connect with Talbert at Edwards . This amendment to the Ci_tY ' s Circulation Element is still being considered by the Planning Commission. Panes 6-6 s 6-7 Your uiscussions regarding the benefits of expanding the park versus private development of the land leads to the conclusion that as much land as possible should be taken off the ta.r rolls and developed `or recreational purposes . I feel this discussion needs clarification . I expect that we will be meeting soon to discuss these Natters . ._Very truly yours , Paul E. Cook Director of Public Works PEC . jy At-tac : cc : Charles Pl. Thompson Vince "':oorhouse Jim Pa.li_n Ben Arguello iz.a fll Its INTER-DEPARTIMENT COMN,"'UNICATION Tn Paul E . Cook, From Daryl D . Smith , Supt. Director of Public Works Parks , Tree & Landscape SIAL Huntington Contra! Park. May 22 , 1981 Ultra Systems Report Dace The following are some general comments and concerns I have regard- ing the subject report . Page 2-59 First Oaragraph indicates $120 , 000 per sq . ft. but must mean per acre . Pa cIe 5-3 ! cannot find any figures in the report regar6ing cost of tunnel or bridge across Goidonwest Street. This cost must be included since all recommended plans call for a golf course on the east and west sides of Goldcnwcst . Also, I do not find any signalization costs at Talbert. This is a key area since it appears the hotel entrance is at this location. Both of these items ; as I understand it, could cost about one-half million dollars or more. Page 5-7 it appears the $150 , 000 is a very low figure for revenues from a golf course of this size W! acres) in the location proposed . Page 5-8 ( 10) Recreational Vehicle Park it Was not appear to me that an assumption for the Uny to develop , oparate and maintain .his facility is soun6 business practice when the recommendation is for a private entity ; i . e . national affiliation to operate the facility . Either qo %,,ith the recommend,,,hion or don ' t mention the recom- Page 5-22 The reporL extrapolates an average per acre/year park maintenance cost from our 1980/81 Maintenance Report. In this Report it is in- correct to use a mathematical formulation to remove specific acreage from the total 430 acres and attempt to generate revenues to offsez remaining costs . The following Formula must bo used to. be specific in breaking out 190 acres of Euntingocri Central Park from the 230 acres ot park system: Memo to Paul Cook H. B . Central Park Ultra Systems May 22 , 1981 J Page 2 Acreage maint Cost;kcj='r 1 Year Cost Huntington Cent:-al Park 190 x $1 , 00 . 00 = $ 266 , 000 Remaining Perk System 24.0 X 3 , 769 . 39 = 904 , G52 Total Direct/Indirect Cost/Yo-ar/430 Acres - S1 , 170 , 652 Therefore ,Ore , rather than $9 , 925 , 283 maintenance CCst for the 240 acres Over a ten (10) year peifiod at. 9- annual increase , it should be 013 , 744 , 314 . 21 . Also, I believe 92 is a very conservative percentage for annual increases and probably should he 11% or 12% . using the . 9 o and the 1 million n ( r year However, _ h 3 . 7 rr _�_ior, for a ten , 1_�) ; � r pro- jected maintenance cost, it appears t he assumed revenue from recommended alternatives 3B and 4A are quite Shor c of paying for the remaining Jars: maintenance Of 240 acres of park. It also appears that Iione o! the alternatives could 'produce revenue to offset the remaining 240 acre park maintenance costs . l: very impor_tart series of :indirect costs to the City not included in {,he report which a relative a_ � proposed are �' �' .�1_ . e �O _ihE: i�rG��O C'C Cl :�:c::;.Ot:-.^EI':t. the staff hours required to accomplish the tasks of environmental impact _eoOrti � , public Bearings , preparation of construction plans , .preparing- leases , purchasing Or Condemning lance , plan checking an,-- inspecting construction Of the facilities and man_' Other such indirect costs . I realize thes'e cosh _i would lint o factor-.,G he easy ::O _ C _J-� out SpL Cl- fically; however, one C_Ould ]project an approximate beginning- tolen'A • time frame and add a percentage of total_ estimated cost of project. One alternative not n'.,_I,;t_oned in the resort , but asked On mky occa- sions by staff , Council and the public ,- is ,:flat Can be done if Huntington Central. Park were limited tO the originally re-established 6GJ ' boundary north o f Ellis `a - Lt' 7 1 +t . -1._..S c.nQ no 1.:-tl": :c.t.. l:�ll'"C_ uot?.. . SLet.,S to ale this is a 'fiery important consideration wheI_ analyzing/calculating development costs , land acquisition Costs , maintenance costs , and many other substantive concerns voiced over the yeal:S ragarC ing liuntinc ;_on Central Park. No matter what anyone infers , the entire 1.5 . 9 million dollar investment cos' of the recommended alternative 4A are tax dollars . The above comments are not in-tended to be arCIL':P. entive or to discredit the subject re],orz. `J.Ihese comments are meant to augment t the report and accoTlD.odate competing interests for a positive solution . DDS jy CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPA RTNIENT COMMUNICATION To I I Catalano, Deputy Dir . From Charles Clark ul-,L: D0velo,:_)II-,enL Services Associate Planner Sijt)iect Central Park Economic Date May 27, , 981 FeL,sibil i Ly S Ludy The Advance Planniny staff has reviewed the Huntington Central Park Econcwiic F'eas-ibility Study pre,,)ared by Ultrasyster.-,s , Inc . , and has tile Following collinlents . In the analysis of investment costs it is not clear whether IL--Ie i r.i L.i C-1-I _'Ii,,vesti!ient for land, infrastructure, an,,] oEai-_-k developr!lent �,.,ould be financed fro external sources and developer '[:ees , or recovereu frori the cash flow surpluses generated by the pro- posed rUvc.,ii_i(_l prociucinq uses in Central ilarl-:. �Vhile the sLLid,/ consid-Ors the- J_i;lpacL of expected grant ii-torlies on invesI.ii'ienL costs, Lh, re_ is nu !dIequ_at:e treatiiient of dI(:,:velGI;er fees . The SLuCiY Should cl-A-1-c-ull.ate projected cievelopur fees (park and recrucir_ion, etc . ) expected froiii fuut-tre develo)"Nierit and ti. - L i.iirl... to u,_ r_er!Ane :Ahe ther SUCI--, revenues could be L!:sL.d Lo sl% EI _L- ciently cover Central Park i lives thil'.-c-,L costs . If Lje.velo;_)er fue-1. c.-Liiiiot cover the total 41-rivestiiient cost wit;iin a rc'--tsonalule ti fr,-I:ite, lien a portion off the projecLed casii flow surplus froil,, the Central Park activitie should be allocaLed for LIIIS [Alrl)Use . 'ilh is is an important consideration because the stuay apparentl_,,, ass,ui-. es that sufficient grants and developer fees will L,e avail- able to financC investment costs, and that the surf us cash flow ftc,it Central F,;ii:k- woulU provide SU_I_-1_ 1Ci4UnL revenues to aj�•quat-e-ly P,cy for oi- the ret-L,,ainder of L_ie Cit:,,.? L----.rk s,zsteiii (iiacje 5-22)) -if a sizeable portion of the cash flo%%! surplus %.,,--Is dirc:,ct-C2C, to recoveriiij invesLilienL Lher, tile_ rev(z!nuus 1frC)EL the act_-iviL'-_ies in Cent-, al Park coulcl riot i-i-lone finarice the mainLen.,Ance ul Lh(-, reriainder oi- Lhe City park systeiii a-; concluded in the report. A related point_ is r-haL the 10-year cost of iria- inuaining L-ne rc2- fl-Laindei_- of Llie City park s�,sterii is esti;iiated too low by the S'-'L - — - F, -21 - - -ite- V,,e ropurL uses the FY 1980 1-)a rk IIQIiCe budget of $1 , 170, 460 a� the basis for projecLinLj the iiiaiii- teriance bill -or the park system excl _j udii, Central Par',- . 'file share of the maintenance budget allocated to Central Park is based on a level of *2700 per acre , which represents the max- imum level once the activities in the park are fulA, developed-. Lass: yuuc maintenance is consequently estimated at $517 , 180 for Central Park , while the remaining $653, 280 is assigned to Lhe resu of the City parks . Over K years, this results in a main- tenance cost of $9 . 9 million for the City park system exclu- sive of Control Park, which compares favorably win the $9 . 9 million positive cash flow for Alternative A and with the $12 . 8 million surplus for Alternative 4a . In order to obtain a mor,-,- accurate picture of maincenance costs , the exisLin5 level of service for Central Park should be assumed, i . e . , $1400 per acre or a total oC $266 , 000 in the base year. This results in a main- tenance cost of $9u4 , 460 in the base year and $13 . 7 million over 10 years for the remainder of the park system. In the cash flow analysis of the impacts of the proposed revenue producing uses , the study treats 14 alternative park configu- rations and land use mixes . The analysis results range from a negative cash flow of $5 . 0 million for Alternative lc to a maximum positive cash flow of $12 . 8 million for Alternative 4a over the 10-year period . A significant caveat affecting these results (page 5-18) is nat no consideration is given to anti- cipated sales tax and alcoholic beverage tax revenues to be de- rived from any of the land uses ; nor do the results include con- sideration of police , fire , street maintenance, public works , and general government costs . These revenues and costs should be included in the analysis for several reasons . First, it is highly probable that the alter- natives conwininq &ost of the developed uses will generate more sales tax revenues and indirect costs (i .e . , police , fire, Ueneral yovornmenc, etc . ) than the passive oriented park alter- natives . As a result , the net cash flows from the 14 alterna- Lives could compare quite differently with the 10-year net cash flow results shown in Table 5 . 4 . A second consijeration is that the study poses the question of whether or not the City would benefit wore by not acquiring the necessary parcels of park ex- pansion and allowing them to develop privately to office , res- idenLial , or industrial uses . The results of the report show that the use of these parcels for park development would be significantly more beneficial to the City than the non-park uses . However, it is equally important to point OWL that the study in- ciujes police, fire, pablic works , and (jeneral yovernment costs in the analysis oE non- park uses , but excludes them in the analysis of tne A park alternatives . Incorporatiny these costs in the park relaLej use analysis could silnificanLly alter Lhe comparison of the cash flow results with the non-park uses . A final point is WDL inclusion of the indirect revenues and Costs COULd iMpaCt Lhe capability of We proposed uses in Central Pirk to tinanCe Maintenance Of the remainder of the City park systam. CC : j!I OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ON ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED REVENUE- PRODUCING USES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK 8 June 1981 BASIC STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • IDENTIFY POTENTIAL REVENUE-PRODUCING USES THAT ARE SUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THESE USES. • DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS POSSIBLE TO PAY FOR HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK MAINTENANCE THROUGH REVENUE-PRODUCING USES . • DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS POSSIBLE TO GENERATE SUFFICIENT SURPLUS REVENUES FROM REVENUE-PRODUCING USES IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK TO PAY FOR THE REMAINING CITY PARK MAINTENANCE . BASIC APPROACH IN STUDY STEP I - IDENTIFY COMMUNITY RECREATION NEEDS . STEP Z - CONDUCT MARKET SUPPORT ANALYSIS . STEP 3 - IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE POTENTIAL REVENUE-PRODUCING USES . STEP 4 - EVALUATE ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS . STEP 5 - FORMULATE ALTERNATIVE PLANS OF DEVELOPMENT . STEP 6 - DETERMINE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED. STEP 7 - PERFORM COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS OF DEVELOPMENT. STEP 8 - PREPARE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION . REVENUE-PRODUCING USES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS (1) ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND (2) AMPHITHEATER (3) ARCADE AND PIZZA PARLOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BASEBALL/SPORTS FIELD COMPLEX. (4) BASEBALL/SPORTS FIELD COMPLEX (5) EQUESTRIAN FACILITY (6) FISHING ACTIVITIES AT SULLY MILLER LAKE (7) 18-HOLE CHAMPIONSHIP GOLF COURSE (8) HOTEL WITH CONVENTION FACILITIES. (9) RV PARK (10) DINNER-TYPE RESTAURANT (11) SHOOTING RANGE (12) SNACK CONCESSIONS (13) YMCA ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO REVENUE-PRODUCING USES (1) OPEN SPACE VALUES (2) SEISMIC RISKS (3) HAZARDOUS WASTES (4) OTHER AGENCY LAND USE RESTRICTIONS (5) EXISTING HORSE TRAIL SYSTEM (6) TRAFFIC FLOW AND CONGESTION (7) WATER QUALITY (8) ADJACENT LAND USES �ORD Di, ? �ji �_.i.ll _=----t-- 4- am. r 1 • N_I V DR Rz i: — � 1L. -' 11U I .(..RO BAY LN — J 5 L A'!ZW— !7T-- CF-E of so a o o I'LL' 1 1. of so .F %* J71 10 )3. -R so so C F -41 &of of L-J ————————— TALBERT T �J— of so a off o CF- R 4 of of • CF-C ELLIS kti ve! Faul L Location Source: ORen Space Element Fault Lines and Geologic Conditions Active Faults in the Huntington Central Park Area li� s�renis `YWIIIO GAY M l SL :F ftr—i CA IYe-^.; view cc..wx!Li � I nOIL IDL ■ � j 1 1_ 0. i I 1. i CA I WOMAN. 0001 TALDENTl Huntington I ' Central Park fl llA P �,�d ' t (328 acres) J i r CF-C -. UII�I�L , � :•I:;`.•.�:•:.';�.: i I , Existing Contrn i P,,r!; Ad ft Boundaries h st ms, o t r�` .011N0 Y1'LM ✓ �.�1 G_. SL CI —E . . . . . F ' it �1" I` ct Ilt!i11 'I:EW^✓.:w.rt.l .r1.1. 1 [ ! I 0. I 1. I i i I -147-7 —F 1 _ � � ! I� ' •' r- oR fa.... Rw ----- . _ __ TAllERT -7777 RI ^r _ r Huntington Central Park : .a (349 acres) uI��Il C F -� _ I I Central Park Boundary Configuration No. 2 (Existing Boundaries Plus Northeast AMh Corner of Goldenwest & Ellis a ltnasyst ms ,1 ...u,,.. r jon 1; . ' �I.J� l I I 1=y _ g �Y.yla�jr-Ij4" lrit '•. .� U YOIIIIO Yv�M S 1.../ .blr F I F C _E l : a I ' r' " [� (M!:•li /!FW W.:MM41 I vi�. [ of A ' I rI ll ,'al I AMPi l — � f n o. i a I ! _ _ k F i 1 i --, :.� l v� MOW � TAIEERT 1 �----;.- —- - �-- , - —- --- WHIM Huntington Central Park (358 acres) .............. CF_C I Central Park Boundary Configuration No. 3 (Same as No. 2 Plus Northwest Corner of Ellis & Golden West) Items l `Y011N0 Yr lM � S`♦ Lam' ��1.L_. ""F-`' �. . .. CA (M!F'l0 V!!i'«✓.:HO(!LI I n 11 O! 10 1CP yyj I 77 t ++ �` '• I � -tee u-,—u�r� •� i��CCJJ :-. W .KM 1' 1 I 'I I f.0. I R. , � I IT j -� r 9. Huntington Central Park (367 acres) J I i j CF-C (I fl I - -- r? I Central Park Boundary Configuration No. 4 (Same as No. 3 Plus Northwest Corner of Gothard and Ellis. OPTIMAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR VARIOUS HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK BOUNDARY CONFIGURATIONS Boundary Configuration Description of Uses Existing boundary(1) Adventure playground, fishing lake, golf course, hotel with convention facilities, shooting range, snack concessions and YMCA Existing boundary plus Adventure playground, baseball/sports northeast corng of Golden field complex (4 fields) , fishing lake, West and Ellis`) golf course, hotel with convention facilities, 230-space RV park, shooting range, snack concessions and YMCA Existing boundary plus Adventure playground, arcade and pizza northeast and northwest parlor, baseball/sports field complex corners o olden West (6 fields) , fishing lake, golf course, and Ellis 5 hotel with convention facilities , 230- space RV park, shooting range, snack concessions and YMCA Existing boundary plus Adventure playground, arcade and pizza northeast and northwest parlor, baseball/sports field complex corners of Golden West and (6 fields) , fishing lake, golf course, Ellis plus northwest cprner hotel with convention facilities , 480- of Gothard and Ellis(7J space RV park, shooting range, snack concessions and YMCA CITY OOF HUNT'INCTOON = EACE-! 1► 11 ' • ra — �''m IV i + .,it .ram .���:}J! w ii J,♦ `■ -�/� ,, _ � �:. .r CITY OOP HUN��ING�OON = E �1C1� ce � 1 j poil Ilk 4111111111 — • I � � ' t ��iii # �1 ■+ F`/ ~• ,�" >'r;,�. ■.Ill.i!.:... ,.�' r�•+� --fir. x A ,; � .N CITY OOP NUN��ING�fOON = � �10E-I �r�rl� 1� ,4 �� Id • — — • _ ■ • ■ � �\. � � ~1�%fir x Ems- 'y�� � �r1_ 9►. l �� U zi 65 WIFN x CITY OO � NUNT�INC�ON = E /aCE-I e e COMPARISON OF MOST ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES FOR VARIOUS PARK BOUNDARY CONFIGURATIONS 10-YEAR, SIZE INVESTMENT NET CASH BOUNDARY CONFIGURATION (ACRES) COST # FLOW EXISTING 328 4. 89 1.06 ADD NORTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN WEST AND ELLIS 349 10.94 7. 81 ADD NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN WEST AND ELLIS 358 12 . 85 9 .93 ADD NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOTHARD AND ELLIS 367 15.91 12 .78 # IN $MILLION QUESTION WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST ALTERNATIVE IF THERE WERE NO GOLF COURSE AND HOTEL? REVENUE-PRODUCING USES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS (1) ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND ? (2) AMPHITHEATER (3) ARCADE AND PIZZA PARLOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BASEBALL/SPORTS FIELD COMPLEX. (4) BASEBALL/SPORTS FIELD COMPLEX (5) EQUESTRIAN FACILITY (6) FISHING ACTIVITIES AT SULLY MILLER LAKE DELETE (9) u„TEt-WiT10 EeNYEMT-i@N-fAett:i:ffE9 (9) RV PARK (10) DINNER-TYPE RESTAURANT (11) SHOOTING RANGE (12) SNACK CONCESSIONS (13) YMCA 10-YEAR CASH FLOW COMPARISON FOR SELECTED USES REVENUE LE S COST TYPE OF USE SIN MILLION) ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND -.071 AMPHITHEATER .956 ARCADE AND PIZZA PARLOR 1.646 (WITH 6-FIELD COMPLEX) BASEBALL/SPORTS FIELD COMPLEX 4 FIELDS 1.031 6 FIELDS 1. 505 EQUESTRIAN FACILITY 0. 364 FISHING LAKE No RV PARK -1. 563 WITH 230-SPACE RV PARK -1,389 WITH 480-SPACE RV PARK - . 790 GOLF COURSE 2 . 173 HOTEL WITH CONVENTION FACILITIES 4. 187 RV PARK 230 SPACES 5. 517 480 SPACES 7. 639 RESTAURANT HOTEL 1.402 NON-HOTEL 1. 753 SHOOTING RANGE . 530 SNACK CONCESSIONS . 191 YMCA . 795 • 1 I" SEE • , A ISO . lwwwwL'rr� ' 1 —_ F.wwMEMOS'- 0 C;1 , .• wwuu:I - ��UMV zil /� • �' to !K' F?y t,'. Ll�rJl ' �7Ji I ieae clwri t ftple NONE: all' � s1mnru� IwriC9lr■ I� wrww��r. -1 � iuc�liv� i w�lw��wxs _ if .. , r • • .� • 40 CITY OO F HUNT�IINGTON = EACH 00 .. �.. RECOMMENDATIONS (1) SELECT A PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK THAT PAYS FOR ITSELF AND IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY. (2) FORMULATE A PHASING PLAN FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK. (3) CONDUCT SOILS ANALYSES AND SOIL STABILITY STUDIES FOR THOSE AREAS IN WHICH STRUCTURES WILL BE BUILT. (4) PREPARE A DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ,SELECTED PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT. (5) INITIATE DISCUSSIONS AND/OR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE REGARDING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS . (6) IF A PLAN IS SELECTED THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE EQUESTRIAN USES, THEN AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE WITH THE COUNTY THE POSSIBILITY OF AN EQUESTRIAN FACILITY IN THE LINEAR PARK. (7) PREPARE A DETAILED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PLAN . FINAL REPORT. ON. AN ECONOMIC -FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS.. OF PROPOSED R 'VENUE ' PRODUCING USES TO - BE LOCATE WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK PREPARED .FOR CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH' CALIFORNIA 0,11 a. 2y PREPARED BY ULTRASYSTEMS, INC. . IRVINE ' CALIFORNIA IN "CONJUNCTION.. WITH CAROOZA DILALLO ASSOC. INC. THE RUSSELL COMPANY COSTA MESA;, CALIF. BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF. 7 . MAY _1981 FINAL REPORT ON AN ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED REVENUE-PRODUCING USES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN HUNTINGTO CCENTRAL PARK PREPARED FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY ULTRASYSTEMS, INC. IRVINE, CALIFORNIA IN CONJUNCTION WITH CARDOZ'; DILALLO ASSOC. INC. AND THE RUSSELL COMPANY COSTA MESA, CALIF . BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF. 7 MAY 1981 Alhtmsyst--Ms ACKNOWLEGEMENTS AUTHORIZED BY: Huntington Beach City Council Ruth Finley, Mayor Ron Pattinson, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Bailey Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Bob Mandic John Thomas CITY STAFF INVOLVED: Community Services Department Vince Moorhouse, Director Norm Worthy, Superintendent of Park Acquisition and Development Vic Morris , Senior Department Analyst Alan Ribera, Landscape Architect Department of Development Services June Catalano, Deputy Director Bill Holman, Assistant Planner Public Works Paul Cook, Director George Tindall , City Engineer Daryl Smith, Superintendent, Parks, Trees and Landscape Don Noble, Engineering Planner Administrative Services Dan Villella, Assistant Director COVER PHOTOGRAPH: Courtesy of R. J. Lung i ABSTRACT This study report investigates the basic issues as to (1) whether or not it is possible to place revenue-producing uses in Huntington Central Park that are sufficient to pay for the operation and maintenance of these uses , and (2) whether or not sufficient revenue can be derived from these uses after payment of operation and maintenance costs so as to pay for the remaining City-wide park maintenance costs. In this study a mix of uses for Huntington Central Park was explored such as an adventure playground, an amphitheater, an arcade and pizza parlor in conjunction with a baseball/sports field complex, equestrian facilities , the use of Sully Miller Lake as a fishing lake, an 18-hole executive golf course, a hotel with convention facilities , a recreation vehicle park, a dinner-type restaurant, upgrading the existing shooting range facility, snack concessions for park users, and the building of a YMCA facility. In this regard, thirteen different land use plans were formulated as a function of park size. These alternatives were then evaluated along with the existing Basic Schematic Plan for Central Park to obtain 10-year projections of the anticipated annual revenues and annual costs associated with each land use mix. It was determined that, if the existing park* were expanded to include the parcels at the northeast and northwest corners of Golden West and Ellis plus the parcel at the northwest corner of Gothard and Ellis , then a mix of uses consisting of the * existing adventure playground, an arcade and pizza parlor in conjunction with a 6-field baseball/sports field complex, the use of Sully Miller Lake as a fishing lake, a 111 acre golf course in conjunction with a 200-room hotel with convention facil- ities , a 480-space RV park adjacent to the lake, the existing shooting range upgraded to include a gunsmith-type shop, reten- tion of the existing snack concessions , and the building of a YMCA facility would be expected to generate nearly $12.8 million in net positive cash flow to the City over a 10-year period. Based on a conservative estimate of $15.9 million for land acqui- sition, infrastructure improvements, and other development costs , this would imply an 80% payback over the 10-year period. By comparison, the estimated costs for maintenance of the remaining City park system are $9.9 million over the same 10-year period, thus implying that, ignoring the total 'investment cost, the cash flow would be more than adequate to pay for the rest of the City park maintenance expenditures. As a result, it is recommended that the City prepare a specific plan of development for Huntington Central Park that is based on these study findings . *defined to be the area currently known as Huntington Central Park plus acquisition of the remaining encyclopedia lots along Ellis Avenue. ii M syst TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 2.0 MARKET ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL REVENUE-PRODUCING USES . . . . 2-1 2 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Market Area Population and Employment . . . . . . . 2-1 2.3 Market Analysis Overview 2-5 2.4 Market Analysis of Selected Uses . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 j 2.4. 1 Racquetball Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 2.4.2 Tennis Facilities 2-12 2.4.3 Ball Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 2.4.4 Golf Course Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 2-25 2.4.5 Recreational Vehicle Park 2-28 2.4.6 Dinner Restaurants and Eating Facilities 2-32 2.4.7 Hotel Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40 2.4.8 Amphitheatre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48 2.4.9 Fishing Lake 2-55 2.4.10 Equestrian Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-56 2.4. 11 Mini-Amusement Park . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57 2.4. 12 Motorbike Course 2-57 2.4. 13 Gymnasium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-58 2.4. 14 Model Car Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-59 2.4. 15 Heliport . 2-59 2.4. 16 Shooting Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3. 1 Open Space Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 Seismic Risks and Other Hazards . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.3 Land Use Restrictions Due to Sources of Funds for Land Acquisition and/or Development . . . . . . . . 3-5 3.4 Existing and Planned Traffic Conditions . . . . . . 3-8 3.5 Water Quality Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 3.6 Adjacent Land Uses 3-10 4.0 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLANS . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4. 1 Basic Configuration Alternatives 4-1 4.2 Formulation of the Mix of Revenue-Producing Uses for Each Boundary Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2. 1 Alternatives for Configuration No. 1 . . . 4-6 4.2.2 Alternatives for Configuration No. 2 . . . 4-10 4.2.3 Alternatives for Configuration No. 3 . . . 4-10 4.2.4 Alternatives for Configuration No. 4 . . . 4-10 4.3 Examination and Analysis of the Schematic Masterplan for Huntington Central Park . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 iii I. - . ih snu TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page 5.0 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1 Investment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2 Annual Revenue Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 5.3 Annual Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12 5.4 Pro Forma Analysis of Alternatives 5-15 C 6.0 OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6. 1 Discussion of Optimal Alternatives . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.2 Discussion of Selected Uses Not in the Optimal Alternatives . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : . 6-3 y g 6.3 Other Revenue-Producing Uses APPENDIX A - MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX B - PRO FORMA STATEMENTS FOR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX C - BIBLIOGRAPHY iv �ftqasyst 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY In November 1971 a survey was conducted to determine public opinion concerning Huntington Beach parks , recreation facilities and open space. Specific selected results of this survey were as follows(1) : 1 (1) The greatest needs expressed by the citizens were for more natural open space with grassy meadows , greenbelts , wildlife 1 areas, botanical preserves and lakes. (2) The major feature that attracts people to parks in the City was open space with trees , grass and nature. A secondary attraction feature was based on recreational facilities. (3) Over 80% favored some type of camping in Huntington Beach, with preference equally divided between the beach and inland locations. Family type camping was slightly favored over facilities for youth groups. (4) A majority expressed a desire to see Huntington Central Park expanded to its full master-planned size, rather than divert attention to neighborhood parks . (5) Eighty percent of the respondents expressed no objection to some commercial development in the City's parks as a source of revenue for park maintenance. As the result of these survey results as well as overall community response, numerous recommendations were made relative to City parks , recreation and open space. Selected examples are as follows(1) : (1) Provide visible landmarks and natural landscaping on all new open space areas for permanent use, human needs and environmental quality. (2) Develop certain parks large enough for an entire school program of picnics, field meets , baseball games , etc. , that can be held simultaneously and where several families can enjoy the park environment together. (1)Criteria For Decision: A Policy Plan for Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 1972 1-1 Ailrasys, (3) Establish landscape planning as part of the overall parks and open space program. (4) Promote open air concert facilities and sporting arenas , primarily sponsored and financed by civic groups. (5) Preserve and expand wildlife shelters and botanical fields. (6) Provide teenagers and young adults with a wider range of recreation programs and facilities as well as designated open space areas for hiking, biking, camping, etc. (7) Preserve and protect historic, scenic, geological , and archaeological sites. (8) Consider major private recreation and open space facilities in community developments when planning public parks , recrea- tion and open space areas. (9) Provide a new wide range of open space uses for low cost development and maintenance. More recently, in 1978 a survey was conducted in conjunction with the City's water billing to identify on the basis of high, low or no priority the preferred recreational facilities to be incorporated into Huntington Central Park. Table 1. 1 presents the results of that survey. A gymnasium/community center type of facility(') , botanical gardens, tennis complex, multipurpose sports field, adventure playground, family campground, amphitheatre and skating rink received the strongest response from the citizens surveyed. A majority of the proposed uses were presumed to be self-sustaining; however, the respondents f assumed need 'n the community prioritized the facilities on the basis o assu e i o y independent of the funding of these facilities. A review of both sets of survey results together with the previously mentioned recommendations , as well as the policies and goals in the City's Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan, indicates that there are established needs in the City for: indoor recreational facilities (such as provided by a gymnasium complex) ; multipurpose sports fields ; preservation (')assumed to include basketball/volleyball courts , game room, weight training/ gymnastics , handball courts , meeting rooms , multipurpose indoor pool , sauna, snack bar, office and parking i 1-2 h s t Ys Table 1.1 Huntington Central Park Facility Survey Results Ratio of High Ratio of High Priority Responses Priority Responses to No Priority to Low or No Recreational Facility/Activity Responses Priority Responses Gymnasium/Community Center 4.03 Strong 1.87 *Botanical Gardens 2.93 1.11 *Tennis Complex 2.59 1.05 Multipurpose Sports Field 2.47 1.12 Adventure Playground Strong 2. 13 0.92 *Family Campground 1.71 0.87 Amphitheatre 1.43 0.61 *Skating Rink 1.34 Weak 0.67 Equestrian Trail 0.90 0.42 *Restaurant/Clubhouse 0.84 0.44 Lawn Bowling 0.84 0.38 Football/Soccer Stadium (5,000 seating) Weak 0.67 0.39 *Equestrian Center 0.66 0.34 *Platform Tennis Complex 0.65 0.31 Bicycle Motocross 0.64 0.37 Baseball Stadium 0.63 0.35 *Golf Course - 18 Regulation 0.59 0.38 *Skateboard Park 0.59 0.33 *Golf Course - 36 Miniature 0.58 0.35 *Wet' n Wild (Water Slide) 0.54 0.31 *Golf Course/Driving Range 0.51 0.31 *Golf Course - 18 Pitch 'n Putt 0.44 0.26 Football/Soccer Stadium (10 ,000 seating) 0.41 0.28 *Archery - Target 0.35 0. 17 *Miniature Train 0.32 0.19 *Golf Course - 18 Executive 0.31 0.21 *Trap Range 0.21 0. 15 *Skeet Range 0.21 0.14 Archery-Field 0. 17 0. 10 *financially self-sustaining (i .e. , fees or charges cover operating expenses) SOURCE: 1978 City Survey 1-3 h syst ms. of natural wildlife and botanical areas; camping/recreational-oriented facilities; open air concert/amphitheatre-type facilities ; general outdoor- oriented recreational facilities that yield a wider range of recreational opportunities for teenagers and young adults. The amount and extent of these facilities provided in the community depend upon the possible location sites , the funding requirements for development, the sources of funds available, annual maintenance and operation expenses , the economic feasibility of each use, and the overall cost-effectiveness of being operated or managed by the private sector versus the public sector. In this study, an indepth examination is conducted as to which of the identified recreational and open space needs in the City can be met through the development of Huntington Central Park. Emphasis is placed on revenue- producing uses. Not all needs previously identified in the 1971 and 1978 surveys are "net revenue-producing" in the sense that many would not pay their own way if fees were charged. It is recognized that it is not an. absolute requirement that a City provide only recreational facilities that pay their own way, but it is desirable to produce a mix of recreational facilities and opportunities that (1) meets the needs of the community and (2) is self- sustaining. It is in this context that this study has been focussed, namely, to determine what are the plausible mixes of uses that can be developed within Central Park that meet as many as possible of the identified needs but yet generate revenues to pay for the services provided. r 1-4 .lt syst ms 2.0 MARKET ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL REVENUE-PRODUCING USES 2.1 Introduction In recent years , due to tax limitation measures enacted and other reflections of the current public attitude favoring reduced government spending, localities have had difficulty in maintaining public facilities. In order to finance such maintenance, many municipalities have instituted user fees for numerous services and facilities including recreation programs and park facilities. Taking this concept one step further, the City of Huntington Beach, facing substantial reductions in funds for park maintenance, is investigating the potential of generating revenue from its Huntington Central Park. Within the park boundaries , some uses might be developed which would generate. a net revenue to the City. Other recreational uses that residents of the City desire, but which would be difficult for the City to provide in a traditional manner, might generate sufficient revenue to cover their costs. We have examined a number of such uses to determine their potential for revenue generation. 2.2 Market Area Population and Employment Table 2.1 summarizes the current and projected population and employment growth within the market area (relative to Central Park) between 1980 and 1990. Population in the City of Huntington Beach is projected to grow at a modest rate. This growth will occur primarily within existing oil field areas. The population density surrounding the subject site is not particularly high. This area of Huntington Beach is developed primarily with single family homes to the north and east. To the west and south, the area is largely undeveloped with marsh lands , open space, or oil fields. The City is currently undergoing a planning effort to determine the allow- able future development of oil field property; however, it appears that the allow- able development will be of relatively low density. Thus, Huntington Central Park is not currently and is not likely to become centrally located with respect 2-1 Table 2. 1 Current and Projected Population and Employment in the Huntington Beach Market Area Annual % Annual 1980 Increase 1985 Increase 1990 I. Population City of Huntington Beach 1� 170,597 0.92 178,600 1.37 191,200 Five Mile Radius of 2- Subject Site 329,459 1. 11 348,154 1.00 365,914 Ten Mile Radius of Subject Site — 1,087,389 1. 11 1,149,094 0.94 1,204,126 II . Employment City of Huntington Beach 3� Total Employment 40,341 2.60 45,870 2.40 51,645 N Agriculture 1,258 (1.61) 1,160 (5.42) 878 Mining 387 (5.03) 299 (7.09) 208 Construction 825 2.91 952 1.65 1,033 Manufacturing 9,631 3.28 11,317 2.92 13,066 Trade 12,208 3.22 14,301 2.93 16,526 Transportation, Communi- cation and Utilities 1,503 2.89 1,733 1.97 11911 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 1,827 3.19 2,138 4.26 2,634 moo Table 2.1 (.Cont'd. ) Annual % Annual Employment 1980 Increase 1985 Increase 1990 Services 6,016 3.56 7,167 2.89 8,263 Government 6,686 0.35 6,803 0.93 7,127 l� From Southern California Association of Governments From Urban Decision Systems and Southern California Association of Governments 3� From City of Huntington Beach N W `wyl . to the northwestern Orange County residential population. Huntington Beach has developed since World War II as primarily a bedroom community rather than as an employment center. The major exception to Ithis pattern was the location of the McDonnell Douglas Space Center and the ■� Rockwell International facilities in northwestern Huntington Beach and Seal Beach, respectively. Recent trends , we believe, are an indication of future employment growth within the area. A concentration of high technology, service, and wholesale trade industries has developed adjacent to the McDonnell Douglas facility, and is likely to grow through the next decade. Currently developed industrial space will be supplemented with office space. The Gothard Street industrial corridor is also likely to develop during the next decade, providing light manufacturing, wholesale trade, and service functions. Adjacent to the intersection of Beach Boulevard and the San Diego Freeway, a major office center will develop during the next decade. Mid-rise and high-rise, in addition to garden office space, will be developed within this area, initially providing space for professional service tenants , and later attracting financial , real estate, corporate, and high technology office tenants. This office concen- tration will develop along Beach Boulevard between the freeway and Warner Avenue. Additionally, local servicing professional office space is likely to continue to develop in the Civic Center area and along Beach Boulevard between Warner Avenue and the ocean. As can be seen in Table 2.1 , we project that the most important employment growth sector of the local economy will include (1 ) manufacturing, (2) trade, (3) finance, insurance and real estate, and (4) services. The subject site is conveniently located with respect to these office tand industrial employment centers. Such uses as a hotel , restaurant, and certain recreational uses could derive some weekday support from these employment centers. Our projections for population and employment growth within the market area of Huntington Central Park are based upon our understanding of current City attitudes toward growth. Any future City actions which would increase the allowable residential density on undeveloped property near the park would generally improve 2-4 h syst •s the performance of recreational uses developed within the park. It is our understanding that the City currently favors the employment growth that is occurring within the City. If this attitude should change, and such growth is inhibited, this would seriously hinder the performance of some of the uses proposed within the park. 2. 3 Market Analysis Overview In the identification of potential revenue-producing uses for Huntington Central Park, consideration was given to previously identified City needs and recreational demands. In meeting these needs and demands it must be recognized that those recreational uses which can be profitably developed and operated have been traditionally developed by the private sector, whereas those recreational uses (especially land-intensive recrea- tional uses) , which the public demands but are difficult to develop profit- ably, have generally been provided by the public sector. In the latter case it is sometimes possible to charge a nominal fee to offset the cost of facility operation and/or maintenance; however, there are some uses that could be potentially developed in Huntington Central Park that might generate a reasonable profit. In this regard, the uses that have been examined in this study fall into four basic classifications of ability to generate revenue described as follows : (1) Some uses examined, because of the development of an environmentally attractive setting provided by the park, could generate a reasonable return on the subject property. Such uses as a dinner restaurant, hotel , or recreational vehicle park could fall into such a classification. (2) Some uses examined are those which the public demands , but for which it has traditionally been unwilling to pay a full cost user fee, are generally supported through tax �. revenue or an under-valuation of the land. Such uses as playing fields and golf course fall into this category. j (3) Some uses examined are those which rely on the draw of other recreational uses in the park for their patronage in order 2-5 AkKasmst s to be profitable. Eating and snack facilities fall into this category. (4) Some uses examined are those which have already been provided by the private sector in sufficient quantity to make it extremely difficult to generate substantial revenue from such facilities within the park. Tennis, racquetball , and amphitheatre facilities fall into this category. In the following sections, specific emphasis is focused on selected uses within each of these classifications. ' 2.4 Market Analysis of Selected Uses We have examined uses that might be included in Huntington Central Park. These are uses that we and City staff have identified as uses that might produce revenue, would be appropriate within the park, giving consideration to environ- mental concerns, and would be desired as well as accepted by the residents of the City. 2.4. 1 Racquetball Facilities Racquetball facilities in Huntington Central Park would have difficulty in generating lease revenue. Private racquetball clubs have been extremely popular in recent years, many of which have been profitable. In addition, munici- palities and schools provide courts, generally providing the facilities for free or for a nominal charge; however, more than sufficient private and public courts are available in the Huntington Beach area to satisfy demand (see Figure 2.1 ) . iTable 2.2 lists an inventory of private racquetball clubs within a five mile radius of the park. These clubs contain a total of 80 indoor courts for 9,300 members, for a ratio of 116 members per court. In addition, there are 127 public courts , of which 11 are indoor, within a five mile radius of the park (see Table 2.3) . In Table 2.4, we have estimated the demand for fee racquetball facilities within a five mile radius of the park, based upon population and characteristics of that population. We have estimated a current demand for 81 courts, based upon a desirable ratio of 150 members per court. A current surplus of 20 courts exists. 2-6 Z a \N -- �d 0 cyst ms. 7 • �Q `' � K o- � � � Nt ir 0 0 ANT e� ,.ems , �► s� s ��\�Q ���0 d% 0� O 5 V�F� Q P�� ��� P PLO �S �s S \ 0 I R v I N E d LL cz P o > Oy S`d O I P WALNUT AV �,P ���r' oti� P� � � ,rxK P P �� o MOULTON P �� P� ��� 6, O �G�OJ� P�� ELF Pop Q PKWY Z o O NX 5 .� O I 7 J ¢ IRVINE P�\ _ Zi �� SPT CO d, Z O Q J\Wo z 2 d Y 0 �Q�Q` Od G tides �S .► Q Q¢ > WARNER Q` TG o °ti �P ��5 �0 0 0 `�. �,5 P ��P _� 0�Q AV w \ V i °° P��� �� �`� `_ O�j� PJ ,�7s �P ��5 RRANCA = LJ Rp �Q` v d-p \9h� O O • Y p �� �G� 'Ld �jPG \�Go CjP?pt�� 'L/ Q' Er V O J o >. PP r �O G d 0 O 0� '� P '�O I(,. Q�Pr' (, on P v MP 7, o �, 5 VX/owX P �5ti �,� % WY W d tol d �,O H �p O i SOS ,"s ��PCOd -Y 0 O��,i�d G ' °� O ► 4% �yP �O S �tid G ST ONITA p > B R I S T 0 L o d J = J Q )� �O�S 5 �o Od 0 �j6 � plE -,_� � ud q A- � Q 7 Q` J Q �� 5� �' O S i -7 't a►- O y n 19 T H S OO 2N m Q , O -1'(� POv� �� ���_ G I Or' ° �C.`'P OA C O A 5 T P � N C c oq S T c H W Y �eOP PQ` 5 miles 10 miles � Z 1 d6�J �►i 2-7 s Figure 2.1 Proximity of Racquetball-Oriented Facilities (Athletic/Health Clubs and Municipal Facilities) Relative to Huntington Central Park ■r r r r �r �r r �r �r � � r r � �r r r s r Table 2.2 Racquetball Clubs(4) Within a 5-111i1e Radius of Huntington Central Park Estimated Number of Racquetball Additional Facilities Number Racquetball Public Use Tennis Volleyball as et a e gSnack Jogging Pro Name Location Cost of Membership(l) of Members Courts Per Hour Courts Courts Courts Gyms Room Sauna Bar Pool Track Stop One Time Annual Monthly Garden Grove 7562 Garden Grove Blvd. b $160 $35 1,200 4 $3.00 1 X x 1 x Athletic Club Garden Grove Kings Racquetball 14731 Goldenwest Street 75 35 1,700 19 x x Court Westminster Lindborg Racquet 18162 Gothard 1,200 35 500 4 16(2) x x x x Club Huntington Beach Los Caballeros 17272 Newhope 950 21 2,000 14(3) 45(2) 3 2 4 x x 2 x Racquet 6 Sports Fountain Valley Club Orange County 7402 Center Dr. 100 30 1,600 14 x Athletic Club Huntington Beach Racquetball World 10115 Talbert 225 40 2,300 25 x x 1 x x Fountain Valley _ Totals: 9,300 80 Footnotes: i1� Single membership fees only 13) The focus of this club is tennis and all courts are lighted. Shown by * on Figure 2.2. 6 outdoor courts (4) Shown by*on Figure 2.1. N 80 Table 2 3 Municipal Racquetball Facilities* Within A p q 5 Mile Radius of Huntington Central Park Number of Number of Number of Outdoor Courts Indoor Courts Lighted Fees Location (3-Wall ) (4-Wall) Courts Charged Costa Mesa Estancia High School 4 0 0 0 College Park 4 0 0 0 Elementary School Costa Mesa High School 5 0 0 0 Fillybrook Elementary 4 0 0 0 School Lindberg School 4 0 0 0 Lyons Park 0 3 3 $3/crt/hr Mesa Verde E.S. 4 0 0 0 Monte Vista E.S. 2 0 0 0 Orange Coast College 10 6 6 0 Paularino E.S. 4 0 0 0 Pomona E.S. 2 0 0 0 Sonera E.S. 4 0 0 0 TeWinkle Middle School 2 0 0 0 Whittier E.S. 1 0 0 0 Wilson E.S. 4 0 0 0 Woodland E.S. 4 0 0 0 Fountain Valley Fountain Valley 3 2 5 $2/crt/hr Recreation Center Huntington Beach Edison Community Park 6 0 6 0 Goldenwest College 8 0 8 0 Marina Community Park 8 0 8 0 Seal Beach J. H. McGough 3 0 0 0 Intermediate School 2-9 iTable 2.3 (Cont'd. ) 1 Number of Number of Number of Outdoor Courts Indoor Courts Lighted Fees Location (3-Wall ) (4-Wall) Courts Charged Westminster La Quinta High School 8 0 0 0 McGarvin Intermediate 8 0 0 0 School 1 McFadden Park 6 0 6 0 Post Elementary School 1 0 0 0 Siegler Park 2 0 2 0 Westminster High 3 0 0 0 School Westminster Park 2 0 0 0 Westminster Village 2 0 0 0 Park TOTALS: 124 11 44 *Shown by ®on Figure 2. 1 2-10 !/�Vmtem.v Table 2.4 Market Demand Analysis Racquetball Development Huntington Central Park Market Area 1980 Market Area Populationl/ 329; 459 Persons Aged 20-442/ 230 , 620 ' Persons in Families with 152 , 670 Income Greater Than3/ $25, 000 (66 . 2%) — Projected Racquetball 4/ 12 , 215 Participants (80) — Courts Supported at5/ 81 150 Players/Court — Less : Present Supply6/ 101 Demand (Surplus) ( 20) FOOTNOTES : l/ From estimates by Urban Decision Systems 1980 , 5 mile radius 2 70% 3/ From Urban Decision Systems 4/ The Russell Company estimate of racquetball participants 6� From International Racquetball Association Supply within a 7 mile radius , excluding 116 free courts 2-11 h syst ms, Expected population increase within the area during the next decade may produce modest additional demand for fee racquetball club facilities. In the near term, however, existing facilties are generally operating at only a modest profit. A new facility at Huntington Central Park would have extreme rdifficulty in competing effectively in this market. 2.4.2 Tennis Facilities Tennis facilities would also have difficulty generating revenue in Huntington Central Park. Private tennis clubs providing first class courts , easy availability, and social functions can be quite profitable. Public courts , generally free or charging a nominal fee, are provided by municipalities and schools. However, we feel that more than sufficient private and public courts are available in the Huntington Beach area to satisfy demand (see Figure 2.2) . rTable 2.5 summarizes the inventory of private tennis clubs within a five mile radius of the park. These clubs contain a total of 95 courts, of which 86 are lighted. There are currently 3,335 members, for a ratio of 35 members per court. In addition, there are 148 public courts , of which 110 ' are lighted , within a five mile radius of the park (see Table 2.6) . In Table 2.7, we have estimated demand for tennis club memberships within a five mile radius of the park, based upon population and characteristics of that population. We have estimated a current demand for 58 courts , based on a desirable ratio of 60 members per court. A current surplus of 37 courts exists. 1 A modest increase in population during the next ten years will provide additional demand for these facilities , thus improving their generally poor current economic performance. However, this increase will not be sufficient to generate demand for additional facilities. The existing racquet club, adjacent to Huntington Central Park, is a first class facility, but has attained a ratio of only 31 members per court. Consequently, this facility has not been profitable. 2.4.3 Ball Fields Ball fields for the playing of football , baseball , softball , and soccer are potentially a profitable use in Huntington Central Park. Ball 2-12 v o -s f �v-G„ �d �� - 27 �-P C/_ Apr �P�r• v 3� Z a �.�\r � o SANT � ��s �► s �� � w`O �4� �'�4 0v OCR p�Gp��� P Q P G��' �4 rs �s �S �s �J�j O I R v I N E Oy AILL . L P .l � add o C c �, �Z ��`` �S y T But � �� O>� Q ,�,�, PQ P ��5 ti�� � O) �� S�� P WALNJ T AV PQ� 07) �-�" P� Jos � P' P \ o MOULTON � �, �.� P� O �'> O d > °O ��GGP°J '� I P ELF p�0 Q PKMn' z O •�' O p� I 7 p� IRVINE I� AGO dO P, P cj 0 G�Q•�\ `96 �P T C S'` �s P d� = Qz Q cc > WARNER 6► a- 'L �� d, '�0 p '� �,or' �� ,�. �. P v7 o�Q AV w \ 'G i S �O • LyQ�y ,�P� p_ P P�OpQ'O�Q� 07js P� >>�s P '`P' ��c� RRANCA = W Rp ��`\ u JO G G O �S ��' � cjP�P�� -LUi J �Q O'$ �� P �� O� BYO �s O G Q` '� T _ 0 d P, OS G P, , >J oy �S e cc N s �,P �p� ,y 2 �Q t- d Z W Q } L � �O O Obi�Oc�S • � J6� �s ���. � P., �pGO c � • C h 00 �S '� `i'aP •FOP�� �d P o � :D o �C2 O o� Od '7 �� J DIEG a P �,�, ST TOL TA Q� �O �S 5 O b 0 `�j6 6. �s P p' 60 J ON I O � Q d � �Jti O Os � � J \ - 00 pp q C� N co \ O ti mco .[ 200 OHO \5 �c 40 • \� P�P`� SSA �pJ� U)19 T H Q 1 -7 S �I \ �. J' ►- 7 O o O O 0a0 PO eL� C oq GP o 0 T `� p C O A S T � �'� Q\-� „' P\, � �� J� PLC s, c tie Pam` �P Aqk LPL �. v \ �P 1 O ! 5 miles 10 miles � sd6y vs Figure 2.2 Proximity of Tennis-Oriented Facilities (Tennis Clubs , Athletic/Health Clubs 2-13 and Municipal Facilities) Relative to Huntington Central Park rr rr rr r r r r r rr r � r it r � rr r rr rr Table 2. 5 Tennis Clubs Within a 5-Mile Radius of Huntington Central Park Number Estimated Number of Additional Facilities Name/ of Weekly Number of Lighted Cost of Membershi �l� Ball Snack Location Members Attendance Courts Courts One Time Annual ont Machine Pro Shops Bar Fountain Valley Racquet Club/(2) 330 NA 12 9 NA NA NA X X x 9771 Garfield, Fountain Valley Harbor Greens Tennis Club/(3) 80 40 3 3 NA NA NA X X 2700 Peterson Way, Costa Mesa Huntington Seacliff Tennis Club/(3) 225 175 9 7 NA NA NA X X 3000 Palm, Huntington Beach Mesa Verde Country Club Tennis/(3) 200 450 10 6 NA NA NA X X 3000 Club House Drive, Costa Mesa Lindberg Racquet Club/(2) 500 NA 16 16 $1,200 -- $35 X X r n� 18162 Gothard, Huntington Beach i Los Caballeros Racquet and 2,000 NA 45 45 $ 950 -- $21 X X X Sports Club/(2) 17272 Newhope, Fountain Valley TOTALS: 39335 95 86 Footnote: ")Single membership fees only (2)Shown by on Figure 2.2 (3) Shown by on Figure 2.2 (�t sit ••+' Table 2.6 Municipal Tennis Facilities* Within a 5-Mile Radius of Huntington Central Park ' NUMBER OF NUMBER OF FEES WEEKLY OTHER LOCATION COURTS LIGHTED COURTS PER HOUR ATTENDANCE AMENITIES COSTA MESA Costa Mesa Tennis 12 12 $3 NA Snack Bar Club Costa Mesa High 8 8 0 NA None School Estancia High School 8 8 0 NA None Orange Coast College 6 0 0 NA None FOUNTAIN VALLEY Fountain Valley 12 12 $1/Day(AM) NA None Recreation Center $2/Day(PM) & Weekends Vista View School 2 0 0 NA None Fountain Valley High 16 0 0 NA None School ' HUNTINGTON BEACH Circle View School 2 0 0 NA None Edison Community Park 4 4 0 NA None Edison High School 16 5 0 NA None Golden View School/Park 1 0 0 NA None Harbor View School 2 2 0 NA None Goldenwest College 12 12 0 NA None ' Huntington Beach 12 6 0 NA None High School LeBard School/Park 2 2 0 NA None Marina Community Park 4 4 0 NA None Marina High School 16 8 0 NA None Marine View School 1 0 0 NA None Meadow View School 2 0 0 NA None Mesa View School 2 0 0 NA None Murdy Community Park 4 4 0 NA None ' Rancho View School 2 0 0 NA None Park View School 2 0 0 NA None Spring View School 2 0 0 NA None Village View School 2 0 0 NA None SEAL BEACH Marina Park 2 2 0 NA None Heather Park 2 2 0 NA None WESTMINSTER Bolsa Chica Park 3 3 0 NA None LaQuinta High School 10 10 0 NA None McFadden Park 6 6 0 NA None Park West Park 6 4 0 NA None Westminster High School 16 16 0 NA None Westmont School 2 0 0 NA None TOTALS: 199 128 *Shown by • on Figure 2.2 ' 2-15 s t Table 2.7 Market Demand Analysis Fee Based Tennis Courts Huntington Central Park Market Area 1980 ' Market Area Populationl/ 329 , 459 ' Market Area Families 108 , 280 Percentage Distributionl/ ' and Number of Families By Income Over $50, 000 8 % 8, 707 $35 ,000-$49 ,999 16 . 2% 17 , 520 $25 , 000-$34 , 999 28 . 8% 31, 216 $20 ,000-$24 , 999 13 . 20 14 , 339 Totals : 66 . 2% 71, 782 Families Participating In P g ' Tennis Over $50, 000 (450) 3 ,918 $35 , 000-$49 , 999 (400) 7 , 008 $25 , 000-$34 , 999 (300) 9 ,365 ' $20 , 000-$24 ,999 (200) 2 , 868 Totals : 23, 159 Number of Tennis Players 34 , 738 (at 1. 5 per family) Prospective Paying Tennis 3 , 474 Players Courts Supported @ 60 Players/ 58 Court ' Less : Present Supply of Courts 95 Demand (Surplus) (37) FOOTNOTE: l/ From estimates by Urban Decision Systems 1980 , 5 mile radius ' 2-16 r fields are a use that has been demanded by the public and traditionally financed through tax revenue. However, in recent years as municipal finances have become strained, city parks and occasionally school districts have begun to charge fees for the use of fields. Thus far, however, these fees have not become sufficiently high to pay for the cost of developing new fields, but simply offset maintenance costs. Table 2.8 summarizes the identified ball fields within a ten mile radius of the park site (see Figure 2.3) . This survey includes parks and rschool district fields that are available to the public, totalling 455 fields. The City of Huntington Beach alone contains 172 fields . The fee schedule for those fields on which a charge is imposed appear to be substantial ; however, these charges would not be sufficiently high to generate a significant revenue when the high capital and maintenance fees are considered. However, if the City is willing to subsidize these ball fields, leagues and tournaments could pay sufficient revenue to substantially off-set costs (not including the implicit value of the land) . In addition, concessions could ' help to support the costs of such facilities. We project that for high quality lighted facilities which include six fields designed for softball , football , and soccer, these facilities would perform better than most fields in the market area. We project, therefore, that such facilities could charge $250 per league use. With the current strong demand rfor league use of fields, we project use of these fields 90 times per year for each field. rSoftball tournaments could be charged $100 for each team entry for summer weekend use. We project 20 weekend tournaments , with 32 teams per tournament. rWe propose that concessions for eating and drinking and for electronic ' games be incorporated within the ball field development to help offset costs. The City should include these concessions within its central control building serving the ball fields . Lease rates should be based upon unimproved space. i 1 ' 2-17 Table 2.8 Survey of Ballfields Wi hi'n a 10-Mile Radius of Huntington Central Park NUMBER SUPERVISED OF TYPE OF FIELDS FEES RECREATION LEAGUE LOCATION OF FIELD FIELDS FOOTBALL BASEBALL SOFTBALL SOCCER CHARGED PROGRAMS USE COMMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH Golden West College 5 1 1 2(1L) l(L) 1 No Yes Marina Community Park 3 ¢ 3 0 9 1 No No Edison Community Park 4 2(L) 0 2(L) 0 1 No Yes Murdy Community Park 2 0 p 2(L) 0 1 No Yes Greer Park 1 $ B 1(L) 9r 1 No Yes HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Edison H.S. 6 2 2 1 1 1 No Yes Fountain Valley H.S. 4 d 2 2 1 No Yes Huntington Beach H.S. 7 1(L) 2 3 l(L) 1 No Yes Marina H.S. 8 1 2 4 1 1 No Yes —+ Oceanview, H.S. 6 1 1 2 2 1 No Yes OD Westminster H.S. 14 3 6 4 l(L) 1 No Yes HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Burke E.S. 2 A Q 2 ¢ 6 No No Dwyer E.S. 4 0 1 2 1(L) 0 No No Eader E.S. 3 0 g 2 1 0 No No Gisler E.S. 6 9 1 4 1 0 No No Hawes E.S. 3 6 6 2 1 Q No No Kettler E.S. 5 1 6 3 1(L) 0 No No LeBard E.S. 7 6 4 2 1 0 No No Perry E.S. 4 0 9 3 1(L) g No No Peterson E.S. 6 A )i 4 2 0 No No Smith E.S. 2 0 0 2 6 0 No No Sowers E-S. 8 0 5 1 2 0 No No Table 2.8 (Cont'd) NUMBER SUPERVISED OF TYPE OF FIELDS FEES RECREATION LEAGUE LOCATION OF FIELD FIELDS FOOTBALL BASEBALL SOFTBALL SOCCER CHARGED PROGRAMS USE COMMENTS OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT Circle View E.S. 3 0 0 2 1 0 No No College View E.S. 3 0 0 2 l(L) No No Crest View E.S. 4 0 0 3 1 0 No No Glen View E.S. 4 g 2 2 0 No No Golden View E.S. 3 0 2 1 0 No No Harbor View E.S. 5 0 3 2 0 No No Haven View E.S. 5 0 0 3 2(1L) 0 No No Hope View E.S. 5 0 0 3 2(1L) No No N Lake View E.S. 3 0 0 2 1 0 No No J Lark View E.S. 3 0 0 2 1 0 No No Marine View E.S. 4 0 0 3 1 0 No No Meadow View E.S. 5 0 0 3 2 0 No No Mesa View E.S. 4 0 0 3 1 0 No No Oak View E.S. 3 0 0 2 1 No No Park View E.S. 7 2 0 4 1(L) 0 No No Pleasant View E.S. 3 0 0 2 1 0 No No Rancho View E.S. 6 2 4 0 2 0 No No Robinwood E.S. 1 0 0 0 1 0 No No Spring View E.S. 5 0 0 3 2 0 No No Sun View E.S. 3 0 0 1 2 0 No No Villaqe View E.S. 3 0 0 2 1 0 No No Vista View E.S. 5 0 0 2 3 0 No No Westmont E.S. 2 0 0 1 1 0 No No Subtotals: 201 16 34 100 51 Table 2.8 (Cont'd) NUMBER SUPERVISED OF TYPE OF FIELDS FEES RECREATION LEAGUE LOCATION OF FIELD FIELDS FOOTBALL BASEBALL SOFTBALL SOCCER CHARGED PROGRAMS USE COMMENTS FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT Arevalos E.S. 3 0 ¢ 2 1 0 No No Bushard E.S. 7 0 0 6 1 0 No No Newland E.S. 4 0 0 3 1 0 No No Oka E.S. 4 0 0 0 4 0 No No Talbert E.S. 3 0 0 1 2 0 No No Wardlow E.S. 6 0 4 1 1 0 No No Lamb E.S. 6 0 0 5 1(L) No No Fountain Valley Recrea- 9 0 4(1L) 3(L) 2(L) 3 Yes Yes Three baseball tion Center fields are Little N League only. 1 O Mile Square 9 0 2 4 2 3 No Yes A Cricket Field Regional Park is included in Subtotals: 51 10 25 15 the total. WESTMINSTER Bolsa Chica Park 2 0 0 1 1 2 Yes Yes College Park 2 0 0 1 1 2 No Yes Goldenwest Park 1 0 0 0 1 0 Yes Yes McFadden Park 2 0 0 1(L) 1(L) 2 Yes Yes Palos Verdes Park 2 0 0 1 1 2 Yes Yes Sigler Park 2 0 0 1(L) 1(L) 2 Yes Yes Westminster Park 4 0 0 2 2 2 Yes Yes Russel Johnson I.S. 6 0 0 5 1 0 No Yes Fay Fryberger E.S. 4 0 0 3 1 0 No Yes Finley E.S. 5 0 0 4 1 0 No Yes \ 1 Table 2.8 (Cont' d) NUMBER SUPERVISED OF TYPE OF FIELDS FEES RECREATION LEAGUE LOCATION OF FIELD FIELDS FOOTBALL BASEBALL SOFTBALL SOCCER CHARGED PROGRAMS USE COMMENTS WESTMINSTER (Continued) Frank Eastwood E.S. 3 0 d 2 1 A No Yes John F. Land E.S. 3 Q 2 1 A No Yes John Marshall E.S. 5 Q 4 1 y1 No Yes L.P. Webber E.S. 1 0 H 1 Q No Yes La Quinta H.S. 11 H 2 6 3 Yes Yes Leo Carillo E.S. 5 0 H 4 1 6 No Yes McCarvin I.S. 10 6 6 7 3 No Yes Midway City E.S. 4 0 1 2 1 0 No Yes Neomia Willmore E.S. 5 F 1 2 2 No Yes N N Post E.S. 6 9 0 5 1 ¢ No Yes J Ray Schmitt E.S. 4 0 6 3 1 6 No Yes Sequoia E.S. 4 0 0 2 2 No Yes Starview School 7 1 0 6 0 No Yes Susan B. Anthony School 6 0 6 5 1 No Yes Virginia K. Boos E.S. 3 9 0 2 1 0 No Yes Subtotals: 107 1 4 71 31 COSTA MESA City Park 1 0 1(L) g 0 4,5* Yes No (See legend) Corsica Park 1 g 1 4,5* No Yes Table 2.8 (Cont'd) NUMBER SUPERVISED OF TYPE OF FIELDS FEES RECREATION LEAGUE LOCATION OF FIELD FIELDS FOOTBALL BASEBALL SOFTBALL SOCCER CHARGED PROGRAMS USE COMMENTS COSTA MESA (Continued) TeWinkle Park 4 $ 1(L) 2(L) l(L) 4,5 No Yes Bear Street E.S. 4 $ $ 3 1 $ No Yes California E.S. 4 $ $ 3 1 $ No Yes College Park E.S. 1 $ $ $ 1 $ No Yes Costa Mesa H.S. 4 1 2 $ 1 $ No Yes Davis J.H.S. 6 $ $ 5 1 $ No Yes Estancia H.S. 8 $ 2(L) 3 3 $ Yes No Kaiser Middle School 4 $ 1 $ 3 $ No Yes Killybrook E.S. 4 $ $ 3 1 $ No Yes Lindbergh School 4 $ $ 3 1 $ No Yes N N McNally H.S. 2 $ $ 2 $ $ No Yes N Mesa Verde E.S. 4 $ $ 3 1 $ No Yes Monte Vista E.S. 4 $ $ 3 1 $ No Yes Orange Coast College 3 $ 1 1 1 $ Yes No Paularino E.S. 5 $ 4 1 $ No Yes Not open for public use. Pomona E.S. 4 $ $ 4 $ $ Yes Yes Real Middle School 5 $ $ 4 1 $ No No Sonora E.S. 5 $ $ 4 1 $ No No TeWinkle Middle School 12 $ 7 4 1 $ No No Victoria E.S. 5 $ $ 4 1 $ No No Whittier E.S. 7 $ 3 3 1 $ No No Wilson E.S. 3 $ $ 2 1 $ No No Woodland E.S. 4 $ $ 3 1 $ No No Subtotals: 108 1 18 64 25 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Table 2.8 (Cont'd) NUMBER SUPERVISED OF TYPE OF FIELDS FEES RECREATION LEAGUE LOCATION OF FIELD FIELDS FOOTBALL BASEBALL SOFTBALL SOCCER CHARGED PROGRAMS USE COMMENTS SEAL BEACH Hopkins E.S. 5 6 0 5 6 No No J.H. McGaugh I.S. 5 6 1(L) 3 1(L) 6 Yes Yes Mary E. Zoeter E.S. 2 9 0 1 1(L) 6 No No Rossmor E.S. 4 6 4 0 6 No No Subtotals: 16 1 13 2 TOTALS: 455 16 55 262 122 IV LEGEND: 1 N (1)Shown by 0 on Figure 2.3 Fees Charged Code W 1. $225 for Adult Softball League per season, 12 games (going up to $240 in July) NOTE: "L" = Lighted 2. $241for Adult Softball League per season 3. $205 for Adult Softball League per season 4. $275-335 Mens Softball League and 5220 Womens and Coed Softball League or CIO per hour with two hour minimum 5. $20 for fields other than softball fields with a $100 deposit 6. $10 for first two hours and $10 each hour thereafter for non-profit organ- izations ' o T s f t�. �" .d �'" yam ,� 2 P c.- \P�- p\�`� v 3 z Q �'�\N e ANT A �° F' ���.�� �� O �< `may \ b O P 0- ?P o i R V i� �� Pa �S �' \� ir ->> �i .' �, `'CO cat \,P, G� S �p J p � N E ' z m �0ti dd ��Q► b� p ° � z P T PQIV11 020� 01 17 �� I P WALNUT AV PLO O�j 'Ss, p`I �� ��PS �,�`�` P P � MOULTON >d °O c� �� �P� 5 �'> ��, °d �GGQ +� I F oo PKWY 2 J P� '( a.L P O Q _ -( > P\\P ° \ O O m ISP CO `' P� car IRVINE w P5 'L-.. r d _� Z d o Q \� 0 G� '�O �,0� �r1 �. �S� S P� �P `D r N?r WARNER \QJ C oo Q O �� o % > s P, � Q Av w \O 7 �, •,;P �.r► �P� P.GPQ`O Q `_ �j� 5 RRANCA = w RD �P� � .�'� � � 4 o� 3ado �p �s o GP ,d -D 0� y v MP p.Q Q > � � � x v 05 �.�0 P, - �5�� \o s , J oy y�, O ems, 0 � do t�J�b W `s'O P 55� tiJ 2 a� } W G dd o H-O O `�i O 6 S• �� GP ir �. d /p >� P�p� o o ,� Day �s �S P�� O���•� P ' ��P\od ,� y p �S `'� p S gy - •r► �� �, �c o �y Lu �r ' BRISTOL v Q� �OSOS o� O �� Od 0 �j dd. PJ pJ DIEG �� a ST ONITA 6• Zj .10 i dp �d �. �> A. O o • ti v �, O �6 Q Jd ' 'IVoil C� i ? J j CO 00 °� O \5 ,ram '�O P Sd P A- W 19 T H O a O r J m 5 T _ • ' ^ � `__ P�F\�\' -W Epp c S T Q cogs, G ® \ �o cc ��G cc o c �d P� ,gyp. � �PQ H W Y � ��c 03 b0 0 �� 5 miles �� �P\' �' 10 miles 66ti' Jtp Figure 2.3 Proximity of Lighted Sports Field Facilities Relative to Huntington Central Park 2-24 1 h s 14 r r An electronic game arcade of approximately 4,000 square feet could be supported primarily by attendees of games, supplemented by other users of the park. This facility could generate gross operating revenue annually of approximately $180,000, based on sales of $45 per square foot. At a lease rate ' of 15 percent of gross operating revenue, the arcade could generate a rent equal to $27,000 annually. A small restaurant and snack bar should also be included in the central control building. A 3,000 square foot restaurant plus outdoor deck serving rpizza, big sandwiches, beer and wine with a snack bar counter could generate annual gross revenue of approximately $600,000, based on $200 per square foot. This restaurant, in order to achieve this volume, should be positioned to draw upon all visitors to the park. At a rental rate of 15 percent, annual revenue of $90,000 could be achieved. 2.4.4 Golf Course Facilities rA golf course, without complementary uses, would have considerable difficulty in operating profitably. However, if provided with restaurant, bar, rand a first class hotel , a high quality golf course could operate profitably, and afford to pay a rental for the land. However, it is unlikely that a rental r fee reflecting the value (infrastructure improvements plus land acquisition) of the land could be achieved. A survey of all golf courses located within a ten mile radius of the park was conducted (see Figure 2.4 and Table 2.9 ) . Within this area, there are fifteen 18-hole courses and three 9-hole courses. Thirteen courses are open to the public. Weekday and weekend fees for such courses range from $4.50 to $10. If a golf course is to be included within Huntington Central Park, it should be an 18-hole course of the highest quality, having a par of 72. r A driving range should also be included. This course should be constructed in conjunction with a high quality hotel , bar, one or two restaurants , and a pro shop. Fees of $8 could be achieved on weekdays and $12 on weekends for a first rclass golf course. Such a golf course will require a minimum of 110-120 acres of land. The land should be leased in unimproved condition to an operator. Under such r 2-25 -- - ins O� p ' S.f. t.R. �c. �27 GO �P���Z` J 3 Z e ANT A �o "r� �, O , wy �`� 0 1 a ��s * G 0'0 it of `d G O eA PJ , Y ` V� 't, S \� Y% � P�G�F �10 �S ems S 5� O I R V I N E � �� �'� o� �o ..P ��G P �° . J s� �� z m J'oti add �QQ' �d Gp` J � d o Cr�z T. B O� Q' �� �S Q P 5 20 7 p� P WALNUT AV 7�� v 6 i° P �`� P� OJT �(�� ��� '�P ��O MOULTON PKwY i ' — ?i p►\ �,`' ° ISPT CJ P d -j a IRVINE��► P. Z �O � Y �, 0 �Q�Q` ° C� d j Z ° Q¢ > WARNER o� tr 1 Q� v1 0- ? O O�� O s RRA co L NCA i A� W \O z do y �PP�`PQ` ��s RD �� u Ce �y 3 0 o G S.T u 5� L l J P M \ I P p 05 ��N � S� P �`'� �'�� S PJ �y 2�'�� �'�, { �,P py �J� m W J� z a� } • ♦� G add �0� �o o SO�i �OSS� �s yJ6� �s. �� �� \ PGP` rc y h 1 ,o �� �O cno O`y s �s P� ♦�`_�, P �� Od kp- BSTOL �o�� s spd6 � tid J J pIEC � a a ONITA 0�6. A. P i, Orb d/y Z q d 5� o d NE �• z tiv Q� bo, �� Q` �� d d'6 P G 6 Q w Uj a w s � 7 t�0 ®��G 5 P O ' - S'� i -�- 0 w cc A. \� ti� �� �• ��ti d Z m y J ►P r 200 ``� 9 v� '1c�P�` �S4 ��PJ� V)I9TH O Q s♦ O C- g( d `�iy 2 N D �. �� \O r ti� �\ • 1 7 T H150 SST - !iN -;- GLP S T O 'M d 0ao P` 0�J 1- ^ � �i GP & I C O� � `7 � COAST E , �� Q��✓.. p�/� �`� �� Pam,., �P � P� G �o��\"P• G��Pv J��PQ: .` ��, C9 IlkH W Y .eP0- P 00 5 miles 10 miles y J s 2-26 �%/ Figure 2.4 Proximity of Golf Courses (Municipal and Private) Relative to Huntington Central Park Table 2.9 Golf Course Within a 10-Mile Radius of Huntington Central Park(l) Public Course Fees Charged Current Estimated Meekly Number Driving toffee Snack Bar Pro Additional/ Name City Location Membership Weekday Weekend Attendance of Acres Holes Par Rye_ Sh Restaurant Shop en the Green off Special Feature Costa Mesa - --- — _ - ---_— Costa Mesa Golf 8 1701 Golf Course Dr. NA 16 $7 2,500 232 36(2) x x x x Country Club* Mesa Verde Country Club 3000 Club House Rd. 429 NA NA 950 150 18 72 x x x x Tennis 6 Pool Fountain Valley Mile Square Golf Course* 10401 Warner NA $6.50 SID 1,100 144 18 72 x x x x Huntington Beach Driftwood Golf Course* 21462 Pacific Coast NA $2.50 S3.50 NA it 9 3 x z Putting Green Highway Huntington Seacliff 3000 Palm NA $7 S1D NA 150 18 72 x x x z Tennis Club Country Club* Meadowlark Golf Course* 16782 Graham NA 16 $9 1,400 99 18 70 x x x x Long Beach Bixby Village Golf 6180 Bixby Village Dr. NA 13 $4 750 60 9 29 x x PuttingGreen Course* E1 Dorado Golf Course** 94M Studebaker Rd. NA $6.50 S8.50 275 150 IB 72 x x x x Hartwell Golf Course* 6700 E. Carson NA $3.75 $4.50 700 40 18 54 x x x Los Alamitos N Los Alamitos Country 4561 Katella Ave. NA $5.00 $8.00 1,000 105 18 66 x x X. x x Putting Green i Club* N Newport Beach V Big Canyon Country Club 1 Big Canyon Drive 400 NA NA 750 145 18 72 x x x x x Tennis, Sauna, Putting Green Irvine Coast Country 1600 E. Coast Highway 650 RA NA RA 130 18 71 x x x x Club Newport Beach Golf 3100 Irvine Ave. NA $4.50 $5.50 2.000 � 18 59 x x x x Course* Newporter Inn Golf 1107 Jamboree Rd. NA $2.00 S2.So 289 37 9 3 x x Fitness Course Course* Santa Ana River View Golf Course* 1BDO W. 22nd St. NA $3 $4.00 125 NA 19(3) 32 x x x Chipping Green Santa Ana Country Club 20382 Newport Blvd. 400 NA NA 525 NA 18 72 x x x Willowick Municipal 3017 W. 5th St. NA $5.00 WOO 2,000 IDS 18 71 x x x x Golf** Seal Beach Old Ranch Country Club 3901 Lampson 900 HA NA 1,300 208 18 72 x x x x x Tennis Club, Putting Green TOTALS: 15,655 *Public Golf Course —Municipal Golf Course ("Shown by 0 on Figure 2.4 (2)Two, 18-hole c3urses (3)Last year's (1990) floods reduced the cnurse to 9 holes h "st ms an arrangement, a golf course could generate approximately $150,000 annually in rent. 2.4.5 Recreational Vehicle Park A recreational vehicle park could be a successful generator of revenue in Huntington Central Park in conjunction with the development of Sully Miller Lake as a fishing lake (see Section 2.4.9). Table 2.10 provides an inventory of transient accommodations for recreational vehicles within a fifteen mile radius of the park (see Figure 2.5). Within this area, there are 1 ,966 transient spaces for recreational vehicles of which 60 percent are located in Anaheim, serving the tourist attractions in that city. Nightly rates vary between $6 and $15. As indicated by this survey, demand appears to be strong, and nightly fees achieved at the higher quality facilities are healthy. Tourist travel to Orange County has been increasing, and is expected to continue to increase during the next decade. As Orange County continues to develop, some existing recreational vehicle park facilities will be eliminated for more profitable use of the properties. In addition, the subject location could provide one of the few recreational vehicle parks near the ocean in northern Orange County. With the city-operated facility closed during summer months, and the strong demand for such facilities in Orange County during the summer,a recreational vehicle park could achieve rextremely strong occupancies during summer months. Heavy promotion of the site's amenities would be required during the remaining year. ' We would recommend that the City consider leasing the facility to an operator who can provide a first class facility, and who can properly promote the ffacility. A national affiliation would be desirable although not necessary. The high amenity environment within the park, including possibly a fishing lake, golf course, restaurants, and other recreational uses, should be strongly promoted. We recommend that, initially, a 200 to 250 space facility be developed. This facility could potentially achieve a 95 percent occupancy during summer months with a fee of $15 per space. On non-summer weekends, we project a 50 percent occupancy at $12.50 per space. On non-summer weekdays , we project a 25 percent ' 2-28 s t . Table 2.10 Recreational Vehicle Parks Within a 15-Mile Radius of Huntington Central Park (1) NUMBER NAME/ OF RV COST/ OCCUPANCY (%) LOCATION SPACES NIGHT Spring Surmer Fall Winter ANNUAL COMMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BY THE 25 $13.50 94 100 94 92 95% SEA PARK/ 21871 Newland Ave HUNTINGTON BEACH 150 $ 8.00 30 Closed 30 30 30e Spaces fill up CITY BEACH/ on weekends & PCH & Main St. holidays & empty out dur- Subtotal: 175 ing the week. LONG BEACH ARBOR MOBILE 12 $ 6.00 NA NA NA NA NA VILLAGE/ 300 E. Arbor St. BOULEVARD TRAILER 34 $ 9.50 85 100 80 75 85% Also has 200 COURT/ permanent 2930 Long Beach Blvd. residents. Subtotal: 46 ANAHEIM ANAHEIM JUNCTION/ 124 $ 8.00 88 100 88 80 87.5% 1230 S. West St. ANAHEIM OVERNIGHT 25 $ 6.50 85 100 85 85 89% TRAILER PARK/ 2156 S. Harbor Blvd. ANAHEIM VACATION 222 $11.00 85 100 85 80 87.5% PARK/ 311 N. Beach Blvd. KOA KAMPGROUND/ 221 $15.00 NA NA NA NA NA 1221 S. West St. LINCOLN R.V. PARK/ 69 $11.50 75 100 80 70 800 2651 W. Lincoln Ave. 2-29 1 . Affiranst ms�' ' Table 2.10 '(Cont d) NUMBER NAMla/ OF RV COST/ OCCUPANCY (o) LOCATION SPACES NIGHT Spring Summer Fall Winter ANNUAL COMMENTS ANAHEIM (Continued) TRAILERLAND PARK/ 97 $11.50 95 100 90 85 92.5% 1211 S. Harbor Blvd. iTRAVELERS WORLD 300 $12.00 100 100 83 83 92% RV PARK/ 333 W. Ball Rd. VACATIONLAND/ 436 $14.00 NA NA NA NA NA 1343 S. West St. WEST WINDS 4 $11.00 NA NA NA NA An additional 51 spaces TRAILER LODGE/ are monthly rentals. 2170 Harbor Shutting down at the end of the yr. ; going to put up condos. 7-11 TRAVEL 40 $ 6.50 85 95 80 75 85% TRAILER PARK/ 2760 17. Lincoln Ave. Subtotal: 1,167 GARDEN GROVE CC CAIMPERLAND/ 42 $ 8.50 NA NA NA NA NA 12262 Harbor Blvd. TRAVEL GARDEN 135 $10.00 NA NA NA NA NA GROVE/ 13190 Harbor Blvd. 1 Subtotal: 578 TOTAL: 1,966 NA = Not Available Shown by 0 on Figure 2.5 2-30 STQ � �y) 01 CUARTA � NTi i SP P�C} OQ\� I IER W '� SANTIAGO 0: � g �Lv D � • SON In AMBERT RD -76. , yi J O Q`E MULBERR DR Nj P Q• . PJ d/ P� LOS NIETOS J2 Qo ?i'9 S CAP G�a.Pa 20 b �' J�� a � i � � s \\ � oP J\ �� �pS PJo P ���S P O f .�J,^ J,�J P� W ��! MEYER� �\`i� uP �`' 7L .j• �J d '9S` \� \! � PJ J O `� �,P <Ci r .S �` ��� \ O�'•i O P o G 7 .1 TE!-� \? v Re P P BL �� �p��P��r T A. �c1 a FOOTHILL BL X6 v p\� STAGE R �� � �! O� �9 �� Z F P G � P FP�P�P��s''v, LLIZ a o s �b0y Q ' 0�6 > jIb. � D �<il0 O pJ ti� `(��\� O IRVINE LV _ o o s rs V w BLVo O� J O� } o o >�P�OE� b� p. t � Q �z >S �Oy �d6 ��Q` 7d G� 4 P� P rS d �sd Jv T B u c O WALNUT AV Zo> Q �� �5 /oyo6 �S O��J �p5� ��, P \ O MOULTON \,Q' �Q� O A ir IRVINEIIJ P� O p[� qQ` p5 O SPT CO d _ Qcc > WARNER u- x- TC. bs > \\ �� \ � �Y J O Qprr w \ G 1', 0 �QP 06 G ,5 s P �P cn- Q AV w Q�\� z .`O �p ��� 07 J .� rs P�5 FiRANCA = w RD u C! -s P �o ve, X p�� w �4 ibb �\\�\' b�o�0 9���0 �o • G yo0 Q ,� P�G� �o,� 5 GP`� � � sT 0 9, ':�oP �o � s � e oyF �s eP c� 5 �P a . �� 'o� s >� d ` ��s s, VVY o � Oct C, ti ,� g 7d P �PG� QG�GC� �P\'�OtL �`1 Q cc � • � \c �O L P C;r a6 �qs��w .�o o ����O b s �P� �� ��C. . d o 2.�y U p \,P � ,� > �,o ono o p � � �FJp. Q,P • J 2. JOD BRISTOL pIEG P �� a ST ONITA b0 mod, Jd p z. P b6 z w U. ��J�G 0� c % b y PJ \l, A- V Q z \ P J \ a z CID w �O 6 \�� ~� 70 \ ti� Q N m 1 s'j Gv L� vo. N 19 T HO�'0 o O� 7T �• raj `��J 5���,�5 7c �c sb �.� ZNo Q`�����w� o P Sr p COAST • J� o �a POD + - - �� O COAST GP La �o �t`P\'L`�` �J J� (LPG U H W Y 00 O PAP b �J� 5 miles 10 miles 15 miles ti 2-31 Figure 2.5 Proximity of Recreational Vehicle Parks Relative to Huntington Central Park It s�yst*ms occupancy at $7.50 per space. Thus, for a 230-space facility, properly operated and promoted, we project gross anuual operating revenue of approxi- mately $466,600. If the City were to lease the facility, an annual rental of 15 percent of gross revenue could be achieved, or approxmiately $70,000 annually. After this facility has been successfully operating for about three years , we feel that the market could -absorb an additional 250 spaces , for a total of approximately 480 spaces . Occupancies and fees would be similar to those given for the smaller facility, except that non-summer weekends would probably only achieve a 40 percent occupancy, and non-summer weekdays could probably only achieve a 20 percent occupancy. Thus , a 480 space facility could generate approximately $888,500 annually. If the City were to lease the facility, then at a 15 percent rental rate, the City would receive $133,000 annually. 2.4.6 Dinner Restaurants and Eating Facilities Of all the uses examined, a dinner restaurant has the most certain potential of generating a profitable land lease revenue in Huntington Central Park. A high quality environmental setting provided by a major park such as this would be ideal for such a restaurant. Table 2.11 presents an inventory of the major eating facilities within a five mile radius of the park (see Figure 2.6). Including dinner houses and coffee shops, there are 65 restaurants , of which 46 serve liquor. Few of these restaurants, however, are able to provide an environmental setting atmosphere such as could be found in Central Park. Table 2.12 indicates food and beverage establishment expenditures in Huntington Beach, surrounding cities, and Orange County. As indicated, Huntington Beach achieves a lower per capita expenditure than does Orange County as a whole. In all probability, many Huntington Beach residents frequently dine in neighboring Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and other areas rather than within their community, because of the availability of restaurants within interesting settings in those cities. Table 2.13 indicates an estimate of demand from this local population for new high quality dinner restaurants within a park environment on the subject 2-32 yet Table 2. 11 Major Restaurants(l) in Huntington Beach/ . Fountain Valley/Westminster Within a 5-Mile Radius of Huntington Central Park Liquor Street Title of Restaurant Served HUNTINGTON BEACH Adams 807 Playa Castillo x 8847 Original Sams of Huntington Beach x 8961 Li 's Restaurant x 9061 Siagon Restaurant 9093 Don Jose x 9791 Richards House of Pies 9842 Bob's Big Boy 10136 Denny's Restaurant 10142 J.P. Mac General Store & Restaurant x Beach 16060 Casa Maria x 16160 Charley Brown Restaurant x 16811 Red Lobster Inn x 17502 Two Guys From Italy 18035 Restaurant Matsu x 18121 Capt. Namis x 18151 Francois x 18302 Bashful Bagel Restaurant x 18477 Denny's Restaurant 18552 Sizzler Family Steak House 18582 Amato Villa x 18782 Sir Georges Smorgasbord 18872 Plank House x 1 19500 Proposed Restaurant x Bolsa 6886 CoCo's Famous Hamburgers Bolsa Chica 16379 Chef Lee Mandarin Restaurant x 16431 McClures x 16871 Antonia's Restaurant x Brookhurst 19881 Love's Woodpit Barbecue x 20111 E1 Camino Real x 21022 Keminski 's Huntington x Center 7561 Cafe Europa x 7561 Old World Inn x 2-33 yst s Table 2.1.1 (Cont'd) Liquor Street Title of Restaurant Served HUNTINGTON BEACH Edinger 5864 Hunan Garden 5874 C C's Steak House x 6842 Shanghai Spring Garden 7311 Bob's Big Boy 7490 Denny's Restaurant x 7572 Great Wall Restaurant 7880 Marie Callender's x Edwards 15070 China Restaurant Golden West 15101 Don Jose x 16122 Sizzler Steak House 16961 Plaza Restaurant x Goth a rd 15885 Ho's Chinese Cuisine Magnolia 16931 Carrows Hickory Chip x 18926 C C's Steak House x 19171 Bradfords Place x Main 522 Villa Sweden 2119 Yutai 2221 Pero's Spicery Restaurant x 18561 Bon Appetit x 18603 Mari o's x Pacific Coast Highway 317 Maxwells Fisherman x 508 Richards Coffee Shop 1400 Grinder 16278 Sam's Seafood x 16350 Rubens at Peters Landing x 16360 Dunbars x ' 16450 Red Onion x 16821 Sand Castle x 17210 Fiore x ' 17226 Captain Lou's x 21.112 Huntington Beach Inn x 21462 Driftwood Beach Inn x 2-34 I U/ ysr Table 2.11 (Cont'd) Liquor Street Title of Restaurant Served HUNTINGTON BEACH Palm 3000 Huntington Seacliff x Springdale ' 14892 La Brique Inn x 15964 Mario's x 16161 Alphy's Coffee Shop Stark 8022 T. C. Peppercorn x Warner 4901 E1 Toro Cafe x 4952 Gaetano Italian Cuisine x 5141 Meadowlark Cafe x 5930 Chu Yan Szechuan Inn 6060 Plank House x 7891 Sutters Mill x 8901 Jeremiah 's Steak House x FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1 Brookhurst 16525 Cask 'N Cleaver x 17920 Black Angus x ' 18380 Coco's 18050 Crossroads x 18120 Cantonese Smorgasborg 18889 Marie Callender's x Heil 16000 Japanese Steak House x Warner 8988 Alphy's 8780 China Pearl ' 2-35 1 •�• Table 'a e 2. 11 (Cont d) Liquor Street Title of Restaurant Served WESTMINSTER Golden West ! 15042 E1 Torito x 15122 William Flaggs Westminster Mall 300 Gilhooly's x r r . ' (1)Shown by 0 on Figure 2.6 (2)The majority of the restaurants identified have a large seating capacity, formal type dining rooms, serve liquor and would be the type of restaurant selected as part of a hotel and golf course development. r 1 1 1 i 1 1 r 2-36 UJ Cam' �P� �p\r• J Z o P'' � I R V I N E / dd 9� 5 GAF ?P� �ci �O �s �s �'�, -`Cj'(� 0 LL Ar`��y Q.��O p� �P p.�yG �1 �p ds. PJ s�'� �v p �s �d"d �'�s� Z O ,� • P��P /oti �sd, O ?i ti�O P WALNUT T e r AV MOULTON .gyp �.� d� p0 �OJ �J GF PO Q PKWY 2 'C °�� \\P� �, o�P o� >p ,�� d� ��GG D� ( �jP 7 �. P� o d J IRVINE� P`' !�O SPT CO OO Q �C. \� Z ' y ZO dp Y 0 �Q�Q` od tid.` �s d� Q Q a¢ > WARNER � x� ?G o P 5 G Q ,5 P P i� C0 \ G } Q`,,° ��GO C1 p� P� ' 7�j �s P�5 RRANCA = AI I �Q`\� ,dO 9h�` ti� y0 �� Y G�� �P� GP.Gpp�no �� �� �7 v�p P ��� P W > RD a u 14 QS � �GPP �`\� Py O'� O i2�s �s '0 \'�Q 5� P, y b '�, WY oo`� �P z ICL LLAS d S. �s � �� S P C,Od � • J ` O) ► O Q` ai ,2 G� 11 B V �� �g O tid p RISTOL G � pd eO %� d6 P PJ DIEG �. Q ST ONITA O O • i O� dim Q Q d Qw LLI A. w m \ L O g ,,J Q � m \C Sd O�\P d� .119 T H o Q 1 7TH � \� A UJ �0 �P ST COAS1 O�Cj�PQ C7`P�� �\���\ �� ��P 6� �P H W Y100 PC,'r�Q =�pP•eP�O � i • � �P �G 5 miles P� 10 miles O J� � z b6yJip Figure 2.6 Proximity of Major Restaurant Facilities (Excluding Small Cafes , Fast Food, 2-37 ZOO Carry-Out and Pizza Parlors) Relative to Huntington Central Park ur yst Table 2. 12 Food and Beverage Establishments Per Capita Expenditures Huntington Beach and Surrounding Areas ' Per Capita 1980 Expend- , 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total itures Huntington $ 18,609 $ 20,540 $ 19,058 $ 16,941 $ 75,148 $440.50 Beach Westminster 7,321 7,427 6,708 7,184 28,640 405.26 Fountain Valley 4,777 5,302 5,699 4,657 20,435 372.40 Seal Beach 2,496 2,839 3,231 2,377 10,942 422.86 ' Costa Mesa 15,023 15,588 15,473 13 ,974 60,058 728. 97 Santa Ana 24,374 25,080 25,088 24,032 98,574 487.30 ' Orange County 255,140 277,312 280,483 242,293 1,055,228 547.93 ' 2-38 r r . d so,Wts Table 2. 13 Dinner Restaurant Demand Analysis Huntington Central Park Market Area Population Within 5 Mile Radius 1/ 329,459 Per Capita Food and Drink 2- Expenditure Annually $500 Annual Market Area Food and Drink Expenditure Potential $164,729,500 Estimated Dinner Restaurant Capture Potential at Huntington Central Park at 12% $ 2,470,942 rDesirable Sales Efficiency 3/ $ ; 200/S.F. ' Supportable Dinner Restaurant Area 12,335 S.F. ' Add: Supportable Dinner Restaurant 4/ Demand From Hotel and Golf 6,000 S.F. rTOTAL SUPPORTABLE DINNER RESTAURANT SPACE 18,355 S.F. r 1/ From Urban Decision Systems From California Taxable Sales data; U.S. Census of Retail ' 3/ From Urban Land Institute 4/ Assumes 200 room hotel and average golf course attendance of 1500 per week 1 i 2-39 1 Affiras*w ms .7 ' property. We estimate a d m p pe ty est to that- this a and will support over 12,000 square feet ' at an annual sales efficiency of $200 per square foot. In addition, we believe that a 200 room hotel and high quality ' 18-hole golf course would support an additional 6,000 square feet, or a total of 18,000 square feet. We recommend that two dinner restaurants be developed ' of 8,000 and 10,000 square feet each, of which the smaller would be located in the hotel . It is of extreme importance that these restaurants be permitted to serve liquor. We project that the land rent for the 10,000 square foot restaurant and bar would be $110,000 annually, based on 5.5 percent of gross revenue. A rental ' of $88,000 annually could be achieved for the 8,000 square foot hotel bar and restaurant. ' Additional eating facilities could be provided within the park, drawing upon visitors to the park. Such facilities are discussed as concessions under ' the use which they supplement. ' A pizza and sandwich restaurant has been recommended as a supplement to the ball field complex. While this restaurant would draw most of its support from attendees of the complex and visitors to the park, it would also rely on a ' limited draw from the surrounding residential population. Under an alternative which does not include a hotel , we recommend only ' one 10,000 square foot restaurant. Thus, under any alternative which includes neither the hotel nor the sports fields complex, we would recommend only one restaurant. Conversely a higher intensity alternative which includes a hotel and sports complex along with other recreational uses could, perhaps , support two dinner restaurants and one pizza and sandwich restaurant. 2.4. 7 Hotel Facilities A hotel development is generally a high risk venture. However, within this context, a small high quality hotel of 150*to 200 rooms on the subject site, provided in conjunction with a first class golf course, small conference center, and within a well developed major park, could have a reasonable probability of ' * Generally the minimum economically viable number of rooms. ' 2-40 r �I so r . of generating a profit to the City of Huntington Beach. Such a hotel development P Y 9 P could probably be supportable by the 1984-1985 time frame. A survey was conducted of existing hotels and motor inns within the ' Huntington Beach, Lonr Beach, and Newport Beach/Costa Mesa/Irvine areas (see Table 2. 14). Only those facilities rating at least two stars with the Mobil and AAA rating systems were included. Long Beach currently holds 1 ,064 hotel rooms , with an estimated average 1980 occupancy of about 70 percent. Demand is primarily generated by business travelers and, to a lesser extent, by convention center attendees. Only the Queen Mary Hotel attracts a significant number of tourist guests. The average daily room rate was approximately $45 in 1980. The Newport Beach/Costa Mesa/Irvine area holds 2,322 hotel rooms and experienced an estimated average 1980 occupancy of over 80 percent. Such a healthy occupancy means that on numerous nights of the year, guests had difficulty locating an available hotel room. Demand is primarily generated by businesses in the area, with some small conference attendees attracted to conference centers in the Newnorter Inn, the Airporter Inn, and the Newport Beach Marriott. The average daily room rate achieved was approximately $60 .in 1980. In the area located between these two established hotel areas , there are very few high quality lodging facilities. Huntington Beach contains only two moderate quality motels containing a total of 67 rooms. These motels are primarily oriented toward a tourist market, with an average 1980 occupancy of approximately 70 percent. Occupancy is therefore strongest in the summer, spring and fall , and weakest in the winter season. Room rates range between $35 and $46 per night. Table 2. 15 indicates the under construction and planned hotels and hotel additions in the previously mentioned areas. There--are currentiv only 235 rooms under construction, in one hotel , in Long Beach. There are active plans for an additional 1 ,153 rooms in Long Beach to be added during the next five years, and for an additional 2,750 rooms in the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa/ ' Irvine area, also to be added during the next five years. There are no known active plans for the development of a hotel in the Huntington Beach area, although ' several national hotel operators are rumored to have been examining sites . A hotel has been discussed within the vicinity of the McDonnell-Douglas facility. ' 2-41 N Table 2. 14 Existing Competitive Hotel Facilities Huntington Beach, Long Beach, and Newport Beach/Costa Mesa/Irvine Areas Number AAA Mobil Name/ of Year Rating Rating Room Rates Source of Business Occup anc Location P.oamas Built (p of Stars) (f of Stars) Single Double Business Tourist Conference Amenities �—iamrer Fa Winter Annual Comments Huntington Beach Huntington Shores Motel/ 50 1956 2 3 $40 $44-461/ 10% 80% 10% B,E 21002 Pacific Coast Hwy (714) 536-8861 Sun 'N Sands/ 17 1958 2 2 $35V E35-401' E% 1001 0% 70% 95% 65% S5: 701 1102 Pacific Coast Hwy (714) 536-2543 Subtotals: 67 Long Beach Beach Town Motel/ 49 3 2 $26-32 $29-37 4201 E. Pacific Coast Hwy ry (213) 597-7701 N Holiday Inn/ 233 1968 2 2 $38-44 $44-54 2640 Lakewood Blvd. Hyatt Long Beach- 200 3 3 $50-60 $62-72 75% 20% 5% A,B,C Edgewater/ 64DO E. Pacific Coast Hwy (213) 434-8451 Queen Mary Hotel/ 382 1974 2 3 $45-65 $48-78 30% 402 30% A,B,C Long Beach Ewy and Queens Hwy, Pier J (213) 435-3511 Queensway Bay Hilton/ 200 1975 4 3 $44-62 $62-80 850. 5% 10% D 78% 78% 78S 28: 781. Holidays and weekends 700 Queensway Dr. there's a vacancy (213) 435-7676 problem Subtotals: 1,064 Newport Beach/Irvine/Costa Mesa Del Webb's Newporter Inn/ 313 1962 3 3 $58-68 $68-78 13% 39% 48% A,B,C,D, 83.5% Constant 1107 Jamboree Rd. E (714) 644-1700 Newport Beach Marriott 377 1975 3 3 $62-74 $74-84 50% 15% 45% A,B,C,D 92% Hotel/ 900 Newport Center (714) 640-4000 Table 2. 14 (Cont' d) Number AAA Mobil Name/ of Year Rating Rating Room Rates Source of Business Occuoanc� Location Rooms Built (ffi of Stars) (# of Stars) Single Dou a Business .Tourist Conference Amenities Sir Sumner Fa W1 inter Annual Comments Newport Beach/Irvine/Costa Mesa (Cont'd.) Sheraton Newport Beach/ 349 1975 3 3 $64-66 $72-74 65% 9% 26% A,B,C,D 85 4545 MacArthur Blvd. (714) 833-0570 Airporter Inn/ 215 4 $42-46 $50-54 50% 10% 40% A,B,C 85' 18700 MacArthur Blvd. (714) 833-2770 Irvine Host Motor Hotel/ 150 3 $38-42 $42-46 A,B 92; Best Western/ 1717 E. Dyer Rd. (714) 540-1515 The Registry Hotel/ 306 1975 3 $57-78 $67-88 95% 5% -- A,B,C,D 85% 18800 MacArthur Blvd. (714) 752-8777 N Best Western Coral 51 1957 3 2 $26-32 $31-37 Mostly 85% 100% 85% 85% 89% Reef Motel/ Business W 2645 Harbor Blvd. (714) 545-9471 Costa Mesa Inn/ 130 1970 3 $35 $39 B 85% 100% 85% 85% 89% 3205 Harbor Blvd. (714) 557-8360 Don Quixote Motel/ 31 3 3 $30-34 $38-42 72% 100% 69% 69% 78% 2100 Newport Blvd. (714) 642-2670 South Coast Plaza Hotel/ 400 1975 3 3 $64-79 $76-91 80% 20% A,B,C,D 95% 90% 95% 80% 90% 666 Anton Blvd. (714) 540-2500 Subtotal: 2,322 TOTAL: 3,453 Amenities Code: A-Restaurant B-Coffee Shop C-Cocktail Lounge D-Tennis Courts E-Golf Footnotes: Y Sumner rates /tKa s t s ' Table 2.15 Under Construction and Planned and Proposed Hotels; Long Beach and Newport Beach / Costa ' Mesa / Irvine Areas ' Estimated Number Name/ Completion Of Location Date Rooms Comments ' (A) Under Construction ' Long Beach Holiday Inn/ Summer 235 Linden Ave.-1st St.- 1981 Atlantic ' (B) Planned and Proposed Long Beach Hyatt Regency Convention 1983 545 Hotel/ NEC Locust and Shoreline Dr. Robert Mayer Corp. 1986 300 Plans must be approved by ' Project/ Nu-Pike Site both the city council and State Lands Commission Hometel Granada Royale/ 1985 308 NWC Locust & Ocean ' Subtotal : 1,153 Newport/Irvine/Costa Mesa South Coast Plaza Hotel/ 1983 250 Planned expansion 666 Anton Blvd. ' Main and Jamboree 1983 500 Irvine Center 1986 500 ' The Registry Hotel/ 1984 200 Planned expansion 18800 MacArthur Blvd. ' 2-44 A u�lt Sys Table 2.15 (Cont'd. ) ' Estimated Number Name/ Completion Of Location Date Rooms Comments Irvine Industrial Complex 1984 500 ' East/ Barranca Road University Town Center/ 1984 300 A conference-oriented Campus Drive hotel ' Ko.11 Hotel/ 1983 500 Michelson & Von Karman Subtotal : 2,750 ' TOTAL: 3,903 2-45 • t ms ' In Long Beach, demand for hotel space by both conference and business users should grow dramatically during the next decade. The construction of ' the Hyatt Regency connected to the Convention Center along with revitalization plans for the downtown area should provide a boost for convention business in ' Long Beach. Office space under construction in downtown and suburban Long Beach will also add to the business generated demand. Similarly, in the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa/Irvine area, dramatic ' expected growth in office and industrial space should keep additional planned hotel space in that area substantially occupied. Interviews with major employers within the Huntington Beach area 1 indicate that currently Long Beach and Costa Mesa hotels are used for business visitors and corporate training sessions. As indicated, we project that the Huntington Beach/ Seal Beach/ Westminster area will become established as a major office market during the ' next decade, and that substantial growth will also occur in both light industrial and research and development industrial activities. Based upon our interviews with major employers within the Huntington Beach/Seal Beach/Westminster area, and adding a factor for the small office and industrial firms in the area, we have ' estimated a current supportable demand for approximately 100 first class hotel rooms. This demand is currently being met primarily by Long Beach and Costa Mesa hotels. In Table 2.16, we have estimated the absorption of office and industrial space within the Huntington Beach/Seal Beach/Westminster area, the Long Beach ' area and the Newport Beach/Costa Mesa/Irvine area. ' In similar types of markets, we have roughly estimated that 5,000 square feet of office space will support one hotel room, and 30,000 square feet of light industrial space will support one hotel room. Thus, by 1984, we project a ' supportable demand of 460 rooms by local employers. Since some business travelers will continue to prefer hotel facilities in Long Beach and Costa Mesa, we project ' a capture potential for the subject property of 40 percent, or 184 rooms. Thus , 2-46 Table 2. 16 Projected Office and Industrial Space Absorption Huntington Beach, Long Beach , and Newport Beach/ Costa Mesa/Irvine Areas 198C 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1996 1987 1988 1989 1990 Huntington Beach/ Seal Beach/Westminster Total Occupied Office Space 325,000 519,000 750,000 11000,000 1,300,000 1,600,000 1,900,000 2,200.000 2,500,000 2,800,000 3,100,000 Annual Absorption -- 194,000 231,000 250,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Total Occupied Industrial 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 5,500,000 6,000,000 6,400,000 6,800,000 7,200,000 7,630,000 8,000,000 8,400,000 Space Annual Absorption -- 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 430.000 400,000 400,000 Long Beach Total Occupied Office Space 2,0009000 2,200,000 3,200,000 3,800,000 4,400,000 4,900,000 5,400,000 5,900,000 = 6,490,000 6,900,000 7,400,000 Annual Absorption -- 200,000 11000,000 600,000 600,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 N. Total Occupied Industrial 275,900 437,000 775,000 875,000 975,000 1,075,000 1,1759000 1,275,000 1,375,000 1,475,000 1,575,000 Space (Southern Long Beach only) Annual Absorption -- 1619100 338,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Neweort Beach/Costa Mesa/ Tr�vine Total Occupied Office Space 7,300,000 99300,000 11,300,000 13,300,000 15,300,000 17,300,000 19,300,000 21,300,000 23,300,000 25,3009000 27,300,000 Annual Absorption -- 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Total Occupied Industrial 29,500,000 31,000,000 33,000,000 34,500,000 36,000,000 37,5009000 39,000,000 40,500,000 42,000,000 43,500,000 45,000,000 Space Annual Absorption -- 1,500,000 29000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,5009000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,5009000 !t syst ms .1 . between 1984 and 1985, we feel that a 175 to 225 room hotel could be supported on the subject site. A stabilized supportable occupancy should be achievable within two years of opening at about 70 percent. An average daily room rate of $55 (in 1981 dollars) could most likely be achieved. It must, however, be stressed that to be successful , the hotel must be attractively designed in a resort-type setting, with a major first class golf course and .a small (e.g. , 3,000 to 5,000 square foot) conference center. We estimate gross operating income from a 200 room hotel , including ' concessions other than the hotel restaurant and bar, would be based upon $60 per room per night. During the first year of operation, with 50 percent occupancy, $2,200,000 could potentially be earned; during the second year of operation over $2,600,000; and during the third year of operation, the stabilized annual gross ' operating income of $3,100,000 could be achieved. Lease revenue to the City would be based upon a ground lease of 5 percent of gross operating revenue. In addition, ' the City would receive transient occupancy tax revenue based on 6 percent of the room rental revenue. ' 2.4.8 Amphitheatre Even though previously identified as having a need in the community ' (see Table 1 .1 ) , a performance amphitheatre in Huntington Central Park would be a potentially high risk venture. Orange County has, thus far, had limited ' experience with performance halls and open air concerts. Anaheim Stadium has hosted large concerts , and the University of California at Irvine has hosted very small concerts. Otherwise, Orange County residents have generally travelled to ' Los Angeles for such performances. Currently, there are active plans to build a performing arts center adjacent to South Coast Plaza, a 15,000 seat amphitheatre ' at the Orange County Fairgrounds (see Figure 2.7) , and there are approved plans to develop a 10,000 square foot amphitheatre in Irvine at Lion Country Safari (see Figure 2.8) . All three proposed facilities will have excellent access and high visibility. The Costa Mesa Fairgrounds amphitheatre, in addition, has the involvement of one of the country' s most important booking agents. There are ' also plans in the discussion stage for a performing arts facility in Fountain ' 2-48 � r r� rr r� �r r r� r r rr r �r r rr r r ■s r L"EL*�Ph*1 GROUNDS THEATER '; Lease Signed for Building ACC ntlnued from First Page *.the existing Memorial Gardens building.The facility, County Fairground � �� will use a landscaped berm at the rear to reduce will have lawn seating for another_3,000 persons. (The fair's present show facility has temporary bench By H1aRMAN WONG, T'i»rea Staff Writer Ming for about 4,000,plus lawn room for another 3,500 , ns,officials said.)` A 40-year lease for building and project from Performing Arts As- operating a 7,500-seat, open-air sociates, which is headed by Har- Rinimam Rental M009 theater at the Orange County Fair- vey Kresky..a one-time agent for Alen Fulls farrgrourids geq_erai mifiager,said the fair grounds, a project that had been Sonny and Cher and other perform ..receive a mimmurn..a. ,000 ifi.*venues a year beset by legal`and environmental ers. the hater. The:;guara%egd minimum ditrputes:for "years. was. signed The lease antlouneement came a tal revenl52,0{lD a year' Fttlay by state_agencies in Sacra- few days after'.another, proposed `ttractions will be after the Greek Theater:' iv mento.state aides announced. open-air facility, the Irvine Mead- Oren$e-Cotitnt►Fair officials said ows Amphitheater. woa "final ap• Angeleai�tlt!srirlar€scilities.FIk said Events construction on the. a9-million proval from the Irvine City Council. to include pop�singlrs muei al comedies.classical entertainmeAtLfacility is-to_begin in The 10,000-seat.Meadows pproject, c and dance and sp &l lectures.. late my at the state-owned fair- which will]be next to Lion Country can't believe this is.finally happening after such a in Costa Mesa The first , Safari and the Irvine:Ca's prpposed. wait,but we're ready to roll,"Fulk saW- I -concert season is,scheduled to shopping-office plaza at the San . start in May,1801!. Diego and Santa Anti freeways, is a open-air thter:is to be.prt of an overall fair - start .West Coast Co scheduled to. n in A as.a n, master planned initratly by the Caudill - we an and Scott frrrri of-Houstdn 4 named:th�.week was awarded the lease to develop home for popular_and light classical and ma age the amphitheater. The music. be architect of the proposed Orange Col my Music firm was given preliminary. ap- Friday, the state Department of f ter Inc:complexirr South Coast Plaza Town Center nge Troval last year .by the Orange Food and Agriculture and its.fairs arid,completed by POD- Inc., Los Angel Angel firm,'and County Fair Board,which adminis- and expositions division —the par- nomics Research Associates of Les: ters the fairgrounds as the slate's ent bodies of the local fairgrounds :a D aides said an equestrian center.and street entry 32nd Agricultural Association Dis- - and the"state Department of •"parking lot revisions have,been completed under trict.The boarcL which had learned General Services signed the.official :master plan Later`projects, in. addition to the of verbal' approvals by the state document for the fairgounds thew- ph'theater,are to be s commercial center,hotel-And- agencies, signed the leasing docu- ter. dium. ment Thursday night. The 40-year lease calls for Nederlander, operator- of the Nederlander to develop an amphi- *Greek Theater in Los Angeles, last theater on a 10-acre site southwest year took over the fairgrounds Please see FAIRGROUNDS,Page d SOURCE: Los Angeles Times Figure 2_7 Newspaper Article Renarding Proposed Amphitheater at the Orange County Fairgrounds ' AcvardRWdWddffAW Irpine ' ®1�"s AmphitheaterPermit .,By HERMAN WONG, Times Staff Writer ' The 'Irvine City Council ,has chief spokesman for the ampitheater tors have acknowledged that their unanimously approved a.conditional �partri.ship, .a4nopneed that. with "operations will be;subordinate,to use permit for the construction of a ills Irvine council's approval the$5- The (El Toro station's) national de- 10,000-seat outdoor theater riear_El Atop-'.fkcility cbuld'ppen by,early' f nserole." Toro Marine Corps Air Station. August with a "premier star" con- The Marine Corps, which had But the unanimous vote, which. `cart.He.saW other-first-season per- strongly opposed the project,. at came just before midnight Tuesday, formers would be announced at an earlier hearings and warned of was.considered, anticlimactic since early-date.! intolerable noise impacts and possi- the council had already stated that. $gbordlnate)Etule ble crash- hangers;. acknowledged the lack of a ,scheduling pact be- Tuesday's that the amphitheater could.-safely tw y een the Marine Corps: and the agreement,_the third in coexist under the condition .pre- developer was the only:major obsta-.. less than a year affecting training scribed in the agreement. ' cle fCight operations at the El Toro sta- tion,declared that the-station"is an The amphitheater,.which plans a That obstacle. was swept aside important segment of the Orange. season of 50 popular and light- with the signing of a scheduling.. County comrhimity and that its con- classical performances a year;'�eill agreement earlier Tuesday.by the tinned operation is essential to the be allowed to stage concerts after 8 air station command and the Irvine national defense eff*t":� p.m..Mdays through Suidays. Ac- Meadows Amphitheater developer. � agreement' "M -that the cording to the Marine Corps'current Timothy Strader of the Koll Co., amphitheater developer and opera- Please see THEATER Page 12. 12. fart u 'Fhurs&y, March 26, iggi R 1rrixin"LAIrE o Iry e...Grants Per it ' Continued from First Page The Marine Corps at any time can give a 12-hour no- schedule,regular trainingflights are not anticipated over Lice for unschedpled training or other operations that the site at that time. :.. will result in the cancellation of a concert.The amphi- 'The amphitheater is required to obtain written clear- theater is required to notify all ticketholders that any ance from the Marine Corps in the event concerts are performance is subject to "short notice" cancellation scheduled on any Wednesday or Thursday night This is and-to noise from El Toro aircraft flying near but not to ensure that no training flights will be held on the over the site. proposed performance night. The dispute focused on El Toro's training maneuvers, which result in planes flying over the site,generally at heights of 600 feet. The amphitheater site, a 60-acre parcel at the rear of..the Lion Country Safari .park .ground§,is less than a Jr ile southwest of El Toro's main runway. . Officials said Tuesday's agreement largely resembled the scheduling condition adopted by the city Planning Commission last month and submitted to the City Coun- cil later Tuesday. - Councilman Larry Agran, who had been the chief council critic of the environmental findings for the Project,said he was withdrawing his objections in view of the pact. Last December, the Marine Corps, which had.opted for a 12-story height for proposed Irvine Center'office structures, reached a compromise 13-story height Last May.the Marine Corps,in a pact with the Clty;�o# agreement with the Irvine Co. The .auW. said the Irvine,agreed to limit use of an awdhary_runway,wh}t company's originally proposed 26-story height would the city said resulted in excessive night bvin flits ' pose a visual hazard to Ei Toro pilots; over Irvine residences. SOURCE: Los Angeles Times Figure 2.8 Newspaper Article Regarding Proposed � � r Amphitheater Near Lion Country Safari r 2-50 !1 sol ms alley (see Figure 2.9) . These are all sources of potential competition relative to an amphitheatre in the City of Huntington Beach. The supply and demand relationship, when applied to performance centers, works in two directions. First, a performance center must attract bookings of popular talent. Second, the amphitheatre must draw the patrons. The two are closely related, of course, but the critical factor becomes how the booking agents for popular performers perceive the ability of an amphitheatre to draw patrons . In order to be successful , an amphitheatre must attract the bookings of popular talent. Most artists who appear in concert are handled by a few important booking agencies. These agencies seek concert locations based upon the following factors: (1 ) There must be sufficient market area population with the age groups and income levels that would support a concert. Most agencies generally recognize that Orange County has the necessary market support for a variety of performing artist concerts. (2) Adequate facilities must exist. Except for very large facilities at ' Anaheim Stadium and very small facilities at the University of California, Irvine, Orange County has thus far lacked appropriate facilities. (3) If there were more than one high quality amphitheatre to choose from, a booking agent would generally prefer the facility having a size most suited for his artist, and having the best access, visibility and name recognition. The primary difficulty with an amphitheatre in Huntington Central Park is presented by the third criterion above. With the construction of a high quality 15,000 seat amphitheatre in Costa Mesa, and the possible construction of a 10,000 seat amphitheatre in Irvine, a booking agent would be unlikely to choose the Central Park location for a concert. These proposed amphitheatres will have excellent access , high visibility, and good name recognition. The Central Park site, however, is located in a ' 2-51 � r rr �r r r� i� rr r� rr rr rr r ri r� r rr s rr CAMP Prepnw s ARIS COMPLEX Perform"Y1 Arts CompleX Continued from First Page lege and co-founder of California Bands Inc.,predeces- Seen for Fountain Valley sor to the newly formed arts group. A meeting of community arts groups to discuss the plan will be held at 7 p.m.Monday in the Fountain Val- ley City Council chambers at 10200 Slater Avenue, By HER14AN WONG,Times Staff Writer Thompson said Plans for yet another performing ows amphitheater to be built this -Although only $25,000 has been committed to the arts facility in Orange County—this Year next to Ian Country Safari and. project,Thompson raid his group has been endorsed by time at a Mile Square Regional Park the state-approved Orange County m$jor Orange County arts advocates, including former site in Fountain Valley—have been Fairgrourids amphitheater sched- Assemblyman Dennis Mangers. uled to start construction this sum- disclosed by a group originally The,preliminary plans being drafted by Bates and formed to sponsor band concerts. me• A private developer, Neder- -Pekarek of Newport Beach call for a 3,2W-seat concert The group, California Association lander West Corp.. operator.of the hall'and a 1,500-seat theater for drama and other per- of Music Arts Inc.,said it is drafting Greek Theater in Los Angeles,is to formances. Thompson said. Additionally. 200 fully a formal proposal to be submitted to operate the fairgrounds facility. equtpped.rehearsal rooms are planned.including studios, the county and to the City of Foun- Ile arts facility proposed for the for and broadcasting. tain.V for a two-theater center Mile Square Park area- would be' alley. located on. presently undeveloped (O�uge County Music Center Inc.'* plans call for to be used principally by music. of the county-owned fa- 3.200-seat and 1,500-seat theaters to tie built by the mid- drama and dance groups. No dates sections sty, possibly including a section 1980s on a five-acre site being.donated by the Sftr- coni been set for tie proposal to be leasedto the chy,officials said. strom.family. This group, which recently..named its �ecutive eaecutiee director and architect is expected to and i .:.- e '"discussion the proposal formative still-in of California Association of �Pig bus far of$12 in a i fve to raf*e S� the "discuosion and formative miitir+- ' -r;,;�struction and an en!unwment fund.) Music Arts Inc., said the N from stages,COutl y and city Officials and complex would not to directly from leading arty-figures, including with any of the previously an- Hollywood composer-conductor nounced centers. He add the other Henry Mancini,a spokesman said centers would primarily showcase The group estimates the cast of its larger-sca>ed..«briported" perform- proposed Fountain Valley facility at log organizations. such as m*r k30 million. This would pit the- symphony orchestras and headliner project against other large facilities artists. seeking private donors, Thompson said the Fountain Val- the proposed Ste-million Orange especially ley facility will be aimed at smaller. community-based that County Music Center Inc. complex B planped at the South Coast Plaza might-be left out of other facilities. Town Center in Ceara Mesa. Plana call for space and technical fa- Other recently announced cilities for both performance and. proposals in what amounts to a per- teaching situatlans, said Timnipson, forming arts sweepstakes include band motor at Orange Coast Col- the privately backed Irvine Mead- Pleme see ARM Pp 18 SOURCE: Los Angeles Times Figure 2.9 Newspaper Article Regarding Proposed Performing Arts Facility in Fountain Valley /t sys emms location that is not central to the growing Orange County population, and is located on a minor traffic artery within a lightly developed area. Thus , access from the residential population of Orange County and from the freeways ' would be quite poor compared with the other proposed amphitheatres. Visibility of the Central Park site would be limited to local residents. Without high visibility, name recognition of the facility would be slow to become established. The other two proposed amphitheatres would have high visibility and would be located within the grounds of facilities having established name recognition. An additional difficulty with the Central Park site would be the parking required. A 15,000 seat amphitheatre would require approximately 30 racres of parking. A 10,000 seat facility would require about 20 acres of parking. Both the proposed Irvine and Costa Mesa amphitheatres would utilize existing adjacent parking lots. Proposals that involve using satellite parking facilities at Golden West College and the City beaches with shuttle service provided would increase the competitive disadvantages that a facility on the Central Park site would experience relative to the other proposed facilities. Transferring to shuttle buses would require additional access time and inconvenience for patrons. Even in congested Los Angeles , where parking fees might encourage bus use, a relatively small percentage of patrons arrive at the Greek Theatre or Universal Amphitheatre by shuttle bus. Under such circumstances, a booking agent would probably consider booking his artist at an amphitheatre on the subject property only if no other facilities were available. Thus , we would highly recommend if an amphitheatre is developed on the subject property, that adequate parking be provided. However, even with such parking provided, we feel that any amphitheatre facility on the subject property that attempts to compete with the proposed facilities in Costa Mesa and Irvine would have considerable difficulty in attracting bookings of significant talent. In order to minimize direct competition with other proposed amphitheatres, a facility significantly larger or smaller than these proposed facilities should be examined. A facility of 20,000 or more seats might be proposed to attract 2-53 h e", ms performance groups which require a larger audience; however, we feel that the market for such performances is not sufficient to support such a facility in Orange County. Anaheim Stadium has experienced a decline in recent years of bookings for major rock concerts. In fact the industry has been experiencing a shift from large performances to more smaller concerts. The Greek Theatre, seating 4,800 (with planned expansion to 6,000 in 1982) , and the Universal Amphitheatre, seating 5,200, are very popular performance facilities in Los Angeles. Artists view such performances as a means of exposure to promote a new album rather than as a means of earning money. Patrons enjoy the relatively intimate environment of the performance. The alternative approach, therefore, would be to provide a smaller amphitheatre than those proposed competitive facilities. An amphitheatre of approximately 5,000 seats might have the greatest opportunity of attracting performing artists on the subject site. However, the economic performance of smaller amphitheatres, such as the Concord Pavillion, the Greek Theatre and the Universal Amphitheatre, suggests that these facilities are not profitable enterprises . The Greek Theatre, which was constructed by the City, generated lease revenue to the City of Los Angeles of $190,000 (after subtracting maintenance expenses) in 1980. The Concord Pavillion, ibuilt and operated by the City of Concord, has generated a modest profit during recent years. The most lucrative of these facilities , the Universal Amphitheatre, has provided Universal Studios only with minor profits despite heavy attendance and relatively high ticket prices. Recently, the studios were faced with a decision of whether to demolish the existing facility in favor of a more profitable use, or to enclose the theatre for year-round operation. Partially for public relations purposes, they opted for the latter alternative. Universal expects to achieve an improved profit from such a year-round facility. We do not feel that an amphitheatre constructed within Huntington Central Park would be profitable relative to the initial investment costs required. However, if the City would like to see such a .facility provided for the benefit of residents and the prestige of the City, we would suggest that an amphitheatre of 2-54 /t s st nrs approximately 5,000 seats be developed. A nearby parking facility of about 10-15 acres would be required. A committee should be formed to solicit donations for the facility, and matching grants should be sought wherever available. Although such a facility would not be sufficiently profitable to cover capital costs, it could, most likely, generate sufficient revenue to offset maintenance and operating costs. Under such an arrangement, we recommend that the city contract with a professional operator for the operation and maintenance of the facility. If the City constructed the amphitheatre and contracted the operation to a professional manager, the City could achieve a rental rate of 4 percent of gross revenue, with the operator providing all maintenance of the property (this arrangement would be similar to that of the Greek Theatre) . Projecting an annual attendance of 150,000 persons, with average per capita expenditure of $10 including parking, program sales , and concessions , a rental rate of $60,000 annually could be achieved. 2.4.9 Fishing Lake The small size of Sully Miller Lake constrains its capacity to be a highly profitable fishing business venture, even though there is a strong demand for local freshwater fishing facilities. In addition, competing facilities such as at Irvine Lake and Anaheim Lake limit the amount of fees that can be charged. The weather in the area will also influence the local attendance of fishermen. In particular, it is estimated that because of weather conditions such a business venture should be regarded as consisting of a 7-month season (April-October) and a 5-month off-season (November-March) in which fees should be lower because of reduced attendance. During the 7-month season, we :estimate that an average of approximately 50 persons (60% adults) per day will fish the lake, using 20 boats at a cost of $5 per boat rental , and paying fishing fees of $6 per adult and $4 per child. During the 5-month off-season, we estimate that the attendance will reduce to an average of approximately 30 persons (2/3 adults) per day, using 10 boats at a cost of $5 per boat rental , and paying reduced fees of $5 per adult and $3 per child. These fees and charges are less than those generally incurred at both Anaheim Lake 2-55 1t Syst ms, and Irvine Lake because of the relatively small size of Sully Miller Lake. In addition, a bait and tackle shop, including a small snack concession, could be supported with estimated average sales of $5 per person during the 7-month season and $4 per person during the 5-month off-season. Overall , these estimated attendance levels and corresponding fees and charges would generate(' )an approximate annual revenue of $175,000(2). We would recommend that the City make the necessary improvements for this facility. The facility could either be managed by the City or under contract to private operator. The former would be more preferable to the City. 2.4. 10 Equestrian Center An equestrian center, although an extremely challenging operation to operate profitably, could successfully be developed within Huntington Central ' Park (or in the adjacent County Linear Park area) . The element of primary import- ance in such an operation would be good management. However, in order to succeed, the City would have to accept a minimal return on the land rental . Our findings are based upon interviews with several operators and developers of equestrian facilities in Southern California who have a reputation for being excellent business persons within the equestrian market. We recommend the development of a high quality boarding facility for approximately 250 horses, with 185 box stalls and 65 partially sheltered corrals . A land area of 12 to 15 acres would be required. Maintenance must be of the highest level , with frequent disposal of waste. Several small and medium-sized riding rings should also be provided, and a respected trainer should be in residence. A riding school , tack shop, shows and concessions would be important profit generators in addition to the boarding function. The construction of a horse trail system in the adjacent County Linear Park area would be important to the success of such an operation. Horse trails within Huntington Central Park should be minimal , and kept within the least congested areas of the park -- active recreational (' )See Section 5.2 (2)This revenue level would most likely require that the 480-space RV park be developed in order to provide sufficient patronage. 2-56 h s t ms�. ys uses and horses do not mix well . The boarding facility could generate monthly fees of $150 for the box stalls and $110 for the corrals. Thus , a total potential of $418,800 in gross annual income could be generated. In addition, we feel that training, the riding school , shows , a small tack shop, and concessions would generate an additional $180,000 gross annual income, for a total of $598,800. The City could collect a rent of 4 percent of gross operating income, or $24,000 annually. 2.4.11 Mini-Amusement Park A mini-amusement park is generally a four to seven acre facility which may include some or all of the following elements : miniature golf, batting cages, pinball arcade, water slides, bumper boats, and other small scale entertain- ment facilities. This combination of activities creates a destination entertainment area for the evening or weekend afternoons for families , teenagers , and planned parties. Such a facility would have a low probability of being profitable on the subject property. We interviewed numerous operators of mini-amusement parks in the Orange County and Los Angeles areas in order to assess locational criteria. Most such facilities attribute 30 to 50 percent of their business to their visibility to passing traffic. Most of their remaining business is attributed to local resi- dents. Thus, most operators identified two important locational criteria: (1 ) location having freeway visibility, on a major arterial street, or adjacent to a regional shopping center; and (2) location within a densely developed residential area. The Central Park site rates poorly with both locational criteria. Even using a development scenario providing maximum activity within the park, it is unlikely that sufficient traffic could be produced to support profitably a mini- amusement park at this location. 2.4. 12 Motorbike Course A motorbike course, we feel , would be received by strong demand. The supply of such facilities is constrained by municipal ordinances regulating noise, and by their high cost. Such uses require a substantial amount of land, and 2-57 I n s�Vsltms high insurance cost raises operating expenses. Public parks generally don't permit such uses because of the environmental problems they cause; however, because of the existing disposal pit in Central Park, a potential site exists which may not have significant negative environmental effects. With such a supply restraint and the high rate of ownership of motorbikes in Orange County, we feel that demand would be strong. Whether such demand will be sufficiently strong to offset the high cost of operation* is doubtful . In addition, despite strong demand, there is a capacity problem on such courses. A limited number of vehicles can be accommodated on a course of approximately 10 acres in size, thereby limiting revenue generating potential . Because of this capacity restraint, we project that a 10-acre course ,. could attract 150 riders per day during summer months, and 100 riders per day during the remaining year. A fee of $2 per rider could be achieved. Thus , gross operating revenue of $41 ,400 annually could be achieved. In order to achieve such ridership, the course should be well maintained, and altered periodically to maintain riders' interest. 2.4. 13 Gymnasium Gymnasiums are extremely difficult for the private sector to supply for a profit. They are expensive to construct and maintain. The revenue generation potential , however, is limited because the public sector generally provides such facilities within schools and colleges, and private organizations supported by donations provide such facilities at nominal or no charge. A private athletic club in Fountain Valley provides a gymnasium for its members as part of a multi-use recreational complex; however, this club does not consider its gymnasium as a source of profit. A YMCA, with gymnasium-type facilities partially subsidized by private contributions , can generate sufficient revenue to cover operating expenses and pay land rent. At the same time such a facility could provide facilities in the Central Park area that residents of the City desire, but which could not be profitably developed without subsidization. Since negotiations are currently underway between the City and the West Orange County YMCA for the development of such a facility in Central Park, and this type of facility was identified in the * development costs could perhaps be paid for by special grant monies 2-58 1 u�ltmsyst ms 1978 survey (see Table 1 .1 ) as having the highest need, we recommend that the City aggressively pursue this opportunity. Since the YMCA is actively searching for a location in Western Orange County, the subject site, especially if ball fields are provided, will be an excellent location. A land value attributed to this site of $120,000 per square AGr� - -fevt would be very reasonable from both the perspective of the City and the YMCA. rFor the YMCA, this value would be at least 30 percent lower than it could find for privately-owned property. For the City, a tremendous asset for the park could be created. Thus, we would recommend a ground lease revenue based upon a value of $840,000 for seven acres. Annual rent at approximately 16 percent would be $134,000. 2.4. 14 Model Car Racing Model car racing has limited revenue generation potential , but also has little capital and operational costs. Clubs who sponsor such racing have numerous choices of facilities, since an empty parking lot can simply be striped for such use. A more interesting course, however, could be constructed at little expense in Huntington Beach Central Park, therefore drawing such activity to this location. However, revenue generation is unlikely to be sufficient to cover a significant land rent in addition to maintenance costs. This is an example of a use that could be best provided for by the public sector and in conjunction with other developed facilities. 2.4.15 Heliport The City of Huntington Beach Police Department has proposed the construction of a helicopter landing pad, hangar and maintenance facility, to accommodate the City's six helicopters. If the City should decide that such a facility should be provided within Huntington Central Park, some revenue could be generated by leasing hangar space for storage and maintenance of corporate helicopters. In order to accommodate both City and private operations, allowing for the storage of ten to twelve helicopters, approximately three acres of land would be required. 2-59 ltrasystems Orange County Airport experiences strong demand for helicopter space, although the congested air traffic in this area makes their facilities less than optimal . With the strong growth of business activity in the Huntington Beach area and the relative convenience of the site to northwestern Orange County businesses , we feel that, within two years, a demand will exist for the storage ' of 8 to 10 helicopters. These helicopters would require a hangar of approximately 5,500 to 6,000 square feet. Monthly lease rates of $300 per craft could be achieved. 1 Thus, a gross annual operating income of $36,000 for 10 helicopters could be achieved. However, we do not recommend the inclusion of a heliport within Huntington Central Park. The basic reason for this is that the noise created by helicopters would be detrimental to many of the recommended income generating uses within the park. Such a facility would be especially detrimental to a hotel , but would also be quite incompatible with an equestrian center, fishing lake, and restaurants. In addition, a heliport would be detrimental to the enjoyment of both the existing developed passive areas of the park and the library, and would be detrimental to existing and future residential developments within the surrounding area. The potential revenue that could be generated by a heliport would be relatively minor, and would , most likely,. not off-set the environmental problems created. 2.4.16 Shooting Range If the City should choose to allow the existing police shooting range to remain within the park, the facility could be upgraded and generate a land rental ' to the City. Currently, the facility does not achieve its revenue generating potential , and returns very little to the City because of an obsolete lease agreement. The existing facility could be upgraded to increase safety. Fees could be increased and concessions added to increase overall profitability. The City should negotiate with the Police Association, who currently operates the facility to provide for an upgrading of the facility to improve 2-60 Wh syst .s safety, aesthetics and capacity. A concession should be established providing P 9 ' ammunition, supplies , and repair service. We project that 100,000 attendees could be attracted annually under this scenario, each paying $5. The concession, we feel , could generate $165,000 annually in sales. With a 5 percent lease on admissions and a 7 percent lease on the concession, we project an annual land rental of $36,550 for the City. Approximately 3.5 acres would be required for such a facility. 1 Care should be taken in siting uses adjacent to such a facility. A hotel and restaurant would be quite incompatible with a shooting range. The fishing lake operation would be somewhat incompatible, but could tolerate the noise. We would not recommend removing the facility from its current site, but upgrading it through improvement in the services offered. 2-61 yst s 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 3. 1 Open Space Values Portions of the City have been identified(1) as having significant open space values , that is , there is a "multiple incidence of significant resources on vacant or undeveloped land". Certain of these areas are referred to as "First Priority Areas", because they represent the greatest potential for preservation of open space in the sense that they harbor numerous valuable resources. One such area is the Huntington Central Park area which is a key location of fresh water lakes and marshes and includes the bluffs , an abandoned sand and gravel operation, significant tree stands , and important vista points. Therefore, the development of Central Park must take into consideration these open space values. 3.2 Seismic Risks and Other Hazards Preliminary research indicates the presence of the Bolsa-Fairview Fault slicing across the southern portion of Central Park (see Figure 3.1) . There are known fault lines in this general area which have been designated as "active" (see Figure 3.2) . In addition, substantial portions of Central Park ihave also been identified(2) as high risk areas based on consideration(3) of fault rupture risk, peat deposits , liquefaction potential , beach erosion and tsunami hazard (see Figure 3. 3) . The implication of this information is that careful consideration should be given to these potential hazards in the ' construction of any facilities in these areas. In addition, a number of sources indicate that subsidence may be a potential problem in the Central ' Park area. Examples of this can be found at the current heliport site and a blocked drainage pipe running from Talbert Ave. to Sully Miller Lake. Detailed soils and geology studies should be undertaken before any building construction is initiated in Central Park. In a recent Orange County survey(4) of all past and present dumps and landfill sites, two sites were identified in the Central Park area, namely: (')Source: Conservation Technical Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, March 1974 (2)Source: City of Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element (3)Excludes consideration of ground shaking, expansive soils , areal land subsidence, groundwater problems and flood hazards. (4)Progress Report-Survey and Monitoring Program of County Dumps and Landfill Sites , County of Orange Human Services Agency, 4 March 1981 3-1 r r r � r r� r r it r r rrr �r s r r � r rr c. do a r•� FAGFffST SEISW RISK f (GREATEST SURFACE PUP-U 2E y i ° POTENTIAL WRHN Cf', PKij AREA OF NTENSIVE 9tE BORED TRACE OF FAULT ��\�•' - / �Q� . `� IWTTM 400'ZONE) UNCERTAINTY AS IC 15ENCF OR EXTENSION OF FAd,U Hun-eington Central o.9rk ------------ ` -----/-�—�--�-- i `" —'— __ _� __ cp_�ji}{_BRA_N_C_FI_'r_A_ULT _�f_—___—_ _--- _ '--"„ _ FAtaT --_ — — — Figure 3. 1 Huntington Beach Area Fault Map f �LLLI :I M -cA A I LLL T Ij 1.j y; 11 G. I., w DTI {I T F L 17 1 k J It H 1 0 -- ------ -- -------- 0 W-77, CTI T-1 L rj �.JTTI J-i I �, I i f �F-E 117 VS :119-f TA yR --T hri CF—R n, -�j I I I A -L. -A TALBERT 7'1 CF- R Mi CF—C MI o: U !, ft 11 T. i . � 'T i CII II till I I' ` _r ...- .. I I i '.,� ALtivelFault Location Source: Open Space Element Fault Lines and Geologic Conditions "yzm- U. x Figure 3.2 Active Faults in the W. , 3-3 Huntington Central Park Area MMOROMM `90 .\ � lCt'\�IRR ' Mill. ��_ III11,11e:� ,•'' lii� an ��Aflllll �II �Slllli?�� \ Ji-- (ill m Site #12 Site #76 1 Name.: Bruce Bros. Pit Sully Miller (Golden West Disposal Construction Co. Station #10) Location: Between Gothard and Northeast of Golden West and Golden West, south of Ellis (basically the area ' Talbert around the northern edge and northwestern edge of Sully Miller Lake) ' Size: 32 acres 15 acres Years of Operation: 1974 - 1962 1970 - ? Operator: County/City Sully Miller Types of Wastes: Group II Waste - Group II and III Waste ' municipal waste None of these sites were identified as containing Group I wastes that could be ' considered as hazardous under the California Hazardous Waste regulations ; however, at the Bruce Bros . Pit site significant methane gas emissions have been ' detected(l) which would require venting before any public use in the area would be permitted. 3.3 Land Use Restrictions Due to Sources of Funds for Land Acquisition and/or Development A major consideration in the formulation of a plan for revenue-producing uses in Central Park would be the existence of potential restrictions imposed by virtue of the sources of funds used for acquisition of lands in Central Park. This is because most of the land acquired for the park utilized funds with some type of restriction. Two such sources of importance are the State of California Land and Water Conservation Fund and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Open Space and Conservation Act Fund. First, with regard to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, accord- ing(2) to Mr. Daniel C. Preece of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, (1)See letter of 11 March 1981 from Mr. George Tindall , City Engineer, 1 in Appendix A. (2)See letter of 11 July 1980 from Mr. Daniel C. Preece, Park and Recreation Specialist, in Appendix A. 3-5 yst s "Assisted recreation lands and facilities may not be converted to non-recreation uses without replacement. The use of property acquired or developed with assistance from the Fund may not be changed from that contemplated and approved when assistance was obtained, unless prior approval is obtained from the Director of Heritage Conser- vation and Recreation Service". This restriction would apply to the recently created horse trail system in ' Central Park (see Figure 3.4) . It is further stated in Mr. Preece 's letter that they would be "extremely resistant to such a change, unless it was clearly 1 shown to be in the best interest of everyone concerned. " Therefore, it is incumbent upon the City to review with the State any park development plans ' that would impact parcels acquired or developed through the assistance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Second , the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has played a very active role over the years in providing financial assistance to development of the Central Park area either through reimbursement to the City for parcel acquisition or through direct acquisition of vacant parcels via revenue sharing and/or Open Space and Conservation Act funds. Specific ' examples involve the acquisition of the current solid waste disposal site (part of the original Bruce Bros. Pit) , Sully Miller Lake, the southeast corner of Talbert Ave. and Golden West St. , and the area westerly of Golden West St. north and south of the projected extension of Talbert Ave. which has been considered as a ball field site. In a recent letter(') from HUD it was stated that the following projects and activities on these lands would come within the purview of the HUD eligibility requirements: (1) multi-use lighted, sports field complex (2) tennis pro shop (3) fishing lake, general store and restaurant (4) multi-use parking (5) remote central model cars (6) mini-cycle/bicycle training center, trails and trails area (7) garden restaurant (8) dinner restaurant at the southwest corner of Golden West St. and Talbert Ave. (')See letter of 17 November 1980 from Mr. John J. Tuite, HUD Area Manager, in Appendix A 3-6 sysl ms CENTRAL PORK DR --- -' -- 1 �T-�T T.;r._ "�-" "!�'- AUTO PARKING ►- �� Q LOT cn W OR LEHUNTINGTON AUTO CENTRAL PARK PARKING LOT DEDICATION TO TAKE PLACE HERE ' HORSE ®a TRAILER`�""�©�k.7�� � ENTRANCE IBM[24 Cal® II I Ira I a �® 1 1n IN ® + I ® fI I TRAIL -- ® I -- TR ILER 13 ®� PA KING' ®�® i r ®�® © ®® ®6®®®® �. 3 j I � I M11 117111171 ------ Z Li — Lj AYE I i i o faoo SCALE iN FEET I I I I ' Figure 3.4 Huntington Central Park Horse Trail System 3-7 ' yst s F- In particular, it is stated that: "Receipts from the use of lands acquired with open space ' funds generally do not concern this Department, however, if admission fees are charged, they must be nominal and must not be discriminating. " and "Any profits realized shall be deposited in a special fund designed for future open space uses and shall not be ' expended except for such uses . " Because of the strong implications of these statements, it is incumbent upon the City to aggressively explore the potential limitations and/or restrictions imposed by HUD in regard to the potential revenue-producing uses to be con- tained in a plan for development of Central Park. Furthermore, clarification should be obtained regarding what is meant by "nominal " fees and "profits ' realized". Since revenues are used to pay for park maintenance and operation, the City really wouldn't be deriving a "profit". In addition, the original Bruce Bros. Pit disposal site, previously discussed and identified in the County survey, was purchased from the County via an agreement that this site would be restricted to recreation uses only. At the present time, the Police Association operates a shooting range on this parcel and there is a police heliport facility westerly of the shooting range. The former is an acceptable use according to the agreement with the County whereas the latter(l) is not. Furthermore , because of the presence of methane gas emanating from the old municipal waste dump area, the recreational uses are somewhat limited unless mitigation measures are employed. 3.4 Existing and Planned Traffic Conditions Another consideration regarding the development of Central Park would be the impact on traffic flows through and adjacent to the area. Traffic flows .in terms of average daily trips (ADT) observed in 1978 were as follows : (l)ihe City Public Works Department has conducted a study to determine that it is riot feasible to drive pilings into the area to support the construction of a new heliport facility should it be considered at the site. 1- H yst c ' Location ADT Golden West between Ellis and Talbert 17,000( 1) Golden West between Talbert and Slater 21,000i2) Talbert between Golden West and Gothard 3,700 Ellis between Edwards and Golden West 430 Ellis between Golden West and Gothard 1,200 Edwards between Ellis and Talbert 4,500 Edwards between Talbert and Slater 6 ,200 ' The City Public Works Department has stated(3) that significant street improve- ments would be necessary along Golden West, Gothard, Ellis , Edwards and Talbert ' in order to accommdate increased traffic flows in the area should the Central Park area be more intensely developed. It is not possible at this time to predict exactly what these impacts will be, but subsequent environmental impact analysis of an adopted plan of development for Central Park would provide this information. ' 3.5 Water Quality Considerations ' An additional consideration in the planning of developments in the proximity of both Huntington Lake and Sully Miller Lake is that at the present time there are water quality problems(4) associated with each. In particular, there are serious nutrient inputs to Huntington Lake which are attributed to the equestrian operations on the lake's watershed and the duck population on the lake. ' Should improved equestrian facilities be built in this general area, steps should be taken to mitigate this problem. Based upon discussions with operators of first class equestrian facilities in both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties , we have been informed that proper mitigation consists of proper storage and ' removal of equine waste before it has any opportunity to impact groundwater or run-off water quality. Similarly, with regard to Sully Miller Lake the problem seems to be associated with the poor quality of water entering this lake. This should be mitigated before any fishing uses are considered for the lake. Me xpected to increase to 22,000 by 1995 (2)expected to increase to 34,000 by 1995 (3)See letter of 11 March 1981 from Mr. George Tindall , City ' Engineer, in Appendix A (4)Source: J. Harlan Glenn and Associates ' 3-9 }yet •s, 3.6 Adjacent Land Uses In the evaluation and site selection of possible revenue-producing uses for Huntington Central Park consideration must be given to the existing and/or planned land uses for adjacent areas . ' First, on the eastern edge of the park area, along Gothard Street, is the Gothard industrial corridor. This area has been designated primarily ' for industrial uses ; hence, uses in the park along this edge of the park must contend with the environmental effects (such as noise and truck traffic/ congestion) normally associated with industrial activities. Second the areas to the north and northwest of the park are primarily residential and are buffered from the park by the passive area adjacent to Talbert Lake, the nature area and the existing developed park area around Huntington Lake. In order to preserve this buffering effect, as well as the preservation of this open space, no new revenue-producing uses(1 ) should be considered in these portions of the park. Third, on the western edge of the park, along Edwards Street, lies the boundaries of the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park. The linear park is planned to link the existing and proposed facilities at Huntington Central Park to the State Department of Fish and Game Ecological Preserve with connection to Bolsa Chica State Beach . Alternative concepts are currently being examined by the County which involve the use of trails and scenic overlooks along bluff ' tops , buffer area open space at the base of each bluff, connecting strips with rest stops and passive recreation areas between bluffs. This suggests that revenue- producing uses along the western edge of the park boundary should be compatible as well as complimentary with the future anticipated uses across from Central Park in the linear park area. Such uses would include a golf course or equestrian ' facilities. Fourth , along the southern edge of Central Park, south of Ellis Street, ' the City is currently studying plans for the future development of this area. Emphasis appears to be placed on very low density residential uses with , perhaps , ' an equestrian flavor. This suggests that the development of the southern area ' (1 )that is, in addition to the two existing small food concessions. ' 3-10 1 i u�ltmstst ms i� of he ark should contain uses that would be compatible with this potential t p p ' future use of the Ellis Street area such as open space, equestrian facilities , a golf course, or recreational vehicle park camping in conjunction with fishing activities. t 1 1 3-11 SYs 4.0 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLANS 4. 1 Basic Confi uration Alternatives The approach to formulating alternative land use plans for Huntington Central Park is based on the consideration of the likely park boundaries as tdetermined by the City's parcel acquisition policies regarding Central Park. As a result, the four specific boundary configurations assumed to be possible are ' as follows: Configuration No. 1 - Existing park boundaries plus acquisition ' of the remaining encyclopedia lots north of Ellis Ave. Configuration No. 2 - Same as No. 1 plus acquisition of the 22-acre ' parcel at the northeast corner of Golden West and Ellis Confiqur-ation No. 3 - Same as No. 2 plus acquisition of the 9-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Golden West and Ellis ' Configuration No. 4 - Same as No. 3 plus acquisition of the 9-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Gothard and Ellis Figures 4. 1 - 4.4 present these boundary configurations , respectively. 4.2 Formulation of the Mix of Revenue-Producing Uses for Each Boundary Configuration Within each boundary configuration and based upon the market analysis ' discussion of Section 2.4, the following revenue-producing uses were considered: (1) adventure playground(') (2) 5,000 seat amphitheater (3) arcade and pizza parlor in conjunction with a baseball/ Sports field complex (4) baseball/sports field complex (4 or 6 fields) (5) equestrian facility ' (6) fishing activities at Sully Miller Lake ' 1) ( this is already existing but is being relocated to an area east of the library ' 4-1 t - :;='af_ �_..��1 L '; '1 � •�'' . 1'�+�(a�1��;,` 101 ..:_ �ICt I :ITI..� 1"�� �' �OWL, •;;i» I � ' it r77 7'-7 + F 1 I CF-E . . _ __,T 1 9 l I 1 � l '.� T.T�r'.�-r •-' :;�.u�.:l .�:'+�ti11L1�� lea_. ,I I I I I t 1I l I l .I 1 � 1 I I r I 1As rl ' I ar _ J 1 4 Darr TALBERT -7 -: - I Huntington Central Park .J (328 acres) I. 11 I :..:....... . I I I I III _ � - - _ - `I }'?�'•: ------ -- , 1 4-2 Figure 4. 1 Existing Central P,,r!; AM& Boundaries r r \ W� r — r�—iQr. _ ^M j��. �SC_�L'.LJp�` �11Q7� '' ---• -- T—r OR ' MORNO My IM` IL :► ^ !,� , /"� � ! F��',�11XC�i; . .. . . .oF: i. �.�rr1►.i'�.Ii�IV I jp _ j . ! � ■�' IM!-'1 ���'M Y�.h ti>il I .1.U�. ,�-•-_ � r ! 1 i ' i i � i I i n r.� 11 II I TALBERT1 r Huntington l I I I Central ParkI� 11! i _i�i. ' j 1 (349 acres) i J - I I I i _ i - r r I CF_C I 1 . I j ' Figure 4.2 Central Park Boundary 4_3 Configuration -No. 2 (Existing Boundaries Pius Northeast Aft Corner of Goidenwest & Ellis -'--i r-. s --.-�-�--�-. 1n__: �a`; .. i ���-r-i—a.---- � r-�--1,eio;. '>wai-.-'--_-------T--.�'•a I I - x _ runener� a • oR a � �37 LLD YOIIRO YY lM �� —�' Ft .,... CF-E I iwlao 10:W sc-1�i.) YW W. - . ' r -1 T -- - - ���' - 1 I l.l_LLJ , ! i uuqq�� 1 7I i - � 1..1� I r tVi \ TAIGERT �� Huntington Central Park (358 acres) L I) I J �- i M- Ti 1 I L ' Figure 4.3 Central Park Boundary Configuration No. 3 (Same as ' 4-4 No. 2 Plus Northwest Corner Adft of Ellis & Golden West) pia --� .-+ti--+^-•ly=- � ( a�r'4-'-4— ��•r-,�__ _!�(' i'-l�ao:. '`'"-u-,-�--•--�.-----��,�, 7i , I l I on 9 a { fj s t , � I ;Fiir� a ! ..oaw. o• I ���!/®® ravel I I - { F r. :!:CF-E -I C 11I!."L �•. I�f.__.I CA V l w W n.) yr 1. I ire 7 � �1. ,y I J i I l I I 1 nawru� i 1 5 N-,,Jig J . . , , 9' ear TALBERT T 7 �_�� Huntington C` Central Park (367 acres) iL 77 r _ CF-j �- r ILI 1 Figure 4.4 Central Park Boundary t 4-5 Configuration No. 4 (Same as No. 3 Plus Northwest Corner Adft of Gothard and Ellis. WNW ,a — hSyst s C�tc,mponsh� ' (7) 18-hole ctrti golf course (8) hotel with convention facilities (9) recreational vehicle park (230 or 480 spaces) (10) dinner-type restaurant (11) existing shooting range with upgraded facilities to ' include a gunsmith-type of activity (12) use of the existing snack concessions ' (13) existing stable operation south of Huntington Lake (14) YMCA In all alternatives formulated, there are four areas of the park which we would suggest that the City leave generally undisturbed. The attractively ' developed passive park area located north of Talbert Avenue and east of Golden West Street is a tremendous asset to the community and should generally remain in its current state. Similarly, the area surrounding Huntington Lake is an attractive passive park. These areas provide the park environment which makes this site a desirable location for other uses. Also, the area of the Indian ' Midden located east of Edwards Street and north of Ellis Avenue, and the Nature Area in the northwestern corner of the park should be left generally undisturbed ' for political and cultural reasons ; however, the midden area could be included as part of a golf course, if necessary, since this use would not destroy the ' value of the site. 4.2. 1 Alternatives for Configuration No. 1 Within the boundaries of Huntington Central Park as designated in Figure 4. 1, there have been three alternatives formulated. The first one, ' configuration la (see Figure 4.5) focusses on the creation of a relatively passive resort atmosphere through the development of a hotel/conference center, ' a golf course, fishing lake and the YMCA. Not enough space remains for an RV park, thus a small parking area is provided adjacent to the fishing lake. configuration lb (see Figure 4.6) is based on development of a 6-field baseball/ sports field complex in conjunction with an arcade and pizza parlor, the fishing lake, YMCA and an amphitheater in the current remaining portion of the Bruce Bros. Pit. Finally, configuration 1c (see Figure 4. 7) is the "do nothing" i alternative based on leaving Central Park as is. This alternative does not assume that the shooting range is upgraded to include a gunsmith-type of activity. 4-6 l y'�JL •► f•�3;y � � �• +�- ,if 2 I • • �3i�Wfi ox Val 77�RMI�/1 '� . • CITY QF i�UNT�INGT©N = EACH �=ems,- i1� ,, �e rl/�.►ae� i��) � 5 ) i� t 7rj In. I — � • — • � \I. SSA��.n g may. _".�n.� \ ' *a.qaelk a®.c, '.. ■�OLR•1fJ .•4 ,¢°� . ++ ��.... `stars■■r.�`4 _.�, fia........ .e...•�;...•c:�.-: .. _e'er` CITY OOF HUNT�IINGTOON = EACH r ��. Baer_ ame. 6�>t4 city yard youth camping ! _ - -- --- area _ �. existing concession � •���;-` - d enure playgroundCO - 1 parKing- 200211 cars shooting range existing concession 21SL .7k , hurYtington _ we - n nj Li ishi Ob As ave, CNY OF BEMN cent,•� . ,0 200 400 eao Figure 4.7 A_4 4.2.2 Alternatives for-Configuration .No. _2 The acquisition of the parcel on the northeast corner of Golden West and Ellis provides an opportunity to expand alternatives la and lb so as to include more uses. In particular, it is now possible to consider a 230-space RV park west of the fishing lake ,as well as to place a baseball/sports field complex on either side of Golden West. In addition, an equestrian facility can now be incorporated with a golf course use whereas this was not possible within the boundaries of Configuration No. 1. Figures 4.8 - 4. 11 present these expanded variations of alternatives la and lb. 4.2.3 Alternatives for Configuration No. 3 The acquisition of the Marion property at the northwest corner of _I Golden West and Ellis provides the opportunity to expand those golf-oriented alternatives to as large as 122 acres for golf and still include some of the key features and uses shown in the alternatives for Configuration No. 2. Further- more, this parcel acquisition allows several variations to those alternatives presented in 2a through 2d. Figures 4. 12 - 4. 15 present these variations. 4.2.4 Alternatives for Configuration No. 4 Finally, the expansion of Huntington Central Park to achieve the boundary configuration shown in Figure 4.4 permits the opportunity of either a golf-oriented resort theme or a non-golf-oriented resort theme, which would include an amphitheater. The acquisition of the 9-acre parcel on the northwest corner of Gothard and Ellis enables the provision of an additional 250 spaces for RV use. As a matter of fact, because of its location in the Gothard industrial corridor, this is probably the best use for this parcel if it were to be included in Central Park. Figures 4.16 and 4. 17 present the reasonable alternatives for this boundary configuration. It should be noted that the approximately 5 acre parcel on the north- east corner of Edwards and Ellis is not shown as part of Central Park only because it is not totally necessary to development of the park. Should this parcel be acquired at no cost to the City, such as through a land exchange, it could be used to augment the golf acreage of configuration 4a or to provide a direct link between the equestrian facility in configuration 4b and the County linear park on the west side of Ellis. 4-10 i s.Ia ■Au• h 1,15 s e , ■ � �i. � i art • ill t��` J G ac, 2ti �2 tea,,= N • i '1 � 211 �.. All IMP MINES' - E � �►�...._ t � '�kit :�'������ -- -1+` I •�; �' �'. �a i� 111FF. l�l� ���i� tic +.' i • -•- CITY OOF HUNT�IINGTOON = EACH ,� � � w ii.w�■ew ' •• 1 � 1� .. �rf'N dS �� rw yrt ""'. .w�IR �� •g��-fir•; f •I Y - All IY I � � .N f• 4 '� uw. F[ I v • • ) a �� � 's", i�it i .' is F. psi �■p ....�- .. I IS IS 7� "�;.• ±;;:_ .+eex _ � ,t? ,fib U71� �I l• r SUNNI f �..,�•,"-• w7' ,._sa ens`�R�`r e« t _ � ��,'d5����;'��tSFvnj�4,>.,��t ! ���/ � ��.,E�t;-"' r` jd.� .fir'>!t r�� r���M, J"�•� + �' �nx L3'�,`.le•"�W'�..�vP.=_ �:� �►�. �.�...� �x� of r...�, __ �Il' .��.�. CITY �F HUNTIINGTON = EACH c Owl ��•. �- kf�� P�i;k xrt�'"•ti��PF7NY.N1Nit HAL APR J� f '' �• a � �' .� �� il• '_�"� jW—t = _—i s ._._., ;�is . ��a. .: etill . e * ;� ` 5.��(qF, x'��yr.,.C�"^✓�� t Y°S l.. 17��,. s,E `�F�,C r h�k fi.. .,' .�,r-e?,a��cf{e{' va��ti'. ,w,,..A!`'�J'x,.8 }w,.{�✓faS � ;:e ,��3u;�j�xt}��}�{�' �� I CITY OOF HUNTIINGTOON = EACH .. —■ — � • � � •■u■■ice i • � tt 1 . ,.aMro,c■■■. . • � 4■■MIU■.. . h � M n — C. � r. , ; ;" PM�...4. CITY OO F HUNTINGTON = EACH ■ �� arrM Eaauu, uuaaaauar Pouuaa taaaauF: ■ C� �. If-1.`•aP PC `I ^r • sr=a� � -� al racy ream I / • nmo�i�ai�i�,. ka ����. � '• urge �,aa! Ii�IJI. � \ � ��-, ■ear arai'�'.. ,.�: - � w�� tlw r-Ee�' �' � iEE���, till• � ` r�'. I'r J3 �"r ���I t l �Y y'�,,�p� )a�w?`�"#'� _� iC,•• /, r� _ CITY OOF HUNTINGTOON = EACH �' of �. :.. �. a aR� �RRRRRMR �' r rRR�sfRRRRRR� - I r" IRRRRRRR9 ■ •• � :o ,nru / -, #a$, f �RRiarwrM s � 9 rRrasntnRRc P•�� ,�tr..�JMU111Ri��. 4rR1 r.A ImE �.,�S .•IRS tiN■���,� ON Al w L_ 1 CITY OOF HUNTIINGTON = EACH . � J one Obs q, •• ■ _ •- • - �+- ill � ! "�-� "�'°�". �� ' \�� AT.Is 1 _ � � fgat tI •`'s� 1�Pli n 1 e ii rEt ti1ir1 u s^�aul `��`��..�.}, l n171Nrr1 ' 1► i � �IirP�tii.C= - �• i 88 'E 3ol�M�.*� r. t�.,,�0 1 � Nlp�. � ���, �6� �I �'.�.. .:`•`tV' .'t� 'I y-�i, a. _ • k r'" .'70,�. o�i.Rb �� 6> .� ( r b[ ; e ..4,a �� �tia�i�11 t�i,� �.��� - CITY OO F HUNTIINGTON = EACH r it - � • • ` y�� �� ��i: �iiiiis'�r I TT o■MW FID I _ ♦■� �� \��� ,5� �\� ? 1. � `.- ca goal 1 e ' - � •I ,ALt LYk YP i��.. 9■ill �.iM.B li�2 Lid .' `_�_ '`}� �' -:��`•�w` �� ��'"';•EcF: �tw ON!all SIN ` I ,1■r vi ro■ ` .ter raf ,�r. -or►.. � ' •i �,a, a 3�\r`�t}s 'S'iY -�, ,. ��. I D 'Gs .sr• s!}/i�//i f w T .1i7.3S.Af3 _ .I I CITY OF HUNTINGTON = EACH r� r f ■■ • �. ,r"- •vuu.er.•. WA NO It.. Y ►,vFr .eft �� •� _ �. • r � r• �n. �'�',,'P�`_ �+'�' �.r +�:.t�� a �, A . • •�'rb RON�!4W.O' I — `Ri aaeagr.a• nvsaiem.n• � � ♦ F i.ar a �e C. z z _a z ` ,y� • I � • ITY OO F HUNT�INGTON =EACH C � rt� t :.r �� tom. �. � ■■■� � w _ ,�• • do • / i , t � � �gym'!. •iti•u■■i■ray i r� �'�. 3■■kaiR �;r \r,.l •�� '-.Name 1■S!r.^- r Y O CITY OF HUNT�INGTON = EACH ( ( 1� 1 h r ms 4. 3 Examination .and Analysis of the Schematic Masterplan for Huntington Central Park Because of the mix of uses involved and the general layout of these uses within the park boundaries, we feel that the present Schematic Masterplan (see Figure 4. 18) would not perform as well as other alternatives in terms of generating revenue to the City. This plan, however, does preserve the existing passive activity park areas in the northeast corner of the park and adjacent to Huntington Lake, and leaves the nature and Midden areas undisturbed. The remainder of the park is designated for development of recrea- tional uses . Some of the groupings of uses are highly compatible and supportive groupings ; however, some uses , we feel , are poorly located or grouped. In addi- tion, some of the uses included would have considerable difficulty in being profitable. For example, at the southwest corner of Gothard Street and Talbert Avenue, the grouping of a model car area, motor bike course, and shooting range are a logical grouping, as these are noisy uses; however, adjacent to these uses are a golf driving range, dinner restaurant, fishing lake, and recreational vehicle camping facilities , all of which would perform best in quiet surroundings. The dinner restaurant will perform best if it takes advantage of rattractive park surroundings . In this scheme, it is located adjacent to a very large parking lot. rThe recreational vehicle camping area is well located, surrounding the fishing lake. The lake and camping operations would be mutually supportive. The baseball pitch is isolated from other active recreational uses located across Golden West Street. These activities should all be grouped together as each activity provides patronage support for the others. At the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street is a grouping of active recreational uses including a kiddie playland, water slides , roller skating facility, adventure playground, tennis courts , and ' frisbee course. This grouping of active recreational activities works well . Since all of the activities are fairly noisy, this grouping minimizes con- flicts between activities. In addition, persons who come to patronize one activity may also patronize adjacent activities. 4-21 w■� rw► �r w w w w� ww �w w � w w w w w wr �w �r SLATER AVE. 1 N N -ar -,,,.._,_- MAINTENANCESCHEMATIC • 'P �_ .00 YARD MASTERPLAN , N HUNTIPJGTOIU BEACH CENTRAL PARK Y' �n BUILDINGS m SIGNALIZED ` INTERSECTIONS — E9 00 •; N N - n e NA7URE AREA d z rD v SCALEIn /r s .r, ►� o% - �' 3 Q 100 5Q0 ID00 !t , P ; - m r LA LIJ f -_ _: NJ• a cENraAt nr'c oR. —. ALBE �/•_ i d fl GOLF tJ Cn PMICE NllaiCuN s►aonluG RANGE I BASEBALLr ra )1'� PI woonw+..ci W TCH Z N No ®, ® rj - elf Amu GOLF.• �.. ,o.., �� 4 , ^ Am� M COURSE •,... ,.-fir �� � I - �j' TRdItPl4xInIC .�` LAKE ; AREA -- ., 4 - ..se•a.•�r4 Wtl•, R011l11 M�TN¢l1 4 - _ ii¢k -¢.I�NiN4 4¢1=r� O 7�' {� ~_ • �j`-:y ��� 'a3S ,+1-^i. �1��7 F,r��..-. •« +-• �i7'�S"�•r1�`shy i„r.� e a yNNW- AT q ELL15 AVENUE �J tt � The equestrian center proposed for the northeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Edwards Street is well located. It is well buffered from other ' activities, and is located outside of the main activity centers. Thus , other uses avoid the flies and odors. Horse riders can avoid having to dodge large numbers of pedestrians while enjoying their sport. The location adjacent to the beginning of a proposed horse trail through Linear Park is quite important to the success of this facility. The grouping of the YMCA and the sports fields complex together produces a mutually supporting relationship. The location of the sports fields complex so close to the nature area and other passive activity park areas is unfortunate, but will probably only create minor conflicts. The proposed tea house overlooking Huntington Lake is in a good location; however, the use should be somewhat altered to become a luncheon restaurant. Pizza, beer, and other luncheon specialties should be served in an indoor and outdoor setting. The location near the sports fields , the YMCA, tennis courts , and active recreational uses makes this an excellent location for food service geared towards active people. The restaurant should be easily seen from these activity areas. In addition, prominent signage and a drive- way should be provided at Golden West Street, to encourage additional patronage from the surrounding community. A number of uses shown in the schematic, we feel , would have con- siderable difficulty in generating a profit, and would therefore have difficulty in returning a reasonable rent to the City. For example, the kiddie playland, water slides, shops, and baseball pitch were discussed in Section 2.4. 11 of this report under "mini-amusement park". As discussed, we feel that Huntington Central Park does not provide a location that can attract a sufficient draw to make such an operation profitable. The roller skating facility proposed would be a very trendy use. Already, the roller skating craze is declining. This would be a poor time to expend funds on such a facility. The recreational vehicle camping facility is too large, accommodating over 800 vehicles . While this facility might attract significant patronage during the summer months , it is probably too large to achieve a significant 4-23 1 cyst occupancy during the remainder of the year. We would recommend that a camping facility having no more than 500 spaces be developed within the park. However, ia development this large should be phased, with the first phase containing between 200 and 250 spaces. A golf driving range at this location in the City would be difficult to support. Such a use should either accompany a popular golf course or should be in a high visibility location, preferably adjacent to a major traffic artery, in order to draw the patronage required for support. The location shown on the schematic has quite low visibility, and is not located near complementary uses. The tennis and racquetball courts would have considerable difficulty in achieving revenue. As discussed in Sections 2.4. 1 and 2.4.2, the market for such facilities is quite saturated. Such a use should only be provided on the understanding that the City would substantially subsidize the courts. Because of the uses included and the configuration of the uses within the park shown in the schematic, there are very few uses which would be likely to generate a significant profit, and numerous uses which would probably generate ' a loss to the City. We, therefore, highly recommend reconsideration of the schematic, and exploration of other alternatives such as formulated in Figures ' 4.5 - 4. 17. 4-24 •ts t 1 5.0 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 5.1 Investment Costs Investment costs for the development of Huntington Central Park include the costs of land acquisition, infrastructure and development (excluding infra- structure). These total costs will vary according to (1 ) the size of the park in terms of the number of parcels needed to be acquired, (2) the corresponding costs of these parcels, and (3) the types of developments considered for the park. Land acquisition costs (in 1981 dollars) for each of the four possible boundary configuration considered in this study are as follows : Park Boundary Configuration Land Acquisition Cost Existing boundary(1 ) (i .e. , after acqui- In order to expand the park to inclus- sition of remaining encyclopedia lots) ion of the remaining unacquired encyclo- 1 (Basic Configuration #1 ) pedia lots north of Ellis St. , it is estimated(2)that this cost will be ' $1 ,080,000 exclusive of appraisal fees , escrow and other related acquisition costs. Through City Council Resolut- ions #4974 and #4975, enacted 16 March, 1981 , the City expects to receive $636,436 from the 1980 California Park- lands Bond Act and $126,003 from the ' State Open-Space and Recreation Program (SB 174). The receipt of these funds would reduce the total land acquisition cost to $317,561 . Existing boundary plus northeast corner The area generally designated as the of Golden West and Ellis(3) (Basic "mushroom farm" on the northeast corner Configuration #2) of Golden West and Ellis comprises 21 .57 (1 )See Figure 4.1 (2)Source: Mr. Charles B. Davis, Real Property Agent for the City (3)See Figure 4.2 5-1 11 stems Park Boundary Configuration _ Land Acquisition Cost acres and is estimated(1) to cost ' $3,066,000 exclusive of appraisal fees , escrow and other related acquisition costs . Thus , the total land acquisition cost is estimated to be $317,561 + $3,066,000 = $3,383,561. Existing boundary plus northeast and The area generally designated as the northwest corners of Golden West and "Marion property" on the northwest Ellis(2) (Basic Configuration #3) corner of Golden West and Ellis com- prises 8.86 acres and is estimated(1) ' to cost $1,063,200 exclusive of appraisal fees , escrow and other related acquisi- tion costs. Thus , the total land acqui- sition cost is estimated to be $3,383,561 + $1,063,200 = $4,446,761. Existing boundary plus northeast and The acquisition of the 8.97 acre northwest corners of Golden West and industrial parcel on the northwest Ellis plus northwest corner of Gothard corner of Gothard and Ellis is esti- and Ellis(3) (Basic Configuration #4) mated(1) to cost $2,735,000 exclusive of appraisal fees , escrow and other related acquisition costs . It is ' expected that $1,200,000 from the State Land and Water Conservation Fund could be utilized to offset a portion of this cost, thus leaving a net cost to the City of $1,535,000. Thus , the total land acquisition cost is estimated to be $4,446,761 + $1,535,000 = $5,981,761. ' (')Source: Mr. Charles B. Davis , Real Property Agent for the City (2)See Figure 4. 3 (3)See Figure 4.4 5-2 dt ms Infrastructure improvement costs (in 1981 dollars) include the costs of street, drainage, sewer and water improvements. These costs are estimated( 1) to be as follows : ' Basic Park Configuration. #1 #2 #3 #4 Streets(2) $1,000,000 $1,245,000 $1,380,000 $1,730 ,000 Drainage 420,000 420,000 420,000 600 ,000 Sewer 550 ,000 550,000 550,000 620,000 ' Water 12,750 42,750 53,250 87,900 $1,982,750 $2,257,750 $2,403,250 $3,037,900 Development costs are dependent upon a variety of factors such as type of development, location, square footage of structure(s) , timing of development, and parcel size. For the purposes of this study, the following development costs ' (in 1981 dollars) were assumed: Type of Development Cost Amphitheatre $6,500,000(3) 1 Arboretum 960,000 Arcade and Pizza Parlor None(4) Baseball/Sports Field Complex: 4 fields 1,400,000(5) ' 6 fields 2,100,000(5) Equestrian Complex None(4) Fishing Lake 1,234,20056� Golf Course (18-hole Executive) Nonell4 Hotel with Convention Facilities None(4) ' Motorbike Course(7) None(8) Parking Lot 100,000 per acre Passive Areas (newly developed) 55,000 per acre Recreational Vehicle Park: ' Size 230 Spaces 1,502,300 Size 480 Spaces 2,392,400 Restaurant (dinner-type) 4one(4) Shooting Range None(9) YMCA None(4) ' 1 See letters of 11 March 1981 from Mr. George Tindall , City Engineer, and of 6 April 1981 from Mr. Don Noble, Engineering Planner, in Appendix A. (2)At rural standard and does not include right-of-way, street lighting or utilities costs ' (3)Based on $1,300 per seat and assuming 5,000 seat capacity (4)Paid by private developer (5)Based on $350,000 per field ' (6) Includes lake rehabilitation, landscaping, shoreline improvements, etc. , plus building construction (7)In Schematic Masterplan only (8)Paid by grant (9)Paid by Police Association 5-3 •5.2 Annual Revenue Estimates Revenue estimates for each of the proposed land uses in the alterna- tives are based on the preceding market analysis discussion presented in Section 2.4. All estimates are in 1981 dollars. In order to account for annual variations in the revenue estimates, assumed annual increases are presented. It i is difficult to accurately predict these variations ; however, consideration must ' be given to labor cost adjustments as well as changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) . On this basis , three levels of annual increases are assumed, ' namely: 8% which represents a revenue change assumed to be less than that necessary to account for both labor/cost increases and changes in the Consumer Price Index; 9% which represents a revenue change assumed to be comparable to the average annual labor cost increase; 10% which represents a revenue change ' assumed to be comparable to the average annual change in the Consumer Price Index. The lowest factor is used for those revenues that are "partially subsi- dized" in the sense that the fees or charges involved cannot necessarily be adjusted to account for labor cost or CPI increases or, if so, the demand for the "service provided" would be reduced. The middle factor is used for those 1 revenues for which the "service provided" is either labor intensive or the market is such that increasing the revenue to keep pace with the CPI changes would affect ' the economic viability of the "service". Finally, the highest factor (i .e. , 10%) is used for those revenues whose performance is directly related to changes in ' the Consumer Price Index, which is assumed to average 10% per year over the next 10 years. ' follows : The revenue estimates used and their corresponding derivation are as (1) Adventure Playground $4,300 per year based on the current level of annual revenues. Assumed annual increase = 8% (2) Amphitheatre ' The City (or, preferably, a private non-profit organization) would construct the amphitheatre and then lease the facility to a manager who would operate ' and maintain it. The City rental or lease revenue would be based on 4% of gross operating income derived as follows : 5-4 5000 50 performances 60% seat $10 per 4% (seats) ( per year ) (occupancy) (attendee) (rental) _ $60,000 iAssumed annual increase = 10% ' (3) Arcade and Pizza Parlor 4 It is assumed that the City builds this facility and leases it to an operator for operation and maintenance. Case: Arcade (4,000*ft2) (per salesft2 ) (15% l ease) = $27,000 Case: Pizza Parlor 3,000 ft2 $200 sa es 15% lease ( GLA ) ( per ft� ) ( fee ) _ $90,000 $117,000 Assumed annual increase = 10% (4) Baseball/Sports Field Complex ' It is assumed that the City builds , maintains and operates this facility. Leagues: ' 5 nights 6 teams $250 per (6 fields) (per field) per field) ( team ) (3 seasons) _ $136,200 Softball Tournaments : ( 32 teams ) ($100 per) (20 weekend ) _ $ 64,000 per tournament team tournaments $200,200 (NOTE: A 4-field complex is assumed to generate 2/3 as much revenue. ) Assumed annual increase = 8% (5) Equestrian ' It is assumed that the City provides a land lease to an operator who would develop and maintain the facility. *GLA = gross leaseable area 5-5 slsf c. Boarding: ' (185 box stalls) ($150/mo. ) (12 mos . ) _ $333,000 (65 corrals) ($100/mo. ) (12 mos. ) _ $ 85,800 Training, riding school , tack shop, shows , concessions (computed at 30% of total income) _ $180,000 TOTAL $598,800 Rental @ 4% of gross = $ 23,952 Assumed annual increase = 9% (6) Fishing Lake ' It is assumed that the City develops , operates and maintains the fishing lake operations. User Fees: 7-Month Season ' (30 weeks) (7 days ) ((30 adults) ($6 per) + (20 kids) ($4 per) _ $54,600 per week per day adult per day kid 5-Month Off-Season (22 weeks) ( 7 days ) ((2 0 adults) ($5 per) + (10 kids) ($3 per) = 20,200 per week per day adult per day kid $74,800 Bait and Tackle Shop: 7-Month Season r (30 weeks) (7 days ) (50 people) ($5` per person) _ $52,500 per' r day 5-Month Off-Season (22 weeks) (7 days ) (3pepeople) r day ($4 per person) = 18,480 per $70,980 ' 5-6 r� I(u* , 1'VV N. ' Boat Rental : 7-Month Season (30 weeks) (7 days ) (20 boats) ($5 per) _ $. 21 a-oo per week per day boat ' ' 5-Month � ont Season (22 weeks) (7 days ) (10 boats) ($5 per.) = 7,700 per week per day boat TOTAL = $174,480 (NOTE: It is assumed that this would be the annual revenue for an RV park operation of 480 spaces . For fewer spaces (RV or parking) , the revenue would be proportionally less. ) ' Assumed annual increase = 10% (7) Golf Course (18-Hole ' It is assumed that the City provides a land lease to an operator who would develop and maintain the facility. There are several such developers interested in a facility of this type in Central Park. Based on a lease quote from one of these developers , annual lease revenue = $150 ,000. Assumed annual increase = 8% (8) Hotel with Convention Facilities It is assumed that the City provides a land lease to an operator who would develop and maintain the facility. ' First year of operation: ( 200 ) ($60 per)(1) ( 50% ) (365 ) (5% lease) = $109 ,500 rooms day occupancy days fee Second year of operation: ( 200 ) ($60 per)(1) ( �/ ) (365 ) (5% lease) = $131,400 rooms day occupancy days fee Third year of operation: 200 $60 per (1) 70% 365 5% lease (rooms) ( day ) (occupancy) (days) ( fee ) _ $153,300 Assumed annual increase(2) = 10% ' (1)room rate of $55 plus $5 for concessions other than restaurant and bar ( )after third year q-7 ' yst In addition, there will be transient occupancy tax revenue to the City based on 6% of the room rental revenue. This would generate additional revenues as follows : First year of operation: ' ( 200 ) ($55 per) ( 50% ) (365 ) ( 6% transient) _ $120,450 rooms day occupancy days occupancy tax ' Second year of operation: ( 200 ) ($55 per) ( 60% ) (365 ) (6% transient ) _ $144,540 ' rooms day occupancy days occupancy tax Third year of operation: ' ( 200 ) ($55 per) ( 70% ) (365 ) (6% transient ) _ $168,300 rooms day occupancy days occupancy tax ' Assumed annual increase = 10% The estimated total revenue per year from both sources would be $229,950 ' for Year 1, $275,940 for Year 2, $321,930 for Year 3 and a 10% increase per year for each year thereafter. (9) Motorbike Course ' It is assumed th t the City develops , operates and maintains the motorbike cours-M. Summer Season: (90 days) (150 riders) ($2 per) _ $ 27,000 per day rider Non-Summer Season Weekends: (9 months) ( 8 days ) (100 riders) ($2 per) _ $ 14,400 per month per day rider ' Assumed annual increase = 8% $ 41,400 (10) Recreational Vehicle Park Even though recommended that the proposed recreational vehicle park facilities for Huntington Central Park be operated by a private entity ' such as a national affiliation, for the purposes of this economic feasibility study it is assumed that the City develops , operates and maintains the facilities. (1)to be located in the pit area of the current dump site 5-8 yst . 230-Space Site Case: Summer Months $15 per (spa0ces) (80 days) (occupancy} ( space ) _ $262,200 Case: Non-Summer Months ' ( 230 ) (81 weekend) ( 50% } ($12.50 per) = $116,438 spaces days occupancy space c 0 ° $7.50 per) _ $ 87 ,975 (spaces) (weekdays) (occupancy) ( space $466,613 Assumed annual increase = 9% 480-Space Site(1) ' Case: Summer Months ° $15 per ' spaces occupancy(80 days) (occupancy) ( space ) _ $547,200 Case: Non-Summer Months ( 480 ) (81 weekend) ( 40% ) ($12.50 per) = $194,400 spaces days occupancy space c 204 ° $7.50 per (spaces) (weekdays) (occupancy) ( space ) _ $ 88,480 $8 ,480 Assumed annual increase = 9% ' (11) Restaurant (dinner-type plus bar) Hotel Related ' 8,000 ft2 $200 sales 5.5% lease) $ 88,000 ( GLA } ( per ft2 ) ( fee _ 1 Assumed annual increase = 10% Non-Hotel Related 10,000 ft2 $200 sales 5. 5% lease ( GLA ) ( per ft2 } ( fee ) _ $110,000 ' Assumed annual increase = 10% (1)it is assumed that initially there are 230 spaces and the additional 250 spaces are added three years later 5-9 r cr:�•r s (12) Shooting Range It is assumed that the Police Association operates and maintains this facility; however, a lease fee is paid to the City on the following basis : (attendees ) (charges per) (5% lease) _ $ 25,000 attendees attendee fee ' $125,000 $36,000 ($4,000)1 7% lease = ammunition + gun-related + repair fee $ 11,550 sales supplies income $ 36,550 Assumed annual in-crease = 8% (13) Snack Concessions r Each of the two( 1)existin snack concessions in Huntington Central Park is 9 ., assumed to provide $6,000 yearly revenue to the City based on current operating performance. Assumed annual increase = 10% ' (14) Stables ' Based on renegotiation of the existing Reynolds ' lease to a more realistic return from use of the property, the estimated annual revenue to the City would be $18,000 (i.e. , a $1,500 per month lease fee) . ' Assumed annual increase = 10% (15) YMCA rIt is assumed that the City receives land lease revenue based on the value of the property. ' (2) Capital recovery (7 acres) ($120,000) factor for 15% _ $134,200 per acre interest over ' 20 years=. 15976 Assumed annual increase = 0% (because the annual payment is constant) Table 5. 1 presents an overall summary of the revenue sources and factors assumed for each of the basic alternatives. r (1, one located adjacent to Huntington Lake and the other on the east side of Golden West Street north of the library area (2)estimated current market value for land zoned RA-0-CD 5-10 1 t� y a Table 5. 1 Revenue Sources and Factors by Huntington k� Central Park Land Use Alternatives Initial Annual Year Escalation Revenue Source Revenue(l) Rate %L la lb lc 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b Adventure Playground $ 4,300 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Amphitheater 60,000 10 X X X X Arcade and Pizza 117,000 10 X X X X X X X X Parlor Baseball/Sports Field Complex: 4 fields 133,467 8 X 6 fields 200,200 8 X X X X X X X X Equestrian 23,952 9 X X X X X X Fishing Lake: With 230 Space 83,605 10 X X X X X X RV Park With 480 Space 83,605(4) 10 X X RV Park i No RV Park 72,700 10 X X - X X Golf Course (18-Hole 150,000 8 X X X X X X X X `J Executive) Hotel with Convention 229,950(2) 10 X X X X X X X X Facilities Recreational Vehicle Park: 230 spaces 466,613 9 X X X X X X 480 spaces 466,613(3) g X X Restaurant (dinner- type): Hotel Related 88.000 10 X X X X X X X X Non-Hotel Related 110,000 10 X X Shooting Range 36,550 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X Snack Concessions 12,000 10 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Stables 18,000 8 X YMCA 134,200 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X Min 1981 dollars 4 (2)$275,940 in Year 2, $321,930 in Year 3, and 107. increase each year thereafter (3)for first year and increases by 9-� per year through Year 3; S888,480 in Year 4 and increases by 9 , per year thereafter (4)for first year and increases by 10' per year through Year 3; SI74,480 in Year 4 and increases by 10' per year thereafter f 1 st ' .5. 3 Annual Cost Estimates Operation and maintenance cost estimates are derived in the following discussion for those facilities that are operated and maintained by the City. ' Most of these costs relate to labor intensive activities; hence, they are assumed to have an annual increase corresponding to the estimated average annual increase y ' in salaries and wages , which for this study is assumed to be 9%. (1) Adventure Playground ' $8,800 per year based on current expenditures. Assumed annual increase = 9% ' (2) Arcade and Pizza Parlor Building and Ground Maintenance It is assumed that there are 2 acres of grounds around the arcade and pizza parlor facility that are maintained at an annual cost of $7,200 per acre; hence, the total cost would be $14,400. ' Assumed annual increase = 9% (3) Baseball/Sports Field Complex ' It is assumed(1) that ballfields can be maintained at an annual cost of $5,400 per acre. Thus , for 4 fields we have ' (11 acres) ($5,400 per acre) _ $ 59,400 and for 6 fields we have (17 acres) ($5,400 per acre) _ $ 91,800. Assumed annual increase = 9% ! (4) Fishing Lake ' It is assumed that the City operates and maintains the fishing lake operations. ' Purchase of trout: 500( lbs. $2.50 36 times 45,000 of trout) (per lb. ) per year - 1 ( )Source: Mr. Robert L. Scofield of Environmental Care, Inc. 5-12 ' Assumed annual increase = 9% ' (6) Motorbike Course It is assumed that the City operates and maintains the motorbike ' course . The estimated annual costs are as follows : Disking ' (4 hours ) (30 weeks) ($25 per) _ $ 3,000 per week hour ' Management (162 days) (7 hours) ($10.50 per) _ $ 11,900 per day hour Maintenance ' (162 days) (6 hours) ($8 prr) _ $ 7,800 per day' Water Truck (162 days) (6.3 hours) ($15 per) _ $ 15,300 per day hour $ 38,000 Assumed annual increase = 9% (7) Parking Lot Maintenance Parking lot maintenance is based on an annual cost estimate of $900 per acre. Other than the parking areas associated with a hotel , restaurant, YMCA and RV park, there would be a parking lot on the south side of Talbert Ave. , across from the library, and, if there is no RV park, a small lot adjacent to the fishing lake. The estimated sizes of these additional lots would be as follows : Library area parking lot 25 acres for 2d, 3d and 4b 22 acres for lb 2 acres for all other alternatives ' Fishing lake area parking lot 2 acres for la, 1b, 2a and 3a fO acres for all other alternatives Assumed annual increase = 9% ' 5-14 L .,•t Y . (8) Recreational Vehicle Park Operation and Maintenance 230-Space Site 3 Cashiers @ $12,000 per year $ 36,000 ' 1 Groundsworker@ $16,000 per year 16,000 Street Sweeping Service @ $200 per week x 52 = 10,400 Garbage Collection 3,000 ' Maintenance Vehicle Amortization 1,500 Potable Water 7 ,000 Electrical 27,600 Irrigation 2,000 103,500 Assumed annual increase = 9% ' 480-Space Site* 3 Cashiers @ $12,000 per year $ 36,000 2 Groundsworkers @ $16,000 per year 32,000 Street Sweeping Service @ $400 per week x 52 = 20,800 Garbage Collection 6,000 Maintenance Vehicle Amortization 1,500 Potable Water 17,650 Electrical 69,600 Irrigation 4,000 187,550 Assumed annual increase = 9% (9) YMCA Grounds Maintenance It is assumed that there are 5 acres of grounds (landscaped areas plus r parking) around the YMCA that are maintained by the City at an annual cost of $7,200 per acre; hence, the total annual cost would be $36,000. Assumed annual increase = 9% Table 5.2 presents an overall summary of the cost sources and factors assumed for each of the alternatives . 5.4 Pro Forma Analysis of Alternatives rBased on the previously described revenue and cost assumptions (see Tables 5. 1 and 5.2) for the thirteen candidate land use alternatives for ' Huntington Central Park and using the factors presented in Table 5.3 regarding *it is assumed that initially there are 230 spaces and the additional 250 spaces are added three years later 5-15 Table 5.2 Cost Sources and Factors by Huntington Central Park Land Use Alternatives Initial Annual Alternative Yea rr Escalation -- - Cost Source Cost`1) Rate (% la lb lc 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b Adventure Playground S 8,800 9 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Arcade and Pizza 14.400 9 X X X X X X X X Parlor Building and Ground Maintenance Baseball/Sports Field Complex: 4 fields 59,400 9 X 6 fields 91,800 9 X X X X X X X X Fishing Lake 170,722 10 X X X X X X X X X X X X General Park Maintenance: 354.300 9 X 421,500 9 X 429,600 9 X X X X X X X cn 583,500 9 X 609,150 9 X rn 618,600 9 X 626,700 9 X Parking Lot Maintenance: 1,800 9 X X X X X X 3,600 9 X X X 21,600 9 X 22,500 9 X X X Recreational Vehicle Park Operation and Maintenance: 230 spaces 103,500 9 X X X X X X 480 spaces 103,500(2) 9 X X YMCA Grounds 36,000 9 X X X X X X X X X X X X Maintenance Min 1981 dollars (2)for first year and increases by 9 per year through Year 3; $187,550 in Year 4 and increases by 9% per year thereafter • ms Table 5.3 Revenue and Cost Sources and Factors for the Basic Schematic Plan for Huntington Central Park Initial (1 ) Annual Revenue Source Year Escalation (%) Adventure Playground $ 4,300 8 Arcade and Pizza Parlor 117,000 10 Baseball/Sports Field Complex(2) 200,200 8 Equestrian 23,592 9 Fishing Lake(3) 83,605(6) 10 Motorbike Course 41 ,400 8 Recreational Vehicle Park 466,613(4) 9 Restaurant (dinner type) 110,000 10 1 Shooting Range 36,550 8 Snack Concessions 12,000 10 1 YMCA 134,200 0 Initial (1 ) Annual Cost Source Year Escalation (%) Adventure Playground $ 8,800 9 Arcade and Pizza Parlor 14,400 9 Building and Ground Maintenance Baseball/Sports Field Complex(2) 91 ,800 9 Fishing Lake 170,722 10 General Park Maintenance 421 ,500 9 Motorbike Course 38,000 9 Parking Lot Maintenance 3,600 9 Recreational Vehicle Park 103,500(5) 9 Operation and Maintenance YMCA Grounds Maintenance 36,000 9 (1)in 1981 dollars (2)6 fields (3)with 480-space RV park (4)for first year and increases by 9% per year through Year 3; $888,480 in Year 4 and increases by 9% per year thereafter (5)for first year and increases by 9% per year through Year 3; $187,550 in Year 4 and increases by 9% per year thereafter (6)for first year and increases by 10% per year through Year 3; $174,480 in Year 4 and increases by 10% per year thereafter 5-17 h syst t S P (1) resents a summary of he Basic Schematic Plan for Central Park, Table 5.4 p y the estimated 10-year net cash flows (revenues less costs) to be derived from each of these alternatives. These results do not include consideration of the 1 anticipated sales tax and alcoholic beverage tax revenues to be derived from any of the land uses ; however, by the same token, no consideration is given to police, fire, street maintenance, public works and general government costs associated with each of the land use plans. The reason for this is that the emphasis in this study has been placed on the "primary" park-related revenues and costs associated with the alternatives to determine whether or not sufficient revenues can be derived to offset the corresponding operation and maintenance costs. A more detailed City-wide fiscal impact analysis would be more appropriate once the City has selected a specific plan for Huntington Central Park. Referring to Table 5.4, it is readily observed that: (1) it is possible to develop Huntington Central Park with a mix of uses such that cumulative revenues exceed cumulative annual operation and maintenance costs over a 10-year period for each of the four candidate boundary configurations (2) if one considers the total investment cost for each alternative and compares the 10-year net cash flow with this amount, then no alternative has a payback period less than 10 years (3) the alternative with the maximum positive cash flow is 4a which is estimated to generate nearly $12.8 million in revenues in excess of costs over the next 10 years — this represents a recovery of 80% of the investment cost (4) the existing Basic Schematic Plan for Central Park is surpassed by five other alternatives in terms of net positive cash flow over 10-years , and only returns 44% of the investment cost A summary of the key features of each of the "best" or "optimal " land e use mixes corresponding to each park boundary configuration is presented in ■ Table 5.5. It appears that a land use theme oriented around a small hotel with convention facilities and golf course plus the existing adventure playground, (')detailed annual projections are presented in Appendix B l 5-18 ARM Table 5.5 Optimal Land Use Alternatives for Various Huntington Central Park Boundary Configurations Alternative Boundary Configuration Number Description of Uses Existing boundary(1) la(2) Adventure playground, fishing lake, golf course, hotel with convention facilities, shooting range, snack concessions and YMCA Existing boundary plus 2b(4) Adventure playground, baseball/sports northeast corn of Golden field complex (4 fields) , fishing lake, West and Ellis golf course, hotel with convention facilities, 230-space RV park, shooting range, snack concessions and YMCA Existing boundary plus 3b(6) Adventure playground, arcade and pizza northeast and northwest parlor, baseball/sports field complex corners of Golden West (6 fields) , fishing lake, golf course, and Ellis 5 hotel with convention facilities , 230- space RV park, shooting range, snack concessions and YMCA Existing boundary plus 4a(8) Adventure playground, arcade and pizza ' northeast and northwest parlor, baseball/sports field complex corners of Golden West and (6 fields) , fishing lake, golf course, Ellis plus northwest cprner hotel with convention facilities , 480- of Gothard and ElliO space RV park, shooting range, snack concessions and YMCA (1)see Figure 4. 1 (2)see Figure 4.5 (3)see Figure 4.2 (4)see Figure 4.9 (5)see Figure 4.3 (6)see Figure 4. 13 see Figure 4.4 �l (8)see Figure 4.16 5-20 r h�Vsf a baseball/sports field complex consisting of six fields plus an arcade and pizza parlor, a rejuvenated Sully Miller Lake area into a fishing operation compatible with a 480-space RV park, upgraded shooting range facilities, snack concessions and YMCA would provide the maximum net positive cash flow to the P City over a 10-year period — on the average, approximately $1.28 million per year. This would require acquisition of the parcels at the northwest and north- east corners of Golden West and Ellis and acquisition of the Gothard industrial corridor parcel at the northwest corner of Gothard and Ellis. The total estimated investment cost would be approximately $15.9 million. On a relative comparison basis , an incremental cost-benefit analysis could be performed to compare the optimal alternatives from the point-of-view of the extra revenue derived versus the extra investment cost. This analysis would provide the basis for determining which Huntington Central Park boundary configuration would be the most "cost-beneficial " to the City. Using this incremental analysis type of approach , the results would be as follows : Increase Increase in 10-Year in Investment Cost-Benefit Net Cash Flow Cost Ratio(l) Select 2b over la $6,748,916 $2,702,300 2.50 Select 3b over 2b 2,120,381 1,908,700 1. 11 Select 4a over 3b 2,845,095 3,059,750 0.93 These results show that acquisition of the northwest corner of Gothard and Ellis to, in effect, expand the 230-space RV park in alternative 3b to a 480-space RV park would not be worth the extra investment involved. In this case, selecting a park boundary consisting of the existing park plus acquisition of the parcels at the northwest and northeast corners of Golden West and Ellis would be the most cost-beneficial configuration to the City. Based on discussions with City staff, it is possible that the 8.97 acre industrial parcel on the northwest corner of Gothard and Ellis could be acquired through a land exchange. In this case, there would be a $1,535,000 savings in total investment cost, in which case the increase in investment cost in selecting 4a over 3b would only be $1,524,750; hence, the cost-benefit ratio would be 1.87. Therefore, in order for alternative 4a to be more cost-beneficial (1)defined to be the ratio of the increase in 10-year net cash flow to the increase in investment cost 5-21 s t ms to the City than a smaller park area alternative given by 3b, it would be necessary for the City to pursue a land exchange in which another parcel of comparable value and use could be exchanged for the northwest corner- of Gothard and Ellis. It is estimated(1) that the park maintenance budget in the City for fiscal year 1980-1981 will be $1,170,460 of which $517,180 is estimated to be that portion assigned to Huntington Central Park and the remaining $653,280 is assigned to the rest of the City parks . A 10-year projection based on an assumed 9% annual increase in park maintenance costs would imply a cumulative expenditure over 10 years equal to $653,180 + ($653,280) (1.09) + ($653,280) (1.09)2 + . . . + ($653,280) (1.09)9 = $9,925,283 for the existing City park system exclusive of Central Park. Comparing this estimate with the $9.9 million net positive cash flow over 10-years resulting from alternative 3b and with the $12.8 million net positive cash flow over 10-years resulting from alternative 4a shows that there is a very strong likelihood that sufficient revenues can be generated from uses in Huntington adequately pay dark so as to ade uatel a for maintenance of the remainder of the City park system. (1) Source: Parks , Tree and Landscape Division Maintenance Report — D.S. Smith, City of Huntington Beach, Nov. 1980 5-22 iffi6ra ms 6.0 OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6• i Discussion of Optimal Alternatives As previously shown in Table 5.5, the optimal alternatives (see Figures 6. 1-6.4) evolve in a natural way from the existing park configuration (see Figure 4.1 ) in the sense that within the existing boundaries one can "package" ' the adventure playground, fishing lake, golf course, hotel with convention facilities, shooting range, snack concessions and YMCA. The acquisition of the ' mushroom farm (i . e. the northeast corner of Golden West and Ellis) enables the addition of a 4-field baseball/sports field complex and a 230-space RV park. Next, by acquiring the Marion property at the northwest corner of Golden West and Ellis , the baseball/sports field complex can be expanded from 4 fields to 6 fields and this would then justify adding an arcade and pizza parlor. Finally, acquisition of the industrial parcel at the northwest corner of Gothard and Ellis would enable 1 the addition of another 250 RV spaces. Figure 6.4 shows the resulting park configuration, namely 4a, that would yield the maximum net positive cash flow over a 10-year period. This configuration does not show inclusion of the 4.85 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Edwards and Ellis, because its cost would not warrant acquiring it. Since a viable golf course of the type considered in this study would normally require 110-120 acres, the 111 acre course shown in configuration 4a is marginal . Thus , if this parcel were to be acquired, it would be logical to incorporate it as part of the golf course and, thus, obtain a 116 acre golf course. Based on discussions with City staff, it appears that this parcel could perhaps be acquired through a land exchange, thus resulting in no cost to the City. We would suggest that the City actively pursue this potential opportunity should configuration 4a be selected for Central Park. A natural question to ask deals with whether or not the City would benefit more by not acquiring the necessary parcels and allow them to develop privately in non-park related uses. First, the mushroom farm area is currently zoned RA-O-CD and could con- ceivably be developed for office/professional-type uses or for low density condominium 6-1 ;7S7-.s Shober avail city yard-- ------ l arboretum i ryouth camping area existing concession adventure playground library U � j existins nature area - x 4 I -` e = hotel/conference .,�� � � .�,,� � talb I center' shooting range and ° r �^un shop -ymca complex r exi lu ng concession 4. tadb �� � t� r.rr i•`f '• -�� �Z �` � r `�� VP huntin ton IaKe _ A. i Ai ` fishin" L gol iio acres ONY (OF HUI�MHQMH BEACH C' zm' 400' ew' r al n d � Figure -6. 1 6-2 y °'v/'-�ilk��� '"t _� ;1�+.,ram �j; •` ♦; is AL { . / . ""':�,a,•^,,,,���, � _ � 'tea' .r- r� ■ I i I I � CI�"Y O� HUNT�IfVG�fON = EACH :-• ce IA• 1r , p ;,, `:�r i .-�• ���.!" •,Cox,. / • �� t CITY Q� NUNTINCTON = E �1C �1 . .• C� 1 h �Im uses at a maximum density of 2.5 units per acre. According to Reference 4, from a fiscal impact point-of-view, office/professional uses generally have a negative fiscal impact whereas low density condominiums could generate on the order of $55 annual net revenue (i . e. , all revenues less all public service costs) per dwelling unit. This would imply an annual net revenue of approximately $9,500(1 ) By comparison, acquisition of this parcel and inclusion in Huntington Central Park, ras shown in configuration 2b, would show an incremental increase(2) in the 10-year net positive cash flow equal to $6,748,916, which averages $674,892 per year -- a significant improvement over low density condominium uses: Second, the Marion property is also currently zoned RA-0-CD and could be developed for similar uses as across the street at the mushroom farm; however, because of the topography and nature of the property, the condominium yield would probably be of the medium density type at 10 units per acre. According to Reference 4, from a fiscal impact point-of-view, medium density condominiums could generate on the order of $28 annual net revenue per dwelling unit. This would imply an annual net revenue of approximately $2,500(3). By comparison, acquisition of this parcel and inclusion in Huntington Central Park, as shown in configuration 3b, would show an incremental increase(4)in the 10-year net positive cash flow equal to $2,120,381 , which averages $212,038 per year -- a significant improvement over medium density condominium uses! As before, the office/professional use for the Marion property would not be advantageous to the City on the basis of expected fiscal impact. Third, the industrial zoned (i .e. , M-1 ) property at the northwest corner of Gothard and Ellis could be developed for light manufacturing uses. According to Reference 4, from a fiscal impact point-of-view, industrial uses of this type could generate on the order of -$196 to $459 net revenue per acre. This would imply an annual net revenue(5) of approximately -$1 ,758 to $4,117. By comparison, acquisition (1 ) (8 DU/acre) (12.57 acres) ($55 per DU) = $9,491 (2)the 10-year net cash flow increase from configuration 2b relative to configuration la. (3) (10 Du acre) (8.86 acres) ($28 per DU) = $2,481 (4)the 10-year net cash flow increase from configuration 3b relative to configuration 2b. (5) (8.97 acres)(-$196 per sae) _ -$1 ,758 (8.97 acres)($459 per acre) _ $4,117 6-6 1 of this parcel and inclusion in Huntington Central Park as shown in configuration 4a P 9 � 9 would show an incremental increase(1 )in the 10-year net positive cash flow equal to $2,845,095, which averages $284,510 per year -- a significant improvement over light manufacturing uses! In summary, acquisition of the remaining undeveloped parcels given by the northeast and northwest corners of Golden West and Ellis and inclusion of these parcels within Huntington Central Park would have a more significant positive effect on annual revenues to the City than allowing them to be developed privately. It would therefore be in the best interests of the City to expand the park to its full potential size. 6.2 Discussion of Selected Uses Not in the Optimal Alternatives As discussed previously in Section 2.4.8, there is an expressed need for an amphitheatre-type facility in the City; however, there appears to be potentially significant competition from similar facilities planned elsewhere in Orange County. In spite of this, if a 5,000 seat capacity amphitheatre were built in the park, it is estimated that the first year revenue would be on the order of $60,000 and would increase by approximately 10% per year thereafter. Unfortunately, because of the acreage requirements for the golf course and the fact that the golf course and hotel ' must both be together, it does not appear to be possible to have all three uses in the same alternative and, at the same time, meet other recreation needs of the City. In addition, the total investment cost (if not paid for by donations) to the City is significant (nearly $7 million) . The alternatives that included an amphitheatre and the corresponding 10-year net cash flow were as follows : Cash Flow(2) Configuration $ Million lb -4.8 2d 0.4 3d 1 .9 4b 4.8 (1 )the 10-year net-,cash flow increase from configuration 4a ' relative to configuration 3b. (2)see Table 5.4 6-7 *S !( syst M None of these were even comparable to the optimal alternatives for each of the four park boundary configurations. Equestrian facilities of the type that could be placed in Central Park were previously discussed in Section 2.4.10. It was estimated that a land lease revenue of approximately $24,000 for the first year could be derived by the City 1 and this would most likely increase by 9% per year thereafter. It is recognized that there is a very definite need for facilities of this type in the City and, most likely, in or adjacent to Central Park by virtue of the numerous stable activities along Ellis Ave. and the current stable operation south of Huntington Lake. Unfortunately, because of the acreage requirements for the golf course and other uses in the optimal alternatives, the equestrian facility of the type discussed does not appear in any of them. In particular, the alternatives that included the equestrian facility and the corresponding 10-year net cash flow were as follows : Cash Flow(1 ) Configuration $ Million lb -4.8 2c 7.1 2d 0.4 3c 7.1 3d 1 .9 4b 4.8 None of these configurations were among the optimal alternatives for each of the four park boundary configurations. 1 Because of the County's plans for development of the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park (see Section 3.6) , it is very possible that an equestrian facility of the type discussed in Section 2.4.10 could be placed in the linear park area on the west side of Edwards St. adjacent to the intersection of Ellis and Edwards. ' Preliminary discussions with County representatives indicate that there is interest shown by the County. Should the City not select a plan for Huntington Central Park that includes equestrian uses, we would encourage the City to aggressively pursue with the County the possibility of locating equestrian facilities in the linear park area across from Central Park. 6.3 Other Revenue-Producing Uses This study has focused primarily on identifying revenue-producing uses (' )see Table 5.4 6-8 h syst�ms requiring some type of new construction activity. There are, however, potential revenue-producing opportunities with existing facilities such as at the library. For example, the existing retail , gift and book sales store presently located on the first floor of the library could be augmented in terms of the types of commodities offered. The store, which is operated by the Friends of the Library, is considered to be a successful retail operation and one of only a dozen that exists in libraries in the entire State. This store could increase its retail sales by adding items for sale such as staplers , writing paper, paper clips , etc. The Friends of the Library could also extend their book sales section to include specific types of paperback books. It has been found that some libraries experience a large circulation of paperback books , especially fiction (novels and science fiction) and this type of paperback could be sold by the store to provide copies of a particular paperback to a person who did not want to wait for the library's copy. Also, the revenue generated by the paperback sales could be used to purchase expensive reference and technical manual type hardback books for the library's permanent collection. Another consideration would involve exploring the creation of a small "theme-type" cafe or coffee house at the library which was compatible with the library environment. The lower level patio area in the library could potentially accommodate such a food and beverage establishment. The "theme" environment could be created in several ways: (1 ) with foods such as special coffees and spiced teas, health food type pastries, and quiches, etc. , and (2) with planned events where library patrons could discuss literary topics which would be augmented periodically by inviting local or regional authors to discuss newly published books. This activity could also be incorporated into the Friends of the Library's fund raising efforts. In 1980, the library drew an estimated 540,000 patrons. We project patronage in 1981 of approximately 580,000. We estimate that a cafe could achieve a sales volume of approximately $300,000 annually. If oriented also toward visitors to the park, preferably with a high visibility outdoor deck, we estimate a sales volume of $400,000 annually. A dining facility of approximately 3,000 square feet would be adequate. Uses of this type were not considered in this study because they are independent of the alternatives considered. It is suggested, however, that the 6-9 *msAstltiran 1 1 r APPENDIX A MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE i 1 1 1 i - i r r 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA---THE RESOURCES AG1P G. i.POWN'3R-, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 2390 SACRAMENTO 95F I I(916) 322-9596 ��L.l.aEE July 11, 1980 1 Xr. Bill 1-laddell City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA o,2648 Dear Mr. Waddell: As wo discussed, attached are copies of our Procedural Guide and 1--=eo 0 from the Herita.-e Conservation and Recreation Service Grants Manual rc- gaardinC the conversion of lands and facilities acquired and/or developer-, (D i4ith Land and Conservation Fund assistance. As the attac:ed -iat,---- rials indicate, assisted recreation lands and facilities may not be con- verted to non-recreation uses without replacement. The use of properl-.,.7 acquired or developed with assistance from the nuid may not be cl,.ar.red from that contemplated and approved when assistance was Obtained, un- less prior approval is obtained from, the Director of the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. A-n-oroval can be obtained by providing this Office wi'.- i a complete C.C- cripUon of the facilities that are to replace the funded facilities. This description should include tl-.e sizes and (ivantities of new fa- "L - cilities, their cost the anticipated types and numbers of ull erc, that they will attract and a discussion of the added public bone-fit tul`-.at will result fro:-,i t'.,,e chance. 1n addition, you ziouldl dcscribc t 1,-,e displacement of the users of the existinr; funded facility. Please advise if they h-ve been consulted, where ti-ey must go to find cor.-i- parable facilities and any concerns or problems at will result from the change. As you can see, we and HCIRS will require a j7reaL deal of information and justification to provide you with an approval of any c1-.a: ,rr,- in use. MIM. -ned to protect L-r--,e n+ �,_ndis procedure is desiC, L bot.h the federal invcs the - e members of the public who are enjoying; tinc use Of ti-lat inve5tr.lent. in the case of )iuntin-ton Beach Recreation "rail--' where the i;ro`ect was only paid "final" last year, we would be extremely resistant to such a change, unless it was clearly sho-vai to be in the best interest of everyone concerned. Please let me 1cnoa if 1 can be of further assistance. 4 Sincerely yours, Daniell C. Preece Park and Recreation Specialist Attachments ' P1V11EN10� DEPARTMENT OF HOUSIN(; AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT OIv Ili I�'j�l � � i" LOS ANGELES AREA OFFICE 2500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90057 e° �?3A3O Nj0 REGION IX IN REPLY REFER TO: 9 ..2CMF ' Mr . Frank B . Argue]..lo Acting City Administrator Attention : Mr . Vicent G . Moorhouse ' City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach , California 92648 ' Dear Mr . Arguello : Subject : Open Space Land Program Project : Calif OSC-238 - Huntington Central Park Additional Open Space Land Uses This is in .response to your letters of May 23 and October 20 , 1980 . In those letters you furnished information in support of your request for approval of a proposal to add certain uses within areas of Huntington Central Park , acquired ' under the Open Space Land Program. Based upon our review of the documentation submitted , we find , in principal , the concept of the additional Open Space Land Uses you propose to be in the public interest and accept- able . You presently propose to develop the following facilities and projects : 1 . Multi-Use Lighted, Sports Field Complex 2 . Tennis Pro Shop 3 . Fishing Lake , General Store and Restaurant 4 . Multi-Use Parking 5 . Remote Central Model Cars 6 . Mini-Cycle/Bicycle Training Center , Trails and Trails Area 7 . Garden Restaurant 8 . Restaurant-Southeast corner Goldenwest Street and Tolbert Avenue As previously stated, the projects and activities listed above come within the purview of our eligibility requirements . However , your request cannot be given final approval until we have received and accepted the following documentation which should be submitted with the least practicable delay : R E C E' W E D NOV 2 1_ 1980 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 2 ' 1 . A certification from the appropriate areawide planning organization that the proposed uses are in accord with the applicable comprehensive open space plan for the areawide planning jurisdiction . 2 . A statement covering any environmental effects such additional uses will produce . ( See 24 CFR Part 50 , a copy of which has been enclosed for your information and guidance) . This office is required to determine that there will not be an adverse effect on the environment . 3 . A resolution by your governing body authorizing or approving the proposed additional uses . ' 4. Evidence that notice of the proposed modifications have been provided the general public . Please be advised that it will be necessary to obtain prior HUD approval for any construction which would result in covering more than 10 percent of an Open Space site with major structures or buildings , notwithstanding the fact that HUD assistance ' cannot be used for the proposed development activities . Furthermore , should there be a change in any of the above proposed facilities at any time "- his office must be informed before constructiuon or development is begun on a substitute change . Receipts from the use of lands acquired with open space funds generally do not concern this Department , however , if admission fees are charged , they must be nominal and must not be discrim- inatory . ' Any profits realized shall be deposited in a special fund designed for future open space uses and shall not be expended except for such uses . VJe would appreciate your immediate response to this letter . In your response please confirm that the facilities and projects ' listed in paragraph 2 , above are those that are actually to be developed or constructed. As requested above , if there will be changes , please so inform us . Should you have any questions concerning this matter , we shall be happy to answer them . Sincerely , ' John J . Tuite f,�rea Manager ' Enclosure aat.- sue,. 2000 MAIN S1-REET CALIFORNIA 92648 P. O. Box 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT (714) 536-5486 Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director ' October , 98 2' 1980 � Raymond J. Crisp Department of Housing and Urban Development Los Angeles Area Office 2500 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90057 Dear Mr. Crisp: Re: Proposed Recreation Facilities on Lands Acquired With HUD Funds This letter is to confirm your telephone conversation of October 14, 1980, with Vick Morris of this department, in which you requested additional information concerning a letter sent to your office on May 2.3, 1980, requesting that you review proposed ' recreational facilities for Huntington Central Park on lands acquired with HUD funds for concurrence with HUD requirements. To answer your first concern, the City is not proposing to sell any portion of land that these facilities will occupy which were purchased with HUD funds. Park system will always remain under direct supervision of the City. ' Second, the following proposed activities will identify who will be tentatively responsible for the construction and operation of each facility. I. Multi-purpose Sports Field Building - There is a potential for food concession associated with this project which is proposed to be leased to a private concessionaire. ' Construction of the building will be determined when plans are completed. Those improvements if constructed by a concessionaire will become City property at termination of the lease. 2. Tennis Pro shop - Constructed and operated by concessionaire. 3. Fishing Lake, General Store and restaurant - Fishing lake operations are planned to be constructed and operated by City. A determination will be made regarding construction and operation of the general store and restaurant upon completion of final plans. 4. Parking Lot - Built by City, no parking fees are to be levied in conjunction with this development. ' next page, please . . . . . . . Recreation and Park Development — Beach Operations — Human Services Mr. Cristo, (2) October 20, 1930 5. Re,note Model Cars - This facility is planned to be constructed by the City and may be leased by a private concessionaire. 6. Minicycle/Bicycle Training Center - The construction and operation will be resolved upon completion of the final plans. ' 7. Restaurant (southwest corner of Goldenwest and Talbert) - To be consiructed and operated by concessionaire. All private concessionaire leases will be on a around lease basis with all improvements made by concessionaire and returned to City at termination of lease. This allows for private investment and improved service to the public with cash flow to the City for park maintenance. As previously stated, these facilities are proposed and the responsibility for construction and operation is tentative, subject to the completion of an Economic Feasibility Study by an outside organization. These proposed facilities are in fact complimentary to the park by offering to the public a variety of recreational outlets and still maintaining permanent open space. The City ' will control all facilities, either by lease agreements with respective concessionaires or by operating the facility with City staff. ' Your response, as for as the proposed uses, will be greatly appreciated so that this office can respond to Mr. Van Holt, Attorney at w, representing Friends of the Park. ' Sincer ly, �i ent G. Mo rhouse Director Community Services Department VGM:Vhh:cw cc: Frank B. Arguello, Acting City Administrator. Mr. McMillen Hopkins, HUD Mr. Karl Van Noll 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET P. 0. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Paul E. Cook Public Works Department Director (714) 536-5431 March 11, 1981 Mr. John G. Rau Ultrasystems, Inc. 2400 Michelson Drive Irvine, California 92715 Dear Mr. Rau: Re: Feasibility Study of Huntington Central Park The Public Works Department has the following comments, concerns and data relative to the feasibility study of Huntington Central Park. For ease of review, the information is listed numerically within the following specific categories of concern. A. DRAINAGE (See Attachments "A" to "D") I. Approximately 800 L.F. of 60" storm drain pipe is required for Alternate 1, 2, and 3. It is to be aligned through the swale located between Goldenwest Street and Edwards Street and will drain into Huntington Lake. Alternate 4 includes an additional 800 L.F. that continues the drainage system upstream to Ellis Avenue. Prior to entering the lake, a desiltation basin and low flow by-pass storm drain will be constructed for lake water quality purposes. As an alternative to drainage pipeline construction, a system of improved open drainage channels could also be used. This method of drainage may be more desirable and is potentially less costly to develop and maintain. 2. A 102" storm drain (200 L.F.) is needed at the low point of Ellis Avenue between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street and will drain into Sully's Lake. Again a desiltation basin and by-pass storm drain is necessary. 3. The estimated cost of facilities for the Alternate 1, 2, and 3 is $420,000 ' while the cost estimate for the Alternate 4 system is $600,000. The construction of the 60" and 102" storm drains are master planned facilities; however, there are insufficient funds available in the applicable drainage district. The cost to provide improved open channels cannot be calculated until studies are available. next page, please . . . . . r Mr. John G. Rau -2- March 11, 1981 4. An existing 36" overflow storm drain extends from Sully's Lake to Talbert Lake. The overall condition of this drain is unknown; however, it is believed that portions have some blockage. Therefore, should another overflow drain need to be constructed, an additional $300,000 would be needed. ' S. At the southwest corner of Talbert Avenue and Gothard Street, a landfill operation is presently underway. If this property is not brought up to ' grade so that it can surface flow to a storm drain system, pumps or a pump/lake system will have to be installed to provide an adequate drainage system. A detailed drainage study of this area will have to be conducted. B. MAINTENANCE AND SAFETY ' I. Alternate 2 and/or 3 will increase the costs of City maintenance because of location. The Blue Diamond property (adjacent to the Fire Training Facility) has a crushed miscellaneous rock operation that provides a very ' convenient and economical material source for the City's Street Maintenance Program. 2. Relative to item 4, the area north of the Mushroom Farm, north of the ' Sully-Miller Lake, west of the Bruce Pit, and west of the County Transfer Station is all a former Orange County landfill site of varying depths up to 60 feet. Settlements in this area would be severe for surface or structure ' improvements, as can be observed by a visit to the Heliport Hangar. Also, there is a measurable escape of methane gas which should be of concern for any Rroposed use involving prolonged occupation by employees or ' public. Any development on this site may therefore require the installation of a gas collection system. C. SEWER (See Attachments "A" to "D") 1. Approximately 2,800 L.F. of 12" sewer main is required for Alternates I, 2, and 3. The main would be constructed through Central Park between ' Huntington Lake and Goldenwest Street. In addition, a sewer lift station and force main would be essential at the low point of Ellis Avenue between Gothard and Goldenwest Streets. The estimated cost for these ' improvements is $550,000. 2. An additional 800 L.F. of 12" sewer main would be necessary for Alternate 4. The cost for this alternative is estimated at $620,000. ' 3. Since these facilities are master planned, construction should be financed by the City's sewer fund revenues. At the present time, sufficient funds ' are available, but these projects would have to be evaluated against other high priority master planned sewer facilities in the area. next page, please . . . . . ' Mr. John G-. Rau -3- March 11, 1981 4. A change to the City Master Plan of Sewers is a possibility, depending on the route of the proposed OCSD Goldenwest Street Interceptor Sewer. D. STREETS ' I. The arterial highways through or fronting the Central Park will need to be widened to ultimate standards. Exceptions would be those portions of Goldenwest Street, north of Rio Vista, and Gothard Street, north of the Standard Oil Tank Farm, that are already improved to ultimate standards. 2. Alternate street sections (See Attachments "F" and "G") could be considered for Ellis, Talbert and Edwards. Either the City standards for construction, with curb, gutter and sidewalk, or a rural standard (see Attachment "H") with graded shoulders and no curb, gutter or walk could be utilized. To provide for bike and pedestrian traffic, the rural standard ' of construction should include pathways on park property. From a cost point of view, construction of the rural standard would be more advantageous than the City's urban standard for street construction. ' 3. Landscaping could be placed on park property instead of landscaping the street medians or parkways. This would also reduce highway construction costs. ' 4. Goldenwest is presently a four lane highway at grade. Widening to six lanes would be essential in meeting traffic demands. ' 5. Ellis is presently a two lane roadway in need of reconstruction and vertical realignment. The reconstruction of Ellis should provide an interim two lane highway with a painted median. This street is a primary highway on the City's master plan of roadways. 6. Portions of Gothard Street, adjacent to the City Landfill Operation and north of Ellis, should be widened. A roadway embankment is needed to accomplish widening adjacent to the landfill operation. (See Attachment I.) Any new street section should be constructed per City standards for secondary highways. The construction of drainage improvements (per paragraph A-5 of this document) would also be required. 7. Talbert would require reconstruction to a new vertical and horizontal alignment. A precise plan would need to be adopted. Talbert is master planned as a secondary highway. ' 8. Edwards Street would need to be evaluated relative to horizontal and/or ve�i aT-realignments. Ultimate location of roadway may be affected by the 38th Street alignment. Interim construction should provide for a two ' lane highway with a painted median. Edwards is master planned as a secondary highway. next page, please . . . . . 1 ' Mr. John G. Rau -4- March 11, 1981 9. Cost estimate for construction of arterial highways. TYPE OF STANDARD RURAL STREET CONST. SECTION SECTION Alternate #1 Goldenwest Widening 381 314 ' Ellis Reconstruct 91 75 (2 Lanes/Median) Gothard Widening 145 145 Talbert Reconstruct 412 269 Edwards Reconstruct 282 214 ' TOTAL #1 1,311 1,000 Alternate #2 Gothard Widening 60 60 ' Ellis Reconstruct 91 75 (2 Lanes/Median) + Alt.#1 Costs 1,311 1,000 ' TOTAL #2 $1,462 $1,135 Alternate #3 Ellis Reconstruct 220 150 (2 Lanes/Median) Goldenwest Widening 115 95 + Alt.#2 1,462 1,135 TOTAL $1,797 $1,380 ' Alternate #4 Ellis Reconstruct 400 250 ' (2 Lanes/Median) Edwards Reconstruct 150 100 (2 Lanes/Median) + Alt.#3 12797 1,380 TOTAL $2,347 $1,730 Note: Estimates do not include right-of-way, street lighting or utilities costs. ' next page, please . . . . . ' Mr. John G. Rau -5- March 11, 1981 Funding. Gothard, Ellis, Edwards and Talbert would be eligible for the county city arterial highway financing program. Construction of these projects, if approved by the county, would be dependent upon the availability of funds. Currently, there are insufficient funds to construct any of the street improvements listed above. However, Goldenwest Street between Rio Vista and Ellis could be submitted as an FAU project with the park frontage being a portion of the larger project. E. TRAFFIC Assuming there is no Talbert-Ellis connection, the major items to be considered under streets and traffic control are: I. Parking requirements for the various uses. 2. Extent of highway improvements. 3. Access from one area of the park to another across the various arterial hi ghways. I tern I (Parking Requirements) ' Parking requirements for Central Park will be more dependent upon the type of activities available rather than the total area developed. The original concept of Central Park was to accommodate "passive" activity (i.e., "viewing" and "experiencing" the vegetation). However, recent proposed plans indicate a higher activity level which will generate a demand for parking. Based on a turnover rate of 3 vehicles per parking stall and a trip generation rate of 15 trips per acre (this could go as high as 60 trips per acre) the following is an estimate of the required parking.) Parking Stalls Req. Parking ' Alt. Acres Required Area (ac) 1 297 1485 12.4 2 307 1535 12.8 3 332 1660 13.8 4 372 1860 1.5.5 * Assuming a yield of 120 stalls per acre. On-street parking should not be included in the count since the highways will be needed for travel lanes and bicycle lanes. One exception may be Central Park Drive where on-street parking plans have been considered for some ' time. Access points to the parking areas will have to be carefully planned to avoid sight-distance restrictions. next page, please . . . . . 1 r ' Mr. John G. Rau -6- March 11, 1981 Item 2 (Highway Improvements) In addition to the street improvements already discussed, any major changes in ' roadway construction should include the consideration of turn-out identations for transit bus stops. Item 3 (Access from One Area of the Park to Another) During the initial planning stages of Central Park, consideration was given to ' constructing a pedestrian bridge at a point north of Talbert on Goldenwest. This concept should be reviewed relative to any changes in the park design and access requirements. Based on anticipated traffic volumes and park access off of Goldenwest, it is conceivable that another traffic signal may be needed on ' Goldenwest between Talbert and Ellis. If so, such signalized intersection could also serve as a crossing point for pedestrian traffic thereby negating the need of a pedestrian bridge. The possible connection of a County Park to Central Park, southwest of Edwards Street and Talbert Avenue, should be studied in detail relative to pedestrian, bicycle and horse movement between the two parks along Edwards Street. Because substantial movement is anticipated between the two parks, it is hereby recommended that serious consideration be given to constructing either a bridge or tunnel crossing structure at some point along Edwards Street. rF. WATER ' I. Based on the information available regarding the development of Huntington Central Park, new 12" water mains would have to be constructed on Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue, per the City's Master r Plan. If extensive commercial development were to occur, then further study would have to be made of fire flows requirements. 2. The following tabulation shows construction improvements for each ' alternate: Alternate Construction Improvement ' Size Location Main Length Reimbursable r1 12" Edwards 1/2 Total 850' r 2 12" Edwards 850' 1/2 Total Ellis Ave. 7001 3 12" Edwards 850' 1/2 Total Ellis Ave. 2,0001 ' next page, please . . . . . Mr. John G. Rau -7- March 11, 1981 Alternate Construction Improvement 1 Size Location Main Length Reimbursable ' 4 12" Edwards 1,510' ' Ellis Ave. 3,650 Note: Alternates I, 2 and 3 are dead end watermains, not looped, therefore, only one source of volume and pressure. Alternate 4 completes the loop therefore, more volume, pressure and reliability. ' 3. Appurtenances to these watermains for costs would be valves, fittings, fire-hydrants, services, backf low preventers and fire services. 4. Existing water mains and sizes for the general area are shown on Attachment "J". G. PARK MAINTENANCE AND IRRIGATION I. Maintenance: The issue of maintenance after development is an important consideration in terms of expanding any park site. In the case ' of Central Park, the anticipated development of commercial enterprises possess an even greater concern. On the one hand, costs to the City could increase substantially, while on the other hand, minimized considerably. ' For example, if the City is to be responsible for maintenance and the cost thereof, then additional City revenues must be set aside. If the park enterprises are leased and the lessee maintains the property, then City costs would be minimal. ' 2. Irrigation: The irrigation system at Central Park is inadequate. Before any revisions are made in the method of irrigation it is recommended that the entire system be evaluated. Such evaluation should include ultimate system requirements. ' Although these comments may not take into consideration all of the potential variables relative to area, we believe that the depth of research and examination has been thorough with regards to your request. ' Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this information, please contact me at 536-5431. ' ery my yours, c ' eo Tindall City ngineer ' GT:dp cc: Paul E. Cook Don Noble Vincent G. Moorhouse LJ j 1 j"Li —1-1Eff L-`\ZTf D-CII F I J" ' n3 BAY LN ,girl rT _LL] -17T, CF-E Li �',E u Fj -3 T i LT� J 11 . ..... f J 1 11-1 . ............ ....... ........ .. -TT , T m:mm MT- Lj. \\ I .y. 4. TALUERT Vr Hjuntis)4to antril Pam,k -97 r a 1. CF-C ....... .... .F� - 0 0-0-0-6 7 00 1 1 RT 7 11 oil 7717, iry+i i"+ 441 Ht -A g ,teed, � ; .1 . vv -U 7� Proposed Expansion ( 7 gr ac) 1, - --- - - I I i I 1 I I I t i i '� Figure 2-1 1 AlTPC-%. , I I ��ti \ •1- ,:; i.,r .I Y L♦ t.yy-f�(-111.4 i_ I I 'rl L.�JZ - ��I1 £f J�=�q� -r.i u i I-`T - �T __ '�;-r' --Cl ---1--.� �i i � Id.--i- la{ CAPJ BAY LM m b ISl ! 1 ' ail I I�1 f j !1J1'_ CF-E" rl PT11I t � __ - .• i I.+ii� I I r— f .�—^-1•r—�1.r-i �—.•( fir'' '. it 1 77-1 r : I I I:: S' 1 11 ll i 4` 'a' � •'7 l ' Qi I I- i 1 , . ! " —'--�ice\�J lL.r'•� _1"�.1L!�,�-1 `'. �Ll -T-`-7Tr'. i��o�i T 1 u:•. . I — r Hu L ; u rn r -- 10 Ill;i; ll•:;jl'r'II!i��� li��llll' �l��i I I -- - r �j, ', // ��� � OI 1 0000 "� b Ifa ID OP8©11LB1 _!p j!4°n� ► f> b I: 1 IT I!I P W Proposed Expansion ( % gr ac) 1'A-Tl 1 I ; 1 Figure 2-1 r _ a . � , f- I" I I '7 J .A•. � I - I t• I 1' .I.. T I 4•' 1 l W i\! i I I I i I \ I ' i I l II - _ ��1I I .:•�-�! r, I_ �,� y.,,.,.� .. I.�' �-- i' 1 1 I I�,! IF� ! �I I I. �7 -��1 ��-�-r-r`-�- � •'__.I--{-I l i a I I I •,� ���I i i I I.l I I I L(;' I`Om+'� � I ' - t -� 7 ^( (—u -- L fi •1 IV1.1s ..M G(,•.ill � �Sk�J--. � s r J ll.{,J 'I��—{a� .r l ,f rr-I tr IT i 4��7�. I r L��_l Ii1 -- l ` I ��'��Y I— J ,I>I:!:�;� . ::: t _ ' _, -� !J 1 I I 1. TALO£KT 77 It 7�,�_ � •yy. 7. . } y.rC.l�r /may a 9/ t E :•�oW 4' � IY` of d'`� /� ---Sr Stu. �ry� -t rr—�+ I L— j-- IipUl i��,;�ri ' I!r �;li'`iiiTJll' i k.f ^-'1 .r�` r• o P� - j;i�j�llll___ ' .n o o�c��.erss.'' • -,K�� ��,:.r ,a o n s ' __ ,..,. - I�� `�1� i•{,�µ',� jam; ' i I S.�. l 11 t� — -- �`;' T' Proposed Expansion 15 gr ac) - -- -- - 'wry ?Rcp. toe so, .`fir• +.ce�Y.Shod.Ztn Figure 2-1 6 . �� .'I_ � r t w'- ,>.e��'1 I +le _I _]• ly..i• '•'i i •I I I I i I � III i i I\lF 4(i1QSI_ I ,I[IIt��III 4 '�,1•"vF+ i !� ' I � � 1_ -JrJ Ll--1 I LJ I_�.�` /y�I � —.'• i5 ���I /� -I.I I.i.I .� VLN:�r.'�:: .1 I 1` 1 1 I L.{-i . • I 1 � I .�, CF-E I I i I � ! ' , - i_1_ 1_i.L�.fJl._7i_J..LL.._... tA ;���t~�iY�� I,���° r,l�, I � 1rT --�i -i•.�^.t1__�_-;'� � ��{i3.e--I.4��I � _��- � 11 I11 )_ L i J I I rlrT� ' l <LjjLi a Huntingtfin r I i -,: 41/ `S. r-• �/ -_ /.}-:fit Central/Park r! rr•- I dt�:::I�:;Si� I ���-v��'r! Ma-.,nL�iJdi� 0/V 4? 0 OI L* :.,4 / �-�i�+!r�t-t�� _ d. � „� � OfLl�Ale�t�t•1:.�'�^./ £J III®R �Oa; ;�'I�jl�l� Ili C R,CI✓�. I � ---- 1S U' Proposed Expansion ( 75 car sae) s�'t��ao�1 \ T1tcp. to `'Sb. I r Figure 2-1 ��%��,��''• �+ (',mil r�?' / ' �� '�-` VL1`1►�'� L=� �1 �1► A�c�G�r�t�,-n.� __ �� ���, �� �'f . _-�-�, __ ���� -�_ Y � r ,; ,; � - Os 116 c) -- f Fv Oct IT 6 t� 1 so l T-J -17rf JDY _� _Og4J BALM {� —� � -t. ' I .l !i l �•- t I ,MilN:l-I�:�l::•r14.� `d ` I`�"..lit I b tl / I 1 ♦ - -I �'.rll I \ lI I � Ll r ��- 1I I C F-E ; _'3( ,. i r rct�. M." vrw cc..:,n r nnA DtL WL ]I f-__ �+� I I Fes➢ +Y_� II' i'' Ti 'i' � ! I �+ 15, 1 1 I T W._.. LL T. 1 II L l - I 1 _ T �—i-� I 11..E I. T TTT TALGERT HYnti o `-r ::: nil r ( 97 r c Iw i i I11 ° m - --_ -- i Proposed Expansion ( 75 gr ac} I - --- hit � i ---� 11 - ,--- >o:A- ' � Figure 2-1 f To: _ From: Vince Moorhouse Subject: Information Required for Feasibility Study of Huntington Central Park Background --- --_--__— - Any proposed development of Huntington Central Park will require construction of water, sewer, drainage, streets and traffic circulation systems and the extent of these improvements may depend on the intensity of development proposed. Our contract with Ultras stems calls for them to -analyze the extent Y Y and likely cost of these infrastructure improvements for various alternative developments of the park based on information to be supplied by the City. Because the development alternatives will change depending on the size of the park, the information which your department provides will have to be based on the following: Alternate 1. Development of only the 297 acre existing park boundary; 2. Alternate 1 plus the approximately 10 acre site at Ellis and Gothard 3. Alternate 2 plus the approximately 25 acres at the NE PP Y - s corner of Ellis and Golden West + 4. Development of all the acreage designated on the Schematic Master Plan (approximately 372 gr. acres) I0C - Page Iwo Requested Information It is requested that you provide the following information by February 28, 1981 to: Ultrasystems , Inc. Attn: John G. Rau 2400 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92715 Generally we need to determine what the various City Master Plans call for in the way of water, sewer, drainage, streets and traffic improvements and what if any specific plans or studies exist. We also need to know the existing carrying capacities of the infrastructure serving the park area, planned schedule of improvements and what uses in the park might trigger the need for the improvements. Water and Sewer For each alternative what size lines and how many feet thereof will be requi-red in Edwards , Golden blest and Gothard Streets and Ellis and Talbert Avenues? Will any pump stations , reservoirs , or other special on or off site lines or facilities be required? If there are, please describe them. Some lines or facilities may be required which will serve other further development. For which lines or other facilities will reimbursement agreements be appropriate and to what extent should the park funding be reimbursed? Streets and Traffic Control What requirements for street improvements , including landscaped medians and parkways, will be placed on each of the alternatives. IOC - Page Three For now we are assuming that Ellis Ave. will form a perpendicular rintersection with Edwards St. along its existing alignment. We are also assuming that all pedestrian and equestrian crossings will be at-grade. What improvements will be required to the traffic signals at Golden West and Ellis. Also will any other traffic control devices be required under any of the alternatives. �t What are the existing traffic flows on streets adjacent to Central Park and what are the projected flows independent of park development? We are aware that your department may prefer to eliminate the signal shown on the schematic halfway between Ellis and Talbert on Golden West , but for now we wish to evaluate the costs including that signal . Do you anticipate any reimbursement arrangements for any of the street or traffic improvements? Storm Drains For each alternative, what size and type of lines and how many feet thereof will be required on and off site. Will any pump stations, desiltation basins or other special on or off site lines or facilities be required? If there are please describe them. We have received the consultant's analysis of Huntington Lake which makes certain recommendations for storm drains . Also, please describe any special problems peculiar to Huntington, Talbert and Sully-Miller Lakes which you feel are important. If the existing fill site at the SW corner of Gothard and Talbert is not filled, will there be special drainage requirements? If so, please describe them. IOC - Page Four We recognize that if equestrian uses are maintained at the park , specific drainage requirements must be met. These will be separately analyzed by Ultrasystems and submitted for your review and comment. Are there any reimbursement• arrangements anticipated? General_ Questions Are any funds available for these improvements such as AHFP traffic safety grants , local gas tax or local drainage fees? Is there a need to underground existing utilities and are there any funds available to do so? We would also appreciate any current cost information you have available for the various types of improvements. We need to identify and describe those areas of the park which were _ land fill sites or where slippage or settling is occurring. These areas may have limitations on their use. Thank you for your cooperation. Before any conclusions are formulated on this subject, they will be presented to you for your review and comment. i s• environmenthad- LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS care, inc. an equal opportunity employer by choice t920 SO. YALE STREET • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92704 • AREA CODE 7t4 546-7843 March 19, 1981 Ms . Leslie Temple Cordoza & DiLallo & Associates , Inc. 1599 Superior Avenue, A-4 Costa Mesa, California 92627 Dear Leslie : Enclosed is the information you requested concerning projected costs for separate levels of service relating to the Huntington Beach Central Park. The four areas we target were: 1. Natural or Native Areas 2. General Park Areas 3. Proposed Arboretum 4. Proposed High Use Ballfields The scope of work we have developed for each area covers the primary functions needed to provide a satisfactory level of service. As you can see , the costs vary con- siderably between the four areas . What the average cost per acre wnuld be, would depend on the size of the different areas . After you have reviewed the data, perhaps we can answer any questions you may have. S nce y, 4, Ro ert L. Scofield Vice President RL S . a r I Enc. alAue" . IL f11F California • Colorado LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CENTRAL PARK NATIVE AND NATURAL AREAS , Projected cost $125. 00 per acre per month. SCOPE OF WORK ' 1. Trash areas adjacent to walks twice per week. Other areas monthly. 2. Weed control monthly. 3. Prunning - Inspect quarterly and prune what is necessary. 4. Fertilize twice per year. 5. Maintain and operate irrigation system. 6. Control pests and disease as necessary. GENERAL PARK AREA - TURF AND TREES Projected costs $225. 00 per acre per month SCOPE OF WORK 1. Turf Areas a. Mowed weekly and edged bi-weekly. b. Aerified annually. C. Broadleaf weed control Spring and Fall. d. Fertilize 6 times per year. ' 2 . Ground Cover Areas a. Weeded monthly. b. Fertilize 4 times per year. C. Renovate as necessary (not more often than annually) . d. Edged as needed. 3. Shrub Care a. Prunning at least annually to maintain informal appearance. b. Fertilize twice per year those areas not in turf. GEN8RAL PARK AREA - TURF AND TREES (cont'd) SCOPE OF WORK ' 4. Tree Care a. Annually prune all trees up to 15 feet in height , mature trees to be pruned based on varietal needs , cost not included in monthly charge. b. Those trees staked shall be checked twice per year for possible girdling. When trees attain a trunk calaper of 4" stakes should be removed. IC. Fertilize all mature trees annually ,not in turf areas . 5. Irrigation System a. Maintain irrigation system in operatable condition at all times. b. Set and program automatic controllers for seasonal conditions . C. Repair all damages to system in a timely manner. 6 . Pest Control ta. Control gophers continuously in all turf and ground cover areas . b. Insect infestations shall be diagnosed and sprayed for , when they reach levels that may cause plant damage. 7. Trash and Litter Control a. Trash shall be emptied from receptacles daily. b. General trash shall be picked up three times per week. 8 . Police play areas daily for safety conditions and report to City. 9. Check and clean B-B-Q pits and picnic benches and tables weekly. 10. Costs not included in monthly price: a. Repairs due to vandals, Acts of God, or accidents . b. Utility Costs C. Parking Lot Sweeping d. New Planting 2 - /,BORETUM AREA Projected cost $490. 00 per acre per month. COPE OF WORK Includes all functions of general park maintenance in addition to the �ollowing: 1. Maintain identification labels for all species in good and legable condition. 2. Keep all planting areas cultivated, weeded, and trash free at all times . 3. Maintain individual growing conditions consistent with the needs of every species . 4. Increase scope of garden as new varieties are obtained by City. HIGH USE RECREATIONAL AREAS (BALL FIELDS) (Projected cost $860 . 00 per acre per month. ,SCOPE OF WORK 1. Turf Areas a. Mow and edge all turf areas at least weekly or more often as conditions warrant. Pick-up and remove all clippings after each mowing. b. Fertilize monthly with a balanced turf fertilizer. C. Dethatch turf three times per year, Spring, Summer, and Fall . d. Overseed all turf following the Fall thatching. e . Aerate turf areas four times per year on 90 day intervals . f. Apply pre-emergent crab grass control annually. g. Apply broadleaf weed control twice per year, Spring and Fall. h. Base paths , infield grass areas etc . to be edged and trimmed monthly at all times. 2. Bare Ground Areas a. Keep all bare ground areas free of weeds at all times . b. Brick dust areas to be dragged daily during playing season . HIGH USE RECREATIONAL AREAS (BALL FIELDS) (cont 'd) 2. Bare Ground Areas (cont' d) C. Base lines to be kept well defined at all times . d. Pitchers mound to be kept in proper condition at all times . 3. Trash to be picked up daily with all trash receptacles emptied daily. 4 . Irrigation System • a. Maintain in operatable condition at all times . b. Set programs on controllers to allow maximum use of facility. 5. Drainage systems to be maintained in a free and clean condition. r6. Trim around back stops and dug outs as needed. 7. Hose down dug outs weekly. r i i 1 I 1 1 1 - 4 - �. CITY OF iHLJN"'f•ING'T ON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Paul E. Cook Public Works Department Director (714) 536-5431 April 6, 1981 Mr. John Rau Ultrasystems, Inc. 2400 Michelson Dr. Irvine, CA 92715 Re: Supplemental Data for Huntington Central Park Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Rau: In accordance with our meeting of last week, I am providing the following supple- mental information relative to the feasibility study of Huntington Central Park. I. Annual Storm Drain Maintenance Costs: The cost of maintaining drainage facilities for the Huntington Central Park alternatives is limited to storm drain lines. Based on current maintenance expenditures, costs .of maintaining the storm drain lines in the park would be approximately $1,000 per year. 2. Annual Sewerage Maintenance Costs: The sewerage system, required for the park alternatives, includes the construc- tion of a lift station and force main. The estimated annual cost of maintaining the lift station and force main is approximately $3,500.00. Costs of maintain- ing the sewer lines will be approximately $1,000 per year. 3. Master Planned WaterImprovements: Based on the four proposed alternatives for the Huntington Central Park area, master planned water mains would have to be constructed in each location as indicated in the following table: Alternative Master Planned Water Main Improvements Number Location Size Length of Line Cost/L.F. Total 1. Edwards St. 12" 850 L.F. $30.00 $25,500.00 2. Edwards St. 12 ' 850 L.F. $30.00 $25,500.00 Ellis Ave. 12" 700 L.F. $30.00 $21,000.00 3. Edwards St. 12" 850 L.F. $30.00 25,500.00 Ellis Ave. 12" 2,000 L.F. $30.00 $60,000.00 4. Edwards St. 12 ' 1,510 L.F. $30.00 $45,300.00 Ellis Ave. 12" 3,650 L.F. $30.00 $109,500.00 4. Park Irrigation System and Associated Problems: As we discussed, the irrigation system at Huntington Central Park is inadequate. Therefore, to place additional demands on the system without updating/repairing the facilities could be disastercus. Presently, the system consists of two Mr. John Rau ' April 6, 1981 Page 2 water wells, a reservoir and the irrigation facilities. Water is pumped from the wells into the reservoir. When the irrigation facilities are acti- vated, water in the reservoir must be pumped into the facilities. When the water level in the reservoir drops to a certain depth, pumps at the well sites again begin pumping water. Thus, there is a costly double pumping of water for ' a system which is further ccoplicated by the existence of leaks in the reser- voir. Such leaks along with the watering result in a substantial operation of the well pumps. It is the opinion of our landscape and maintenance personnel that this entire system should be evaluated and reviewed prior to adding more demands. Hopefully, this additional information will be of assistance in concluding your feasibility study on Huntington Central Park. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this data, please contact me at 536-5431. ' Very �Ot r�� . ' Don Noble Engineering Planner ' DRN:Jy cc: P. Cook G. Tindall V. Moorhouse i �• C�� CITY OF A- U."'ITINGTON WEACH 2 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION .J l June Catalano From George TindalllJ Deputy Director. , Dev. Services City Engineer Sul)Iect Ellis/Goldenwest Study Area Date March 27 , 1981 There is an error in the March 23 , 1981 memo submitted regarding the study area from Don Noble. ' Under Item B Sewage the last 2 sentences indicate that for density of 2 units per acre or less, septic tanks would be acceptable similar to the City of Claremont standards . ' Please be advised this is not acceptable. All dwellings in subject area will have to be connected to the public sanitary sewer line in accordance with Citv Ordinance and ' City Masted 1?lan of Sewers . regardless of density. Please delete the references in the March 23 memo relative to the permitting of septic tanks . GLT: jy cc: P. Cook Don Noble Jim Palin ' Carol Inge o e �• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2 IN1-ER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Ill VIN(ITON M\(II To June Catalano From Don Noble Deputy Director, Development Services Engineering Planner Subject Ellis/Goldenwest Area Date March 23, 1981 `Ilse Public Works Dept. has the following corBrents relative to the subject study area. At the present time, there are no, or inadequate, public utility facilities in the area. Master plans do exist for some of the essential facilities (sewer, water & storm drains) ; however, a comprehensive plan for all re- quired utilities (.including transportation, gas, electric and telephone) and the various financing alternatives is not available and should be com- pletecl prior to the co mencement of any development. Although the benefits of a comprehensive plan, relevant to the orderly development of the areas, is uncniesti.oned, actual implementation may be difficult because of costs and the large number_ of individually owned parcels. Therefore, consideration should be given to developing a prociram/policy to offset the impact of costs and reduce the rnwiber of parcels. Such a programlpolicy could include provi- sions .for the formation of assessment districts and density-bonus conditions for the consolidation of parcels. In addition to the above comients, this I office has the following remarks relative to specific areas of concern: A. Drainage: 1. The City's L•laster Plan of Drainage indicates t ie need for a major underground storm drain system to sense the El Lis/Goldenwest area. However., natural swales incorporated into regctred open space or green belts and maintained by the owners is preferred.. This system of dr-ainacre shoiiLd include design principles relevant to chemical pollution. For example, extensive green belts, sprayed with herbicide or other chemicals by property ovaiers, could pollute both Sully and Ilarntington I,zke. `therefore, the construction of low flaw l.ine_s or ' other dlevis(�s would be necessary. The attached drawing, (Exhibit A) indicates some possibilities for the utilization of na�dral E7.,-ales in accomrodati.ng anticipated runoff from the subject study area. 2. rk)st:. I I kely, the study areas will not develop all at one time; therefore, Hie drainage system will pr.obai)ly IDe constructed in in- crcments. If t-he first a.,ner to develop is located at the upstream end of the drainage area, costs to constnict needed drainage facili- ties could be prohibitive even though the developer is entitled to a r_eir-lburse-ment foi.. constr_uctinq master plan facilities (i.e. pipelines equal to or exceeding 39 inches in diameter) . B. Sewage: 1. Uie e_x_isti_rig sewer_ lift station at Coot:..'!ard and Ellis will eventually be abandonc-d and another lift station constructed at the law point on Lll_is bet%-een Gothard and Golden;west. 'this change in lift stations and the construction of additional se,.w(--r mainlines as shown in the t`t.11l'L1 .'.i, -1981 ;,Laster Plan for Sewers is essential prior to the develolxrlent of the Ellis/Goldenwest area. At present, the City's sewer fund has money to finance these improvements and could do so if easements through the affected properties were easily obtainable. However, if construction of these improvements is delayed until a later date, the property owners may have to finance the construction of these t:aci..l..i.t:.i('S. Like the const-ruction of niast:er planned storm drain iuq.�r"r)vc�1r nlr:, property owners could enter into rc.inlburscnient agree- 111'11L:; for 1.11r. cx)::;L[; ()f consh.tict_icn1. An uxcxl,t.ion t.o rcxlu.irin(l Lhr con:;t:t uct:..ion 01' sc':w,�r' l i rues would 1x' t-he dovc.l.opiienL of l.c)W- don:;.i_t.y H .e. 2 uni-t::; por. ticre) . Ln this case, a rural lx)t.i.cy lx rr11i Lt:.i.ng septic L-treks s1iiti.1ar. to the City of Claremont icould tx: enacted (sce 1-�chibit 13) . C. Dra.ina(lc/Scwayc: Conclusions: 1. The n><:1sLer planne-d storm drain and sewer facilities planned for the Ellis/Gol.denwest area are to be constructed in the same location as the natural swales which cross many of the properties in question. This means that cooperation between the developers and the City may be essential in obtaining needed easements. For example, if one property owner, in the line of the proposed facilities, decides he does not want to coolx>rate, it could delay developrrlent until legally resolved. '.Cc) avoid lx)tential :Leal snarls, all developers should 13c irvide aware of the guidelines of devel.ol--trlent in this area. 1. Lijillti-111 the nluntx�r of, access roads to the art(. -.ial h:i(:J}1v;.ays is; ossontl.i-l . For. exanq)le, (Zldenwest Stxcet. .is a iTojo:r City route j to the lx:lach. The prevention of addi.t:i.ona.l. acc ,ss roads to this ar.aerial i.s essential. Limiting access roads t.-) the other arterials should also 1)e unphasized. Prolkzbly the Ix-,st, but not least expensive, nxethod of 1.iridt-i ng access roads to arterial would be to design and I rllast(.!r plan an interior street system for the areas. In so doing, an orderly development of the area, relevant to P•1blicWorks, would occur. a 2. Ellis Avenue, between Goldenwest and Edwards, needs to be realigned vertically. 'Therefore, develol-Anent fronting this lx)rtion of the j_rvenue :should be delayed until the a.l.igrulient is ca»l:)lete. �i 3. The i:;:;u< of- the 1•klwards-3£3tal StxoeL conriect--ion .is yeL to Lx_' resolved. h ;,tin, ,J; v lc;J11>,vlt 1-1-ot2Llnc1 Fdwar(l�; Tallx�rt. ind Garfield) 1 .111n1 1.1t 1•.ield (hetwtxll i lminl:;) :;11Oulci }x' do l.l';'ccl unt:i I t11;, i:;: uc is rc',c)1vr'c1. lncidr�nt.l.l.ly, '1ny oi• thus unresolved al i Jnn1c`t1L:; could �lf[ect tho deveLopiienL c).t an inter-i-or street plan for. cud-acon L areas. 1 4. '1'he Gothard/Main connection is another ali.ylunent yet to be resolved. 5. l'h_: possi.hlc, tlt:il.i zrtt:ion of mlra.l street stI-lludards is recommended, but dcx'r: lx)s1' 1 roblons .rob:itive Lc) street parkinq (i.e. there are nc:1 lat:c)vir .i.c)11s i_n rural standzuxls for sLreeL packing) and the quality of street sweepi_n<3. vp Meru) to June Catalano Fal.ia/�-c�a.dcrrwest Area riirch 23, 198L Pays 3 4 E. Water: 1. The area as shown on Exhibit "C" has elevations from 35 feet to 90 feet. A portion of this area is located in what is known as Reservoir Hill Zone II, high pressure; approximate elevation is 75 feet. The. City presently has a contract with an engineering consulting firm to design a pumping station at the corner of Goldenwest Street and Clay Avenue. The property at the corner of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue would require three-fourths mile of 12" watermain extension in order to have minimum water pressure of 40 pounds. 2. There are presently very few existing distribution water mains or fire hydrants in tJie streets of this area. There is a 42 inch transmission water main in Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue which could be used as a source connection for distribution water mains, but not individual services. Also, there are no fire hydrants off of this water main in this area. 3. Large expenditures of revenue for capital improvements will be required before any development can occur in this area. Therefore, it may be advisable to create an assessment district and construct lines per the City's Master Plan of Water. Distribution lines 12 inch in diameter are required on Ellis Avenue, Garfield. Street and Edwards Street. F. Zoning: 1. Zoning in this area, currently RA or variations thereof, may not be the highest and best use. Such zoning limi.t..� any chance of a property owner/developer recouping their .initial investment in re- quired public utilities. Therefore, serious considerations should be given to rezoning the areas prior to any planning/development of street alignments, etc. DRN:jy Attach. C.L`. A vL- l 3 i:�:uQ CaaLI_ EX/-//8/T A i M/iV 30 NEED l5 X. 9 0Pc ,DRA//VAGE 6WAL E DEETA/L OVO r ra SCALE) 1 1 1 1 1 POLICY FOR INSTALLING PUBLIC 1MPRO%9L-:\BNTS IN RUIL'ML ZONE, Tt i.s the pol.ic.y of the City of Claremont that deve.lopmcnts in the rtlr:Jl zone will he subject to different standards of Imbl.ic i.m1wovement.s tAimi other tlllc develol)- ments. This policy will rJpply to development of individual parcels or sulxiivisions p1 ovidcd that they meet all other requirements for the rural zone as set forth ill the Land Use and Developwunt Code. Tlie policy for various })uhlic improvements in the rural zone is as follows: - A. s11:1"I'TS ' ! Attached is a sketch r,hnwhig a standard street cross scct.ion for the rural zone. Art.cri.il. highi�nys sJ.(_h ns Basr. Line and Padua a111011p, others shall he iri)roved accordi.rlt; to norma.1 standards wi.tll the exception of sidemilks and streetlights. Oil minor roads, 01c, JmVCd 111'0a O1: streets Will. bC 1'06IICCti LO 2c'C ill V.iUt111 Uc• lass as long as traffic safety and fire prevention stand;.irds are met. *1, Streetlights Street].ights on rural streets shall be located at arterial intersections and rJay be required at other non-arterial intersections and shall be -, compatible v.,ith semi-rural development. Staff will work with residents on other lighting stmldards as may be compatible with a rural district. ' 1liese lights shall be per city standards. No other city streetlights shall be necessary except on arterial highi•.nys where a lighting level of 0.2 foot candles shall be attained. Residents are encouraged to place lights at the entrances to their drivew-ays for safety purposes. Strectlights shall be financed by each development paying a pro-rata cost of streetlights in one block based on a ratio of thi! frontage of a lot to the tot, frontage of both sides of the entire b ock. I'ayrlent shall he due prior t.o issuance Of a building permit. Als ), the developer shall vnivc t.hc right- to protest: f:uturc strectl ighti.nl; as ;Cssinmt districts. 2. St rec t Trocs .1 1\1101-e possible, existinl; trees, including portions of: orchards and groves, ' shall he preserved. n1;11ntC'nttllCC U1: Sl1Cl1 t1TCS WI1iC111 11'0 1�151.0 111;•' �Ci'Virtb as street trees shall, be by the City throu��h an open Space 1.1.•2intenance District. If trees are not existing, trees as approved by the Parkvmys and Trees Cmmission siiall he i.nstal.lc-d it appropriate spacing. Unifoiw spacing of trees - for in, tnnce, at 30' intmi,als - will not necessarily be. stipulated. A variety of trees will be encouraged; priority will be (,JvciI to those plait nJatcrials which are compatible with the existing character of the area. r IL sh;11 l 1W t h0 rl't.ion h:'lo.•t 1wr to privc nn driveAny to t1w !0.rceL or -,.imply };rtulc a }"r;uvcl dvi.vew;o, to the r-houidt't• of the street. Any huildiiw, to be developed within 250 feet. oC ;in c.xist inc; public sewer line Shall be rclluired to 'Ittach to sCwcrs as a condition of: development. Any 1 l' ' sul aivi lion �;rcat.er th;irl 5 gross acres shall be redtu ired to coi;ncct to publ.i.c se.�crs as a coriditi.on of dlc;l> All other dcvc.lopn;cnts shall be allowed to develop witholit sci;crs providing that: 1. S<ich is not disallowed by the state, county, or other jurisdiction having ' authority. 2. That Sewer laterals are stubbed to the street right-of-way. 3. That there is lcg.,il ;ipreciI1011t to give and to pu-ticipatc in sewer assessment district if such is initiated in the future. C. LIRA I1vl1CiI: Surface drainage normally carried in l,utters will be carried in graded ditches Vit:11111 tl,c shoulder of the public I. il;Iht-of-way. Ston"I drains shall be con- strticted as indicatcd on the city' s storm drain master pl n, iiiiet structures from gradced ditches to storm; drains will be required wherc appropriate. D. GIbV)I;,;G i hot F,radim; slral.l be n L nrini:cd. . Other than fillin s g .<ilcs to alleviate drainage problems, only the; grading of a buil.dinl; pad will be allowed. Cross lot drain- age will be prevalent and the grading of slopes betwcen lots will not be allov.,ed. 11i1T1R 1'dater lines and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance ,Vdth the rern:ire- ments of: the Los Im(,eles Cotuity Dire Department and Southern Califor:tia l"rater Company. • -TCGTAt TCC-E- 1� C'/G/IT_ OF-IU,k 1 io, I I S TCL•.u\' 1't..�C:S � GCAV u�. v�r_.: 1'V 1vti- 't',avo� b�r.r. c.•_r.�.�,t. Tt�..av 1.1_�6t G rSJ MC r-.T �S,a i.�`ti I Lw.�q I LJ.. •t � V•�-+u 11..�� S.�„.l.D�►- ` 1 SllI11E UII LliILIT:r1 "iTJ:I:�]ilL;IClii�i1.11?IILt 1 /C A l__.. r _c 5 5, --5 T,r_ti_.. Ir_�] qw NMI w nn u-CO f�nn n-cn RI RI rra a cnl• wren ; __.__�.-----�i- —_-------- -- --- -- �----- --- —an RI L• i MIMI -,..w. RA—CD ; \1:M1.011 MI—A RA_ A 0 n RA-0-CD M) f RA-0-CD ,=—a RA(.A CD! M 2 ..,i RA-CD� :RA-0 MI-0 I •RA'0�r4. rAi�O .I RA-0 ' •i RA-0-CD I,l__E—nr:rsr3.1 -02 1 RA- iM.n cn'.. MI-0 W2 01. ai RA ; 1 RA 0 CD , ; I I R5 Rs '' RA , 0 CC R s �'"�s ;) RA-0 .•I r•CI r^ I.:RA-02-CD I 1 c. M1 n/� �, I RA-0 , I '; R3 R2,°;i R2 " �ry•�)+:,+�•... 4'¢': ��M2-'02•CD I :i R2 Ra of r,\RI �:, .�+'' ;; / I I M ,,`''4)�'c':a' ,.., ..` -.. =,.. ._��•�I ,�.. ..;�•�` RI\\.-.;IY�r'1`oR1 R4'q�i C2 �+-0-d r T 1 RI :I 1: i1 P2-0--'D R2-0 PD C2-0-CDa C2-0 - RI; j qv•'• -} '(, _ \ 129-01 co, )S-0 0� r`.' I '� �' I Lam,_0_rD I I R5-0•CL) ' R2 0-PDCD' N ii P IRI •RI� `,_.... .. __.L-- . . . ' -..J h_._.._ _ i j rr�J y R4 01 y., \� Rl, RI. <;/ I r F :.t . CF-E--CD r R2-0 RI-0 •t.. r<- } RI , LCC G ,. _ R4-01IJ !_—/L�_J 1_ L_CD 0: `' •! i{;,r�" �t� 1101 'Y RI Q` �R10 k (^� I I�; cD u_ _.\M�a`y—�i.-. �-__lE/l,:;x�ry.x�h'd�,�''taNA,�-,�.�'•� Ri/✓I Rj,�, / , �y 'a. I �RI�IIII RJI ►' fIIR�IIr�II r'R�IIrR2 I L-C; 0 x.p •C . ,... i Rl i I RI-0i I Lr• ".--0�l_ ja � R10i P-n - Dil_� ���� 1 (-0/ ). oa .% f . r - West Orange County YMCA 7262 Garfield Avenue, Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)847.9622 14306 Beach Boulevard,Westminster, California 92683 (714)898-5688 ' September 10, 1979 "ince-t G. +foorhouse, Director ' -ity or Hu.,t;ncto.� Beach �F rte 3rtnt of F.arLcrs, Beaches, ecreatior and Parks wear Vince, We appreciated the time you allowed us on September 9, 1979. The discussion we had with yo1 was very informative and will be helpful in formulating our plans. Pursuant to our discussion, we are hereby requesting that the West Orange Cour.cy YMCA be included in the master plan for the Central City Park. It was ob- vious from our discussion that the YMCA, the city, and the taxpayers can mutually benefit from cur cooperative efforts. ' We Fropose to build a 60,000 to 70,000 sq. ft. multi-story health and fitness center on apF_oxit.a.tely two acres. This center will contain the following: - Full size gymnasium - 25 meter swimming pool (indoor) - Men and women's fitness center - Indoor jogging track - Cardiovascular testing and rehabilitation lab - Handball/racquetball courts - Comztuniry service rooms - Offices, lockers, saunas, jaeuzzi We are prepared to lease the land at fair market value for 55 years, with an option to renew. We are futher prepared to raise the capital necessary to build and equip the center without the aid of taxpayer dollars. This will be accomplished ttrough a capital carpaign, major contributions, and other forms of financing. ' Since there is a need for such a complex, supported by the ERA (Economic Re- search Associates) , study we left with you, we the West Orange County YMCA are confident %v car, operate it in a financially responsible manner. We are anxious to move ahead with this J ro 'ect, and are looking forward to project, your earliest response. Sincerely, Jerry Nash ' Chairman Capital Development Committee ' ,'N:kt:a ®.� City- of Huntington Beach (� P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ' OFFICE' OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR May 23, 1980 . ~ Mr. McMillen Hopkins Department of Housing and Urban Development Los Angeles Area Office 2500 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, Calfornia 90057 1 Dear Mr. Hopkins: ' Re: Proposed Recreation Facilities on Lands Acquired with HUD Funds. In response to the letter received from Mr. Karl A. Van Holt, Attorney at Law, referred ' to us by Mr. Roberts, acting on behalf of a newly formed organization "Friends of the Parks", Mr. Vuri Holt has expressed concerns regarding proposed activities on lands acquired with HUD funds. Before we can respond to Mr. Van Holt's concerns, it is ' requested that you review the following proposed facilities for concurrence with HUD requirements: I . PAolti-Use, Lighted, Sports Field Complex This facility will encompass a total of 21.21 acres, which will include a control building occupying . 17 acres. The control building will offer fast foods such as sandwiches and cold drinks, and will include a storage area and restrooms. ' Location: West side of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. The intended use of this complex will be to accommodate softball, rugby and football type sports. 2. Tennis tiro Shop 1-his facility will encompass a total of 0.30 acres, of which 0. 15 acres will be covered by the pro shop (only a portion of the pro shop is on HUD funded land). The renlaininq 0. 15 acres are planned for open space landscaping. The pro shop concession will offer tennis related paraphernalia for sale. next page please. . . . . . 1 ' 1"41. McMillan I lopkins -- - May 23, 1980 3. I ishinc L akc (,cncrol .`)tore and I Zeslom (mt This facility will occupy a total of 18.2 acres. The intent of this project is to convert the Sully Miller Lake rile into a irout fishing) lake. There will be 1.7 acres of parking to accorYrrnoclate approximately 200 vehicles. Patrons will be able to ' purchase fishing and camping supplies from a general store which will utilize 0.50 acres. The same ocreacje will also include a restaurant. The balance of 16 acres will be thc� lake and buffer landscaping, which will be located on the north side of Ellis Avenue, approximately 650' west of the Gothard Street and Ellis Avenue intersection. 4. Nlul h-Use Parking ' This facility will occupy a total of 8.1 acres, to provide parking for approximately 8' 5 vehicles. The parking lot itself will cover 7.0 acres with 1.1 acres of landscaping. This lot will service the library, multi-use sports fields; mini-cycle training center and model car area. Location: Southeast corner of Goldenwest ' Street and Talbert Avenue. 5. Remote Control Model Cars This facility totals 1.0 acre and will be used for the racing of electronically-controlled rnodel cars. Location is 400' south of Talbert Avenue and approximately 1,050' east of Goldenwest Street. ' 6. Mini-Cycle/Bicycle Training Center Trials and Trails Area the complex will total 12.35 acres originally the Bruce Brothers Pit), located at the southwest corner of Gothard Street and Talbert Avenue. The Training Center will occupy 1.35 acres with the remaining 11.00 acres to be utilized for inini-cycle/bicycle trails. The training will offer proper instruction for the operation of mini-cycle vehicles. 7. Garden Restaurant This facility will occupy a total of 0.7 acres with the building occupying 0.4 acres. The remaining 0.3 acres are planned for landscaping. Location 800' west of Goldenwest Street, approximately 1 100' south of Talbert Avenue. Parking for this facility is located on non-HUD acquired land adjacent to the above described site. 8. Restaurant This facility is planned to occupy 1.5 acres with the building occupying a total of OAO acres. A parking lot to accommodate approximately 75 vehicles will utilize 0.80 acres, and 0.30 acres will be in landscaping. Location: southeast corner Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. After you Have reviewed the above information, I would appreciate receiving your written comments of your earliest convenience. The scheirwtic mister plan is available for your review. If you require additional information, please contact this office. Si ncc r ly, loyd G 3elsito ' City IninIstrator 1=GB:de ' It syst ms ' APPENDIX B ' PRO FORMA STATEMENTS FOR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 1 r r r rr �r r r r rr rr r ir■ r■ �r r� rr rr r rr ��7 Table 6.6 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 2c ~ CASH FLOW FORECAST ` YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 23952. 26108. 28457. 31019. 33810. 3 83605. 91966. 101162. 111278. 122406, 4 150000. 162000. 174960. 188957. 204073. 5 229950. 275940. 321930. 354123. 389535. 6 466613. 508608. 554383. 604277. 658662. 7 88000. 96800. 106480. 117128. 128841. e 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 9 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1229170. 1352939. 1483740. 1608414. 1744674. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 3 429600. 468264. 510408. 556345. 606416. 4 1800. 1962. 2139. 2331. 2541. 5 103500. 112815. 122968. 134036. 146099. 6 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 750422. 819667. 895315. 977959. 1068248. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 478748. 533272. 588425. 630454. 676426. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 478748. 533272. 588425. 630454. 676426. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 478748. 533272. 588425. 630454. 676426. Table B.6 (Cont'd) r• CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 8 9 10 REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 36853. 40170. 43785. 47726. 52021. 3 134647. 148111. 162923. 179215. 197136. 4 220399. 238031. 257074. 277640. 299851. 5 428489. 471338. 518472. 570319. 627351. 6 717942. 782557. 852987. 929756. 1013434. 7 141725. 155897. 171487. 188636. 207499. B 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 9 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1893603. 2056387. 2234322. 2428824. 2641448. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 3 660993. 720482, 785326. 856005. 933046. 4 2770. 3019. 3290. 3587. 3909. 5 159248. 173580. 189202. 206230. 224791. 6 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1166890. 1274660. 1392404. 1521047. 1661600. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 726713. 781728. 841918. 907778. 979847. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 726713. 781728. 841918. 907778. 979847. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0, 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. G. O. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 726713. 781723. 841918. 907778. 979947. r r � � r r r rr r rr r r r r rr r r r r Table B.7 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 2d CASH FLOW FORECAST • ' ti YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 60000. 66000. 72600. 79860. 87846. 3 117000. 128700. 141570. 155727. 171300. 4 200200. 216216. 233513. 252194. 272370. 5 23952. 26108. 28457. 31019. 33810. 6 83605. 91966. 101162. 111278. 122406. 7 466613. 508608. 554383. 604277. 658662. 8 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 9 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1135420. 1229116. 132e053. 1435987. 1553740. COST i 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 14400. 15696. 17109. 18648. 20327. 3 91800. 100062. 109068. 118884. 129 583. 4 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 5 609150. 663974. 723731. 788867. 859865. 6 22500. 24525. 26732. 29138. 31761. 7 103500. 112815. 122968. 134036. 146099. 8 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 1056872. 1153698. 1259409. 1374821. 1500827. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 81548. 75418. 68645. 61166. 52912. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 81548. 75418. 68645. 61166. 52912. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0, O. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 81548. 75418. 68645. 61166. 52912. Table B.7 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 $ 9 10 REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 96631. 106294. 1 16923. 128615. 141477. 3 188430. 207273. 228000. 250BO0. 275880. 4 294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201. 5 36853. 40170. 43785. 47726. 52021 6 134647. 148111. 162923. 179215. 197136. 7 717942. 782557. 852987. 929756. 1013434. 8 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 9 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1682210. 1822379. 1975320. 2142202. 2324304_ COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 22156. 24150. 26324. 28693. 31275. 3 141246. 153958. 167814. 182917. 199380. 4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 5 937253. 1021606. 1113550. 1213770. 1323009. 6 34619. 37735. 41131. 44833. 48868. 7 159248. 173580. 189202. 206230. 224791. e 55390. 60376. 658O9. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1638401. 1788607. 1952606. 2131668. 2327178. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 43809. 33772. 22714. 10534. -2874. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 43809. 33772: 22714. 10534. -2874. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0_ NET CASH FLOW 43809. 33772. 22714. 10534. -2874. Table 8.8 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 3a CASH FLOW FORECAST �'�' YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 117000. 128700. 141570. 155727. 171300. 3 200200. 216216. 233513. 252194. 272370. 4 72700. 79970. 87967. 96764. 106440. 5 150000. 162000. 174960. 188957. 204073. 6 229950. 275940. 321930. 354123. 389535. 7 88000. 96800. 106480. 117128. 128841. 8 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 9 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569_ 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1044900. 1151144. 1262788. 1366524. 1479905. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 14400. 15696. 17109. 18648. 20327. 3 91800. 100062. 1090613. 118884. 129583. 4 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 5 429600. 468264. 510408. 556345. 606416. 6 3600. 3924. 4277. 4662. 50B2. 7 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 754922. 824572. 900662. 983787. 1074600. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 289978. 326572. 362126. 382737. 405304. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 289978. 326572. 362126. 382737. 405304. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY O. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 289978. 326572. 362126. 382737. 405304. Table B.8 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST •J, YEAR 6 7 8 9 1 C' REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596 2 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 275880 3 294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201 4 117084. 128793. 141672. 155839. 17142- 5 220399. 238031. 257074. 277640. 29985i. 6 428489. 471338. 518472. 570319. 627351. 7 141725. 155897. 1714-87. 188636. 207499, 8 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 9 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1603835. 1739307. 1887406. 2049323. 2226360 COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 22156. 24150. 26324. 28693. 31275 3 141246. 1539 58. 167814. 182917. 199380. 4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 5 660993. 720482. 785326. 856005. 933046 6 5539. 6038. 6581. 7173. 7819E 7 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL CaST 1173814. 1282207. 1400630. 1530013. 1671374. NET CAS-. PLOW FROM OPERATIONS 430021. 457100. 486777. 519310. 554986. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 430021. 457100. 496777. 519310. 554986. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. C. Ett:-:RGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0- TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. ?. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 NET CASH FLOW 430021. 457100. 486777. 519310. 554986. Table B.9 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 3b CASH FL0W FORECAST YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 117000. 128700. 141570. 155727. 171300. 3 200200. 216216. 233513. 252194. 272370. 4 83605. 91966. 101162. 111278. 122406. 5 150000. 162000. 174960. 1138957. 204073. 6 229950. 275940. 321930. 354123. 389535. 7 466613. 508608. 554383. 604277. 658662. B 88000. 96800. 106480. 117126. 128841. 9 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 10 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972, 17569. 11 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1522418. 1671748. 1830366. 1985316. 2154533. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 14400. 15696. 17109. 18648. 20327. 3 91800. 100062. 109068. 118884. 129583. 4 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 5 429600. 468264. 510408. 556345. 606416. 6 1800. 1962. 2139. 2331. 2541. 7 103500. 112815. 122968. 134036. 146099. 8 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 856622. 935425. 1021492. 1115492. 1218158. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 665796. 736323. 808874. 869825. 936375. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. O. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 665796. 736323. 808874. 869825. 936375. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. O. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 665796. 736323. 808874. 869825. 936375. table B.9 (Cont'd) . CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 8 9 1C REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596 z 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 275880. 3 294160. 317692. . 343106- 370556. 40020i_ 4 134647. 148111. 1629"23. 179215. 197136. 5 220399. 238031. 257074. 277640. 299851_ 6 428489. 471338. 518472. 570319. 627351. 7 717942. 782557. 852987. 929756. 1013434_ 8 141725. 155897. 171487. 188636. 207499. 9 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 10 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 11 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200_ TOTAL REVENUE 2339339. 2541183. 2761644. 3002455. 3265507. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 22156. 24150. 26324. 28693. 3127 3 141246. 153958. 167814. 182917. 199380. 4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 5 660993. 720482. 785326. 856005. 933046. 6 2770. 3019. 3290. 3587. 3909. 7 159248. 173580. 189202. 206230. 224791_ 8 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1330292. 1452768. 1586541. 1732657. 1892256_ NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 1009047. 1088415. 1175103. 1269798. 1373252_ PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 1009047. 1088415. 1175103. 1269798. 1373252_ INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0- INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. O_ 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. O. O INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. �. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. v. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0_ TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 1009047. 1088415. 1175103. 1269798. 1373252. Table B.10 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 3c CASH '_mow ==4__fiST •��!/ YEAR i = 3 4 REVENUE 1 43C'0. 4 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 23952 26 i'-�5. 28457. 31019. 33810 3 83605 Ir=; 101162. 111278. 122406. 4 150000. °b20i)'C 174960. 188957. 204073. 5 229950. -7594 321930. 354123. 389:,35. 6 466613. 508608 554383. 604277. 658662. 7 88000. 9680%-.. 106480. 117128. 126841. 8 36550. 3947a. 42632. 46042. 49726. 9 12000. 1.32),--,. 14520. 15972 17569. 10 134200. i3420C') 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1229170. �,2939. 1483740. 1608414. 1744674. COST 1 8800. 99921. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 170722. '87794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 3 429600. 468264. 510408. 556345. 606416. 4 1800. 1962- 2139. 2331. 2541. 5 103500. 12815i. 122968. 134036. 146099. 6 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 750422. 819667. 8953i5. 977959. 1068248. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 478748. 588425. 630454. 676426. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0 0. 0. 0- 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 478748 5--j272. 588425. 630454. 676426. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. O. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. O. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. U- 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. O. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. G. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES C 0. 0- 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. G 0. O. 0. NET CASH FLOW 470716 y3:i2%2. 588425. 630454. 676426. �s Table B.10 (Cont'd) 'YEAR r. R 9 10 REVENUE 1 6316. 6924. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 36553 40170. 43785. 47726. 52021. 3 134647 i49111.[( 162923. 179215, 197136. 4 2203ci . c�3 O u3 1. 257074. 277640. 299851. 5 4284Sy 47133& 518472. 570,319. 627351. 6 717942 782557. 852987. 929756. 1013434. 7 141725. 155897. 171487. 1BB636. 207499. 8 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 9 19320. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 10 134200 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1893603. 2056387. 2234322. 2428824. 2641448. COST 1 1354^ 14756. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 3 660993. 720482. 785326. 856005. 933046. 4 2770 3019. 3290. 3587. 3909. 5 159246. i73580. 189202. 206230. 224791. 6 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78198. TOTAL COST 1166890. 1274660. 1392404. 1521047. 1661600. NET CASH FLO:� FROM OPERATIONS 7267?--- 791728. 841918. 907778. 979847. PRINCIPAL + i N T EREST PAYMENTS Ci. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEF RE INCOME TAXES 726713 781728. 841918. 907778. 979847. INCOME TAX FR-OVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0_ 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. O. TOTS-- STATE TAXES 0 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAx PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT C'- 0. O. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0 0. 0. O. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 726713. 791728. 341918. 907778. 979847. Table B.11 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 3d CASH FLOW FORECAST t YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 60000. 66000. 72600. 79860. 87846. 3 117000. 128700. 141570. 155727. 171300. 4 200200. 216216. 233513. 252194. 272370. 5 23952. 26108. 28457. 31019. 33810. 6 83605. 91966. 101162. 111278. 122406. 7 466613. 508608. 554383. 604277. 658662. 8 110000. 121000. 133100. 146410. 161051. 9 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 10 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 11 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1248420. 1350116. 1461153. 1582397. 1714791. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 14400. 15696. 17109. 18648. 20327. 3 91800. 100062. 109068. 118884. 129583. 4 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 5 626700. 683103. 744582. 811595. 884638. 6 22500. 24525. 26732. 29138. 31761. 7 103500. 112815. 122968. 134036. 146099. 8 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 1074422. 1172827. 1280260. 1397549. 1525601. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 173998. 177288. 180893. 184848. 189190. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. O. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 173998. 177288. 180893. 184848, 1139190. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. O. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. O. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. O. O. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. O. O. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 173998. 177288. 180893. 184848. 189190. r rr r rr r rr r r r r rr r r r r r r rr rr -��, e B.11 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 8 9 1G REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 96631. 106294. 116923. 128615. 141477, 3 188430. 207273. 228000. 250eOO. 275880. 4 294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201. 5 36853. 40170. 43785. 47726. 52021 6 134647. 148111. 162923. 179215. 197136. 7 717942. 782557. 852987. 929756. 1013434_ 8 177156. 194872. 214359. 235795. 259374. 9 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 10 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 11 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200 TOTAL RED 1859366. 2017251. 2189679. 2377997. 2583679. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 22156. 24150. 26324. 28693. 3127 5. 3 141246. 153958. 167814. 182917. 199380. 4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 5 964256. 1051039. 1145632. 1248739. 1361126. 6 34619. 37735. 41131. 44833. 48868. 7 159248. 173580. 189202. 206230. 224791. 8 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1665404. 1818040. 1984688. 2166637. 2365294. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 193962. 199211. 204991. 211359. 218384 PRINCIPAL INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. O. 0. 0. O CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 193962. 199211. 204991. 211359. 218384 INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. O. 0. O. G INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. G. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. G. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. G INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. C ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. C. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 NET CASH FLOW 193962. 199211. 204991. 211359. 218384_ Table B.12 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 4a CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR -> i 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 117000. 128700. 141570. 155727. 171300. 3 200200. 216216. 233513. 252194. 272370. 4 83605. 91966. 101162. 174480. 191928. 5 150000. 162000. 174960. 188957. 204073. 6 229950. 275940. 321930. 354123. 389535. 7 466613. 508608. 554383. 888480. 968443. 8 88000. 96680. 106480. 117128. 128841. 9 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 10 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 11 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1522418. 1671748. 1830366. 2332720. 2533836. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 14400. 15696. 17109. 18648. 20327. 3 91800. 100062. 109068. 118884. 129583. 4 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 5 421500. 459435. 500784. 545855. 594982. 6 1800. 1962. 2139. 2331. 2541. 7 103500. 112815. 122968. 187550. 204429. 8 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 848522. 926596. 1011868. 1158516. 1265055. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 673896. 745152. 818498. 1174204, 1268780. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 673896. 745152. 818498. 1174204. 1268780. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 673896. 745152. 818498. 1174204. 1268780, ! ! ! !i ! ! ! ! ! ! M. ! Table B.12 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 8 9 10 REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 275880. 3 294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201. 4 211121. 232233. 255456. 281002. 309102. 5 220399. 238031. 257074. 277640. 299851. 6 428489. 471338. 518472. 570319. 627351. 7 1055603. 1150607. 1254162. 1367036. 1490069. 8 141725. 155897. 171487. 188636. 207499. 9 53704, 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 10 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 11 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 2753474. 2993354. 3255352. 3541522. 3854108. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 22156. 24150. 26324. 2B693. 31275. 3 141246. 153958. 167814. 182917. 199380. 4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 5 648530. 706898. 770519. 839865. 915453. 6 2770. 3019. 3290. 3587. 3909. 7 222828. 242883. 264742. 288569. 314540. 8 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1381410. 1508486. 1647274. 1798856. 1964412. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 1372065. 1484868. 1608078. 1742666. 1889696. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 1372065. 1484868. 1608078. 1742666. 1889696. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT O. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0• 0• 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 1372065. 1484868. 1608078. 1742666. 1889696. Table B.13 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 4b CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 60000. 66000. 72600. 79860. 87846. 3 117000. 128700. 141570. 155727. 171300. 4 200200. 216216. 233513. 252194. 272370. 5 23952. 26108. 28457. 31019. 33810. 6 83605. 91966. 101162. 174480. 191928. 7 466613. 508608. 554383. 888480. 968443. 8 110000. 121000. 133100. 146410. 161051. 9 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 10 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. it 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1248420. 1350116. 1461153. 1929801. 2094093. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 14400. 15696. 17109. 18648. 20327. 3 91800. 100062. 109068. 118884. 129583. 4 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 5 618600. 674274. 734959. 801105. 873205. 6 22500. 24525. 26732. 29138. 31761. 7 103500. 112815. 1229613. 187550. 204430. 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 1066322. 1163998. 1270636, 1440574. 1572498. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 182098. 186117. 190517. 489227. 521595. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 182098. 186117. 190517. 489227. 521595. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES O. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. O. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. O. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0, 0. 0. O. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITYr 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 182098. 186117. 190517. 489227. 521595. ! ! ! gift we ! ! 0-0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Table B.13 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR � 6 7 8 9 10 P EVEh4UE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 96631. 106294. 116923_ 128615. 141477. 3 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 275880. 4 294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201. 5 36853. 40170. 43785. 47726. 52021. 6 211121. 232233. 255456. 281002. 309102. 7 1055603. 1150607. 1254162. 1367036. 1490069. 8 177156. 194872. 214359. 235795. 259374. 9 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 10 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 11 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 2273501. 2469423. 2683387. 2917064. 3172280. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 22156. 24150. 26324. 28693. 31275. 3 141246. 153958. 167814. 182917. 199380. 4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 5 951793. 1037454. 1130825. 1232600. 1343534. 6 34619. 37735. 41131. 44833. 48868. 7 222828. 242883. 264742. 288569. 314540. 8 55390. 60376. 65BO9. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1716522. 1873759. 2045421. 2232836. 2437451. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 556979. 595664. 637966. 684228. 734828. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 556979. 595664. 637966. 684228. 734828. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT" TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 556979. 595664. 637966. 684228. 734828. �r i■r r: rr i■i � tr � � �r �t � � r r �■s r■� r� �r Table B.14 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for the Basic Schematic E" CASH FLOW FORECAST 'iy� YEAR N. 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 117000. 128700. 141570. 155727. 1'1300. 3 200200. 216216. 233513. 252194. 272370. 4 23952. 26108. 28457. 31019. 3�10. 5 83605. 91966. 101162. 174480. 191928. 6 41400. 44712. 48289. 52152. 56324. 7 466613. 508608. 554383. 888480. 968443. e 110000. 121000. 133100. 146410. 161051- 9 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 10 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 11 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1229820. 1328828. 1436842. 1902093. 2062571. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. =2422. 2 14400. 15696. 17109. 18648. 20-327. 3 91800. 100062. 109068. 118884. 1295E3. 4 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 5 421500. 459435. 500784. 545855. 594982. 6 38000. 41420. 45148. 49211. 53640. 7 3600. 3924. 4277. 4662. 5082. 8 103500. 112815. 122968. 187550. 204429. 9 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 888322. 969978. 1059154. 1210058. 1321236. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 341498. 358849. 377688. 692035. 741335. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0- CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 341498. 358849. 377688. 692035. 741335. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. C. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. C. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. O. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 341498. 358849. 377688. 692035. 741335. m am m No Table B.5 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 8 9 10 REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 196107. 211795. 228739. 247038. 266801. 3 134647. 148111. 162923. 179215. 197136. 4 220399. 238031. 257074. 277640. 299851. 5 428489. 471338. 518472. 570319. 627351. 6 717942. 782557. 852987. 929756. 1013434. 7 141725. 155897. 171487. i88636. 207499. e 53704, 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 9 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 2052857. 2228013. 2419276. 2628137. 2856228. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 91394. 99620. 108586. 118358. 129011. 3 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 4 660993. 720482. 785326. 856005. 933046. 5 2770. 3019. 3290. 3587. 3909. 6 159248. 173580. 189202. 206230. 224791. 7 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1258284. 1374279. 1500989. 1639405. 1790611. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 794573. 853733. 918287. 988732. 1065617. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 794573. 853733. 918287. 988732. 1065617. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. O. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. . ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. .0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 794573. 853733. 918287. 988732. 1065617. Table B.5 10-Year pro Forma Analysis for Configuration CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 133467. 144144. 155676. 168130. 181580. 3 83605. 91966. 101162. 111278. 122406. 4 150000. 162000. 174960. 188957. 204073. 5 229950. 275940. 321930. 354123. 389535. 6 466613. 508608. 554383. 604277. 658662. 7 88000. 96800. 106480. 117128. 121 841. 8 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 9 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1338685. 1470976. 1610959. 1745525. 1892444. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 59400. 64746. 70573. 76925. 83848. 3 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 4 429600. 468264. 510408. 556345. 606416. 5 1800. 1962. 2139. 2331. 2541. 6 103500. 112815. 122968. 134036. 146099. 7 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 809822. 884413. 965888. 1054884. 1152096. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 528863. 586563. 645070. 690641. 740348. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 528863. 586563. 645070. 690641. 740348. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 528863. 586563. 645070. 690641. 740348. Table B.4 (Cont'd) -• CASH, FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 8 9 10 REVENUE I 631 B. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 275880. 3 294160 317692. 343106. 370556. 400201. 4 117064. 128793. 141672. 155839. 171423. 5 220399. 238031. 257074. 277640. 299851. 6 428484. 471338. 518472. 570319. 627351. 7 141725. 155897. 171487. 188636. 207499. 8 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 9 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1603835. 1739307. 1887406. 2049323. 2226360. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 22156. 24150. 26324. 28693. 31275. 3 141246. 153958. 167814. 182917. 199380. 4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 5 660993. 720482. 785326. 856005. 933046. 6 5539. 6038. 6581. 7173. 7819. 7 5539C. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1173814. 1282207. 1400630. 1530013. 1671374. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 430021 457100. 486777. 519310. 554986. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 430021. 457100. 486777. 519310. 554986. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT o. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT O. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES C. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. O. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 430021. 457100. 486777. 519310. 554986. Table B.5 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST • i . 1 YEAR 6 7 8 9 10 REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 196107. 211795. 228739. 247038. 266801. 3 134647. 148111. 162923_ 179215. 197136. 4 220399. 238031. 257074. 277640. 299851. 5 428489. 471338. 518472. 570319. 627351. 6 717942. 782557. 852987. 929756. 1013434. 7 141725. 155897. 171487. 188636. 207499. 8 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 9 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 2052857. 2228013. 2419276. 2628137. 2856228. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 91394. 99620. 108586. 118358. 129011. 3 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 4 660993. 720482. 785326. 856005. 933046. 5 2770. 3019. 3290. 3587. 3909. 6 159248. 173580. 189202. 206230. 224791. 7 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1258284. 1374279. 1500989. 1639405. 1790611. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 794573. 853733. 918287. 988732. 1065617. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 794573. 853733. 918287. 988732. 1065617. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 794573. 853733. 918287. 988732. 1065617. Table B.5 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 2b ~ CASH FLOW FORECAST , YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 133467. 144144. 155676. 168130. 181580. 3 83605. 91966. 101162. 111278. 122406. 4 150000. 162000. 174960. 188957. 204073. 5 229950. 275940. 321930. 354123. 389535. 6 466613. 508608. 554383. 604277. 658662. 7 88000. 96800. 106480. 117128. 128841. 8 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 9 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200, TOTAL REVENUE 1338685. 1470976. 1610959. 1745525. 1892444. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 59400. 64746. 70573. 76925. 83848. 3 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 4 429600. 468264. 510408. 556345. 606416. 5 1800. 1962. 2139. 2331. 2541. 6 103500. 112815. 122968. 134036. 146099. 7 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 809822. 884413. 965888, 1054884. 1152096. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 528863. 586563. 645070. 690641. 740348. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 528863. 586563. 645070. 690641. 740348. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH- FLOW 528863. 586563. 645070. 690641. 740348. r �■r r rr re re r� r r rr rr r �r r r �r � a� rr Table B.4 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR .� 6 7 8 9 10 REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 188430. 207273. 228.000. 250800. 275880. 3 294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201. 4 117084. 128793. 141672. 155839. 171423. 5 220399. 238031. 257074. 277640. 299851. 6 428489. 471338. 518472. 570319. 627351. 7 141725. 155897. 171487. 188636. 207499. 8 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 9 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL RED 1603835. 1739307. 1887406. 2049323. 2226360. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 22156. 24150. 26324. 28693. 31275. 3 141246. 153958. 167814. 182917. 199380. 4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 5 660993. 720482. 785326. 856005. 933046. 6 5539. 6038. 6581. 7173. 7819. 7 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1173814. 1282207. 1400630. 1530013. 1671374. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 430021. 457100. 486777. 519310. 554986. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 430021. 457100. 486777. 519310. 554986. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. O. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. O. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX. PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. O. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 430021. 457100. 486777. 519310. 554986. I Table B.4 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 2a CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 117000. 128700. 141570. 155727. 171300. 3 200200. 216216. 233513. 252194. 272370. 4 72700. 79970. 87967. 96764. 106440. 5 150000. 162000. 174960. 188957. 204073. 6 229950. 275940. 321930. 354123. 389535. 7 88000. 96800. 106480. 117128. 128841. 8 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 9 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1044900. 1151144. 1262788. 1366524. 1479905. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 14400. 15696. 17109. 18648. 20327. 3 91800. 100062. 109068. 118884. 129583. 4 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 5 429600. 468264. 510408. 556345. 606416. 6 3600. 3924. 4277. 4662. 5082. 7 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817. TOTAL COST 754922. 824572. 900662. 983787. 1074600. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 289978. 326572. 362126. 382737. 405304. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 289978. 326572. 362126. 382737. 405304. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. O. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 289978. 326572. 362126. 382737. 405304. Table B.3 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 8 9 10 REVENUE 1 6318. 6$24. 7369. 7959. 9596. 2 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723 28295. 3 26448. 28564. 30849. 33317. 35982. TOTAL REVENUE 52092. 56646. 61603. 66999. 72873. COST 1 13540. 14759. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 545135. 594197. 647674. 705965. 769502. 3 2770. 3019. 3290. 3587. 3909. TOTAL COST 561444. 611974. 667052. 727086. 792524. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS -509352. -555328. -605449. -660087. -719651. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES -509352. -555328. -605449. -660087. -719651. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. O. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES O. 0. 0. 0_ 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. O_ 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0_ 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0_ 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW -509352. -555328. -605449. -660087. -719651. rr �r r rr rr rr rr rr � �r rr r r r r r r r rr �1Y Table B.3 10-Year =ro Forma Analysis for Configuration lc CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR i 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850_ 2 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 3 18000. 19440. 20995. 22675. 24489. TOTAL REVENUE 34300. 37284. 40531. 44064. 47908. COST I 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422_ 2 354300. 386187. 420944. 458829. 500123. 3 1800. 1962. 2139. 2331. 2541. TOTAL COST 364900. 397741. 433538. 472556. 515086. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS -330600. -360457. -393007. -428493. -467178. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES -330600. -360457. -393007. -428493. -467178_ INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMIENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0- ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0- TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0_ TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW -330600. -360457. -393007. -428493. -467179. rr �r r� ■r �r m r m ■r m m m . r ■r m m = ■r r Table B.2 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 8 9 10 REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 96631. 106294. 116923. 128615. 141477. 3 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 275880. 4 294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201. 5 36853. 40170. 43785. 47726. 52021. 6 117084. 128793. 141672. 155839. 171423. 7 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 8 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 9 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 946705. 1020504. 1101082. 1189070. 1285156. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 22156. 24150. 26324. 28693. 31275. 3 141246. 153958. 167814. 182917. 199380. 4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 5 897787. 97B588. 1066661. 1162661. 1267300. 6 33234. 36225. 39486. 43039. 46913. 7 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 7B 1 BB. TOTAL COST 1438303. 1570500. 1714870. 1872535. 2044723. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS -491598. -549997. -613788. -683465. -759566. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES -491598. -549997. -613788. -683465. -759566. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. O. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT O. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. O. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW -491598. -549997. -61378B. -683465. -759566. r■� �r r� rr ■r r� rr rr rr rr �r rr re r rr rr rr rr rr Table B.2 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration lb . CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850. 2 60000. 66000. 72600. 79860. 87846" 3 117000. 128700. 141570. 155727. 171300" 4 200200. 216216. 233513. 252194. 272370. 5 23952. 26108. 28457. 31019. 33810. 6 72700. 79970. 87967. 96764. 106440. 7 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 8 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 9 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 660902. 708512. 760475. 817195. 879111. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 14400. 15696. 17109. 18648. 20327. 3 91800. 100062. 109068. 118884. 129583. 4 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 5 583500. 636015. 693256. 755650. 823658, 6 21600. 23544. 25663. 27973. 30490. 7 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817" TOTAL COST 926822. 1011943. 1104896. 1206403. 1317251. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS -265920. -303432. -344421. -389208. -438140. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES -265920. -303432. -344421. -389208. -438140. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES O. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW -265920. -303432. -344421. -389208. -438140. rr rr rr rr rr r rr r� rr �r �r rr r rr rr �r rr �r rr Table B.1 (Cont'd) ;may CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 S 9 10 REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 117084. 128793. 141672. 155839. 171423. 3 220399. 238031. 257074. 277640. 299851. 4 428489. 471338. 518472. 570319. 627351. 5 141725. 155897. 171487. 188636. 207499. 6 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 7 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. e 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 1121245. 1214342. 1316299. 1427967. 1550279. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 3 660993. 720482. 785326. 856005. 933046. 4 5539. 6038. 6581. 7173. 7819. 5 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1010412. 1104099. 1206492. 1318403. 1440719. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 110833. 110243. 109807. 109564. 109560. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 110833. 110243. 109807. 109564. 109560. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 110833. 110243. 109807. 109564. 109560. r r r r r r r ■� +� r r r r r r �r r � r Table B.1 10 Pro Forma Analysis for Configura}1 n :a CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 1 2 '? 4 5 REVENUE 1 4300. 4644. 5016 5417. 5850. 2 72700. 79970. 87967. 96764. 106440. 3 150000. 162000. 174960. 188957. 204073. 4 229950. 275940. 321930. 354123. 389535. 5 88000. 96800. 106480. 117128. 128941. 6 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726. 7 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569. 8 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL RE'JENUE 727700. 806228. 887705. 958603. 1036235. COST 1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. 12422. 2 170722. 187794. 206574. 227231. 249954. 3 429600. 468264. 510408. 556345. 606416. 4 3600. 3924. 4277. 4662. 5082. 5 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50817_ TOTAL COST 648722. 708814. 774486. 846255. 924690. NET CASK FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 78978. 97414. 113219. 112348. 111545_ PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLCAa BEFORE INCOME TAXES 78978. 97414. 113219. 112348. 111545. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY O. 0. 0. 0. 0. INYESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. O. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. FEDER,;L TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. itsvESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. E,iERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 'OTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOT, TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASE PLOW 78978. 97414. 113219. 112348. 111545. Table B.14 (Cont'd) CASH FLOW FORECAST YEAR 6 7 8 9 10 REVENUE 1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596. 2 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 275880. 3 294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201. 4 36853. 40170. 43785. 47726. 52021. 5 211121. 232233. 255456. 281002. 309102. 6 60830. 65697. 70952. 76629. 82759. 7 1055603. 1150607. 1254162. 1367036. 1490069. 8 177156. 194872. 214359. 235795. 259374. 9 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064. 10 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295. 11 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. TOTAL REVENUE 2237700. 2428826. 2637416. 2865077. 3113562. COST 1 13540. 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113. 2 22156. 24150. 26324. 28693. 31275. 3 141246. 153958. 167814. 182917. 199380. 4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554. 5 648530. 706898. 770519. 839865. 915453. 6 58468. 63730. 69466. 75717. 82532. 7 5539. 6038. 6581. 7173. 7819. 8 222828. 242883. 264742. 288569. 314540. 9 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188. TOTAL COST 1442647. 1575235. 1720030. 1878160. 2050854. NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 795054. 853591. 917386. 986917. 1062708. PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 795054. 853591. 917386. 986917. 1062708. INCOME TAX PROVISIONS STATE TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0� 0. 0. 0. ENERGY TAX CREDIT O. 03 0. 0. 0. TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. O. 0. 0. FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. O. 0. O. ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. NET CASH FLOW 795054. 853591. 917386. 986917. 1062708. �ilms vst 1 nPaeNoIx c ' BIBLIOGRAPHY I ' l ras stems \ BIBLIOGRAPHY ' (1 ) A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California, Special Report No. 114, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974. ' (2) Conservation Technical Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, March 1974. ' (3) Criteria for Decision: A Policy Plan for Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach Planning Department, 1972. ' (4) Final Report on the Development and Application of a Land Use Fiscal Impact Methodology for the City of Huntington Beach, Volume 1 , Methodology Development, Ultrasystems , Inc. , 1 November 1979. (5) Geotechnical Inputs, Huntington Beach Planning Department and Leighton-Yen and Associates, Feb. 1974. (6) Huntington Beach General Plan, adopted December 1976 and revised March 1979. (7) Open Space & Conservation Element Background Report, Huntington Beach ' Planning Department, July 1975. (8) Open Space Potentials : General Plan Background Report, Huntington Beach Planning Department, Feb. 1974. (9) Orange County Beaches and Coastal Areas Study, PBQ&D, Inc. , May 1979. ' (10) Orange County Recreation Needs and Regional Parks Study, Final Report, Volume I , Orange County Recreational Planning Process , PBQ&D, Inc. , March 1980. (11 ) Orange County Recreation Needs and Regional Parks Study, Final Report, Volume II Orange County Recreation Needs and Deficiencies Analysis , PBQ&D, Inc. , March 1980. 1 (12) Progress Report - Survey and Monitoring Program of County Dumps and Landfill Sites , County of Orange Human Services Agency, 4 March 1981 . ' (13) Seismic - Safety Element, Huntington Beach Planning Department, Aug. 1974. (14) Sully Miller Lake: An Assessment and Development Plan , J. Harlan Glenn & Associates, Oct. 1980. (15) The Parks Analysis , Huntington Beach Planning Department, August 1977.