HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport on an Economic Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Reven FINAL REPORT ON AN ECONOMIC
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED
REVENUE-PRODUCING USES TO BE LOCATED
WITHIN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK
' PREPARED FOR
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CALIFORNIA
i
PREPARED BY
U TRASYSTEMS, INC.
L
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA
IN CONJUNCTION WITH
CARDOZA DILALLO ASSOC. INC. AND THE RUSSELL COMPANY
rCOSTA MESA, CALIF . BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF.
7 MAY 1981
1
It st 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 .
�k 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
yst ,
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 ,
i 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 milli'on 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
3
h Sy St
.
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
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
� y
eh systnu
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
E
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
6.3 Other Revenue-Producing Uses 6-4
APPENDIX A - MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B - PRO FORMA STATEMENTS FOR LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX C - BIBLIOGRAPHY
iv
h Sys
.
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(l) :
(1) The greatest needs expressed by the citizens were for more
natural open space with grassy meadows , greenbelts , wildlife
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) :
r landscaping
(1) Provide visible landmarks and natural 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
r n 1_1
AWasYst ns
(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
prioritized the facilities on the basis of assumed need in the community
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
i (')assumed to include basketball/volleyball courts , game room, weight training/
gymnastics , handball courts , meeting rooms , multipurpose indoor pool , sauna,
snack bar, office and parking
1-2
whiras t
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 � 1-3
h syst •s
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
i
h s st .
� . Y
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 l� 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 2� 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 1,911
Finance, Insurance and
Real Estate 1,827 3.19 2,138 4.26 2,634
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
Y From Southern California Association of Governments
From Urban Decision Systems and Southern California Association of Governments
3� From City of Huntington Beach
N
W
i
•, Sys I •S
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
this pattern was the location of the McDonnell Douglas Space Center and the
Rockwell International facilities in northwestern Huntington Beach and Seal Beach,
1 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
and 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
lit s st sY
�
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.
I2. 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.
i (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
h s t ms
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 ) .
Table 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
F, O P F
ANT �� ,,ems ds jp DO
I R V I N E
"i4 �V P Q P� G�� �p rS �s S rS ��� 0
LL Q
Z G a,P P � y dti pJ T a
QP� 5 /OZ sd' O -17 �' P' .WALNUT AV
4 . X\ P P �\ O MOULTON
P A Po ' O
°o �� P� d,� od PKwY
05 O .r O p� I P IRVINE'u P �G
3 p,\ _ _Z, .,`' Q� Q� S P T CO
5 �� O O`� ti�� "� �s � o O Q¢ , WARNER w Q� TG o
o p, G °� O �� ��`' P PAP _� COO, Q Av . w BOG i
tr 1 Q� d� r1 p0 ? Q �� 7 S 5 RRANCA = � ��
Y,�d �� ,yo • .� YO �� Y ,`P► G�� �P� GPG Q �S �� P �O 1 J R p Q u
o y
O 0�' O ?i P �� OP`
MP
� 0 5 �.4 1 G� P , �5�� � y �J �y �� ems- WY o
�Q �,�• PS r o� d� �J�d�m W J� i
> �d, JJ w 0 p` SS ,- J6 1S a LP A.
d v0 0 �� gyp .. r �_ .�p,'' \p O
o .ls, �s J P P • .,J u
� 2
. G��'� �G � 0) , ,fir►` O ��P SOS _= Otid �
pIEG .�� O Q ST ONITA
O d0 _ Jd,
` Q
\01 Dj 7� dJ O V. G • ti p Z Sd y z
� � d. J P 6 Q w
w �� 6 \�� P ti0 7� �• �ti 6 Z m m
%e�' DO �d 1��` �P� q ci ` a `a SRO `� �'� �t'`' O �`)6 V)19 c
��O \5 c .O \� OP sd ��P TH o -,
P O
41 �d N D O r 7S \\ 17 T H <
m
' �,A' P + 2 ST _ � ,y N �00 • P' ST O
,� p 0� -_� GP Wp r O� T �,k.5 A COAST
O v 1— CO
0
J
H W Y
...- �P e QOQ` OP QUO
d O0 5 mi 1 es �P 10 miles
O �
1 ddy 2-7
J S
Figure 2.1 Proximity of Racquetball-Oriented Facilities (Athletic/Health Clubs and
Municipal Facilities) Relative to Huntington Central Park
rr r r rr ■r r� rr r� r r r rr rr rr rr rr rr �r rr
1
`X4
Table 2.2 Racquetball Clubs(4) Within a 5-114ile Radius
of Huntington Central Park
Estimated Number of Racquetball Additional Facilities
Number Racquetball Public Use Tennis Volleybal-I BasketballWeight nack Jogging Pro
Name Location Cost of Membershi M of Members Courts Per Hour Courts Courts Courts Gyms Room Sauna Bar Pool Track SS
One T me 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 & 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:
�l; Single membership fees only
2 The focus of this club is tennis and all courts are lighted. Shown by * on Figure 2.2.
S
6 outdoor courts
(4) Shown by*on Figure 2.1.
N
I
Cb
Table 2.3 Municipal Racquetball Facilities* Within A
' 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
' Table 2.3 (Cont'd. )
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
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
i
2-10
Affiramt s
Table 2.4 Market Demand Analysis Racquetball Development
Huntington Central Park Market Area
1980
Market Area Population l/ 329 , 459
Persons Aged 20-44Y 230 , 620
Persons in Families with 152 , 670
Income Greater Than3/
' $25, 000 (66 . 2%) —
Projected Racquetball 4/ 12 , 215
Participants (8%) —
Courts Supported at5/ 81
150 Players/Court
Less : Present Supply6/ 101
Demand (Surplus) ( 20)
FOOTNOTES :
1/ From estimates by Urban Decision Systems 1980 , 5 mile radius
2/ 70%
4/ From Urban Decision Systems
The Russell Company estimate of racquetball participants
6� From International Racquetball Association
— Supply within a 7 mile radius , excluding 116 free courts
2-11
I
!t s st ms
Y
'�i_
Expected o ulation increase within the area during the next decade
P P P 9
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
difficulty 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) .
Table 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.
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
' " t p '-s f t.�. �v Gv �� �,u �,� 27 ,FP c.- �Pr �P`r, .� 3�, z a �'���
ems 7 • A A �� , K o,, ti ° O�
0 0 ANT �� s �� O
XN
�4� ��Ar dA. 0v OG>P�O�� PQP G��' �O rs �s rs rs �-`�j� 0 IRVINE
o
Z O 6U(
T
5p�j �� 5�I P WALNUT AV
�¢
gyp, � ,° ��; �. PLO o tiro P' J�� PA ��P ���� p, P ,� O MOULTON
C.- +� P�� Poo Q PK�' Z o } 'C
?i �� \\P 4� 05 O s O �� ( 7 PJ IRVINE w 5 !�O
2 d P 0 �' QQ`� �� tiT CJ� A. =' Z Q cc > WARNER o
��d °� '�� o Ip �,o`' tL� �� S P� �P `� =�t CO,or—Q AV
PAP pQ����`� ���� PJ 'cos �P P�5 RRANCA = w Rp gam\
h > k-, -L �• �j Q. u, > a
o°o ?, ,' �` �P� r d� t�' '�S s o`�G 5(i 2, j -44
o e _
y) \P .����P .moo P�'02 �S� �`G (,\ u, PJ y�Q� P S� Q
P� -!. 5 � M
IN
ON Uj
Q
wo —KIN-
yJp' o}o V, S� �-
�'d c ( U S �s vs JP P • �, u
PO�R'i \�v ��� o��P �'pd s • •tid J J EG P �,� • B R I S T 0 L C.G
�� r Q ST ONITA
Q �O OS 5 O � d �� .� �do �W, Jd
i IL L� Uj
J w �\ • �� P O S r -7 c,, I -►- 0 'y
6 ri ti 7 \ `r A- z J
0�2 A.
�,�r OQ`Po� �c� �cw" `° s�0 �\ • O�� ti�Je �19 � m
S� r O0� O� \ \ • v�Vy �� PpP Sd \ °�P , T H O Q
rw�l1 O P ST O M
o o� M � 5 13 COAST
0a PLC sT ti'd P%� �P o
H W Y
P� P
do0 \� �P G 10miles
2 5 miles
ip
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� rr rr rr rr r� it �r r r rr r� rr rr r 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 Membership Ba11 Snack
Location Members Attendance Courts Courts One Time AnnualoM nthly 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 C
iv 18162 Gothard, Huntington Beach
i
.A
Los Caballeros Racquet and 2,000 NA 45 45 $ 950 -- $21 X X X
Sports Club/(2)
17272 Newhope, Fountain Valley
TOTALS: 3,335 95 86
Footnote:
�1)Single membership fees only
(2)Shown by 'on Figure 2.2
(3) Shown by on Figure 2.2
' .1t sy�t ti
j•
' 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)
8 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 0 on Figure 2.2
2-15
s
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 Distribution—
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 . 2% 14,339
Totals : 66 . 2% 71, 782
Families Participating In
Tennis
Over $50, 000 (45%) 3 ,918
$35 ,000-$49 , 999 (40%) 7 , 008
$25 , 000-$34 , 999 (30%) 9 , 365
' $20 , 000-$24 , 999 (20%) 2 , 868
Totals : 23, 159
' Number of Tennis Players 34, 738
(at 1. 5 per family)
' Prospective Paying Tennis 3 ,474
Players
Courts Supported 2 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
' •
h s t
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
school 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
for league use of fields, we project use of these fields 90 times per year for
each field.
Softball tournaments could be charged $100 for each team entry for
summer weekend use. We project 20 weekend tournaments , with 32 teams per tournament.
We 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.
' 2-17
I
Table 2.8 Survey of Ballfields Wi ij'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) 1(L) 1 No Yes
Marina Community Park 3 0 3 0 0 1 No No
Edison Community Park 4 2(L) 0 2(L) 0 1 No Yes
Murdy Community Park 2 0 0 2(L) 0 1 No Yes
Greer Park 1 0 1(L) 0 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 2 2 1 No Yes
Huntington Beach H.S. 7 l(L) 2 3 l(L) 1 No Yes
N Marina H.S. 8 1 2 4 1 1 No Yes
Oceanview H.S. 6 1 1 2 2 1 No Yes
0
Westminster H.S. 14 3 6 4 1(L) 1 No Yes
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Burke E.S. 2 0 0 2 Q! No No
Dwyer E.S. 4 0 1 2 1(L) 0 No No
Eader E.S. 3 0 0 2 1 0 No No
Gisler E.S. 6 0 1 4 1 0 No No
Hawes E.S. 3 0 0 2 1 0 No No
Kettler E.S. 5 1 0 3 1(L) 0 No No
LeBard E.S. 7 0 4 2 ] 0 No No
Perry E.S. 4 0 0 3 1(L) 0 No No
Peterson E.S. 6 0 0 4 2 0 No No
Smith E.S. 2 0 0 2 0 0 No No
Sowers E.S. 8 0 5 1 2 91 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) 0 No No
Crest View E.S. 4 0 0 3 1 0 No No
Glen View E.S. 4 0 0 2 2 0 No No
Golden View E.S. 3 0 0 2 1 0 No No
Harbor View E.S. 5 0 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) 0 No No
N
i 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 0 No No
Park View E.S. 7 2 0 4 l(L) 0 No No
Pleasant View E.S. 3 0 0 2 1 0 No No
Rancho View E.S. 8 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.
i
IV
p 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 l(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
� r r r r� r r r r � r rr r■ r: r� r ,� r �
Table 2.8 (Cont'd) •-
NUMBER SUPERVISED
OF TYPE OF FIELDS FEES RECREATION LEAGUE
LOCATION OF FIELD FIELDS ER CHARGED PROGRAMS USE COMMENTS
WESTMINSTER (Continued)
Frank Eastwood E.S. 3 6 d 2 1 0 No Yes
John F. Land E.S. 3 0 6 2 1 p No Yes
John Marshall E.S. 5 0 0 4 1 0 No Yes
L.P. Webber E.S. 1 0 Q 0 1 g No Yes
La Quinta H.S. 11 H 2 6 3 0 Yes Yes
Leo Carillo E.S. 5 0 0 4 1 g No Yes
McCarvin I.S. 10 6 6 7 3 0 No Yes
Midway City E.S. 4 0 1 2 1 S No Yes
Neomia Willmore E.S. 5 6 1 2 2 0 No Yes
N
N
Post E.S. 6 Q p 5 1 g No Yes
J
Ray Schmitt E.S. 4 0 9 3 1 g No Yes
Sequoia E.S. 4 0 6 2 2 0 No Yes
Starview School 7 1 6 0 Q No Yes
Susan B. Anthony
School 6 5 1 g No Yes
Virginia K. Boos E.S. 3 6 S 2 1 p No Yes
Subtotals: 107 1 4 71 31
COSTA MESA
City Park 1 0 1(L► p 9 4,5* Yes No
*(See legend)
Corsica Park 1 0 0 1 0 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 0 1(L) 2(L) 1(L) 4,5 No Yes
Bear Street E.S. 4 p p 3 1 p No Yes
California E.S. 4 p p 3 1 p No Yes
College Park E.S. 1 p p p 1 p No Yes
Costa Mesa H.S. 4 1 2 p 1 p No Yes
Davis J.H.S. 6 0 0 5 1 p No Yes
Estancia H_S. 8 p 2(L) 3 3 p Yes No
Kaiser Middle School 4 p 1 p 3 p No Yes
Killybrook E.S. 4 p p 3 1 p No Yes
DO Lindbergh School 4 0 p 3 1 p No Yes
N McNally H.S. 2 0 0 2 ➢1 p No Yes
N
Mesa Verde E.S. 4 p p 3 1 p No Yes
Monte Vista E.S. 4 0 p 3 1 p No Yes
Orange Coast College 3 p 1 1 1 p Yes No
P.aularino E.S. 5 p p 4 1 p No Yes Not open for public use.
Pomona E.S. 4 p p 4 p p Yes Yes
Real Middle School 5 p p 4 1 or No No
Sonora E.S. 5 p p 4 1 p No No
TeWinkle Middle School 12 p 7 4 1 p No No
Victoria E.S. 5 p p 4 1 p No No
Whittier E.S. 7 0 3 3 1 p No No
Wilson E.S. 3 p p 2 1 p No No
Woodland E.S. 4 p p 3 1 p 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 9 6 5 0 6 No No
J.H. McGaugh I.S. 5 6 1(L) 3 l(L) 6 Yes Yes
Mary E. Zoeter E.S. 2 Q 9 1 1(L) 6 No No
Rossmor E.S. 4 0 Q 4 9 6 No No
Subtotals: 16 S 1 13 2
TOTALS: 455 16 55 262 122
N 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 9 2. $241 for Adult Softball League per
season
3. $205 for Adult Softball League per
season
4. $275-335 Mens Softball League and S220
Womens and Coed Softball League
or
�10 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
11110
s F v 3 Uj
z
• 0 e ANT
Pao F� P G��� p° rs YS � ��j�� 0 I R V I N E
y ad �Q- d o J P �d
�s s
i Z yo T.
°j� PQ p���5 � s7 p�j WALNUT AV
oe
\P �4 C P�Q t` 'SS�O P� J S P '\00 MOULTON
a'j ° W
GQ`O +� I PKY Z }
_ C7
P\ Y • 0 �� Q`�\O ° S �j� p� ISPT CO 7 P� J Z O Q IRVINE�
(OD
`rP � G� O °C �
0 WARNER
".� tr ,y • .`Q� d� P� �o �Q�' �O��� p�j P� �'���5` P P C RRANCA = AL L
PGp. Q O 7 ��P RD
°oo`9 �° 7°0 ,,'�� �P�G,� �d� O �Q►� '�s �s o��v� SP. p��� ti, �' > �a
e o
.�O�� P �O �P�0�� �S� �� G\ IN.
0 GXXPQ ���� Py °' , 'es ,° v M P
S� " �5� e�,\� s P� J° °ti 2�',� -�, WYo
\wrJ
J
o -!• cn { s�P`'P 5�00 �P r tiJ 02 '� dJQ�,�� b�m } W
G dd O�H A.
� d
O OS S 5 06, pIEG �� ® Q B sT TOL a NITA
� d �� 'yam P P .� �b 7 v O
O
�'''�7 P\',�0� �6 ��� �J� °•ji �� • ° J Z• P , OOd day Z q d
A.
5\ A-
�0 y \ V Q d-
�� w �O ��G P p S
� d CO
co �sj0 �1\ `7 ti`''J m
)�,� r Op O\' \ O ® ,moo- • °P Sd �\ A 19TH
� Q P
S
2 N D �. �G\'\'\ ��\\ O • p, t 7 T H O
ST
o T
p P°� J J_ ---�-� —�_ GPP o Apr' ASP C C c
r R
q Sr
NIP
00, � 5 miles �� �Q 10 miles
Ob�y�
6ti Js
' 2-24
Figure 2.3 Proximity of Lighted Sports Field Facilities Relative to Huntington Central Park
h s t ms
o
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
fpizza, 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
A golf course, without complementary uses, would have considerable
difficulty in operating profitably. However, if provided with restaurant, bar,
and 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
fee reflecting the value (infrastructure improvements plus land acquisition) of
the land could be achieved.
1 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.
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
class 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
2-25
3 z
�
Yl
1 G S
O IRVINE� 7�
LL
} cY
d Q d G P o
�s dd �s6 J� �
WALNUT
\,
�P Q� -7 .s, P '� �P '( MOULTON
o �c' P o�� 6 °o ,� P OJT �� P Poo
O�� \\P�, �� Q�P�`. O�' /,O �s d� ��G� �� I �P `' `�G�P� ° PKWY
p IRVINE w
3 P - �i �, �\ SPT CO
�01, gyp' Y �55 �7 e G�Q� ° o�' �1 G �� ,5��s PJ �P' d� _�! °C WARNER LL
o
tr 1 Q� d� oo ?� Q�G�C� O % �s P. RRANCA = AV �O z
mod, y° �P� GPvPPO nQ ,� > RO �� v
Q �
� 5 GAP � , �Py .. > % `r s ,° 0`
' �O� 5� 05 X'� � S� P �5� \� s PJ °'s 2�'�'6�l
O P
J, 111
{ so P�'SS�O ,yJ �� y �J �Q t� d�° LU
c'� U
G� � d � O) ► � S P � �s O ��Q` a`J �2, u
BI�(ST O L G
Nj d6, ?' � PJ PJ pl C `d ,�� Q `s J ON I T A
0�6. '�9 6J� 602/ �O� �� ° J P � OOd d��- Z q d
i w dd P l �y V .
\ a oc d
s
-7
00 �� r PO Q'°q c� w co �4P \� o ti� 1) Oti,; Z m m
5 �C 00 vo- 'OQP`� `rsd \PJ j u)i9TH O Q O
���
� �,O r- S� • " 7 T H Odc
W O P O COAST
H W Y
.eCI
Pk- P
00 5 miles ® 10 miles
�d6y Js 2-26
Figure 2.4 Proximity of Golf Courses (Municipal and Private) Relative to Huntington Central Park
rr r� r� rr r� r rr r ■r rr� �r rr rr rt rr rr rrf r rr
Table 2.9 Golf Course Within a 10-Mile Radius of
Huntington Central Park(l) '*
Public Course
Current Fees Charged Estimated Weekly Number Driving Coffee Snack Bar Pro Additional/
NO--
Na Cit Location Mexbership Weekday Weekend Attendance of Acres Holes Par Range_ Restaur_a_nt Shop en the Green Shop Special Feature
Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa Golf 5 1701 Golf Course Dr. NA $6 $7 2,S00 232 36(2) x x x x
Country Club*
Mesa Verde Country Club 3D00 Club House Rd. 429 NA HA 950 150 18 72 x x x x Tennis 8 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 $3.50 NA 11 9 3 x x Putting Green
Highway
Huntington Seacliff 3000 Palm NA $7 $10 NA ISO 18 72 x x x x Tennis Club
Country Club*
Meadowlark Golf Course* 16782 Graham NA $6 $9 1,400 99 18 70 x z
x x
Long Beach
Bixby Village Golf 6180 Bixby Village Dr. NA $3 $4 750 60 9 29 x x Putting Green
Course*
El Dorado Golf Course— 2400 Studebaker Rd. NA $6.50 $6.50 275 150 18 72 x x x x
Hartwell Golf Course* 6700 E. Carson MA $3.75 $4.50 700 40 18 54 x x x
Los Alamitos
N Los Alamitos Country 4561 Katella Ave. NA 95.00 $8.00 1,000 IDS 18 66 x x x x x Putting Green
i Club*
N Newport Beach
V
Big Canyon Country Club 1 Big Canyon Drive 400 MA NA 750 145 18 72 x x x z x Tennis, Sauna, Putting Green
Irvine Coast Country 1600 E. Coast Highway 650 NA NA NA 130 18 71 x x x x
Club
Newport Beach Golf 3100 Irvine Ave. NA $4.50 $5.50 2,000 200 18 59 x x x x
Course'
Newporter Inn Golf 1107 Janboree Rd. NA $2.00 $2.50 289 37 9 3 x x Fitness Course
Course*
Santa Ana
River View Golf Course* 1800 W. 22nd St. NA $3 $4.00 125 NA TO(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 $9.00 2,000 105 18 71 x x x x
Golf**
Seal Beach
Old Ranch Country Club 3901 Lampson 800 NA NA 1.300 208 18 72 x x x x x Tennis Club, Putting Green
TOTALS: 15,655 297
*Public Golf Course
**Municipal Golf Course
(I)Shown by 0 on Figure 2.4
(2)Two, 18-hole c3urses
(3)Last year's (1980) floods reduced the course to 9 holes
77
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
1 in Orange County during the summer, a recreational vehicle park could achieve
extremely 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
' facility. 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
I 2-28
I
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 Summer 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 30% 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 80%
2651 W. Lincoln Ave.
i
1
2-29
•�h syst ms
. Table 2. 10 Cont 'd
' NUMBER
NAML OF RV COST/ OCCUPANCY (%)
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.
rTRAVELERS 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 W. Lincoln
Ave.
Subtotal: 1,167
GARDEN GROVE
' CC CAMPERLAND/ 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.
' Subtotal: 578
TOTAL: 1,966
-
NA Not Available
r --
Shown by 0 on Figure 2.5
2-30
A Co
CUARTA ST It V �PrP� �� �'
W 41TTIER t • 71 ,`Q
J l \. • L cy�O\� P�RD SANTIAG1)
O '� r J S Q 5
•f` C gON tN AMBERT RD �G- ` J J )� `� yob/ OJ JJ ;'�'i j CO Q� p� 0
v
S� _N z MULBE=R =9 DR c �S PN� P PQ� PJ �� �s�s P ✓ ���� �v Q • �p�
' SOS NIETOS a .\\ j o
R D �O OS Pao O N f v>J,
.> Fq 3% -6
' TE! \� ? s� RL, \, J�� P a� •� P d 6 '9 0 FOOTHILL BL.
-7� \.P P BL w 0!�4 t�Fy
�p O STAGE R D -`VGp�7 �s �O� q�•� �� 2� F P GO P Fp\P ��,�,y z J5 \ O
O • Q�-•- � � o' s.f T.�. �� d ° �40
SANTA
LVD �Gs�O 0 pJ ( 1i C, 0 IRVINE
/O7, 6 �r \F P Q G� J 3O BSI PJ D Q� >m ��o � Q-\�O�\�O �d � �
09 P P �Sv� 6S' OJ WALNUT o
�� % sd O ' P T j Av
z
MOULTON
�O 6 O �GGQ�O - P� ' SP� ��'�J O a 3 IRVINE U p5 �
4- o �,� P� '> �s �� J o� 7 P - Z 00 Q O A
��1\� o
5 O SPT CO d Q cc > WARNER U-
17� G a AV w \ \QU Z
y d 0 O oc' O I�. P. , = ��
2 Oi O P 5 � '� O � �G \� 5 RR CA
Q p, O 6s . o• ti ,IQ��C ��� �P� moo P�Q P�O�'o�.O i`1 �� P >o G�� ����� P w J
o • L YO � 1� Pc'v� ^mod• �O\� c�P Q•-�d � S U
�� O
o ` '�O 000�90� °o �'\P � o�` pro yrs 1`` MP S
s e
oyF �� PPS c� 1 P , , •�� �J O ` y�,s' S, YW Y Y. ��X, O
-7 A. C.� �'( d Q O G P 5 \ s PJ 7 �' �d W J z
tLP' QG� g� o d Q� 05 �`\'` P5� �Q. y O rt'�J6' S } LU \�
SO P c,S� �s `LLI
° o X�`L�° � �s s'P�•�CQ �'`' �` P • �+ �
ILO �'�� ,DPP �•}O �S S� O S O� 1s �s V,S
P d D\ ti6
ST ONITA
`�G � � S � � �Od� D'EG ��d/ Q Jd
"r
Q Oydb J Q PO 07,E �Jiy 60yi�ZjO.� JAG Od6 pJ Zr. P �d6S, y
Ir
-76 C,� i -F O y J
CDUJ
N 19 T hi m
d :a ���\ r1P\•J Oy0 d o�OQ,P S'C i �c 'n 00 �\ r�� PO \ O� o ,7 TH O c
In
�� �, �.�. 7C 5� d' `�,�` ZND • \�\. ` N 0
0 p• 5T O COAST
j S A
`P L ,. JQ't\ vQ �P N W Y
� p, L --0 \�� PeP`'eo
�
OMIL
AA
5 miles 0P 10 miles 15 miles
,of O Ji
� 2-31
s Figure 2.5 Proximity of Recreational Vehicle Parks Relative to Huntington Central Park
!�,yvst
' 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.
iTable 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
iyst_ Table 2. 11 Mayor Restaurants(1) 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
1 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
' 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
ysl 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
Gothard
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 Mario's x
Pacific Coast Highway
r317 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
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
' 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
yst s
Table 2. 11 (Cont'd)
' Liquor
Street Title of Restaurant Served
' WESTMINSTER
Golden West
15042 El Torito x
15122 William Flaggs
' Westminster Mall
300 Gilhooly's x
(1)Shown by 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.
2-36
�d o s F 4.R �• d A 5� ��d 7lp
c
0 0 ANT s
IRVINE
� �i dd 0� VHF Q P� . ��c P�p r �S 5 O Q`
' 7 d
w
ti dd �Q' d G
U Ile,
d ,
F J L a PJ P
,Z T
�Oy �Sd, zi y y�Q P WALNUT e
I t AV
�'Q :1�1 \ P P ,� p MOULTON
' •<<(, .S, `z° g� P �O 6� ° P G�0.1 PJ �� r PO Q PK�' Z 'C
b� °,O \\P� QQ`P O`� �O �s dp �� ( SP 7 `� P� O d IRVINE► Q►� �G�
SPT CO d0 Q ir
d° �P P Y • 55 ��''� 0 G��Q" Q �6 0�' O �d� ,C�yS P� �P d� _� <p� WARNER \QlJ G�o
P. 44 RRANCA < A� w \O z
� 'c) w Ro �� U
LLJYoo A. �� P�G� tid ,, Q� ,�s �s \�v C:) 2 fe J �4
P� y�� � P�-P�� M
\N� s,� P �5 � s P� ti `�,�d %, WYUJ
LU
O �> �S �r,� ��`i�P • r�PGOd ti � y
o JP P •
o
�.
> 13RISTOL V
°�' 066pIEG �`�i a ST ONITA
A. O O ti r q d
�
UJ
LU Ca co
20 O S c o -
O�' r S A. 19TH Q
��,�'�5 ,S, \ 1 7 T 2ND �.
H
J ' • ��Or�N o O
�p� • P ST O 70
oq s GP r \�or' � •• 5 .p c o A s�
40
H W Y
10
d O 5 miles P� 10 miles
ddti�s
Figure 2.6 Proximity of Major Restaurant Facilities (Excluding Small Cafes, Fast Food, 2-37
/// Carry-Out and Pizza Parlors) Relative to Huntington Central Park
' I yst
' Table 2. 12 Food and Beverage Establishments Per Capita Expenditures
Huntington Beach and Surrounding Areas
' Per Capita
1980 Expend-
' lst 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
1
' 2-38
h syst •s
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 11-A $ 2,470,942
' Desirable 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.
TOTAL SUPPORTABLE DINNER RESTAURANT
SPACE 18,355 S.F.
From Urban Decision Systems
2/ From California Taxable Sales data; U.S. Census of Retail
' 3/
From Urban Land Institute
Assumes 200 room hotel and average golf course attendance of 1500
per week
' 2-39
h s st s
Y .
. .
property. We estimate that this demand 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 qross 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
h s' yse' '>>
of generating a profit to the City of Huntington Beach. Such
a hotel development
could probably be supportable by the 1984-1985 time frame.
A survey was conducted of existing hotels and motor inns within the
Huntington Beach, Long 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.
I Table 2. 1.5 indicates the under construction and planned hotels and
hotel additions in the previously mentioned areas._ Therre currently 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/
IIrvine 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
i i i i i i i i i 1 mum i i i
• H
Table 2. 14 Existing Competitive Hotel Facilities Huntington Beach,
Long Beach, and Newport Beach/Costa Mesa/Irvine Areas :
Number AAA Mobil
Name/ of fear Rating Rating Room Rates Source of Business Dccu
Location poams Built {® of Stars) (B of Stars) Single Double Business Tourist Conference Amenities 5F Summer a. w4nter Annual Coupe
Huntington Beach
Huntington Shores Motel/ 50 1956 2 3 $40 $44-40/ 10% 80% 10% B,E
21002 Pacific Coast Hwy
(714) 536-8861
Sun 'N Sands/ 17 1958 2 2 $351/ $35-401/ 0% 100% 0% 70% 95% 65% S51. 70%
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
N (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 3D% 40% 30% A,B,C
Long Beach fwy and Queens
Hwy, Pier J
(213) 435-3511
Queensway Bay Hilton/ 200 1975 4 3 $44-62 $62-80 85% 5% 10% D 78% 78% 781 28% 78% 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)
.�n
Number AAA Mobil
Name/ of Year Rating Rating Room Rates Source of Business Qccuoanc
Location Rooms Built (N of Stars (@ of Stars) Single Dou a Business .Tourist Conference Amenities 5pr Sumner Fa Winter Annual Comments
Newport Beach/Irvine/Costa Mesa (Cont'd.)
Sheraton Newport Beach/ 349 1975 3 3 $64-66 $72-74 65% 9% 261. 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
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:
1/ Sumner rates
It syst .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
1 Hyatt Regency Convention 1983 545
Hotel/ NEC Locust and
Shoreline Dr.
Robert Mayer Corp. 1986 300 Plans must be approved by
1 Project/ Nu-Pike Site both the city council and
State Lands Commission
Hometel Granada Royale/ 1985 308
NWC Locust & Ocean
1 Subtotal : 1,153
rNewport/Irvine/Costa Mesa
South Coast Plaza Hotel/ 1983 250 Planned expansion
666 Anton Blvd.
1 Main and Jamboree 1983 500
Irvine Center 1986 500
' The Registry Hotel/ 1984 200 Planned expansion
18800 MacArthur Blvd.
2-44
ft syst s
Table 2.15 (Cont'd. )
Estimated Number
Name/ Completion Of.
Location Date Rooms Comments
Irvine Industrial Complex 1984 500
jEast/ Barranca Road
University Town Center/ 1984 300 A conference-oriented
Campus Drive - hotel
Koll Hotel/ 1983 500
Michelson & Von Karman
Subtotal : 2,750
TOTAL: 3,903
r
2-45
r
In Long Beach, demand for hotel space by both conference and business
Users should grow dramatically during the next decade. The construction of
1 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
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
m m m w w m m W " Sm m m s im r ar s
�4
1
Table 2. 16 Projected Office and Industrial Space Absorption
Huntington Beach, Long Beach , and Newport Beach/
Costa Mesa/Irvine Areas
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Huntington Beach/
Seal Beach/Westminster
Total Occupied Office Space 325,000 519,000 750,000 1,000,000 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 5009000 500,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 430,000 400,000 400,000
Long Beach
Total Occupied Office Space 2,000,000 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
N Annual Absorption -- 200,000 1,000,000 600,000 600,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
Total Occupied Industrial 275,900 437,000 775,000 875.000 975,000 1,075,000 1,175,000 1,275,000 1,375,000 1,475,000 1,575,000
4 Space (Southern Long _
Beach only)
Annual Absorption -- 161,100 338,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100.000 100,000
New ort Beach/Costa Mesa/
ry ne
Total Occupied Office Space 7,300,000 9,300,000 11,300,000 13,3009000 15,300,000 17,300,000 19,300,000 21,300,000 23,300,000 259300,000 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 37,500,000 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 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 195009000 1,500,000
h systms,
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
4
i
' 'P' t GROUNDS TREATER
.. .I,ease Signed for Building
10011tinued from First Page
. *.the existing Memorial Gardens budding.The facility,
h will use a landscaped berm at the.rear to reduce
Comty Fairground Theater ,will have lawn seating for another3,000 persons.
The fair's present show facility has temporary bench
By HERMAN WONG, Tbw Staff Writer Ming for about 4,000.plus lawn room for another 3,500
ear lease for boil ns,officials said.):
A 40-
Y ding and Project from Performing Arts As-
operating a T,fi00-seat, open-air sociates, which is-headed by Har- -Minimum Rental tip ON -
theater,at the Orange County Fair- vey.Kresky, a one-time i for 'ageri en Falk, manager said the fair
grounds, a project that had been Sonnyand Cher and other perform- fairgrounds ge�}er�' manag.
i?e tso:receive a aciinununi.:of g300,000 in tevenues a year
beset by legal and environmental ers. . - the tom►ter. The. guaraa.,tegd minimum
y signed The lease announcement came a vtal rei+enviIl2,00$year
disputes for ears. was.
day, by state agencies in Sacra few.days after'.another: proposed z
iv mento.state aides announced. open-air facility, the Inrine Mead-, -0 ttractions wall be after the Greeiz Theater.
Orange_County Fair officials said, ows Amphitheater, won 'foie! ap= Angeles s�riRilaralittes.Fik said.Events
construction. on the $9-million proval from the Irvine City Council. to include pap singers musical comedies.classical
eniert_ ent.facility is-to_begin in -- The 10,000-seat Meadows project, c and dance and special iectiu es.
late 3uly at the state-owned fair- which witty be next to Lion,Country can't believe this is finally happening after such a
grounds in Costa Mesa The first. Safari and the Irvine Co's wait,but we're ready to roll,' Folk said
3�-o0 rL season is scheduled to shopoffice laze at the a San. `
ping-. p
start is May:182. Diego and Santa Ana freeways,.is a open air theater_is W be.p�rt of an Dyers!! feu
Nederlander West Coast cheduled to in A as a n, master plannad lnit�alby by the Caudill
Corp.�' n wJett and Scott fir6,of-Iiouston- tiamed;th�`week
wag awarded the lease to develop home for popular and light classical .
land manage the amphitheater. The music._ be architect of the proposed orange Caiinty Music
firm was- given preliminary.. ap Friday, the state Department of ter Inc.complex in South Coast glaze Hawn Center
grovel last year by: the Orange Food and Agriculture and its:fairs and.completed by POD Inc. an Orange hrm,_and
;County Fair Board,which adminis- and expositions division —the" mica Research Associates.of Los Angeles:
`tees the fairgrounds as the slate's ent bodies of the local fairgrounds D Bides said an center and street entry
32nd cultural Association Dis- - and the-state Depart ent of parking lot revisions—ha",been completed under-
trict.The boar(;which had learned General Services signed the:official :master plan. Later projects to addition to- the
of verbal.apprdvals by the:state document for the fairgounds thea- 'theater,are to be a commercial center,hoteriod-
agencies, signed the leasing docu- ter: am:
ment Thursday night. The 40-Year lease calls for
Nederlander, operator- of the Nederlander to develop an amphi-
Dr"k Theater in Los.Anger, last theater on a 10-acre site southwest
year took over the fairgrounds Pkese ace FAMGROUNDS,Paget S
SOURCE: Los Angeles Tines Figure 2. 7 Newspaper Article Reoarding Proposed
Amphitheater at the Orange County Fairgrounds
Iine ®Ks Amphitheater..
,By HE"AN WONG, Times staff Writer
The 'tirvine City Council .has chief spokesman for the ampitheater tors have acknowledged that their
unanimously approved a conditional .1R,rsp, announced that. with . "operations will be;subordinate_to.•.
use permit for the construction of a t�1�ae�Irvine council'p approval the$5- tre (El Toro station's) national de-
ft,outdoor theater near'jEl riilBton fgcility c6uld ppen.by;early' f$nserole.'`
Toro Marine Corps Air Station. August with a "premier star".con- The Marine Corps, which had
But the unanimous vote, Which. tert.He:said other;flrat=season per- strongly opposed the project at
came just before midnight Tuesday, forniers would be announced at an earlier hearings. ..and ..warned, of
was.considered anticlimactic since early Hate: intolerable noise impactsandpassi-
the council had already stated that. 941.b}lnateRole ble crash:.dangers acknowledged
the lack of a scheduling pact be- that the amphitheater could safely
ues Tday's agreemgdt,,the third in
tween the Marine Corps` and the coexist under the conditions'pre-
developer was-the only major obata less than a year affecting training scribed in the agreement.
�e flight dperatians 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 Cdunty'comnitnity and that its con- classical perform~ancea a year;.•rill
agreement earlier Tuesday,by the tinued operation is essential to the be allowed to stage concerts after 8
I air station command and the Irvine- --na ;defe&eeff6,N;- -p,m. ll°idays tI>rough Sttntsays AC-
Meadows Amphitheater developer. Tp agreement' said that the cording to the Marine Corps'current
Timothy Strader of the KoII Co., arnnhitheater developer and opera- Please see THEAR` ,Page fl2
12. .Part n ThurWay, MWfth 26, 1981 R
THEATER: Iry a rants Permit
Continued from First Page The Marine Collis at any time can give a 12-hour no-
schedule,regular training flights-ap not anticipated over tice for unscheduled training or other operations that
the site at that time. : will result imthe 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 nighL.This is and-to noise from El Toro aircraft ilying 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 Toros 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-mile 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;jopted
for a 12-story height-for proposed Irvine Center office
istructures, reached a compromise 15-story height Last May.the Marine Carps;in a pact with the City
agreement with the Irvine Co. The.ewp:.said the Irvine,agreed to limit-use of an auxil ary,rtmws►;which
company's originally proposed 20-story height would the city said resulted in excessive night traiai}1$f*t®
pose a visual hazard to El Toro pilots, over Irvine residences.
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
Figure 2.8 Newspaper Article Regarding Proposed
9
Amphitheater Near Lion Country Safari
2-50
h smt 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
1 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
1
2-51
r �r rr r� i■� �r it r�rt �r it en em
. a ARIS COMPLEX ,
Performm* gArts Comple x Continued from First Page
/� lege and co-founder of California Bands Inc.,predeces-
Seen for Fountain Valley predeces-
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- i
By HERl1aAN WONG,Times Stag writer ley City Council chambers at 10200 Slater Avenue,
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 Lion Country Safari and. project,Thompson said his group has been endorsed by
time at a Mile Square Regional Park the state-approved Orange County major Orange County arts advocates, including former
Fairgrwmds amphitheater sched- Assemblyman Dennis
site in Fountain Valley—have been yraan Mangers•
tiled to start construction this sum-
disclosed by a group originally The.preliminary plans being drafted by Bates and
formed to sponsor band concerts. mer. A private developer, Neder- Pek k of Newport Beach call for a 3,200-seat concert
The group,California Association lender West Corp.,"operator.of the hall'aiud a 1,W-seat.theater for drama and other per-
of Music Arta Inc.,said it is drafting Greek Theater in Us Angeles,is to formances, Thompson said. Additionally, 200 fully
a formal proposal to be submitted to operate the fairgrounds facility equipped.re rooms are hearsal
the county and to the City of Foun- The arts facility proposed for the forplaned.including stumioa
and
tain.Vall for a two-theater center Mile Park area- would be' broadcasting.
Valley-for sated on_ presently undeveloped (Oignge..County Music Center lnc.'e plans call for
d be tiled principally by music, Minus-of the county-oweed fa- 3,2004eat and 1,500-seat t�tere to be built by the mid-
dtama been .dance groups. No dates. duty, possibly including a section 1980s on a five-acre site.being.donated by the Seger-
baYe been set for tie proposal to be strom Tamil . Thus which. recently..named its
� leased to the icy,officials said. y Y.
.Althougly the proposal is still-in Douglas- Tom. executive eaiecytiye director and architect is expected to announce
the thus far of$12 n ninon In a Wve to ratse�8 �
the "discussion and formative director of California Action of 18
Music Arts Mc., said the proposed mitd� ' -4�oa�struction and an e0owment fund.)
stages," it has won encouragement and
ex would not compete dhwUy
N) Pram county and city officials and with any of the previously _an-
from leading arts , inchtdtng nounced centdre. He said the other
Hollywood composer-conductor
Henry Mancini,a spokesman said. centers would_primarily showcase
The group estimates the cost of its' larger-scaled, "imported" perform-
proposed Fountain Valley facility at Ing organizations, such as major
W million. This would pit the- symphony orchestras and headliner
project against other large facilities artists•
seeking private donors, especially, ` Thompson said the Fountain Val-
the proposed $0-miWon Orange mY facility will be aimed at smaller.
County Music Center Inc. complex community-based groups that
planted at the South Coast Plaza might be left out of other facilities.
Town Center in Costa Mesa. Plans call for space and technical.fa-
Other reoentlyy announced cilities for both performance and.
Proposais in what amounts to a per- teacift situations, said Thompson,
forming arts sweepstakes include band director at Orange Coast Col-
the privately tracked Irvine Mead- Plam as ARC,Pam a8
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
Figure 2.9 Newspaper Article Regarding Proposed Performing
Arts Facility in Fountain Valley
�VSVlt;
I
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
acres 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
I� 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
1 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
ftjras t ms
performance groups which requite 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
ja 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
1 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,
built 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
1 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
h syst ms
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.
i 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
h syst ms
.� �4.
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
1 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
ft77.7
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 ark is generally a four to seven acre facility which
P 9 Y Y
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
p Y
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
1 !_t�jrasysltll
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
hrnsyst ms
1 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 fora 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
foot would be very reasonable from both the perspective of the City and the YMCA.
' For 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
It stems
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,OOO square feet. Monthly lease rates of $300 per craft could be achieved.
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
1 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
W/t s" ystd 's)
safety, aesthetics, and capacity. A concession should be established providing
YP 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.
' 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
1
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
have 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:
' (1)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
HTGF$ST SEISW RISK
(GREATEST SURFACE?UF—RE
�' `• '' / r+` POTENTIAL WITHIN Cr-'
``• / �' PEN AREA OF INTENSIVE SI+_A2
UWD TRACE OF FAtfT
� .
" (WITHIN aoo"zoNe
`,� f �,' o •. -r;UNCERTAINTY AS TO fL"+BNU
"4 OR EXTENSION OF FALILT
• �_ Hun_-ngton Central P.6rkE
t J��
TOM
-------------
ANCH�"_-- ____- ___ SW_ TH BR FAULT_---- --- --- 1 -
' __ S _ �_
OLIVE ST FAUhy-'---WALNUT_SL FAi---- - - "�
- sp:t tur�a.-�a.snc •---�
Figure 3.1 Huntington Beach Area Fault Map
J� , i 1
A
z
I _� l aA � Ip HL� �]LI itIr
kc U FA_ I UL 11-DO.1 P Ll
HIN
F_ �T-111 i
f _1E
,FFIL L
J_
n, sF, �A
A.I
I I Fi
CF_
t
11
[Ij
CF-R
TALBERT
PEI
CF- R
CF-C .
ITNTIVIIIJ
ELLIS
I �777
Afti ve Fault
Location
Source: Open Space Element Fault
Lines and Geologic Conditions
Figure 3.2 Active Faults in the
3-3 Huntington Central Park Area
\\\N
WIN I
IN
ZM
� i�•\�J ■ �`�\mac
QW
�_�_�_\feel\ i 'r' •_ :
oil
an
l
W INIIHZRawl
�����a` ■ �I■ ■■■�
�\ ---�--
O\
Site #12 Site #76
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(1) 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,
(I)See letter of 11 March 1981 from Mr. George Tindall , City Engineer,
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 c
"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
' 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.
(1)See letter of 17 November 1980 from Mr. John J . Tuite,
HUD Area Manager, in Appendix A
3-6
sySLomi
iL+ CENTRAL PARK DR
l. T '-T'� -�
' -1_�_ "7-�;—�`_� 1 AUTO PARKING
cr LOT
�07:
—--- Y —+-- I �� l
w
cr
cr
_ cn
LIJ
I` I HUNTINGTON
AUTO v' CENTRAL PARK
PARKING LOT
(�--JDEDICATION TO
---TAKE PLACE HERE HORSE
® I TRAILER
�MM MMrgMr. ,53M0 213®10® I ENTRANCE
�3
13 I ® I TRAIL---&9
_�-- Fill
TR ILER t; ® PA KING e,�®
BAY Wfi
� 3
� 0 z
L4 w i
WL
Comm
I
I '
i
0 1000
®4 ---
�C�IE M FEET
I
+
' Figure 3.4 Huntington Central Park Horse Trail System
3-7
' 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(1) 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 :
' (1)The City Public Works Department has conducted a study to determine that
it is not feasible to drive pilings into the area to support the
construction of a new heliport facility should it he considered at the site.
yst s
' Location. ADT
Golden West between Ellis and Talbert 17,000( 1)
Golden West between Talbert and Slater 21 ,000(2)
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.
M expected 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
yst s
IU
i
' 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
i
!aIRL-V�51Ms
--
of the park should contain uses that would be compatible with this potential
tfuture 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.
1
1
1
' 3-11
' 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
determined 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
' Configuration 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(1)
(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
La.i (A I 1 J;1 L IkE l .:i
` TT-Lf
ffi, a , ► �: 4� � ,
sMllaO Y.La
:F k-�� a I'f ..... ` 1, o. .....�, �..�►:sue®� !
r CF-E
CA �kg9f .�irw pr.�YfU i��
Y 4 4, i-TT-.1-1
i +
IJ_I t I TTTJ
i
� I
i S I
TALBERT
I6- - -
7' Huntington
�`_ Fl ; 1 � ��� '\k Central Park
r—;i :-_ id►l.�tt i�1Y (328 acres)
I�
I
,
-- - _
i CF -C i - -
I 1
I
r
4-2 Figure 4.1 Existing Ccntral P,,r!,,
AM& Boundaries
L_ jrw� I
-771 ( L
DIt
' YOORO 4r LM 'gI '.L�IJ--1�-_7Ll.LJ R 3 L `—✓ ��y_�G_
IE
��,��, •�W 1...� �� � �1.
I//f•), ! � I � ;�l'��tf1i1��N�. .. "". :E�:.•_'-� �irii�►�r/S
WAN �.w u. i i I ��41 all Il I t0. I I I I
raft
I. � l { � I � �► iyl+.�, I I Ilf('rMl11f�. ..� ...�;�r i.�_� �� _.I__
J I �R n I
1
h yIf
11
4. I
di Mir A Tkl®EqT
�.i._L� •� .d �!1 _ _
HuntingtonHIM
Central Park
_.!it. A .. (349 acres)
IT
I
j
iI
IilWllllll ��-�,q _
I �
Figure 4.24.2 Central Parts Boundary
q_s Configuration No. 2 (Existing
Boundaries Plus Northeast
alms 1 Corner of Goldenwest & Ellis
OII a IA
ri.r
i
CF-E
V[PW i`MY}LI V.D. of& 104 M
F i j��
JIB
JM
"w wRw _--
`-^-� —
I
7�
1
I I I�-
_
n
I
i
1
I
I
1-I I.I.1 .i H
TALMEAT
=I
L
N _ Huntington
i -
N
oR �5P1-'-`�C:
_ Central Park
�.!„ k � � > (358 acres)
rJ
- — �._••'�— I lam. I _ _---
hL
CF -C -4-
-
T
1 Figure 4.3 Central Park Boundary
Configuration No. 3 (Same as
4-4 No. 2 Plus Northwest Corner
of Ellis & Golden West)
MW M
I
AE
YOFFO 4, iI.LJ11 - — ��
F— a ! �• •ronw• o•
:F � I�
revel F
C• (W ft1 V!r:W gr..KYNI.I •• ML
I 1
rl"
IAt-
-
i
� I I
r } ?
S
9" urFr F!• — --- --------- - - - TAl9ERT
Huntington
Central Park
t-- k I (367 acres)
J
II
, 1
Figure 4.4 Central Park Boundary
4-5 Configuration No. 4 (Same
as No. 3 Plus Northwest Corner
ALAMLA of Gothard and Ellis.
h t •s
(7) 18-hole executive 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
�i 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
jthis 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
1 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 lc (see Figure 4.7) is the "do nothing"
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
• • • �� fir' ` x
,
•• � � _ II fi.L ,,
• ,I � � � it ..,�'�� ,..GNP � %�Sw I iNil
�i• I11�11 f
„��•,..1.,;..ram-, •sue 11e�S
t 1 /� YO• I
1 b
CITY OO F HUNT�INGTOO N = EACH
( ( i� 1
NOW
AM
v■c\►• t
� • —i — ••• .r �'.�` \. -_ ,� �-- ' yak ^4G�° V ,� r
• • — • 11, sg5 arm = e 'L. _ '-` •—u--'.,,,,�
iauiaup11
iiiC. ,
'�/i.iBll■A.
x\\ ti■/r.
�AMMf
' +rrwLo/:ems MIS,
���
o""•`: `�°° III f ' ''1 ' -� •
r e ,
�i
CITY OO F HUNT�IINGTON = EACH ,�- z
b*�r a
OF
city yardr ,
.{. -
youth camping
area .
existing concession
advertture playground
---
:r" e�YZ)ulaill 1 NI
cars
shooting range
existing concessionti.
�f
IX
huntin on
ishin
ar
_ �,1 rl
/ ---- Y
elDs ave.
(OF HU�M(3MH BEALH
Cem D �K o 200 40o eoo
' Figure 4.7
n_o
4.2.2 Alternatives for-Confi:gurati on M. _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
inow 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
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
rboundary 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 0 and the County
linear park on the west side of Ellis.
4-10
�1 "� �srrr■•cLE�, '
� � rr � v4�� '�° • +Y `� Irrrrrr�
i • �� I� yrtyr�� ,.i
1. A v tl
• � � f � 4�s�f� � •N�It:
IN
` o
• • — • ZQh.� Vic— ", �� � — ■
NOW
1
"�'�e��'). ♦�� c '',OS Wry^t+Ir■
• � r� 1'.S�.v. � s►arl �sr
DA
.1, ` a■�slr 1' I.
` J'; fir, ���� �'r ■�.:��.
r � can�9
ty�Z, 7 1
r5 ,,ll AAVVM� //I`
CITY OO F HUNTIINGTOO N = EACH ,.
r ,�
• 3 �
'�S'lN EYr"lr�rrr�
fi
�v r
i• — — . � . • • �'� - .�` ` � •�: � 'oY} �o..e y�e ��� �. Ala
i • . �� _ � la .I�• �-�,���r�F�. "' ate_
..�
�ti �,(• Ry,f�
. - . � - ,r�• I� P z�i r
IL
r� II aa t l 1
I �
I'ti ..•.ps.?" ��f �y��+. It e-+ �a;�F�,�r'�' ��,`k„� r•;�.i��6 y� 9MIN
y+ r 1:
�•. 3 F 1 1 _ l
Will
Of I
.� s""'�� � e'�� ?���/.!� r��l:', _ 1y,!\'•!"{I+I,k�°A��"hi' y��I 'I �/i�IW�i�� � �� I
' c'"'�'°�'°"� •.�►!�y '����/`t,�JFi/p'r/� �aA {.t � ��.�J ���y���,�y�y�ti�'�.;,.1\►��(�/y A �y
CITY OO F HUNTIINGTO�N = EACH •
Il � i �
dw
94
i!i■■■i
� rl� fY ` x►r y �� g�■6■■/'s fr r�J 4
rB al is ,K
�11.�.1�j �Yar _ �`• � `1l� _ lC��:� �. l0� "Vfr '
C. Pei)
h i■DID 1 '' I I
� � � ..if i� � t■■ ■� ■r�
,VIArtx&�, .�,
� m
TOO"
1 '" ,�� f�'`✓i`�''f� i it{, Itry SA�f�''4rz�'�`1�r. ) j
3 44qi
t�
b�, a3� "9 1 .yvaa ^•v -.B.�)'i.3 +v E8 va S �1 r 3�'f'�(`� rl �
CITY OO F HUNTLINGTOO N = EACH . +
i
i • -� - ••• _ ;� -��.� fir- - ` ,
• � _ �• • � Y � � Imo. Fh ' ..
it �� �i`• � ;'y Wur,n
K
wife-'_..:. '
nr.wwur
W IOwwY'
Ms twe tiV�wC' I
a� I
C
Xvi 'I i
US
CITY OO F HUNTrINGTON = EACH
Y �
uouuu■u
la
fu■oue
�•r> l ��� d ireeiiie� °`
■ I • �, ���e•� I
Y�X� w:a ■1
r n'er
1 g ,�, r_.c■r
.ram` s:�'���,,%•
• P`�..��..•.+.w�,r, �.^ ere �niaiw•.
7+L 90EL'r
_ � ' ��,���`� �� �` + ' �k.r■�era.r
f j\ >■■fr Mi I
roses aUPMA
.�. i •-� a�. ![[^�' '�.F tq r5 i��,�'3St r. er f �++ i,
' Y ��',?�!��pL�►y° �' 'y���'`F ^�`"tri��� yir fry fl �'�/�t�il ' .
' � __.c! �: � �' � t,��Af fi.�.� r1•C1'�� sir
� � � �� � wry ■ram n+� � r� �\rrs � � r� ��� �
CITY OO F H'UNT�INGTOO N = EACH '•�•
I �
r♦ 1 df�.. •r///iY/
■c///rw
+R I
• •� `, i �• it 11. I
zf
OR
ma mr,
hil
IN
all,
1 y w'.k�� `'���t �1 � ," {yam �s ����s��• .�.� � (i.'`.{I ,i -
I��,c
4 < 3 t}3v �� F� I l e �
� a� ��-•s �� !Jl '�+�°��.7J,B, a°{'�I.i��a.Y(�,,°`}x'?��4 �.I�y,,r8�f;-+� � SC 1 r � Y � I
CITY OOF HUNT°IINGTON = EACH -� � .
t < <
Y f
- -� • • - . �': ram,, �� �-�".Rf.wO/
:v
1 s. �ti am
Zwl
ri� _,tra:i ��.rt '.
i tww� ■, ■„i �i6wr+aa�_ _
Ir. ��� tom' _ i�l:� �yL��p. �•�
Ali
Ill
•` y�r"+`�Sq,.�� �,wv�VO '�/�"��''''"�vYa,1,-E �"'�I� `'�`'�� 2Y :. -I-
• / • •�
CITY OOF HUNTIINGTOON = EACH -�
0 ,. :..
_ u ■u/rs
♦11 ��' � �i t/ uuc /'�
♦ �Np�
d
t ?D
1 Eg � 'iti�.w�; ■ra,p
ice.rr� saws ,•+. � 1' I,� _ �a�5x� =��x I
n cua
IF' . -� u ,'Awl...-� �d\\���`\`�:. � "/a •;urrtj -_�+
Mor
�• y�, `l'.'+`
CITY OO F HUNT�IINGTON = EACH
( ( i� 1
r
s�M , 4
p1' ' !AJeIi a
{• '�4
d RN
{ r
� uaru rtiue
\ �fsaeiem//XT
�,
a I
00
0 so
t � I
I
«ram �,yF
s •,�Y�a s, 4�rfc'`�-`. � "��ia �t+K,�"1�: I � ?..,• ,ri .�y.�#'� I
C
IT Y OO F HUNT�INGTON = EACH
( ,( .� 1
r I
�awrarv�
\\\ „ ■�roiie�
• I �;
•� — � • — � Y 18 yr, �wr�1. ,
�� riwe �r•ws s.� I
Lz
. • �� ��� ��, ,/ 'so- .uiwwa
■i"!" 2
SEEM
16
ISV
,�--��I t_�� ,� Viz•. � .��.
C
ITY OO F HUNT`INGTOO N = EACH
i
c�
ItSPt ms
r4. 3 Examination .and Analysis of the Schematic Masterplan for
Huntington Central Park
tBecause 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
' attractive park surroundings. In this scheme, it is located adjacent to a very
large parking lot.
iThe 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
SLATER Ave.
.P
1
N
SCHEMATIC- -'.''�_ YARD •
MASTERPLAN
. 4
HUIUTINGTOIU BEACH CENTRAL PARK I 1
a
o
L' BUILDINGS— Cl nlEnr/wcE r •
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS — ®
co .,
N.
MATURE* AREA
« �
�
w
y > a
c+ SCALE ►�-
n' LIBRARY-_ _ ur
506 4wo_
W
clt
NI
CENTRALCENTRALe�ius DR.
® ALBE VE..
GOLF i t
WING roM.
RANGE • M .f� r l;\
P ,+
CE
pou
a
t 1 t KIACffOnt` �+„` :� &bonluG
RANGE
I
r ! BASEBALL
Lli
s10 PITCH •m^•�,•"�• I_ I Z I i
! N z
V ♦.t FRISBEE
C aim .' GOLF s.wtlum - COURSE
Ii TRUtlNG
LAKE
AREA 1 1\ �I• Saar w - s
AREA"B'
3 nca w
II •,
f 1 r 1,—ti I IAtt I i I
AREA q„
ELLIS AVENUE
a o
'st ms
1
' 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
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,
' a 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.
t
. 1
4-24
h st
1 y
.7
1
5.0 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
1 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
1 Existing boundary(' ) (i .e. , after acqui- In order to expand the park to inclus-
sition of remaining encyclopedia lots) ion of the remaining unacquired enc;;clo-
(Basic Configuration #1 ) pedia lots north of Ellis St. , it is
estimated(2)that this cost will be
1 $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
1 $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
1 would reduce the total land acquisition
cost to $317,561 .
1 Existing boundary plus northeast corner The area generally designated as the
of Golden West and Ellis(3) (Basic "mushroom farm" on the northeast corner
1 Configuration #2) of Golden West and Ellis comprises 21 .57
(' )See Figure 4.1
' (2)
Source: Mr. Charles B. Davis, Real Property Agent for the City
' (3)See Figure 4.2
5-1
�71ftt�jrasyvFstems
Park Boundary Configuration Land Acquisition Cost
acres and is estimated(') 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(')
' 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(') 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
• •
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)
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 1,234,20056l
Golf Course (18-hole Executive) Nonell4
Hotel with Convention Facilities None(4)
1 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) None(4)
Shooting Range None(9)
YMCA None(4)
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
i
5-3
ysr c
.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
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,
rnamely: 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
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.
The revenue estimates used and their corresponding derivation are as
follows :
(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
' 1000 50 erformances 60% seat per 4%
(seats) ( per year ) (occupancy) ( 0 attendee) (rental ) _ $60,000
Assumed annual increase = 10%
(3) Arcade and Pizza Parlor
It is assumed that the City builds this facility and leases it to an
operator for operation and maintenance.
Case: Arcade
(4,0G
00
A*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 :
1 (6 fields) (5 nights ) ( 6 teams ) ($250 per) (3 seasons) _ $136,200
per field per field team
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
Imuch 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
L
j
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
(30 weeks) (7 days (50 people) ($5- per person) _ $52,500
per r day
5-Month Off-Season
(22 weeks) (7 days (30 people)
day ($4 per person) = 18,480
per week $70,980
M 5-6
Gt +'t1cJ s
Boat Rental :
7-Month Season
(30 weeks) (7 days ) (20 boats) ($5 per) _ $36 ,400
per week per day boat
5-Month Season
(22 weeks) (7 days ) (10 boats) ($5 per) = 7,700
per week per day boat
$44,100
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 Executive)
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
L would develop and maintain the facility.
Fi rst 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) ( 70% ) (365 ) (5% lease) _ $131,400
rooms day occupancy days fee
Third year of operation:
200 $60 per (1) 70% 365 5% lease) $ '= 153 300
(rooms) ( day ) (occupancy) (days) ( fee
;r ,assumed annual increase(2) = 10%
(1)room rate of $55 plus $5 for concessions other than restaurant and bar
(2)after third year
5-7
ysr
1 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:
r
( 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 course?l).
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
$ 41,400
Assumed annual increase = 8%
(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
1 5-8
yst
• 230-Space Site
Case: Summer Months
° $15 per
(spacces) (80 days) (occupancy) ( space ) _ $262,200
Case: Non-Summer Months
( 230 ) (81 weekend) ( 50% ) ($12.50 per) = $116,438
spaces days occupancy space
(
° $7.50 per) _spaces weekdays(wee0kdays) (occupancy) ( space $ 87,975
$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 ) _ $146,880
$888,480
�. Assumed annual increase = 9%
(11) Restaurant (dinner-type plus bar)
Hotel Related
8,000 ft2 $200 sa es 5.5% lease
( GLA ) ( per ft� ) ( fee ) _ $ 88,000
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
sVst •,
(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 :
( 100,000 ) (charges per) (5°6 lease) = $ 25,000
attendees attendee fee
$125,000 $36,000 $4,000 7% lease
ammunition + gun-related + repair)1 fee = $ 11,550
sales supplies (income
$ 36,550
Assumed annual increase = 8%
(13) Snack Concessions
Each of the two(1)existing snack concessions in Huntington Central Park is
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
It 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.
(1)o ne located � 9 a ed 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
Table 5.1 Revenue Sources and Factors by Huntington
Central Park Land Use Alternatives
Initial Annual
Year Escalation —
Revenue Source Revenue(1) Rate 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
v' 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
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) 9 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
(2)$275,940 in Year 2, $321,930 in Year 3, and 107 increase each year thereafter
(3)for first year and increases by 97 per year through Year 3; S8Q8,480 in Year 4 and
increases by 91 per year thereafter
(4)for first year and increases by 10' per year through Year 3; S174,480 in Year 4
and increases by 10'' per year thereafter
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
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(') 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
r (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
Operation and maintenance:
Costs(i) for electric power, work boat
operation, shoreline, pump systems , aera-
tion system, chemical treatments, small = $ 65,722
tools and supplies, dock and piers ,
contingency and professional services
Staff:
3 full-time $20 ,000
equivalent salary = $ 60,000
personnel (per person
$170,722
Assumed annual increase = 10%
( ) Genera 5 1 Park Maintenance
General park maintenance consists of maintenance of the non-fishing
lakes, the arboretum, the area around the fishing lake, newly developed
passive park areas , the existing park area around Huntington Lake, the
library grounds and general vicinity, and the existing nature area. The
maintenance costs for these areas are as follows:
Area Cost Per Acre(2) Size
I k Huntington L 2 700 11.5 acres
Lake $ ,
Talbert Lake 1,800 21 acres
Arboretum 1,500 16 acres for all
alternatives except
lc (assumed to be
0 acres in this case)
Maintained area around Sully 2,700 0 acres for lc
Miller Lake 6.5 acres for 4a and 4b
9.5 acres for all other
,. alternatives
Newly developed passive 2,700 57 acres for lb
park areas 66.5 acres for 2d
t73 acres for 3d and 4b
0 acres for all other
alternatives
Existing park area 2,700 60 acres
Library grounds and general 2,700 59 acres for lc
vicinity 143 acres for all other
alternatives
Nature area 1,500 22 acres
(l)Source: J. Harland Glenn & Associates, Inc.
(2)see letter of 19 March 1981 from Mr. Robert L. Scofield of Environmental
Care, Inc. , in Appendix A
5-13
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
(per hours
week) (30 weeks) ($hour
25 er) _ $ 3,000
Management
7 hours $10.50 er
(162 days) (per day) ( hour p ) = $ 11,900
Maintenance
(162 days) (peroday) ($hourr) _ $ 7,800
Water Truck
6.3 hours $15 per =
(162 days) ( per day ) ( hour ) $ 15,300
$ 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, lb, 2a and 3a
10 acres for all other alternatives
Assumed annual increase = 9%
5-14
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
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
Based 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
W r: low M iIft w i i i A i
Table 5.2 Cost Sources and Factors by Huntington
Central Park Land Use Alternatives
Initial Annual Alternative
Yea rr Escalation -- -
Cost Source Costtl) 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
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 914 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
tBaseball/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
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 42.1 ,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
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
the Basic Schematic Plan for Central Park, Table 5.4(1)presents a summary of
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
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
Iassociated 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
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
5-18
meows" M -MMMI
ti
7.
Table 5.4 Comparison of Net Cash Flow 10-Year Forecasts for
Huntington Central Park Alternatives
Investment Costs Total 10-Year Ratio of Cash
Alternative Land Investment Net Cash Flow to
Number Acquisition + Infrastructure + Development = Cost Flow Investment Cost(1)
la $ 317,561 $1,982,750 $ 2,594,200 $ 4,894,511 $ 1,063,511 0.22
lb 317,561 1,982,750 16,329,200 18,629,511 -4,839,535 (0.26)
lc 317,561 1,982,750 200,000 2,500,311 -5,029,602 (2.01)
`n 2a 3,383,561 2,257,750 4,694,200 10,335,511 4,214,911 0.41
2b 3,383,561 2,257,750 5,296,500 10,937,811 7,812,427 0.71
2c 3,383,561 2,257,750 3,896,500 9,537,811 7,145,309 0.75
2d 3,383,561 2,257,750 18,454,000 24,095,311 447,644 0.19
3a 4,446,761 2,403,250 4,694,200 11,544,211 4,214,911 0.37
3b 4,446,761 2,403,250 5,996,500 12,846,511 9,932,808 0.77
3c 4,446,761 2,403,250 3,896,500 10,746,511 7,145,309 0.66
3d 4,446,761 2,403,250 18,811,500 25,661,511 1,934,124 0.08
4a 5,981,761 3,037,900 6,886,600 15,906,261 12,777,903 0.80
4b 5,981,761 3,037,900 19,701,600 28,721,261 4,779,219 0. 17
Schematic 5,981,761(2) 3,037,900 7,086,600 16,106,261 7,127,061 0.44
(1)that is, the fraction of payback achieved over a 10-year period
(2)assumes that the northeast corner of Edwards and Ellis is acquired through
a "no-cost" land trade
Arawl,*ms
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
j 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 of5 Golden West (6 fields) , fishing lake, golf course,
and Ellis 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 Ellis(71 space RV park, shooting range, snack
concessions and YMCA
Wsee Figure 4. 1
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
(8)see Figure 4.16
5-20
h t ms
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
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
rof 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-Bene it
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
h s" s
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 Park so as to adequately pay 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
' ,h V emi
6.0 OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 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
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
1 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
14
CI�"Y UOF HUN�'INCTON = EACH ,-�:r�, .
r�
CITY OOP HUN�'INC�ON = E /�CH , .., .
c��l ter.
r � rifl3 ��■I}
AW
NI w FIX
OR
�/ a��., fir+.. �✓f.A r "L
g
CI�"Y Q1= HUN��ING-fON = EACH .\
c�
ti
r
FAN
r '
t. (1 �` a�,�t;.T�,�� ,C;;4,• .f f� �"
CITY OOP HUNTrINCTOON = EAC1� ,. .�
�e
h syst s
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,
as 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 care) _ -$1 ,758
�8.97 acres) ($459 per acre) _ $4,117
6-6
/t srstems
' f i Central Park shown in configuration 4a
o this parcel and inclusion n Huntington Cent a as g ,
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
Ir syst •s
1 '
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
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(l )
Confi gurati on $ 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.
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
' (1 )see Table 5.4
6-8
107
requiring some type of new construction activity. There are, however, potential
6
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.
rUses 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
r
_ e
dt s 1 eras
.vs
City give consideration to revenue-producing uses such as these specifically oriented
towards the recovery of library operation and maintenance expenses.
' An additional consideration is that should a land use plan be selected for
Huntington Central Park that includes an RV park, there is a possibility that a
swap meet activity could be created during the off-season or low usage periods of
the RV park. Very successful activities of this type currently occur at the Orange
County Fairgrounds, the Orange Drive-In Theatre near Anaheim Stadium, and recently at
Golden West College. It is important to keep in mind, however, that activities
of this type: (1 ) evolve in popularity and use over time, thus are not generally
over-night instant successes ; (2) significant revenues(' )could be derived from a
successful swap meet operation based on a percentage of gross receipts ; (3) sales
' tax receipts to the City would generally be minimal because the sales are reported
as being at the normal business address of the seller, which most likely is outside
the City; (4) there will be increased traffic flow and congestion in the'area if
the activity is successful ; (5) business license revenue would be generated, but
would most likely not be significant; (6) patrons of the swap meet activity would
most likely use some of the other facilities provided in Huntington Central Park,
thus increasing the number of people in the park area. Depending upon the land use
plan selected for Central Park, it may be practical and economically feasible to
' allow limited swap meet activities in the park area.
i
(' )For calendar year ending December 31 , 1980, the Orange County Fairgrounds
' received $600,000 based on 25% of the gross receipts from sellers and buyers ,
15% of the food sales receipts and 27% of the beer sales receipts.
6-10
Ailfttjrasyst,
1
APPENDIX A
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1
i
STATE Of CALIFORNIA---THF RESOURCES AGvEp_ ED',:UNC G. iRC),YN JR,-
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. BOX 2390
SACRAAAL' TO 95P.11
(916) 322-9596 E_ G
E I V E
July 11, 1980
Nr. Bill Waddell
City of liuntini- ton Beach
P.O. Box 190
fluntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. 1-laddell:
As we discussed, attached are copies of our Procedural Guide and ya!re-
from the Heritaf;e Conservation and Recreation Service Grants 1'anucd re-
-arding the conversion of lands and facilities acquired and/or developed
iath Land and 'Hater Conservation Fund assistance. As the at4aCileel mate-
vials indicate, assisted recreation lards and facilities may not be con-
verted to non-recreation uses without'. replacement. T1,,c use o:: propert,
acquired or developed with assistance from the Fund may not be changed
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.
An-oroval can be obtained by providing this Office wit:: a coi-,,plete dc-
3cription of the facilities that are to replace the funded facilities.
This description should include the sizes and (ivantitics of fa-
cilities, their cost, the anticipated types and numbers of u-ors that
they will attract and a discussion of the added public benefit tt,.at
%-.,ill result from the chanme. in addition, you should describe t-he
displaceti-lent of the users of the existing funded facility. Please
advise if they have been consulted, where they must go to -find com-
parable facilities and any concerns or problems that will result from
the chalare.
Is you can see, we and HCPS will require a 17,rca-t- deal of information
and 'ustification to provide you with an approval of any c,an e :n
' ` ' procedure is des]. to protect 'bot."i the -federal invest;.,ent and
the members of the public who are enjoying; the use of that investment-*
In the case of lluntin.Cton Beach Recreation Trailc*, ...,here "lie project
was or,!,- paid "final" last year, we would be extremely resistant- to
such a char.1-c, unless it was clearly shoi-m to be in the best interest
of everyone concerned.
Please let me if 1 can be of further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
/*
vg
Daniel C. Preece
Park and Recreation Specialist
Attachments
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
V 1
I.OS ANGELES AREA OFFICE
IIIIIIII ° 2500 WILSFIIRE BOULEVARD
t 10 C LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90057
CIL
REGION IX IN REPLY REFER TO:
' 9 . 2CMF
' Mr . Frank B . Arguello
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
B . Restaurant-Southeast corner Goldenwest Street
1 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 :
np
D
NOV 211980
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
2
1 . A certification from the appropriate ar. eawide 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 .
We 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
,�.rea Manager
' Enclosure
r
ac.n zn,.
T a
.;. �r 2000 MAIN S1 RLET CALIFORNIA 92648
' P. O. Box 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT (714) 536-5486
Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director
' October 20 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. Crisp, (2) October 20, 1980
' 5. Remote iModel Cars - This facility is planned to be constrUCIed 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 constructed
and operated by concessionaire.
All private concessionaire leases will be on a ground lease basis with all improvements
made by concessionaire and returned to Cify 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 hark 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,
ent G. Mo rhouse
Director
Community Services Department
VGM:VtA:cw
cc: Frank B. Arguello, Acting City Administrator.
Mr. McMillen Hopkins, HUD
Mr. Karl Van Holt
.."je 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
I, 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
1 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 I, 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 . . . . .
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.
5. 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")
' I. Approximately 2,800 L.F. of 12" sewer main is required for Alternates 1,
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 . . . . .
1
Mr. John C. 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
1.) 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
vertical 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 . . . . .
' Mr. John G. Rau -4- March 11, 1981
9. Cost estimate for construction of arterial highways.
TYPE OF STANDARD RURAL
' STREET CONST. SECS_ SEA
Alternate #I
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
iTOTAL $1,797 $1,380
' Alternate #4
Ellis Reconstruct 400 250
1 (2 Lanes/Median)
Edwards Reconstruct 150 100
(2 Lanes/Median)
+ Alt.#3 17797 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
highways.
Item 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 (cc)
' 1 297 1485 12.4
2 307 1535 12.8
3 332 1660 13.8
4 372 1860 15.5
* 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 . . . . .
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.
F. WATER
I. Based on the information available regarding the development of
Huntington Central Nark, new 12" water mains would have to be
constructed on Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue, per the City's Master
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
' 1 12" Edwards 1/2 Total
850'
2 12" Edwards
850' 1/2 Total
Ellis Ave.
700'
3 121
' Edwards
850' 1/2 Total
Ellis Ave.
2,000'
next page, please . . . . .
Mr. John G. Rau -7- March 11, 1981
Alternate Construction Improvement
' Size Location
Main Length Reimbursable
4 1211
2" 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, backflow 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
AMCW ' A'
a T
.1 Tj 4 1 4
?L. _Ll.�.-_]1 7. A
;0 BAT LN
77-D L"ZILM D-CEI 11-11�
' T' I 11"', —1 j
CE, I A
c.". —.. --A---- -- —'— —
r I ; I , .
MT
T t�
1 .�j [11, 1
-4
C F—E
IT' I��[Tle -� I ` ��, j�-- 1 l ;`I I I 1 I�� ..... ... . .
�j
... .... .....
.......... ....
L -7)
' _ .:, � �� i I ��..c�t �.1 J1 �
' I ° raw.. ... - f _._._
.. .......... ..........
4 ... ... ....
L 4.31 i:-13j
ZA
i L I
R-1
TA L C1 E A T
14 1 —
H nitiq6toi
FT
ontfal P .,k
97 r ap)
-A CF-C
JIL
T7,r' U1111-rTM
Proposed Expansion ( 7 gr ac)
Pea. lot
Figure 2-1
AXTACW • 16'
I
T 1 I
l ITf�i'--{ l Iy,I 1 i I�'v .' III ! I 1
`'
TAC-1 1-7
LL
(.qPJ B1Y LM � 1l+
1' �— �1^j- 1- � i �l [
-p—J �� j •l'),1_Ir�i i �1i 11 lui::1�'>>�_���. I� �}T I I I-
:F t .-. —1
II ' i l [� ..I
Cr L_.' I �_1�• _�_� i 1JI...1
—i,.�•7-,c:;T,-
ilI} i
--�l
, l Ll,J
err-rX.
-r--•`-
-� I
k
del
LLLLJ
T R L 0[R T
771Hunti
Central P rat 'r 1
ex
I� I (�II i•~ i i � - - �� I I
1
CF c - I-
8 n IIII III 1111� i1 li I I I �I � .
a ��
.1� I;j��l„III-.i .IIII li II•I I I '- - r •f`ir' ! r .Atli
000
MOR (&Cf1
�Ilrili�
Proposed Expansion ( % gr ac) AT a
t - Figure 2-1
An-rC V41 �c
� " ' T I (i I I , i TI 1 ;A i �n kr<1�S ' ;�'t) � �I� l�^�•i,,,, .1 j � i ,
��-• J� r-_ i 1' li` I III i11-i_!_
I1�-TT`_T �l ��li_��� T�_-�� �__ `� Ll�JyL J't_L� JC—Jn;
-� n � •\
,-- j �T'1 C�-iT-1 I. .�:L1=1h�� i r 7i III II
I El
I l,l li �1 �.�,►�
; CF-E I
FT
All I
ly��...- ; I--3 ;1 ; -�i__...__ - - _ � _,� I�i ;'I' T ' + -Tfl'!
ii {� `i ' I '1. "T ' vl- J ; , e'`�` - (� s1� k� ::;:< : : :;; I I It
II {
L-l?,Mill I
i 11 1_' I � r r I
J.
-i IT
d,
_1777
� 4 ni :-III
!li
rt Lmtrsi P•
97
F: I
......... /� f
/� j I / ✓ CF_-C
9illl � �4 ! -s�Y r. Iaol56
il
- ----- -- '� " irl i .•I L..I � ii liK�jjji�� _�_ . 1 r—: _�'^_�.� ��.: ,`/ /�— J� i
fl 4i� IF li; :I^
I- d@OC: � "oolfS�!� yllA}' '�, • .A006�Ch�.EPJ'.1 - n �'�; � Oh
�I•;�.Ij�r}t'j � 1
ill i,, Proposed Expansion 15 gr C) of-
' - I�-_.--- ----- -- ;��; � Piers 10�,' �e�o►P. �wE �\
4fi�E� .3
f
6 � Figure 2-1
_
s ,-� ! I I:,o I in `•\ i1 LI ' A�. 1 I
L• - { 1r_ � �. r 5 I , I-I i r .t I W � I - I r I I , - I I '
--I {. r.-li / ( I I i7 --i ,y I 1 .�yl I• , I. I -r i I !1 1 A l� fY�'�11�5�—. �) -1 h 1 �'F�.. -�
� c. I f \ .;�;rl•`_ .J , I 1 � 11' -i� I ,�s 1 I I � I L+_. I ! I, 1r�I N1 I J � I �•I � `
r(.
r\ E _. r_ 1 i --�� 1/ -,' i�.IJ'��_L�! I \J t I W� ,-y ji1 1i I I jaI I 1'J
1rWnJ w.'Lr � � .tA--- .—
FT
.L..i
I C F-E I --1 1 ' i i l I
i l i i -jL �.'
I _ _I
fl--� I �_ • I I I:rt _ 1 _.�:c���,� (�.r��-r,�-��
HL
.......... .e I
J
TALDEAT
h.
N ntifoa, �'I lrr
Part. ETIF
f III
JILL 2y��C'r;aC "
I,I
-
;.., - SN-gip
t� rl' I u '. 111,I iL-: > ? �EJ� O�>00��i 4
I� / I: II!,l � (lr l;l/ ,ri I i 1 ;.1 / 1- =--f ♦ !0f1 /L/ - 1- -
-- -T/
I m400 'y'. , h� '.z ,;,, ,`d:: In 9 f *eOL&IRIM..'tu' -- ors-�
I C41 1 yII NR�• r�
�•��--; ;t I�1 ' Proposed Expansion ( 75 Cyr aC) U
I I
1
6 .;; Figure 2-1
... •• ,1 nr7 F7`�%!`wN is(� �
' ' I
�+ T
1. •
i
r -
•f �._.� �......_.u..w..- :,�r.�..�� :l.•nYiF14"�.Fltii',G4tirH+,i»M. �«....� , _/
l
i �
N 1►
A-������.� �
. i
�i
,�1
1
� 1 � �
��I _._
1 ��`��
1 _ �._ � �� ... . . . ..
ram,..,�;^rr��-*...��. ....'•"'�"�.«•»_"$":`., t i-xq:. Z
��
,.....
- - ---- - -
� �1I � �
. �'
f !!
1 - i
Z O
F 1 C
1,11N
T-5ED
fir' f11I FTTMy LN
1
1
�Cn.tr♦'N d_-_._..`r W _ 1 =� 1w• j
11
I 1 I I, - ,� 'MilNll/.•`.�i::'va4.. \ I I
rr Yi. I �1;L1.
' :F•f;r_ I f I of Y• .�li� ��
�wl �i I I CF-E
I�r'—rl _ �l
-J -I- L - 1
1 L
I
, I.
u r
f
-I I 1
�� rr
N�nti
r c
��::�.•:•:::�:�::�i:....:.::::�.':�:�':•'�'?:•:�::�I•:.::•:�' 1.Tip -
_1-r:
It
Nwool
II err i ,
! I
proposed Expansion ( 75 gr ac)
i T i I
JO:A'
Figure 2-1
4
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 Ultrasystems calls for them to analyze the extent
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
' corner of Ellis and Golden West +
-- s
4. Development of all the acreage designated on the
' Schematic Master Plan (approximately 372 gr. acres)
IOC
Page lwo
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 required in Edwards , Golden West and Gothard Streets and Ellis
Iand Talbert Avenues?
Will any pump stations , reservoirs , or other special on or off
site lines or facilities be re uired? If there are lease describe them.
q � P
' 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?
s Streets and Traffic Control
What requirements for street improvements, including landscaped
medians and parkways, will be placed on each of the alternatives.
1
I .
10C -
Page Three
For now we are assuming that Ellis Ave. will form a perpendicular
intersection 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.
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 .
rDo 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.
iWill 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.
' t 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.
P
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.
_ s
1
envirOnzl@ntal LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
care,
gnc• an equal opportunity employer by choice
1920 SO. YALE STREET • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92704 • AREA CODE 714 546-7843
' 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 wn1lld 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,
46
Ro ert L. Scofield
Vice President-
RLS : a r
' Enc.
Sgll91 +
California • Colorado .
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CENTRAL PARK
NATIVE AND NATURAL AREAS
1 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 .
GENERAL 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.
C. 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
a. 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 -
W.BORETUM AREA
Projected cost $490. 00 per acre per month.
COPE OF WORK
ncludes 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
1 City.
HIGH USE RECREATIONAL AREAS (BALL FIELDS)
trojected 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 Fail .
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 .
IGH 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. programs on controllers to allow maximum use of
Set L g s con le
facility.
5. Drainage systems to be maintained in a free and clean
condition.
6. Trim around back stops and dug outs as needed.
7 . Hose down dug outs weekly.
r
- 4 -
•
CITY OF HUNTINGTON 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.
1. 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 Water Improvements:
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. 17 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 disasterous. Presently, the system consists of two
r
Mr. John Rau
April 6, 1981
Page 2
r
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 ccimplicated 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.
rill
S�Ot7__�
1 Don Noble
Engineering Planner
1 DRN:Jy
cc: P. Cook
G. Tindall
V. Moorhouse
1
1
r
r
r
1
CITY OF 11U.'ATINGTON BEACH
J INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
June Catalano From George Tindall�
Deputy Director- , Dev. Services City Engineer
Sul)ject Ellis/Goldenwest Studv 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 City Ordinance and
City Master Plan of Sewers . regardless of density.
Please delete the references in the March 23 memo relative
to the permitting of septic tanks.
GLa': jy
cc : P. Cook
Don Noble
Jim Palin
Carol Inge
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
'? INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
fit%JIN('10N lit%(n
To June Catalano From Don Noble
Deputy Director, Development Services Engineering Planner
Sul)jcct Ellis/Goldenwest Area Date March 23, 1981
'rie Public Works Dept. has the following continents relative to the subject
study area.
At the present time, there are no, or inadequate, public utility facilities
in the area. Laster plans do exist for some of the essential facilities
(sewer, water & storm drains) ; however, a comprehensive plan for all re-
quirod utilities (including transportation, gas, electric and telephone)
and the various f..i.nancing alternatives is not available and should be corn-
pleLed prior to Lhe cailmencerrent of any development. Although the benefits
of a comprehensive elan, relevant to the orderly development of the areas,
is wicruestioned, actual implementation may be difficult because of costs
and the large number of individually owned parcels. Therefore, consideration
should be given to developing a program/policy to offset the impact of costs
i and reduce the number of parcels. Such a program/policy could include provi-
sions for the Eoi-ination of assessment districts and density-bonus conditions
for the consolidation of parcels. In addition to the above comments, this
office has the following remarks relative to specific areas of concern:
A. Drainage:
1. The City's Master Plan of Drainage indicates tie need for a major
underground storm drain system to serve the E1Lis/Goldenwest area.
However, natural swales incorporated into regt-i_red open space or
green belts and maintained by the owners is preferred. This system
of drainage should include design principles relevant to chemical
pollution. For example, extensive green belts, sprayed with herbicide
or other chemicals by property owners, could pollute both Sully and
Huntington L-ike. Therefore, the construction of low flag lines or
other devises would be necessary. The attached drawing (Exhibit A)
i.ndi-catcs s(xne possibilities for the utilization of natural s•.qales
in acconnnoclati.ng anticipated runoff runoff from the subject study area.
2. rV)st. 1 ikely, the study areas will not develop all at one timer;
tt,o_refure, Uie drainage system will_ p— I ai�ly Ie constructed in in-
crements. If the first owner to develop is located at the upstream
end of the drainage area, costs to construct needed drainage facili-
ties could be prohibitive even though the develo-per is entitled to a
reimbursement for constructing master plan facilities (i.e. pipelines
equal to or exceeding 39 inches in diameter) .
B. Sewage:
1. The e.:listinq se�•.er- lift station at Gothard and Ellis will eventually
be abancloned and another lift station constructed at the low point
on Ellis between Gothard and Golden,aest. '111-iis change in lift stations
and the construction of additional sower mainlines as shown in the
i.I 1 i.s/(k) del Iwe:. .rO,:r
;•&-rste.r Plan for. Sewers is essential prior to the development 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
fa(-i.l.i.t:.i.es. Like the, const--mcti.on of master planned storm drain
icut.lr cw�1ltc,nl r,, prolx,rt-.y (A,-Tiors could enter i.nto rec.iminlrsUlr,nt agree-
111j11L:; for- tlrc! cost-5 of collsL.rticLion. Ali (xc ept:ion to requiring
Lite cc�nt;kt ui l..icnl 01' SOWr: .I iIIOS, wcxr.ld IX� thO d0wol.ol.alX.41tt of l.ow-
6-iis, _Ly pi-oj(r`C)Ls (i .e. 2 units Fx`r ilC.rC) .1n this case, a rural
lx)Licy 1.x.r7ni tt:..i.nd septic L-ruiks similar to the C.iLy of Clar:enlont
could be ciracted (see 1.-chibit 13) .
C. Urainaclu/Sc-�wa(je C011C LISiOlIs:
1. '.Phe nvisL-e.r planned storm drain and sewer facilities planned for
the Ellis/Goldenwest 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 cooperate, it could delay development until legally
resolved. 'I'O avoid lx)tential legal snarls, all developers should
be made aware of the guidelines of develorment in this area.
1. Limit-i-nil tlxo 111111 er. of access T-ocTc.ls t-(, the artc -ial h:ica1rw,1ys is
essunt-iri l . For. example, Goldenwest St rcet. is a imajor City route
to the boach. The prevention of add.i_t_i-ona.l. ace ,ss roads to this
arterial. is essential. Limiting access roads t) the other arterials
should also he emphasized. Probwably the bast, but not least expensive,
method of: limiting access roads to arterial would be to design and
Imaster plan an interior street system for the areas. In so doing,
an orderly developTient of the area, relevant to PublicWorks, would
occur.
2. Ellis Avenue, between Goldenwest and Edwards, needs to be realigned
vertically. Therefore, develofxment fronting this lx)rtion of the
avenue should be delayed until the aligrnment: is corirplete.
_3. The i:;:,i;c c?f the 1•klwa.rds-38th StrO(,L conrioction .is yet to be .resolved.
/vl,:I:in, Jl v lcllv>,. nt l:rout:iny Pkiwnrds (Fx,tween Tallx:,rt and Garfield)
uul c:n t-:iold (hetwtx'il G,O1 lcnwe:;L and l;ilw,il:d:;) sh�uacl be dolar.�ed
Tnrti 1 thl, i:;:.ue is resoLv(,i. TrTc.idc::cltcTl.l.y, ,lny Of Hih_,sc unresolved
u1iklll11W' l . , c0111cl c1ffecrt the devel.olxmoiit of an interior street pl[m
i for zrd j ac en L areas.
I
4. 'Aie GoUiard/I%ldn connection is another al_i.giunent yet to be resolved.
5. The l i�:;^ih].c uLi1.i�riL:i.on of niral street standards is reconnTended,
but do t,, : po:-,t p i-ob.l c iiis to ,treat pa i-k:i m.I (i.e. there are
tic) in rural s Landarcls for s trcc t larking) and the quality
of street sweeping.
0
Meru) to June Catalano
Tal.i.s/Cc�.Lcicnwest Area
�tirch 23, 1981
Pa(Ic 3
E. Water:
1. TIae area as shown on Eyhibit "C" has elevations fresn 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" wateiznain extension in order to have minimum water pressure
of 40 pounds.
2. These are presently very few existing distribution water mains or
fire hydrants in t3ze 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. Largc 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 limit._G any chance of a
property c ner/developer recouping their initial investxient 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.
1
E: a LL_
J iM �DtLI�
CP,Co L tJ Lr-
A
Q �
- 4
M/N 3G
NEED C /5 / 5L UPE
,DRAINAGE 6WAL E DE7 l L
WO r ra SCALE)
1
1
1
1
1
POLICY FOR INSTALLING IUBLIC IMPROV1.fii1NTS IN 1t111L1L ZONE,
Tt, is the policy of the City of Claremont that developments in the rural zone will
r be subject to different standards of public i.mprovemcnts t.11;11i other t)11e develop-
mcnts. This policy will apply to development of individual parcels or sulxlivisions
l-lovidcd that they meet. ,111 other requirements for the rural zone as set forth i21
the Land Use and Uevel.opn,cl,t Code.
nic policy for various public inq)rovemcnts in the nrral zone is as follows:
A. S'110'11 'S
Attached is ,.0 sketch :,how-ing ,► standard street cross section for the rural zone.
Arterial. hij;hwiys sl;c_h as Baso. Line and Padun amonh others shall be irlproved
accordirrt; to norinnl standards with the exception of si.del,,alks and streetlights.
On rn.i nor roncis, t.hc p;,vcd area of streets willl:c reciuc:eci Lo :��` in laicit}, ur
lass as Long as traffic safety and fire prevention standards .are mu,t.
*l, Streetlights
i
Streetlights on rural streets shall be located at arterial intersections
and may be required at other non-arterial intersections and shall be
compatible 1:,ith semi-rural development. Staff will work i%dth residents
' ' on other lighting staulciirds as may be compatible with a rural di_sti ict.
T71ese lights shill be her city standards. No other city streetlights
shall be necessary except on arterial hig}11•.nys where a lighting level
of 0.2 foot ca.ndlcs shall be attained. Residents are encouraged to
place lights at the entrances to their driveways for safety purposes.
Streetlights shall be financed by each development paying a pro-rata cost
of:streetlights in one block based on a ratio of this frontaoc of a lot
11
? to the total frontage of both sides of the entire b ock. I'a)rlent shall
be (11.10 prior to issuance of a building hermit . Als the developer shall
Vaive t:hc r.il;}1t, to protest: future street) ightinl; as ;cssmcnt districts.
2. Street Trees
101Cre possil31e, C\iStlnf; trees, incl.uclin�; portions of orcl>.arcls aricl groves,
shall be }preserved. Mairltcrlanc:e ol: such trees Whi.clr l ac b w usicalii;• sewing
as street trees shall, be by the City through an (Then Space ;•Lainten vlce
District.
If trees are not existi.Ill;, trees as approved by the Parki.,ays and Trees
Conu,rission shall be installecl at appropriate spacing. Unifonrl spacing of
! trees - for instance, at 30' intervals - will" not necessarily be stipulated.
A variety of trees will be encouraged; priority will be giveli to those
plant Inaterials which are compatible with the• existing; character of the area.
3.
It :;b;,11 6, t.ho pl-npr.rty (IMI :r' :, Option 101(.1her to pave. 111 drivel,ny
to th(+ :;t.yeet (a. s;.111114y g;rlydo 'i l;rarvel, to the :;Ilouklor• of the strc;ct.
Ally buil.dil"I to he dcvclopcd within 2S0 feet of an oxist ills; public sewer line
shall be required to attach to sC,�erS ,IS a Collditloll of: development. Any
r�
subdivision g;re it.er thnli 5 gross acres shall be recluire(l to Connect to pul)lic
scl%cr I15 a condition of (10VO10l)nuCnt. All other dcl'clopnualts shall be '1110 c'il
to develop witllout scm rs providing; that:
1. Such is not disallowccl by the state, county, or other jurisdiction having;
authority.
2. That Sewer laterals arc stubbed to the street right-of-i�ny.
3. 'That there is leg.,il ag\,reemcnt to g\,ive and to participate in sewer
assessment district, if such is initi.Lted in the future.
C. DR.%P,1C�Ii
Surface (Irai'mi'C rlor-1nr111.y carried in gutters will be curried in graded ditches
5. wit:11111 tl;e siloulder of t.hc public riglit-of:-way. Sto)111 clra:ins shall be Con-
strcicted as inclicrlted on the city' s st.orin drain maSt.er plan. Inlet structures
from g;ra(ICU ditches to storm drains will be requirecl Micro appropriate.
D. GIW)IP;G
hot g --(ling; shall be minivnizecl. . Other than filling si�ales to alleviate drainage
problems, only t-ho, g�raciing of a building; pact will be allowed. Cross lot drain-
age will be prevalent surd the grading; of slopes between lots will not be allowed.
L. WKFE Z
Water lines and fire hydrants sliall be provided in accordance i-:ith the renuire-
ments of. the Los :\.ng;cles Cowity Dire Department and Southern California V,ater
Company.
Tor.�l� �TCGel^ .C:�G/iT of-lvti`�
i I �
I
Tv T11
E/.TU M!r✓T I')Hu��T` L...,o, 1 U.. U.�.,.a <, -I,, i S'v-w v♦ti. t,�t
I i � I ,..�o..T
1_"_1TJ11-1lia 1CIi
i �7y'flCAL_
T
pp
R--:—in M ,
I
IIIA 0.[D lRA -CO MI-CD RI RI
I
r MI
Itnai.l, " r
A0,al, wan
II II
.i tFltt .,V fn1
UJ M1_O_cD
---,----_-------- —_ems.___.
.:.w. RA-CD �� l:Ml of I MI-A
RA RA-0-CD MIS_
RA-0-CD
IRA to Co M2
r
RA-CD I j M I-0
�I ? ;RA-0
RA-0 C
Q. tA1 0
RA-0
-02 ;ML-0-CD, ! INI j L
f� MI-CD_— ' I
. o I. M I-p I I r,z
1" RA-01 j RA-01 MI RA-0-CD
FAOC� ,
I '
• f IS
RA-0 ..I Y rr t,it i
I;RA-02-CD MI1-0
M2-02 I RA R3 " I'
14
£-\q•.��... M2 02•CD j - R2
ol
THI` M 1
RI is �Q RI
ROS-0 --_ -
Ra 0I' RI RI . R2-0-oD R2 J PD ? o
RI-o;J w,,:,-�, C2 0 CD JJ / I) N
{ . �.:C RI �*) I. C2 0 it
Rl
fit
lib-of co,
�- �� d. CL, p Cp RS O CiJ F2 0 PD�D I t I P
RI, _C a �J�.•
'� �•, t `�, CF-E Cp i �;- R2-0-
I,C.E-E-CD ���._.
I 1.'CD'v
iiol I I ..
CF-E I / 6) I -CC•o I
RI 4 i�' , •L I , I I /'/Q n��I I 1II I l CC_C
J.
01 p,o` RI Q �RI-O
?.J f 'd I11 Y .,,7- a;r. O RI RI RI RI RI Et2 CC o ;.
RI.O "., RI-O Q/ I I I I L
J
�cD o
ti a s j., r.. ✓ / CD 0
I`.. _'I-1_..--- , '�.\�'�i`D/ �, .1�. rl n . !,`1', 4T �' r� /��'�.�II „il,_ _I f•_�r_-� F-,�__�i f__ I I n_—i
West Orange County YMCA
7262 Garfield Avenue, Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)847-9622
14308 Beach Boulevard,Westminster, California 92683 (714)898.5688
September 10, 1979
: ince^t G. Moorlk3use, Director
_.ty of Huntineton Beach
,:�epartr,:nt of tarbors, Beaches,
ecreation and Parks
Dear Vince,
We appreciated the time you allowed us on September 9, I979. . The discussion
1 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
' Courcy 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 propose to build a 60,000 to 70,000 sq. ft. multi-story health and fitness
center on apF_oxicately 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
- Ran-lball/racquetball courts
- Community service rooms
- Offices, lockers, saunas, jacuzzi
We are prepared to lease the land at fair market value for 55 years, with an
' option to renew. We are ;usher prepared to raise the capital necessary to build
and equip the center without the aid of taxpayer dollars. This will be accomplished
tF.rough a capital car,.paign, 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 we can operate it in a financially responsible manner.
We are anxious to move ahead with this project, and are looking forward to
your earliest response.
Sincerely,
Jerry Nash
' Chairman
Capital Development Committee
.?N:kr:a
City- of Huntington Beach
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 9Z648
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
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. Van 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
requ i.rements:
' I . PJulli-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 Pro Shop
phis 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
remoinind 0. 15 acn-s are planned for open space landscaping. The pro shop
concession will offer tennis related paraphernalia for sale.
next page please. . . . . .
T� h'f,1 n,rr (714) 5.?6-5?0I
JAr. McMillen I lopkin.S - 2- May 23, 1980
3. I-ishiiir L oke, C,cncrol and I�estom (int
rhis facility will occupy a total of 113.2 acres. The intent of this project is to
convert the Sully Miller Lake site into a trout fishing lake. There will be 1.7 acres
of parking to accorrurnodate approximately 200 vehicles. Patrons will be able to
purchase fishing and camping supplies from a general store which will utilize 0.50
acres. The some acreage will also include a restaurant. The balance of to acres will
be the 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. Multi--Use Parking
Tilts facility will occupy a total of 8.1 acres, to provide parking for approximately
' 845 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 model cars. Location is 400' south of Talbert Avenue and
approximately 1 ,050' east of Goldenwest Street.
6. Mini-Cyoirrcle/Bicycle Training Center Trials and Trails Area
the cplex 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
mini-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
0.110 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 continents at your earliest convenience.
The schen-ratic muster plun is available for your review. If you require additional
' information, please contact this office.
Si nct r ly,
- ioyd2iniiiilstrutor
C. cesito
' City
1=G B:de
r -_
r .
h -Syst s
1
r
r
r
r APPENDIX B
PRO FORMA STATEMENTS FOR
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
Table B.1 10 Pro Forma Analysis for Configurat _n :a
CASH FLOW FORECAST
!'tAR
i 2 3 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. 12ES41.
6 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726.
7 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569.
8 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200.
TOTAL RE'vNUE 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 CAS=- FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 78978. 97414. 113219. 112348. 111545.
PRINCIPAL t INTEREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CASH FLOU BEFORE INCOME TAXES 78978. 97414. 113219. 112348. 111545.
INCOME TAX PROVISIONS
STATE TAX PROVISIONS
TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
INRtESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
FEi3ERa.L TAX PROVISIONS
TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. O. 0.
TNIiESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. O.
E'*RGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. O. 0.
TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTPL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. O. 0. 0-
NET GAS= PLOW 78978. 97414. 113219. 112348. 111545.
■� r � r� �r rr r� r rr �■r �r r r� r r r r r r
Table B.2 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration lb
CASH FLOW FORECAST
YEAR
i 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. ie7794. 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 O. 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. O. 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. O.
TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
NET CASH FLOW -265920. -303432. -344421. -389208. -438140.
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 I88430. 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. 978588. 1066661. 1162661. 1267300.
6 33234. 36225. 39486. 43039. 46913.
7 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188.
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. 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 -491598. -549997. -613788. -683465. -7595".
Table B.3 10-Year -ro Forma Analysis for Configuration lc
CASH FLOW FORECAST
YEAR
1 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. 37294. 40531. 44064. 47908.
COST
1 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_
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 -330600. -360457. -393007. -428493. -467179.
Table B.3 (Cont'd)
CASH FLOW FORECAST
YEAR
6 7 8 9 10
REVENUE
1 6318. 6824, 7369. 7959. 8596.
2 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295.
3 26448. 28564. 30849. 33317. 35982.
TOTAL REVENUE 52092. 56646. 61603. 66999_ 72873.
COST
1 13540. 14758. 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. C. 0.
INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. C, 0.
ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL STATE TAXES 0. 0. 0. O. 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 -509352. -555328. -605449. -660087. -719651.
Table 8.4 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. O. 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 289978. 326572. 362126. 382737. 405304.
r� � r r r r r r r r r r rr r �r �■■� r� r �r
Table BA (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.
e 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 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188.
TOTAL COST 1173814. 1282207. 140G630. 1530013. 1671374.
NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 430021. 457100. 486777. 519110. 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. O. 0.
INVESTPlENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. O. 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. O. 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 430021. 457100. 486777. 519310. 554986.
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. IB92444.
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. 96588e. 1054BB4. 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. O. 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.5 (Cont'd)
�
CASH FLOW FORECAST
YEAR .�
6 7 $ 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. 7204B2. 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. 1540989. 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.6 10-Year Fro 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.
8 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 SS00. 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 PROVI8IONS
TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. O. 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. O. 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) �•
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.
8 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064.
9 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295.
1O 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. 8419i8. 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. 0. 0. 0. 0.
NET CASH FLOW 7267 .3. 781728. 841918. 907778. 979847.
r On M- w M im
Table B.7 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis. for Configuration 2d
CASH FLOW FORECAST
YEAR
1 2 3 4 5
REVENUE
1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850.
? 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 1138420. 1229116. 1328053. 1435987. 1553740.
COST
1 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. 0. 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 S 9 iG
REVENUE
1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596.
2 96631. 106294. 1. 16923. 128615. 141477.
3 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 275880.
4 294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201.
5 36853. 40170. 43785. 47726. 52021.
6 134647. 148111. 162923. 179215. 197136.
7 717942. 782557. @52987. 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. 2B693. 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.
8 55390. 60376. 65809. 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.
�r r r w� r � �■r rr r � r rr � r r �s �r ■r r�
Table B.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.
S 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. 0. 0.
TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. C. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
NET CASH FLOW 289978. 326572. 362126. 382737. 405304.
■r rr ■r r� r r rr rr r■� Nr rr rr rr rr rr �r rr ■r r�
Table B.8 (Cont'd)
CASH FLOW FORECAST
YEAR
6 7 8 9 1 C'
REVENUc
1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596
2 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 27588E
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. 730,64.
9 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295.
10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 1342O0
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 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188.
TOTAL r 0 S3 T 1173814. 1282207. 1400630. 1530013. 1671374.
NET CA.S-. 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. 0. 0. C.
ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL STATE TAXES 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.
TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0
NET CASH FLOW 430021. 457100. 486777. 519310. 554cNk
rr rr rr rr rr r rr rr r rr ■r r rr �r rr err rr r� rr
Table B.9 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 3b
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 83605. 91966. 101162. 111278. 122406.
5 150000. 162000. 174960. 188957. 204073.
6 229950. 275940. 321930. 354123. 389535.
7 466613. 508608. 554383. 604277. 658662.
8 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. 0. 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. 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 665796. 736323. 808874. 869825. 936375.
"cable B.9 (Cont'd)
CASH FLOW FORECAST y
YEAR
6 7 8 9 10
REVENUE
1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596
2 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 275S80.
294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201_
4 134647. 148111. 162q�3. 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
i 0 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295.
i1 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200_
TOTAL REVENUE 2339339. 2541183. 2761644. 3002455. 3265507.
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 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. 1269799. 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. 0. 0. C.
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.
TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0_
TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
NET CASH FLOW 1009047. 1088415. 1.175103. 1269798. 1373252.
r� rr rr rr �r r rr �r rr r� rr rr r r rr rr rr �r r�
Table B.10 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 3c F,
CASH FL - T
YEAR
1 - 3 4
REVENUE
1 43()C. 4 4 5016. 5417. 5850.
2 23952 261 28457. 31019. 33810
3 83605. ?19C�6 101162. 111278. 122406.
4 150000. 1620`0-. 174960. 188957. 204073.
5 229950. 2-75940. 321930. 354123. 389535.
6 466613. 508608 554383. 604277. 658662.
7 88000. 968G10. 106480. 117128. 126941.
e 36550. 3947a- 42632. 46042. 49726.
9 12000. 132 C'. 14520. 15972. 17569.
10 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200.
TOTAL REVENUE 1229170. 1,352939. 1483740. 1608414. 1744674.
COST
1 8800. 9G92. 10455. 11396. 12422.
2 170722. 1-27794. 206574. 227231. 249954.
3 429600. 4b8264. 510408. 556345. 606416.
4 1800. 1962. 2139. 2331. 2541.
5 103500. 12815. 122968. 134036. 146099.
6 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 508 i 7.
TOTAL COST 750422. 819667. 895315. 977959. 1068248.
NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 478748. �313272. 588425. 630454. 676426.
PRINCIPAL + INTEREST PAYMENTS G 0. 0. Q. 0.
CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 478748. 33272. 588425. 630454. 676426.
INCOME TAX PROVISIONS
STATE 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 STATE TAXES 0. G. 0. 0. 0.
FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS
TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. G. 0. 0. 0.
ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES (3. G 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0, G 0. 0. 0.
NET CASH FLOW 478746. 5352/2. 588425. 630454. 676426.
Table B.10 (Cont'd)
:•RECASTS
YEAR
7 9 10
REVENUE
1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596.
36-S-53. 401705 43785. 47726. 52021.
3 134647 148111. 162923. 179215. 197136.
4 22039 ln38031. 257074. 277640. 299851.
5 428489 471338. 518472. 570319- 627351.
6 717942 782557. 852987. 929756. 1013434.
7 141725. i55897. 171487. 188636. 207499.
g 53704. 58000. 62640. 67652. 73064.
9 19326. 21259. 23385. 25723. 28295.
10 134200 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200.
TOTAL REVENUE 1893603 20 56387. 2234322. 2428824. 2641446.
COST
1 1354^ 14758. 16087. 17535. 19113.
2 2749501. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554.
3 660993. 720482. 785326. 856005. 933046.
4 2770. 3019. 3290. 3587. 3909.
5 159248 173580. 199202. 206230. 224791.
6 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188.
TOTAL COST 1166890. 1274660. 1392404. 1521047. 1661600.
NET CASH; FLO:"' FROM OPERATIONS 726713 781728. 841918. 907778. 979847.
PRINCIPAL + i N T EREST PAYMENTS 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
CASH FLOW BE=n-RE INCOME TAXES 726713 781728. 841918. 907778. 979847.
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.
TOTE:_ STATE TAXES C. 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.
TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES C. 0. 0. O.
TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0.
NET CASH FLOW 726713. 781728. 841919. 907778. 979847.
Table B.11 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 3d
CASH FLOW FORECAST r 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. 0. 0. 0.
CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 173998. 177288. 180893. 184848. 189190.
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. O. 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. O. 0. 0.
NET CASH FLOW 173998. 177288. 180893. 184848. 199190.
rr r r r r� r rr rr rr r r r r r r r i■r r r
-_be B.11 (Cont'd)
CASH FLOW FORECAST
YEAR
6 7 8 9 10
REVENUE
1 6318. 6824. 7369. 7959. 8596.
2 96631. 106294. 116923. 126615. 141477.
3 188430. 207273. 228000. 250800. 275880.
4 294160. 317692. 343108. 370556. 400201.
5 36853. 40170. 43785. 47726, 52021
6 134647. 148111. 162923. 179215, 197136.
7 717942. 782557. 852997. 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. 31275.
3 141246. 153958. 167814. 182917. 199380.
4 274950. 302445. 332689. 365958. 402554.
5 964256. 1051039. 1145632. 1248739. 136l126.
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. 0. 0. 0. 0
CASH FLOW BEFORE INCOME TAXES 193962. 199211. 204991. 211359. 218384
INCOME TAX PROVISIONS
STATE 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 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. Ca.
TOTAL FEDERAL TAXES 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL TAX LIABILITY 0. 0. 0. 0. 0
NET CASH FLOW 193962. 199211. 204991. 211359. 218384_
r r r +r ,r rr r r rr r r r r r r r r r r
Table B.12 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for Configuration 4a
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 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. 96800. 106480. 117128. 128841.
9 36550. 39474. 42632. 46042. 49726.
10 12000. 13200. 14520. 15972. 17569.
11 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200. 134200.
TOTAL REVENUE 1522418. 167174B. 1830366. 2332720. 25331336.
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. 5451355. 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.
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. 28693. 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 222928. 242883. 264742. 288569. 314540.
8 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188.
TOTAL COST 1381410. 1508486. 1647274. 1798856. 1964412.
NET CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS 1372065. 1484968. 1609078. 1742666. 1289696.
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 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 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. 50e6O8. 554383. 888480. 968443.
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. 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. 122968. 187550. 204430.
e 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 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
FEDERAL TAX PROVISIO`!S
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 182098. 186117. 190517. 489227. 521595.
Table B.13 (Cont'd)
CASH FLOW FORECAST
YEAR
6 7 8 9 I0
REVENUE
1 6318. 6B24. 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. 2683397. 2917064. 31722130.
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 222B28. 242883. 264742. 288569. 314540.
8 55390. 60376. 65809. 71732. 78188.
TOTAL COST 1716522. 1873759. 2045421. 2232836. 2437451,
'v'tT 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.
Table B.14 10-Year Pro Forma Analysis for the Basic Schematic 1,
CASH FLOW FORECAST .
YEAR
1 2 3 4
REVENUE
1 4300. 4644. 5016. 5417. 5850
2 117000. 128700. 141570. 155727. 4 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.
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 1229820. 1328828. 1436842. 1902093. 2062571.
COST
1 8800. 9592. 10455. 11396. =2422.
2 14400. 15696. 17109. 18648. 20`127.
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.
e 103500. 112815. 122968. 187550. 204429.
9 36000. 39240. 42772. 46621. 50€317.
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. 0. G.
INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT 0. 0- 0. 0. 0.
ENERGY TAX CREDIT 0. 0. O. 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.
Table B.14 (Cont'd)
CASH FLOW FORECAST
YEAR
•JL-
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 RED 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. 1062709.
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 795054. 853591. 917386. 986917. 1062708.
&ms stems
' APPENDIX C
' BIBLIOGRAPHY
1
ltms stems
.� J• BIBLIOGRAPHY
(l ) A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood
-' Structural Zone, Southern California, Special Report No. 11.4, California
Division of Mines and Geology, 1974.
' l (2) Conservation Technical Report,. Huntington Beach Planning Department,
March 1974.
(3) Criteria for Decision: A Policy Plan for Huntington Beach, Hunti-ngton
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. 9 4.
(9) Orange Coumty Beaches and Coastal Areas Study, PBQ&D, Inc: , May 1979:
(10) Orange County Recreation Needs and Regional Parks Study, Final- Repor.t,
Volume I, Orange County Recreational Planning Process, PBQ&D, Inc. ,
March 1980.
Orange County Recreation Needs and Regional Parks Stuff, Final Report,
Volume II Orange County Recreation Needs and Deficiencies Analysis ,
PBQ&D, Inc. , March 1980.
'(12) Progress Report - Survey and Monitori"ng 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.
;r