HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuntington Beach General Plan Update Questionaire - Memo Reg MOW _ -- --.,.-. " _ '<-
ti
i
ROUTING SLIP
Staff: Control No.
Assigned to: 7Y4& Date:
File Label:
Category: W6
zf
From Box: _l_ For Resolution No.
"V
d
1
r 2
l
10/27/98 8:25 AM G/es/routshp.doc 1
-eo
� o Q
�o Oyu,>- '
-
�t-stir►-
A( - _ 919 -
.. �_. _ . �i►r,,se.�fe�/ �-T ��s'��'J �1.D.Jd �uv�c;/�1��c�%,1
Oup-Alonnaire Tzesu1tr As OF Z•S• 93
( 160 R2+Urh5
HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - QUESTIONNAIRE
The City of Huntington Beach is presently engaged in the
comprehensive update of the City' s General Plan. The General Plan
is the City' s basic long-range planning tool and serves as the
vision and guide for the future development of the City.
In order to better understand the needs and desires of the residents
and business owners of the City, public input is sought through
committee work, public workshops, surveys and questionnaires .
This questionnaire is intended to promote awareness of the General
Plan Update, stimulate creative thinking on the subject and generate
information regarding how residents and business owners feel about
growth and development issues in the City. This is not intended to
be a statistical sampling of opinion. Please take a few minutes to
complete this questionnaire and return it to the City.
For the multiple choice questions, please provide only the one
answer which best matches your opinion of the issue. Additional
answers may be written in at the end of each list of selections .
The remaining few questions are True/False and "Fill in the
Blanks" . A map of the City is attached to this questionnaire for
your reference when considering some of the questions .
Your assistance in completing this questionnaire is greatly
appreciated. Please return the completed questionnaire to the box
next to where you picked this up, or mail it to :
City of Huntington Beach
Planning Division
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attn: Hal Simmons, Senior Planner
Additional information regarding the General Plan update may be
obtained by contacting the Huntington Beach Planning Division at
536-5271.
HS: 1p WC),
(1645D) v
g
�rnD
bulk
AIIDG:rr-� Question 19
\ EgNGER
NER
WARNLR
fIATER
iALM?
_ ELLIE
J o
ZGARfIELD
. KTOWN
Question 17
JA...
If
\ � b{ANArOIK
/ TUNTA
NAMR,TCNL
Question 18'
4 !f
QUESTIONNAIRE REFERENCE MAP
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
Respohser or eagi que.Aoh recorded as d perce4aRae
Please select the one (1) answer which best matches your opinion.
�o
1. What should be the "character" of Huntington Beach?
-� 34 a. A quiet beach community.
13 b. A suburban bedroom community.
33 c. A moderately urban community.
.Sd. A modern highly urbanized community.
Me. A destination resort community.
3 f. Other
2 . How could Huntington Beach improve its visual image?
-'! 31 a. Provide more landscaping along the streets and in the street
medians .
19 b. Adopt architectural themes and guidelines for new
developments .
7 c. Require smaller signs for businesses .
-�j Z?-d. Provide attractive entrances to the City at the City
boundaries through the use of special signs, road and
sidewalk materials and landscaping .
8 e. Require parking lots behind buildings rather than in front
where they are visible from the street .
13 f. Other
3 . The City needs more:
IZ. a. Commercial development.
12_b. Industrial development .
--� 32 c. Low Density Residential development .
6 d. Medium to High Density Residential development .
27 e. Recreational development
11 f . Other
4 . New commercial uses in the City should:
ZO a. Focus on neighborhood shopping centers within walking
distance of residential uses .
1 b. Focus on larger community shopping centers .
8 c. Focus on regional mall type shopping centers .
--� zi d. Focus on high volume retailers like Price Club or Costco.
-�j 31 e. Focus on visitor serving uses like restaurants and
entertainment.
13 f. Other
(1645D)
/o
5 . New industrial uses in the City should:
19 a. Focus on small user, multi-tenant developments .
7 b. Focus on large manufacturing operations .
-� 35-c. Focus on research and development/office parks .
-..� z8 d. Focus on mixed retail commercial/industrial .
7 e. Focus on automotive repair and other services .
9 f . Other
6 . New residential uses in the City should:
-4 Y`9 a. Focus on low density single family detached.
Z b. Focus on medium and high density condominiums and apartments .
-'� 23 c. Focus on a combination of low, medium and high density.
/,2 d. Focus on affordability to low and moderate income households .
10 e. Focus on mixed use residential projects in conjunction with
commercial and industrial uses .
4' f . Other
7. Aging and deteriorated shopping centers in the City should:
10 a. Be allowed to remain as they are until their owners choose to
remodel .
30 b. Receive assistance from the City in remodeling.
-� z8 c. Be allowed to recycle to higher intensity commercial uses
such as auto malls, high volume retailers (Price Club,
Costco) , etc.
8 d. Be allowed to recycle to non-commercial uses such as
residential .
Zo e. Be allowed to recycle to mixed commercial/residential uses .
tf .f . Other
8 . Aging and deteriorated residential neighborhoods in the City
should:
a. Be allowed to remain as they are until their individual
homeowners choose to remodel .
40 b. Receive assistance from the City in remodeling.
6 c. Be allowed to recycle to higher density residential uses .
"7 d. Be allowed to recycle to non-residential uses .
IS e. Be allowed to recycle to mixed residential/commercial uses .
6 f . Other
9 . What type of new recreation facilities would you like to see in
the City parks system?
-3 36 a. Areas of natural environment .
IZ b. Active play areas such as "Tot Lots" and "Adventure Play
Grounds" .
c. Active sports areas .
15'd. Building space for classes, recreation programs and community
uses .
10 e. Fishing lakes and facilities .
8 f . Other
(1645D)
. i
IO
10. What type of new cultural facilities would you like to see in the
City?
?.Sa . Indoor Performing Arts space.
-� 37 b. Community Concert Bandstand, outdoor theater.
10 c. Festival space.
J* d. Local history museum.
6 e. Outdoor public art program.
6 f . Other
11. How could transportation be improved in Huntington Beach?
Z8 a. Provide rail transit on major highways such as Beach
Boulevard and PCH or along the railroad right-of-way next to
Gothard Street .
ZO b. Provide more off-street bicycle lanes .
S c. Provide more bus stops and locate commercial uses closer to
sidewalks and bus facilities .
10 d. Provide more "park-and-ride" facilities .
-�! Z3 e. Provide more mixed use developments so people can live where
they work and shop.
Other
12 . How should the Edison power easements and flood control channels
be used?
S' a. Only for power lines and flood control channels .
23 b. Allow nurseries, farming and other low intensity commercial
uses .
is C. Promote use of the facilities as public parks .
J.5d. Promote use of the facilities as bicycle and pedestrian
trails linking into a larger network of trails .
IS e. Promote use of the facilities for future mass/rapid transit
opportunities .
y' f. Other
13 . How should closed school sites be used?
S a. Be purchased by the City for parks .
Tq b. Be leased by the City or others for community uses (ie:
daycare, adult education, sports leagues) .
y' c. Be sold for residential or commercial development.
Z,) d. Be partially developed and partially preserved as park.
6 e. Remain vacant until needed for public schools again.
Y f. Other
14 . Commercial uses in the Downtown area should be directed toward:
8 a. The needs of Downtown residents .
-� V b. The needs of City-wide residents .
4 c. The needs of visitors from Southern California.
q d. The needs of tourists on a national scale.
-� K8 e. A combination of all of the above.
O f . Other
(1645D)
'7o
15 . The intensity of new Downtown development should:
-4 Zq a. Continue as it has been developing.
Z3 b. Be downscaled significantly.
Iq c. Be slightly downscaled.
18 d. Be upscaled slightly.
►O e. Be upscaled significantly.
f . Other
16 . The feature I would most like to continue to see emphasized in
the Downtown area is :
--} Z4 a. Historic preservation.
8 b. Mediterranean architecture.
$ c. Outdoor dining .
S3 d. Pedestrian access and plazas .
I e. Live entertainment
6 f. Other
17. How should the inland side of PCH north of Goldenwest Street be
developed? (see map)
�6 a. Allow significant beach-related commercial uses such as shops
and restaurants .
Z b. Allow high density residential .
10 c. Provide public beach parking in conjunction with other uses .
3% d. Provide a mix of visitor-serving commercial and residential
uses .
--� ZSe. Provide recreational uses such as a public golf course.
13 f . Other
18 . How should the vacant property on the inland side of PCH south of
Beach Boulevard be developed? (see map)
a. Be restored as wetlands with a possible use of public funds .
3 b. Allow development for residential uses .
9 c. Allow development for visitor-serving commercial uses (ie:
hotels, restaurants)
Z. d. Allow development for general commercial uses .
-�j e. Allow a mixture of wetlands restoration, residential and
visitor-serving commercial uses .
f. Other
i
(1645D)
/p
19 . What land uses should be permitted along the industrial portion
of Gothard Street from Edinger Avenue to Ellis Avenue? (see map)
-� I$ a. All land uses should remain industrial .
10 b. Allow retail commercial development.
15' c. Allow residential development in conjunction with new
industrial development in order to provide worker housing.
IZ- d. Allow community serving uses such as housing for the
homeless, adult education, job training, schools, churches,
etc.
43 e. Allow Gothard Street to function as a "free-enterprise zone"
for a variety of small businesses .
2, f. Other
20 . How could Beach Boulevard be improved? (see map)
-� 40 a. Consolidate "strip commercial" uses into larger more cohesive
shopping centers with a common theme and common vehicle
accessways .
4 b. Allow high density residential in place of marginal mid-block
"strip commercial" uses .
�! 21 c. Increase traffic speed by constructing street improvements in
order to enhance the use of Beach Boulevard as a highway.
10 d. Reduce traffic speed in order to enhance the use of Beach
Boulevard as a shopping area.
IS e. Create unique signage for Beach Boulevard which will
advertise and promote Huntington Beach.
7 f . Other
21. How could Huntington Center Mall be improved?
11 a. Remodel existing mall and signage.
,$` b. Provide enhanced vehicle access from the freeway and from
Edinger Avenue to the mall .
17 c. Revitalize both sides of Edinger Avenue as an expansion of
mall uses .
34 d. Bring in high quality retailers (Nordstroms, etc. ) .
—,j 19 e. Bring in theaters and restaurants .
)3 f. Other
Please answer the following questions True or False.
22 . New Downtown Commercial uses should be oriented toward shopping
opportunities which are non-beach and non-entertainment
oriented. True2-9 False . X
23 . New residential developments in town should be guard-gated
communities . Trued False7S . X
24 . The City should concentrate on obtaining a Costco, Price Club, or
other similar use. ,True68 False32_.
25 . Most people are aware that the General Plan update is underway.
Trued False SS. X
Continued on next page. . . .
(1645D)
MOST ?requeh+ re_sp2 ser e
Please fill in all three blanks for each question.
26 . When I show visitors our City, the 3 most important things or
places to see are:
a. L�eo1Gl / Pier
b, DOWh4Ow►'
c. Ceh+►"a I par k
27. When I show visitors our City, the 3 things or places I most want
to avoid are:
a. Beac-h $vu�eVar�
b, ze+eriora a het gorhov /jVY)j-S
c. - Od prudvc4ioH aret,,.s /STOra�2 �atr s
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this questionnaire.
(1645D)
• PC.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
i INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINCTON BEACH
To City Council via City Administrator
From Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services
Date June 30, 1992
Subject Beach Improvement Master Plan
Background
Council has requested a study session to review the beach improvement
master plan from the area of Beach Boulevard to Bolsa Chica State
Beach, i.e. , the area of City of Huntington Beach responsibility.
South Beach Parking Area Improvements
Recently, the City Council approved the master plan for the south
beach improvements (First Street to Beach Boulevard) . These
improvements include separating the wheeled and nonwheeled traffic,
new rest rooms, new parking lot entryways, reconfiguring of the
parking lots, new sand wall, landscaping and irrigation.
The city also had retained consultant James Adams to develop a design
concept for the pier plaza. The concept developed was a
Mediterranean-style plaza that required the relocation of Maxwell's
and installation of major, new infrastructure at the pier plaza area.
Because of the cost and entitlements necessary for -this type of plaza,
Council asked staff to review alternatives for both the plaza and
Maxwell's. Staff from Community Development, Public Works, and
Community Services met and developed the basic criteria regarding the
improvements that would be minimally necessary for a pier plaza.
Staff then met with Purkiss-Rose & Associates, landscape architect
consultant to the city on the beach master plan, and asked them to
incorporate this criteria into the beach master plan and develop three
options regarding Maxwell's improvements for Council to consider.
Maxwell 's Analysis
Following is a summary of the three Maxwell's options:
option 1. This option would relocate Maxwell's restaurant.approx-
imately 150 feet south of its current location. The size of the
footprint for the new relocated Maxwell's would be the same as the old
Maxwell's. The advantages and disadvantages of this option are:
Advantages 1isadvantages
a) Moves Maxwell's out of the a) Requires a vote of the people
Main Street view corridor. under Measure C.
• 3
Page two
b) Provides space for symetri- b) Puts Maxwell ' s adjacent to
cal development of pier plaza Dwight' s concession at the beach
area. which could cause conflicts with
parking and access for the two
c) Provides new Maxwell 's, lessees.
specifically designed for
restaurant use. c) Requires new Coastal Commission
entitlements.
Option 2. This option would rehabilitate the existing Maxwell 's
building at the same location. The advantages and disadvantages are:
Advantages Disadvantages
a) Slightly less cost for a) Current structure was never
rehabilitating than for designed to be a restaurant and
rebuilding, although even a rehabilitated facility
Community Development De- would still provide inadequate
partment notes that change space for restaurant concept.
orders for as much as 30
percent could be anticipated. b) Current building design would
still block the Main Street view
b) Does not require a vote corridor.
under Measure C.
Option 3. This option calls for demolishing the existing Maxwell's
and building a new Maxwell's in the same location. The advantages and
disadvantages are: '
Advantages sadvantaags
a) Does not require a vote a) Maxwell's would be out of
under Measure C. business approximately nine months
` while demolition and rebuilding
b) Gives ability to design a occur. , y; ; <_•_ _ -
Maxwell's restaurant that - r
would fit into and be compati- b) The cost of business interrup-
ble with the pier plaza. tion and loss of city revenue would
have .to be taken- into account.-^
c) Allows -for the design of T . - F - • .� ,+. �` -
Maxwell's restaurant to enhance
rather than detract from the
Main Street view corridor.
Staff has analyzed the options for Maxwell 's and has concluded that
Option 3 provides what the city is trying to achieve in this area.
The problems we are trying to solve include opening the Main Street
Page three
view corridor, providing a beach access on both sides of the pier,
designing a recreational dining experience for pier visitors,
maximizing potential lease revenue for beach operations, and
developing an architecturally pleasing environment for the area.
Maxwell 's has 32 years left on the existing lease provided, however,
that it develop tenant improvements. The city receives 8 percent of
the first $4 million of gross revenue and 10 percent of revenue in
excess of $4 million. It currently has a number of sublessees, such
as the Green Burrito, video arcade, rental shops, and Maxie' s Pizza.
All three options in the master plan call for elimination of the
subleases and the operation of a full service food facility, including
dinner house, banquet facilities, and entertainment bar area. The
elimination of the subleases will not impact beachgoers since there
are existing beach concessionaires that handle both fast food and
beach equipment rental . By eliminating the subleases, the maintenance
of this area will be reduced and the aesthetics improved. Revenue
from a full service food facility will be considerably higher than the
existing restaurant and subleased operations.
Under all of the options proposed, the issue of parking for Maxwell 's
must be addressed. The idea behind each of the options is to maintain
the current footprint in terms of height, width and length of the
existing building; however, the current building as stated above is
used for purposes other than food service. A determination will have
to be made if the impact from using all of the available square
footage for food,service is greater on parking than the existing
operation 'of-using:a portion for food service and the rest for rentals
and fast food.-- 'This will need to be addressed in the specific plan .,
process-. > f =
Staff has not done a financial analysis of the options because they
are dependent upon which direction the city wishes to proceed.
Developing the,cost and financial impact is a complex issue involving:
the new, structure,for Maxwell 's, buyouts of the Green Burrito - • -
-_sublease,,;Maxwell'_s business interruption cost, loss of Maxwell's . `
revenue during construction, loss of parking revenue -during 11' ' -�
construction, utility improvement requirement, loss of other -
concession revenue,`•loss of sales tax during construction,�property'o
tax increases,,after�4constr'uction, ),and the debt ,service for; the�COPs
- for the project. Issues`-thati will have to be addressed during'"this-w
financial analysis will include the present book•value `of=Maxwell's;'O
whether the project should be funded through redevelopment, the best
method of debt service for the project, redevelopment possibly
reimbursing the general fund so there would be no loss during the
construction period, amendments to the existing lease that may be
required for the new option, Maxwell's contribution to the project, ,-
and the projected proforma for the new concept of Maxwells. -
Page four
Each option is feasible from a design standpoint as shown on the
attachments, and each option is consistent with the beach improvement
master plan. Staff has met informally with numerous community groups,
including H.B. Tomorrow, Downtown Committee of the Chamber of
Commerce, HB/FV Board of Realtors, Los Angeles Basin Parks &
Recreation Commissioners and Board Members Association, Community
Services Commission, and the South Beach Parking Improvement Area Task
Force. All of these groups had outstanding suggestions for refinement
of the options in terms of access, separation of pedestrian/wheeled
traffic, etc. , and overwhelmingly supported Option 3.
Paul Wimmer, Master Concessionaire for Maxwells, also supported
Option 3 and would like to enter into negotiations with the city
pursuant to that option.
North of the Pier Parking Area ,Improvements
With the Council decision not to build the parking structure north of
the pier, staff has prepared a master plan for improvements for the
surface lot. Currently, the lot is under sublease to Donald W. Tosh,
Ted E. Christensen, and Tom A. Lewis (TLC) . The lot is in a state of
disrepair and the city has not approved any improvements pending
Council adoption of a master plan for this area. The proposed master
plan would increase the number of spaces from 333 to approximately
450. This would be accomplished by putting in new retaining walls and
reconfiguring the lot. A landscape barrier along Pacific Coast
Highway to match the landscaping of the bluff top park would also be
included, along with a dropoff area to the pier plaza and new rest
rooms.
There has been considerable discussion in the past regarding the
inclusion of the H.B. Surfing Museum within this location. The
proposed plan does not include the surfing museum. The plan could
easily be modified to include a footprint for the museum if and when
the facility obtained funding for its project.
At the meeting with H.B. Tomorrow regarding the beach master plan, it
was that group's desire to provide for a "beach park" in the lower
knuckle adjacent to the condominium project. It was suggested that a
turf area with benches, children's play equipment and a basketball
court be installed. If this could not be included, it was suggested
that, at a minimum, parking and a handicapped access be provided at
this site.
Bluff Top Park Improvements
The city currently has completed the first five phases of bluff top
park and will be implementing phase 6 this year. Phase 6 improvements
Page five
include landscaping the remaining undeveloped park areas, reconfigur-
ing the bicycle/pedestrian path so as to separate wheeled and non-
wheeled traffic, and replacing the railing that separates the bluff
top from the bluff bottom as it is deteriorating rapidly. Funds for
this phase are coming from the County of Orange, SB821, and Park
Acquisition and Development Funds. With the completion of this phase,
the city will have invested a little over $4 million in acquisition of
the oil well areas and development of the bluff top park along Pacific
Coast Highway.
Below the Bluffs Parking Area
The beach master plan calls for a parking lot and beach access in the
old service road below the bluffs. This area from llth Street to
Golden West was originally built as a service road for the oil wells
along Pacific Coast Highway. Now that the wells have been removed and
the area cleaned up, the city can implement the master plan. _ However,
the Planning Commission has denied the project. Although this parking
lot has been on the master plan since the early 1980s, it recently
became embroiled in the controversy regarding removal of parking on
Pacific Coast Highway. Because the city was scheduled to include this
parking lot as part of the master plan, it chose to use the spaces to
mitigate the loss of parking along Pacific Coast Highway in order to
create a third traffic lane in this area.
Community bicyclists and residents in the area have protested the
third traffic lane both on the 'impact it would have on bicyclists
traveling Pacific Coast Highway, and on=the impact .six lanes OU."
traffic would have on resident's -accessm-to this beach area. Staff is
currently meeting with Cal Trans which has developed ten alternative
configurations -of Pacific Coast Highway to handle both automobiles and
bicyclists. It is unknown when the issue of expanding Pacific Coast
Highway from four to six lanes will be resolved. Staff has not pro-
ceeded .with the parking lot below the bluffs project; however, .staff
feels that regardless of the outcome of whether .to remove parking on
Pacific Coast Highway, the parking lot below the bluffs is needed.
This parking lot will provide access to this fine strip of beach and
needed revenue to offset its maintenance and marine safety costs. .
SLa$ -of Ipsues
In summary, staff needs Council direction on the following issues:
1) Options for Maxwell's/pier plaza
'2)• Improvements. to the north-of the pier parking lot
3). Whether to continue with the lower bluffs parking area improve-
ments.
RH:cs
I
Attachments
BEACH IMPROVEMENT AREA
TASK FORCE
Wednesday, June 24, 1992
5: 00 p.m. , H.B. Civic Center
Room B6
Mr. Hagan stated that City Council had approved the south beach
master plan last October and that funding must now be considered for
development of the beach master plan. Council must review the Pier
Plaza and Maxwell 's segment of the plan as well as north of the pier
master plan to see how it fits together with the south beach master
plan. A consultant worked on the Pier Plaza and prepared a design
that proved to be too expensive to develop. Community Development
and Community Services came up with a list of necessities for the
Pier Plaza and gave this criteria to the beach master plan consul-
tant, Purkiss-Rose. The three options which Purkiss-Rose developed
were presented to the task force.
A work study session with Council is scheduled for July 13 on the
options for Maxwell ' s. The cost for this project will be taken back
to Council at a later date. Staff will be recommending use of the
Certificates of Participation that were funded for the north of the
pier parking structure which was turned down by Council . While the
task force is not being asked to consider funding, the costs do
depend on the option that Council chooses for Maxwells.
Mr. Hagan advised that the options have already been reviewed by
H.B. Tomorrow, Community Services Commission, Downtown Business
Committee, HB/FV Board of Realtors, and other interested groups.
Mr. Rose went through the three options for the task force.
Option 1 - Relocate Maxwell ' s restaurant approximately 150 feet
south of its present location. Mr. Hagan advised of some
disadvantages with Option 1: would require a vote under Measure C
and a new application and permit process through the Coastal
Commission; in addition, it would create conflicts with Dwight' s
beach concession. The advantages of Option 1 are that it opens up
the view corridor on Main Street and provides maximum programable
space in the Pier Plaza for public activities.
Option 2 - Rehabilitate the existing Maxwell 's building in its
present location. The advantages of this option are that it is less
expensive to rehabilitate a building than it is to rebuild it. How-
ever, the view corridor would remain blocked and banquet facilities
wouldn't be provided with Option 2 .
Option 3 - Demolish and rebuild Maxwell ' s in its present location.
Mr. Hagan explained that this option would not require a vote under
Meeting Minutes June 24, 1992
Page two
Measure C. The Coastal Commission would only have to approve of tlic�
architectural plans . This option provides a view corridor and the
opportunity to design a restaurant building for restaurant use.
The question of removing Maxwell ' s building and not replacing it was
asked. Mr. Hagan noted that there are several years remaining on
the lease which the city would have to buy out if it tore down the
building and didn' t replace it.
Mr. Clapp noted there were no rest rooms shown on the south side of
the pier. He felt there was a real need for a another rest room
area between the pier and First Street. Mr. Smith mentioned that
when Maxwell ' s was going to be rehabilitated, there was discussion
of including public rest rooms within the building. He suggested
that possibility be looked at.
There was a question concerning why the city would give Maxwell ' s
the lower portion of the building for its restaurant. Mr. Hagan
noted that the lower subleases do not produce a significant amount
of revenue. The city would prefer it be used for restaurant
business. There is 21 , 000 square feet of usable space within the
building. The new building. must be within that same square footage.
Mr. Hagan noted that while some new parking spaces will be obtained
through the reconfiguration of the parking lot, Maxwell ' s banquet
area may not be as large as is desired due to the requirement for
additional parking.
Mr. Bergma voiced his support of Option III along with a desire to
continue the separation of pedestrian/wheeled traffic through the
pier plaza area even though it would mean encroaching onto the sand.
He feels it could be justified in order to retain the safety factor.
He also would like to see a tightening up of the two Maxwell ' s
buildings in order to maximize the view corridor. Mr. Hagan
questioned what would happen if the building were not built exactly
within the same footprint. Mr. Adams reported that whatever option
goes to Council for approval , it would only go to the Coastal
Commission on an appeal . The City Attorney' s Office has opined that
if Maxwell 's is remodeled or rebuilt, it must be within the same
height, width, etc. in order not to trigger a Measure C vote.
Mr. Nitzkowski complimented staff and all who were involved in
bringing the plan to this point. He is in agreement with the need
for rest rooms on both sides of the pier. He felt that bicyclists
shouldn't mind walking their bikes across the plaza area during busy
weekends.
Mr. Clapp offered the possibility of locating Maxwell ' s on the north
side of the pier; however, he was advised that that is still state
property and the state will not allow a restaurant on its property.
Meeting Minutes June 24 , 1992
Page three
MQT-LQN.
MOVED BY NITZKOWSKI , SECONDED BY BAKER, THAT THE BEACH IMPROVEMENT
TASK FORCE RECOMMEND OPTION III TO CITY COUNCIL WITH CONSIDERATION
FOR REST ROOMS ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND CONTINUATION OF THE SEPARATION
OF PEDESTRIAN/WHEELED TRAFFIC THROUGH THE PIER PLAZA CONNECTING THE
SOUTH AND NORTH BEACH IMPROVEMENTS.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned at 6 : 10 p.m.
/cs i�lv
— .��'��* V/� �/ - -'' = `�' - ./ •���i = _!�\SI//i. \�of �.�,�
r i�11j 1� ,�iSt1lSSSt!)s1u,� �l711lltltt�ttl}=,CIS .�.•d1:�i - ��-,'�� � � ��,. T�� ' ,/ � - _ -` �_ �'�■ -_--- �.■■■�■■.�■■■�■I,���
+ ��' '�► ;•i -c��i,�; =��..�... �, �i► (. J,l I► (� II• �� ��,� �i �i� �i C1�j,� ��%•;�Vr i��. �•►�..�.'_I� Jil fens
1�� {1����1�����141ss�i �.�t�'",u \/ •\ I i►/ .\(tom-//�_.._ �s �1�,,l����1-- ,.���- L-11 Y���. }1, :•:':
1f1S1 ��■.� / 1 �•'>\T�1� ��i ��� •-i/�I�'- - �_.-•.�ly�' .i\a ltct»„ f�:i>atlltallllk�/��• T • "�
■ ►F V'0 � (� /c_ .► .u\ •► i►.'
win
JJ1 f1`:�`?. � � Iu ,► T�►I c. .�1 milli
;1': G(� ri;`- g •• y �;�, I�
10
Zz—
Av
wo
■■■■■■Cc,71- �. F.•/'JI/XC�.'
0 � ir�.i-� ���� ,-.'r��a`■■ .� %�t� i`������ op% .�,�, �a u■■m NINON
MEN1�1 �7I ,�; r•� - ,'��. pu/�ac�7:.I.:CYAS=75�::F�Ts7y =tt-•--s•�::.r:rie-�_r_.._._::
'--- -- �:�.1�+ , � i • ��, ,,/ �L-=tee'-`-�—•�' � —
�.■ `� �� � a ,►��� ►!.�1 .��•�' ■ �..Jw■ t _ _1 vAw'M OWN m INIM: is
� �■�■� �111 ■ ■■RE■ EVE'■■■■ RAd
11111!l1111 ���`i► �_MMM
'011MMUNISMAIN MIN
f. ..
�gURVIA
t
w■�w■��■■w!�ww�■_ ■w■!!.=7��■■■■■w■/I�■■III■�■�■■■�■■w�■■���_■■■■■■�w��■_ �■w■��t�■ww■w■
"� � r`•i� - __ - � - - il$L•R"�•�-'u� r .� y„;�..+�-s��i: i , 1 •i f1Y .i irar � -�.1��►_ �I�a.:'=•:il/T _
� 11`J� _ 'T ` 1� �I yi) I�� 7� JJIT'aS �1 't - .•'i"'�, 1�.'1,,,tjn.1, 1,,,�•:lJ,.,,���Y".,3�.• ..�. L':.>t,F,'�•F�'1 ir'S< �'irrT 1%)
(( � Ir ►�41:r` �� �/r a�i�L �+5.. J _r - ^ _ :1y a_: - = o;a 1y.2 c, t. �.. _ .�^.r;• }��1'— =1� 1
��. A S I, _ �* =�;�w1�Y= - - - - - - - - % ■ ■ ■ _ice. -..._1. — - r;; _ j _� 1 tr'fU V �i 1'►L_���
f ,� 11�( ) � ` ! t ` 1) 1` ` l 1 ..��.`-- - - - ,' - -%= T'• �.' *'' :,- -,: .^ - ::,,:._.:.��..:. ,..333,L�1L���, .,,,,.Et.i►„�,�..�if :..�(�R_f�i � - � � p
I������►.ti�1���1111i�{���Ilin11��1��1���1���1111 1�'U '�11�1���1�1 :�: .w7 "� 1:9 i u a:4-"A — ;:i - 4 al: �.ac. +y 1►- lt`� Sl► r'aIC .Iv al :�.. � 5� .emu ?au- �I.� _ �I -- -- —�i_ ([� li G.�� ......:�L
� :.:a •���1� -
l� I � '� � . �••• TTJ.�f.�.�• 1✓.'1.fT7f.[FT���1n
ii
-MEN I
101
rA
:4;/ iiC' <}� >.�. �^.;. '�,`�I'� TQ�� ,iu• fiiC l p�;�..,.�� a► u: �► Ilc• yii ell' ,1
NIMBI=
MIS I511
■ .�I„
' '. Ems
AW
RN
oil g.;.-
Ell 11111110
IL it wo
� � �I'i ill III III'
■
1�
'• s�
i�I I I,■■���-� �■ram ■■� � � ��
Mai k
�"'- •
WE
mlk
11�1
Wim
IN
REE
�'�► � ���I � ` 1 ■■MI
. � II
1 �, ;ter �3�'9 ,.A►- ��,� �,•�'INOR
rg
•
��il=\I�1'lR��!�IIIIIIIIIiII� '
r\`."F,
SEE
%`'1� ��,`>i; __---�—� is �♦{ 1{!0«�'1
SOL ►'� Plid
`►�t11�{~two?���.��■■■�
NEWS
k111 ' .,al�llllllllll�lllllilll�!I,:. ����`�
UZZ, �I 0*5_,�•,•
� �.,� ••, ,: ��' I�l!Ill��lltll',i�l'IIII'i _ ��� _ ��� .
HEWN
ti
SIR
�111 Z■
■ _ �-
Li
I
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
CITY €1F
NUNTINC"JI - ±,, WF.
A" ELUS QY TUE SEA
� t
317 Pacific Coast Highway JUL 13 �i
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
July 8, 1992
TO: The Right Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council.
Staff Members of the City of Huntington Beach.
In several meetings over the past few weeks with Mr. Ron Hagan,we have discussed
the future of Maxwell's as it would be affected by the proposed Plaza. Mr. Hagan asked me
to arrive at a preference as to which course to pursue from the three that seem to be the
likeliest possibilities. We discussed and explored the relocation of Maxwell's to a spot just
South of the present site, adjacent to the proposed new Plaza. The uncertainties and the
length of the approval process, because of the conditions imposed by Measure C, make this
a risky and costly undertaking at best. So a major portion of our time was spent in analyzing
the other two alternatives, remodeling the existing structure or demolishing and rebuilding
on the present site and approved footprint. What follows then is our preferences,
observations and rationale for a course of action that seems to make the most sense.
I am in favor of demolition and rebuilding for a number of reasons, prime among
these being:
1. Shorter length of down time which helps both the City and ourselves
financially.
2. Greater architectural freedom when starting with a'blank sheet of paper"
will enable the City to erect a building that will make a strong visual statement for the
cornerstone of the new Downtown.
3. A more substantial return for all involved on the investment to accomplish
this.
In discussions with our architect and contractors regarding the merits of remodel
versus..rebuild, the following appraisals seemed to be unanimous.
1. The construction time in remodeling will be longer than new construction
due to the need for selective demolition and extensive underground work. Partial demolition
and remodeling always uncover expensive surprises. This is especially true with a building
such as Maxwell's where no blueprints of the original structure exist.
2. The building height would need to be increased to hide the old trussed
roof.
3. The bottom floor is very limited for its intended use as a banquet facility
due to numerous columns (very expensive to replace) and the existing excavation limits use
of the project footprint by one third.
4. The buildings age severely limits the layout of a "State of the Art" facility.
i
In connection with the choice of an architect, Mr. Jerry Yates has been associated
with all the planning processes that have taken place over the past seven years for
Maxwell's. His knowledge of the building and the engineering come from surveys that he
performed for us at our expense. He has interfaced with many departments of the City and
other developers as they have affected the various phases of this project and was involved
with the recent study made for the City outlining the feasability of remodeling. In addition,
Mr. Yates has become intimately familiar with our vision for the building and its' uses. We
strongly recommend that he be selected as the building architect.
You will see at this meeting the building we have designed and for the most part, it
speaks for itself. I would, however, like to paint a small word picture which will better
explain how we intend to maximize the use of the building and thus arrive at the greater
return on this kind of investment for both of us.
As I stated before,we have ahead of us the ability to turn this into a landmark to be
proud of. A building that combines beauty with functionality, beckons to all and seems like
"fun". My goal is to make such a strong statement with the building and its' beach appeal,
that anyone who was going to drive by,would turn around and come back! We do this with
a visually beautiful building that speaks of activity and expansive decking with bright colors
that beckon to all to come and enjoy our beautiful beach and activities.
Obviously, the uses for the areas are greatly expanded and I would hasten to add,
present a greater use for our citizens than previously. With this renewal, it will be our goal
to take Maxwell's out of the perceived special occasion restaurant, and make it a gathering
place for all those seeking fun and dining adventures.
THE OYSTER BAR AND LOUNGE. With an additional entrance directly from the
Pier and large decking around it, this facility will attract a new customer to our oyster bar
for less expensive dining in a more casual atmosphere. Our Jazz format will be maintained
and expanded as we add a proper facility to accommodate such acts. We intend an active
happy hour with piano music in the late afternoon. Friday afternoon 'Tea Dances"with big
bands are among the events we plan. Lastly, we would join with some of the other venues
in the County in order to bring major entertainment on an irregular basis to Maxwell's,along
the lines of The Crazy Horse in Santa Ana or the Coachhouse in San Juan Capistrano.
DINING ROOM OPERATION. The dining areas will be light and airy with more
room and a larger expanded terrace seating area. The appearance would be more informal
and thus less intimidating with a wider menu range along with pricing range. It would still
retain its ability to draw for those special occasions but also expand to draw a broader
customer base.
BANQUET FACILITIES. We have for years discussed the need for this with the
City. The requests for parties and banquets that we cannot accommodate are countless.
This will provide an opportunity for the community that should enable us to keep our people
here in Huntington Beach rather than to have to seek elsewhere. Steve Bone and Diane
Baker have seen these plans and are enthusiastic about the potential for increased
- J
opportunities for commercial applications. We would work closely with them and any other
agencies to solicit convention and meeting business. The area is large enough for major
functions and can be divided into smaller components. It is our intention to be very
aggressive in the wedding market and our pricing structure and support facilities will make
this very appealing. We intend to maximize the location on the sand,while creating a visual
buffer between it and the building to encourage greater utilization of the area as a backdrop
for special events, including actual wedding ceremonies. Mr. Hagan has also commented
on the possibilities of a gazebo type building at the base of the contoured sloping access to
the beach on the North side of the pier as the possible site for wedding ceremonies. The
potential to capitalize on all these elements is limitless.
THE CROWS NEST LOUNGE. This area will feature our magnificent view and
again terrace opportunities. We intend to make it possible to use for seminars or small
meetings during the day. It will also provide an area for people when a major attraction is
appearing in the main show lounge.
ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH A LOWER
OVERALL ROOF.LINE AND MORE ATTRACTIVE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS!!
The plans for the Plaza show that the entrance to all of this area will be located
further South. Signage for Maxwells, the banquet area and the show lounge will be essential
and must be taken into consideration as well as marked accessibility for Northbound traffic.
The Green Burrito issue will need to be addressed and of course the down time costs for
both of us. We obviously will not retain all of our personnel but key management and staff
will have to be retained. Those contracts and leases of goods and or services that we cannot
negotiate a moratorium on, will have to be included as well as loss of profits. We expect
the City to erect the building, bringing the utilities to the point of hookup to our equipment.
We will furnish, fixturize and finish the interiors and patios. The projected cost of this
refurbishment is in excess of$2,000,000.
If we are able to complete this projected rebuilding of Maxwell's, we anticipate a
starting gross revenue of$7,000,000 per year. Our sales prior to the recession and closing
of the Pier were close to $4,000,000 and we expect the increased lounge and entertainment
activity, coupled with the entry from the pier, to increase those revenues by $1,000,000. In
addition, the banquet facility is anticipated to add $2,000,000 in revenue in the first year of
business. We will begin to market that facility as soon as we have final plans and can
produce artists renderings as a sales tool. At the $7,000,000 level, the City would receive
rent of $620,000 per year (based on 8% of the first $4M and 10% of the excess) not to
mention the sales tax increment return. We expect in ensuing years that our gross sales will
exceed $1OM!! From a business standpoint alone, this course certainly would seem to make
sense.
If we were to pursue a course of remodeling the existing structure, the constraints
of the building would limit our gross sales to the neighborhood of$5M. In addition, it would
not give us any of the advantages previously discussed. At the date of this writing, I have
not been able to discuss some of the aspects of these dealings with our attorney, Mr. Barry
Ross. By the time we meet on Monday however, I will have met with him and will address
any other issues he deems pertinent at that time. I will be more than happy to discuss any
aspects of what we propose with any of you at any time.
I am delighted that we stand on the threshold of being able to build a 'landmark"
together for years to come for many to enjoy!!
Sincerely,
PAUL E. WEMWMR
President
I
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
FROM: Mike Adams, Director of Community Developme4i
DATE: July 10, 1992
SUBJECT: VILLAGE CONCEPT/DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN
Attached is a draft outline of the Village Concept for the Downtown
Master Plan along with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. These
brief summaries can be used as a guide for the presentation
scheduled for Monday, June 13th.
The presentation will focus primarily on the history of downtown
planning and the status of current and proposed projects along with
design constraints of the Village Concept and the shared parking _
proposal of the Downtown Parking Master Plan.
MA:kjl
Attachments :
1. Presentation Outline
2 . Village Concept Definition
3 . Downtown Parking Master Plan
4 . Downtown On-Street Parking Survey
5 . Time Line for Adoption
(3849d)
I
OUTLINE
PRESENTATION OF
DOWNTOWN PLANNING
I . Overview of Downtown Planning - Mike Adams
- Coastal Element Policies
- Where have we been?
- Where are we going?
- What has been approved?
II . Village Concept - Howard Zelefsky
- What are the new standards for development?
- How do they relate to City and Coastal Policies?
III . Downtown Parking Master Plan - Mike Adams
- How does it relate to Village Concept?
IV. What is the process of implementing the new
Downtown Plan - Scott Hess
- Time frames for approval .
V. Main Pier Phase II - Howard Zelefsky/Scott Hess
- Coultrup/Redevelopment Agency Proposal
VI . Questions/Comments
(3838d)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Village Concept Defined
Simply stated, a village creates a pedestrian environment by
encouraging a diversity of uses that recognizes the relationship
between the street and the storefront . Building forms need to
respect the pedestrian by setting back from the street as they rise
above the second story. The Village concept will allow for
flexibility in the ratio of residential to commercial square footage
while maintaining the integrity of the commercial street frontage.
There are three basic concepts that embody the village concept:
1. Pedistrian Orientation - Street Life
The idea is to create linkages from the pier through the Main
Street corridor to the Art Center and Celebration Plaza. The
frontage along Pacific Coast Highway between 6th Street and Lake
Street serve as entry points to the Downtown and should
compliment Main Street uses.
2 . Balancing of Uses
The village concept is based on creating three planning nodes:
A. Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, between Sixth Street
and Lake Street, beach related uses, food uses, tourist uses.
B. Main Street frontage, between Pacific Coast Highway and Olive
Avenue, tourist/visitor uses .
C. Main Street frontage, Olive Avenue north to Sixth Street,
service uses, to serve year round residents and complimentary
uses to the Art Center.
3 . _Scale, Architectural Massing, Building Form/Significant
Amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan to achieve the Village
Concept
A. Reduce commercial to residential ratio from 50% - 50% to
1/3 commercial to 2/3 residential .
B. Reduce height limits from 6-8 stories to 3-4 stories .
C. Reduce floor area ration for 3 .5 to 2 . 0.
D. Limit density incentives for lot consolidation.
E. Create incentives to provide affordable housing in compliance
with Redevelopment Law.
(3847d)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Downtown Parking Master Plan
The Downtown Parking Master Plan addresses the parking needs for the
area bounded by Sixth Street on the West, Acacia on the north, First
Street on the east and Pacific Coast Highway on the south. The area
is centered around the Main Street commercial corridor.
The Downtown Parking Plan is based on the concept of shared
parking. Shared parking in effect allows one parking space to serve
two or more individual land uses without conflict. Shared parking
relies on the variations in the peak parking demand for various
uses; due to different activity patterns of adjacent uses by hour,
day and season. The Plan also recognizes interrelationships among
different uses and activities which result in an attraction to two
or more vendors on a single auto trip. Therefore, a single parking
space can be used to serve more than one destination within the
downtown area.
Public parking for Downtown patrons will be provided by an expanded
number of on-street, off-street locations in addition to the
municipal parking structure in the second block. Parking controls
will be developed and rates adjusted to maintain and adequate supply
of available parking for shoppers and employees of the downtown area.
The downtown commercial area divides into two distinct areas on
either side of Orange Avenue. In order to assure an adequate supply
of parking for the downtown area two different and distinct
approaches are necessary due to this division.
Area 1 (south of Orange Avenue) will provide the greatest number
of public parking opportunities both off-street and on-street.
New and expanded commercial and office uses will be concentrated
in this area, along with the majority of the public parking
opportunities. The plan, therefore, will require no additional
parking for new or expanded commercial and office uses within
Area 1 providing total use square footage does not exceed the
Downtown Master Plan projections.
Area 2 (north of Orange Avenue) will provide limited public
parking opportunities, primarily on-street. This area is still
part of the downtown core and shared parking benefits should
also apply. However, due to the location of the public parking
facilities the same benefits as Area 1 can not be justified.
Therefore, the plan will require on-site parking for all new or
expanded commercial uses, but the parking requirement shall be
reduced by 25% for commercial uses within Area 2 .
1� (3847d)
An exception to this requirement will be permitted if parking is
provided in an off-site location and assigned for a particular use
and located within 350 feet of the intended use. In addition, if at
some time in the future additional public parking facilities are
made available within a reasonable walking distance (300-500 feet)
of Area 2, commercial uses then may they have the same benefits as
Area 1.
The Downtown Master Plan anticipates a total development scenario of
approximately 450, 000 square feet of commercial activity with
220, 000 square feet of general retail, 80,000 square feet of
restaurant use, 120, 000 square feet of office uses and a 1,750 seat
theatre.
The success of this parking plan is dependent on controlling the
types and amounts of retail, restaurant and office uses in the
downtown. The plan does not address residential parking in the
shared parking concept. All required residential parking shall be
provided on-site for each project.
The downtown currently has existing, under construction, approved,
planned and/or conceptualized 220,000 square feet of retail, 80, 000
square feet of restaurant uses, 120, 000 square feet of office uses
and a 1,750 seat (30,000 square feet) theatre, for a total
commercial activity of 450,000 square feet.
The downtown public parking supply is currently approximately 1,800
spaces with plans to expand to more than 2,200 total . The total
planned parking supply will accommodate the mix of land uses planned
for the downtown area.
(3847d)
LEGEND
A. Main Pier Two
B. Pierside Pavillion/Pier Colony
C. Second Block Rehab.
D. H.B. Promenade
E. Third Block West
F. Post Office Block
G. Town Square
H. North Main Street Block
I. Art Center Block
I �
1
--r
H �
G s;
Orange Ave.
�T
u
I � N E
F
u
I
N
Olive Ave.
f C D _ - -
Walnu► Ave.
Ii A B
Ixi
Pacific Coast Highway
I I
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PATTERN SUMMARY
Restaurant Retail Office Miscellanesous
Block (sq. ft . )- (sq. ft . ) (sq. ft . ) (sat, ft . )
A 17,303 32, 110 40, 920
B 23 , 773 35, 846 36, 000 1, 750
(seat theatre)
C 23 , 329 31, 652 17,461
D 4 , 000 24 , 000 4 , 000
E ---- 19, 000 8, 000
F ---- 14, 000 12, 000
Sub Total 68, 405 156, 608 118, 381
G ---- 25, 000 ----
H ---- 20, 000 ----
I 5, 000 5,000 ----
Sub Total 5, 000 50,000
==soxaes=aee==-aaasaea�ases=�aaaaaassecs�eaanm=asp=_.sna=aaa=�._..._.__....__-__
Total 73 ,405 206, 608 118, 381
Master Plan 80, 000 220, 000 120, 000 30, 000
Total Commercial Activity 450 , 000 (sq. ft . )
DOWNTOWN PARR I NG PATTERN SiJNIlKARY
On-Site Block Existing. Proposed
A 20 120
B 300 300
C 20 20
D 817 817
E 48 200
F 50 50
Subtotal 1,265 1,507
G 50 30
H 100 200
I 20 20
Subtotal 170 250
Total 1,435 1,757
On-Street Street Existing Proposed
Third St. 21 48
Main St. 130 130
Fifth St. 116 116
Walnut St. 44 68
Olive St. 40 68
Orange St. 0 35
Pecan St . 0 10
Total 351 407
Total Public Parking Existing 1, 786
(3852d) Proposed 2, 164
CITY OF H U NTI NGTON BEACH
DOWNTOWN
ON-STREET PARKING SURVEY
SUMMARY
JU N E 81 1992
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
.�Vrr.A(!atAlif 7 4
Jj ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
•. INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUN-TINGTON BEACH
TO: Robert E. Eichblatt, P.E., City Engineer
FROM: James D. Otterson, P.E., P.L.S., Traffic Engineer
DATE: June 8, 1992
SUBJECT: Maximum Potential Parking Spaces in the
Downtown Specific Plan Area
INTRODUCTION
An inventory of the existing downtown on-street parking spaces was
conducted by the Traffic Engineering staff early this year. The result of that
effort has now been finalized with the assistance of Robert Bein, William Frost
and Associates (RBF). RBF has conducted extensive field verification of
on-street parking. RBF has submitted a report on the findings with substantial
evidence (i.e. AutoCad drawings for each downtown block) in support of the
findings. A summary of the findings is presented herein.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Downtown parking survey covered an area bounded by Pacific Coast
Highway on the south, First Street on the east, Sixth Street on the west, and
Acacia Avenue on the north.
The parking survey in May of 1992 found that there were 465 "defined"
on-street parking spaces. "Defined" means that the parking space is either
metered or marked on the pavement, for the purpose of this report. These
"defined" parking spaces included 441 metered parking spaces and 24
marked but not metered parking spaces. In addition, there were a total of
7,395 linear feet of curb space "undefined" for on-street parking (i.e. parking
space is neither metered nor marked on the pavement). These 7,395 linear
feet of curb space can be marked on the pavement (or metered) for 313
on-street parking spaces. The total number of possible on- street parking
spaces in the study area is 778 spaces.
The attached table (8 pages) presents an inventory of the on-street park-
ing spaces by "block face" (i.e. one side of street between two cross streets).
These "block face" counts can be aggregated to show the parking supply for
each downtown block to enable a comparison of the supply with the forecasted
1
demand which is usually expressed on a block by block basis, or in any other
manner as may be desired.
FUTURE CONDITIONS
The existing conditions may change in the future. For instance, since
Walnut Avenue between First and Sixth Streets is classified as an Arterial Street
curb parking on Walnut Avenue may be prohibited in the future. 46 existing
plus 22 potential on-street parking spaces will be affected. The number of
possible parking spaces in the study area will be reduced from 778 to 710 (i.e.
778 - 68 = 710) spaces. Additionally, potential future land developments in the
downtown area may necessitate new curb cuts (and red curbs adjacent to the
curb cuts) which will also reduce the existing curb space for parking.
PARKING METERS
The marking of parking spaces on the pavement and/or the installation of
parking meters will help to define the parking spaces and increase the existing
utilization of curb space for parking. If parking meters are preferred over
marking (i.e. painting) parking stalls, it is recommended that no parking meters
be installed on any street north of Orange Avenue.
Attachment: Parking Inventory (Table showing parking spaces by
street and side of street).
c.c. Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator
Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works
Barbara Kaiser, Director, Economic Development
Mike Adams, Director of Community Development Department
Ron Hagan, Director of Community Services Department
2
HUNTINGTON BEACH DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Page I of 8
VEHICULAR PARKING STUDY
Jot) Number: 28709 Date: 6/2/92
1XIS,I'INCi iXISTING EXISTING
m-ETERED% MARKED UNMARKED PROPOSED
STREET FROM TO MARKED (UNMETERED) PARKING PARKING
PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES (FT) SPACES
iFIRST STREET Pacific Coast Highway Walnut Avenue
West side of street 0 0 0 0
East side of street I 0 0 0 0
FIRST STREET Walnut Avenue Olive Avenue
West side of street 13 0 0 17
East side of street 1 19 0 0 20
FIRST STREET Olive Avenue Orange Avenue/
West side of street Altanta Avenue 0 0 0 0
East side of street 0 0 0 0
I
FIRST STREET SUBTOTAL 32 0 0 37
SECOND STREET Pacific Coast Highway Walnut Avenue
West side of street 9 0 0 9
East side of street 9 0 0 9
SECOND STREET Walnut Avenue Olive Avenue
West side of street 13 0 0 13
East side of street 12 0 0 12
SECOND STREET Olive Avenue Orange Avenue
West side of street 12 0 0 12
East side of street 12 0 0 12
SECOND STREET SUBTOTAL 67 0 0 67
Pnge 2 of 8
-�-- —�EXIS'PING EXISTING EXISTING
METERED/ MARKED UNMARKED PROPOSED
I ROr"I 1'O I MARK!;!) (l1NMli'1'I`It. lil)) PARKING PARKING
PARKINC; SPACLS PARKING SPACES (F"1') SPACLS
'l'IiiRD STREET Wulnui Avcnuc Olivc AVCn LIC
West side of street 1 I 0 0 11
East side of street 10 0 0 10
THIRD STREET (Olive Avenue (Orange Avenue
West side of street 0 0 231 I 11
East side of street 0 0 330 16
LAKE STREET krun.e Avciwe, Pcciu) Avcnuc
West side of street 0 0 526 24
East side of street 0 0 363 16
LAKE STREET Pecan Avenue Frankfort Avenue.
West side of street ! 0 0 107 5
East side of street _i 0 0 155 7
LAKE STREET Frankfort Avenue .Acacia Avenue
West side of street I 0 0 54 3
East side of street 0 0 112 5
THIRD STREET/LAKE STREET SUBTOTAL 21 0 1,878 108
Page 3 of 8
EXISTING F EXISTING EXISTING
METERED/ MARKED UNMARKED I PROPOSED
STREET I FROM ; to MARKED I (UNMETERED) PARKING I PARKING
i PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES (FT) SPACES
MAIN STREET Pacil:c Coast Highway Walnut AVCn UC
West side of street l0 0 0 10
East side of street I 14 0 0 ( 14
I
MAIN STREET i Walnut Avenue Olive Avenue
West side of street S 0 0 8
East side of street 16 0 0 16
MAIN STREET Olive Avenue Orange Avenue
West side of street 18 0 0 18
East side of street 16 0 0 16
I
MAIN STREET
West side of street Orange Avcnuc Frankfort Avcuue I 24 0 0 24
East side of street Orange Avenue Pecan Avenue 15 0 0 15
_ I _
MAIN STREET
West side of street
Enst side of street Pecan Avcnuc Frankfort Avenue I 0 2 0 2
MAIN STREET
West side of strut Frankfort Avcnuc Acacia AVG1LIC i 0 3 0 I 3
East side of street Frankfort Avenue Acacia Avenue 0 4 0 4
MAIN STREET SUBTOTAL 121 9 0 130
Page 4 of 8
EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING
METER'ED/ MARKED UNMARKED PROPOSED
STREET FROM TO MARVED (UNMETERED) PARKING PARKING
PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES (FT) SPACES
11FIFTH STREET Pacific Coast Highway Walnut Avenue II
West side of strcet i I8 0 0 18
East side of strcet 20 0 0 20
I
I
I
FIFTH STREET Walnut Avenue Olive, Avenue
West side of strcet 2.0 0 0 20
East side of street 1 19 0 0 19
FIFTH STREET Olive Avenue Orange Avenue
West side of street 22 0 0 22
East side of street 17 0 0 17
FIFTH STREET SUBTOTAL 116 0 0 116
SIXTH STREET iPnciiic 1-onst hlighwny Walnut Avenur.
West side of street 0 0 173 7
East side of street i 0 0 146 6
SIXTH STREET 'Walnut AVCnlle Olive .Avcnuc
West side of street 0 I 0 272 11
East side of street i U 0 282 13
SIXTH STREET 10live Avcnuc Orange Avcnuc I
West side of street I I 0 0 287 13
East side of street j G I I 0 272 11
SIXTH STREET Orange Avenue Main Street '
West side of street 1 0 0 556 25
East side of strcet U 0 443 18
SIXTH STREET SUBTOTAL 0 0 2,431 !04
Page 5 of 8
EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING
METERED! MARKED UNMARKED PROPOSED
STREET FROM TO MARKED (UNMETERED) PARKING PARKING
PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES (FT) SPACES
WALNUT AVENUE Sixth Street Fifth Street
North side of street 0 0 188 7
South side of street 0 0 204 9
WALNUT AVENUE Fifth Street Main Street
North side of street ( 5 0 39 5
South side of strect 5 0 45 7
WALNUT AVENUE Main Street Third Street
North side of street 4 2 0 6
South side of street I 0 0 97 3
6 0 0 6
WALNUT AVENUE Third Strait Second Strecl
North side of street
South side of street 7 0 0 8
WALNUT AVENUE Second Street 1st Strait
North side of strect 7 0 0 7
South side of street 10 0 0 10
WALNUT AVENUE SUBTOTAL 44 21 573 68
Page 6 of 8
EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING
METERED/ MARKED UNMARKED PROPOSED
STREET FROM TO MARKED (UNMETERE-D) PARKING PARKING
PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES (FT) SPACES
OLIVE AVENUE Sixth Street Fifth Street
North side of street 1 0 0 186 7
South side of street! 0 0 157 5
OLIVE AVENUE Fifth Street Main Street
North side ol'street ( 2 4 0 6
South side of street 4 0 85 7
I
OLIVE AVENUE Mtiin Street "Third Street
North side of street 1 2 3 35 5
South side of street f 3 4 0 8
f
OLIVE AVENUE Third Street Second Street
North side of street 9 0 0 9
South side of street 9 0 0 9
OLIVE AVENUE Second Street Ist Strcct
North side of street 1 6 0 0 5
South side of street 1 5 2 0 7
OLIVE AVENUE SUBTOTAL 40 13 463 68
Pane 7 of 8
EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING
METERED/ MARKED UNMARKED PROPOSED
STREET FROM i TO i MARKED (UNMET ERED) PARKING PARKING
PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES (FT) SPACES
ORANGE AVENUE Sixth Street Fifth Street
North side of street I 0 0 231 10
South side of street I 0 0 72 3
,
ORANGE AVENUE Fifth Street Main Street
North side of street 0 0 98 4
South side of street 0 0 0 0
ORANGE AVENUE Main Street Third Street
North side of street 0 0 154 5
South side of street 0 0 173 7
ORANGE AVENUE Third Street Second Street
North side of street 0 0 0 0
South side of street 0 0 155 6
ORANGE AVENUE Second Street 1st Street
North side of street 0 0 0 0
South side of street 0 0 0 0
PECAN AVENUE Main Street Lake Street
North side of street 0 0 236 9
South side of street 0 0 221 8
PECAN AVENUE SUBTOTAL 0 0 457 17
FRANKFORT AVEN Main Street Lake Street
North side of street 0 0 106 4
South side of street 0 0 134 6
' AVENUE SUBTOTAL 0 0 240 10
Pane 8 of 8
EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING
METERED/ MARKED UNMARKED PROPOSED
STREET FROM TO MARKED (UNMETERED) PARKING PARKING
PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES (FT) SPACES
ACACIA AVENUE Main Street Lake Street
North side of street 0 0 240 10
South side of street 0 0 230 8
ACACIA AVENUE SUBTOTAL 0 0 470 18
TOTAL 441 24 7,395 778
�ZE�wf(�N �r L�G�ih�ATIV� VY-l�fT �
& > �
Lf�rL Ncrf1C�s ANT' L � {
� 3 p
GC 1�Jt3UC 4iE.l�f�IN!�' Ui �
�Ui3M I f To CAUI 6
uaporo41
o
o
1Q
c,U, PA*uc t+�VP r46i- N Z{ ti
Im-mtrm" 110' AMOW)
rtotii�aanoµs�
MOGt�IC.Dtt1oNS \14
�i'L.►kN #�oM�S �F7��>
FCFf�Gd-tNl�b"f NO. S
roc
CITY OF HUNTIINGTON BEACH
w
COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
J(>1
To Honorable Mayor and From Michael T. Uberuaga
City Council Members City Administrator
Subject AUTO MALL FEASIBILITY Date September 9, 1991
ANALYSIS STATUS REPORT
The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary to the City Council on the status of the
Auto Mall Feasibility Analysis. At the City Council meeting of May 6, 1991 a contract
was approved for a consultant to assist in the preparation of an Auto Mall Feasibility
Analysis. The draft report for Phase I and Phase II of this analysis has been completed and
is enclosed for your review and comment. Staff has been working closely with the
Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Association in order to formulate an action plan to bring
about- the expansion and retention of new car sales in the City of Huntington Beach and
thereby strengthen our sales tax revenue base.
To date the following recommendations have been formulated to achieve our goal of
retention and expansion of new car sales:
A. Although major properties are not available near Beach Boulevard and I-405 to
create an auto mall of significant size, steps should be taken to evaluate land
purchases to implement an auto center on the south side of Edinger Avenue
between Sher Lane on the west and Beach Boulevard on the east.
B. - Staff should continue to work with the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers
Association regarding a joint advertising program, which would include a reader
board sign on I-405 within the Huntington Center Redevelopment Project area.
C. The City should provide assistance to selected auto dealers, as the occasion
arises, to strengthen auto dealerships and encourage location closer to 1-405 on
Beach Boulevard. Ic
D. As an example of this selective assistance, continue to work with the Campbell
Automotive Group to respond to their request for assistance to purchase land
for a Saturn Dealership on Beach Boulevard.
We have invited the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Association to attend our study
session of September 9, 1991, to respond to questions and make comments as needed. Also
in attendance will be our auto mall consultant.
MTU/BAK/TA:jar
9561r
Attachments: Site Diagram
Auto Mall Analysis — Phase I, June 28, 1991
Auto Mall Analysis Phase II, August, 1991
Letter to Huntington Beach Auto Dealers, August 16, 1991
Letter from Huntington Beach Auto Dealers — Auto Center, August, 1991
Letter from Huntington Beach Auto Dealers — Reader Board Sign,
August, 1991
DRAFT
JJ
Huntington Beach
Auto Mall
Feasibility Analysis
DRAFT
Deportment of Economic Development
September 1991
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AUTO MALL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
City Council/Redevelopment Agency
Peter Green Mayor
Jim Silva Mayor Pro Tem
Jack Kelly Councilman
Don MacAllister Councilman
Linda Moulton-Patterson Councilwoman
Earle Robitaille Councilman
Grace Winchell Councilwoman
Michael T. Uberuaga City Administrator
Barbara A. Kaiser Deputy City Administrator/
Director, Economic Development
Prepared By:
Dan Mispagel & Associates
5020 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
• September 1991
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
* Automobile dealership sales make a significant contribution
to the city tax base. Accordingly it is in the City's best
interest to:
* Retain existing dealerships.
* Attract new dealerships.
* Promote City as auto trade area.
* Auto Mall of significant size not viable now.
* Suitable property not available.
* Economics prohibitive.
* Insufficient dealer commitment now.
RECOMMENDATIONS
* Evaluate and consider land purchase to implement Auto Mall
on the south side of Edinger Blvd. west of Beach Boulevard.
* Develop joint advertising program in conjunction with the
Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Association.
* Reader board sign on I-405 Freeway.
* Create identity and promote city dealers.
* Provide assistance to selected auto dealers for:
* Relocation near I-405 and Beach Boulevard.
* Expansion of existing facilities.
* Addition of new franchises.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTINUED
* Enhancement of the existing dealership district properties
to include consideration of the following:
* Develop customer parking turnout bays at curb.
* Develop common architectural identity.
- Building facades
- Color of buildings
- Landscape palate
- Sidewalk treatment
* Develop offsite facilities for:
- Vehicle storage
- Employee parking
* Develop common marketing identity.
- Advertising and PR
- Attention getting devices
- Sign program
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ---
Phase I- Feasibility Evaluation Page
Scope of Work 1
Analysis 1-4
Findings 4
Conclusions 5
Recommendations 5
Dealer Association Review 6
Current Dealership Locations 7-10
Phase II- Site Determination
Scope of Work 11
Site Location Study 11-12
Dealer Relocation Analysis 12
Meetings with Dealers 12
Beach Boulevard Evaluation 13
Conclusions 14
APPENDIX ---
Site Diagram
Letter to Auto Dealers August 1991
Letter from Auto Dealers- Auto Center, Aug 1991
Letter from Auto Dealers- Reader Board Sign August 1991
1.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AUTO MALL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS- PHASE I
JUNE 28, 1991
SCOPE OF WORK:
-Macro area analysis and market research relating to
Orange County region and viability of an Auto Mall in
Huntington Beach.
-Locate and identify existing and proposed Auto Malls
and other defined retail auto sales market areas.
-An evaluation of "competition factors", i..e. desire to
retain existing dealers in Huntington Beach, attract new
dealers, and timing of development in relation to other
malls in the market area.
-Existing dealership review, including existing locations
(parcel size, owned or leased building, sizes, size of
other uses) and interviews with dealers, distributors and
manufacturers and sales tax contribution trends related
to auto sales.
-Identification and qualification of other participants
for the proposed auto mall.
-Meetings with city personnel relative to progress with
the study and resultant conclusions.
ANALYSIS:
The primary trade area analysis encompassed the City of
Huntington Beach and the surrounding communities of Central
Orange County. Additional automotive trade areas were
identified for purposes of determining the effects of proposed
relocations of automobile dealerships within the trade area.
The direction of urban infill and suburban growth were
considered along with an analysis of traffic patterns and
demographic trends.
All factory franchised new automobile dealership facilities
in the primary trade area were located and identified on the
map which accompanies this report.
- - - - - - - -- ----
2.
ANALYSIS: (CON'T)
Dealership locations are categorized as follows:
1. Auto Malls. Master planned and developed in
conjunction with city redevelopment agency. Typically
freeway oriented with excellent visibility and access.
Use restrictions and protective covenants which control
development standards, signs, etc.
A. Garden Grove Auto Center located at the 22
freeway and Brookhurst Street. Dealerships: Ford, Toyota
Dodge, Hyundai, Subaru and Mitsubishi.
B. Santa Ana Auto Mall located at the 55 freeway
and Edinger Avenue. Dealerships: BMW, Jeep/Eagle, Saturn,
VW-Audi, Chrysler-Plymouth, Isuzu and Hyundai.
2 . Automobile Trade Areas. Strip commercial develop-
ments. "Auto Row" facilities located on major arterial
streets. Typical suburban configuration.
A. Costa Mesa: Harbor Boulevard between Baker
Street and 19th Street.
B. Huntington Beach: Beach Boulevard between
Heil Avenue and Yorktown Avenue.
3 . Freestanding Dealerships.
A. Westminster: Beach Boulevard, Westminster
Boulevard and Garden Grove Boulevard.
B. Garden Grove: Harbor Boulevard between
Westminster Avenue and Trask Avenue.
C. Santa Ana: 17th Street, Grand Boulevard and
1st Street.
A detailed review and analysis of the locations of existing
franchises was made to determine the ability to locate or
relocate auto dealerships within the City of Huntington Beach.
Additional information was gathered by discussing dealership
3.
development and dealer network planning with major automobile
manufacturers. Emphasis was also placed upon the legal
requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 3062, which
defines a dealerships relevant market area. Prior to
establishing a new dealership or relocating an existing one
further than one mile from its current location, the vehicle
manufacturer is required to give notice to its existing dealers
within a ten mile straight line radius. An existing dealer
may file a protest against the proposed location. A hearing
to determine the proposed dealerships impact on the relevant
market area is then held before the California New Motor
Vehicle Board.
Indepth interviews were conducted with all of the current
dealers in Huntington Beach to determine their existing
facility ownership, lease terms, size and adequacy. The
current and projected sales volume of each dealership was
determined and the dealer was asked to indicate his desire to
move into an Auto Mall, if available, or renovate hisLher
facilities at their existing location.
The existing dealers in Huntington Beach are as follow:
1. Huntington Beach Dodge 16555 Beach Blvd.
2 . Huntington Beach Chrysler/Plymouth 16661 Beach Blvd.
3 . Huntington Beach Jeep/Eagle 16751 Beach Blvd.
4 . Beach Lincoln/Mercury 16800 Beach Blvd.
5. Beach Oldsmobile/Mazda 17331 Beach Blvd.
6. DeLillo Chevrolet 18211 Beach Blvd.
7. Terry York Ford 18255 Beach Blvd.
8 . South County Volkswagon/Isuzu 18711 Beach Blvd.
9. Campbell Nissan 18835 Beach Blvd.
4.
10. Bill Maxey Toyota 18881 Beach Blvd.
11. Huntington Beach Acura 19131 Beach Blvd.
12 . Performance Mitsubishi 19202 Beach Blvd.
13 . Roger Miller Honda 19232 Beach Blvd.
FINDINGS:
* Ten of the thirteen dealers desire to move to an auto
mall if located properly and at a reasonable cost.
* The dealers would like to have a reader board sign on
the freeway so that the Huntington Beach auto dealers
could be identified.
* Several dealers have requested that the City provide
some guidance to those dealers who wish to expand. . .
as to what their requirements will be. . .before the
dealer spends a lot of money on architect fees.
* Many dealers feel that the traffic volume and speed
causes many customers to avoid shopping on Beach
Boulevard, particularly in the summer.
* If an Auto Mall cannot be developed in Huntington
Beach, then the existing dealers want to be tied
together as a selling unit by identification,
advertising and a common theme.
* Other franchises could be enticed to locate in the
City if an Auto Mall is available at a reasonable
price. These additional franchises would most likely
be Saturn, Hyundai, Infiniti, Volvo and Daihatsu.
5.
SUMMARY:
The condition of the national economy and the automobile
industry are not conducive to near term addition of new
dealerships in Orange County. The trend is to consolidation
of dealerships in auto malls. Auto Malls have a tendancy to
polarize the marketplace making it difficult for stand alone
dealerships to survive. Auto Mall development is to a great
extent driven by city assistance to dealers and manufacturers.
The City of Huntington Beach has an opportunity to position its
dealers to successfully achieve market penetration in central
Orange County.
CONCLUSIONS:
* City of Huntington Beach should consider creation of
an Auto Mall at or near the I-405 freeway. If this
is not feasible then every effort should be made to
create an identity and promote the area as an "Auto
Row" .
* It is concluded that a reader board sign on the I-405
freeway is needed and that the City of Huntington
Beach and the auto dealers should take cooperative
action to implement a sign program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
* Proceed with site determination phase to include
alternate locations, availability and price of
property and city assistance.
* Develop identity for existing Huntington Beach
auto dealers. Joint effort marketing program by
Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Association to create
common identity and advertising.
* City of Huntington Beach work with Dealers Association
to develop and implement a Freeway Signage program.
6.
DEALER ASSOCIATION REVIEW:
A presentation of the market research phase of this project was
made to the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Asssociation at their
regularly scheduled meeting in June.
The association was in accord with the project work completed
to date and they were anxious for the second phase to proceed
as quickly as possible.
CURRENT DEALERSHIP LOCATIONS
HUNTINGTON BEACH
1. Huntington Beach Dodge 16555 Beach Blvd.
2 . Huntington Beach Chrysler/Plymouth 16661 Beach Blvd.
3 . Huntington Beach Jeep/Eagle 16751 Beach Blvd.
4. Beach Lincoln/Mercury 16800 Beach Blvd.
5. Beach Oldsmobile/Mazda 17331 Beach Blvd.
6. DeLillo Chevrolet 18211 Beach Blvd.
7 . Terry York Ford 18255 Beach Blvd.
8. South County Volkswagon/Isuzu 18711 Beach Blvd.
9. Campbell Nissan 18835 Beach Blvd.
10. Bill Maxey Toyota 18881 Beach Blvd.
11. Huntington Beach Acura 19131 Beach Blvd.
12 . Performance Mitsubishi 19202 Beach Blvd.
13 . Roger Miller Honda 19232 Beach Blvd.
WESTMINSTER
16. Mike McCarthy Buick/GMC/Subaru 15550 Beach Blvd.
17 . Allen Kane Chevrolet 7600 Westminster Blvd.
18 . Elmore Toyota 15300 Beach Blvd.
19. Bob Longpre Pontiac/Suzuki 13600 Beach Blvd.
8
20. Penske Honda 13750 Beach Blvd.
21. Lexus of Westminster 13590 Beach Blvd.
22 . Sunset Ford 5440 Garden Grove Bl.
GARDEN GROVE
24 . Garden Grove Dodge/Hyundai/
Subaru 9666 Trask Ave.
25. Superior Audi/VW 13631 Harbor Blvd.
26. Garden Grove Mazda 13650 Harbor Blvd.
27. Campbell Ford 9222 Trask Ave.
28. Eddie Hopper Chevrolet 10511 Garden Grove B1.
29. County-Wide Chrysler-Plymouth/
Jeep/Eagle 10080 Garden Grove Bl.
30. Orange County Volvo 10120 Garden Grove B1.
31. Garden Grove Mitsubishi 9898 Trask Ave.
32 . Quality Nissan 13731 Harbor Blvd.
33 . Toyota of Garden Grove 9444 Trask Ave.
SANTA ANA
37 . Santa Ana Chrysler-Plymouth/
Hyundai/Isuzu 1405 Auto Mall Dr.
38. Honda Santa Ana 2114 E. First Street
39 . Commonwealth VW/Audi 1450 Auto Mall Dr.
40. Crevier BMW 1500 Auto Mall Dr.
41. Santa Ana Nissan 2001 E. 17th Street
9.
42 . Santa Ana Mazda (Closed) 1501 Auto Mall Dr.
43 . Jeep/Eagle of Santa Ana 1415 Auto Mall Dr.
44. Reason Buick 909 N. Grand Avenue
45. Guaranty Chevrolet 711 E. 17th Street
46.' Saturn of Santa Ana 1350 Auto Mall Dr.
COSTA MESA
49. Campbell Mazda 1425 W. Baker Street
50. Atlas Chrysler-Plymouth 2929 Harbor Blvd.
51. Costal Acura 2925 Harbor Blvd.
52 . Harbour Infiniti 2888 Harbor Blvd.
53 . South Coast Dodge 2888 Harbor Blvd.
54 . University Honda/GMC/Suzuki 2860 Harbor Blvd.
55. Connell Chevrolet 2828 Harbor Blvd.
56. Tuttle-Click Nissan 2845 Harbor Blvd.
57 . Harbor Mitsubishi 2833 Harbor Blvd.
58. Johnson & Son Lincoln/Mercury 2626 Harbor Blvd.
59 . Nabors Cadillac 2600 Harbor Blvd.
60. Nabors Buick 2600 Harbor Blvd.
61. Orange Coast Jeep/Eagle 2524 Harbor Blvd.
62 . University Oldsmobile/Pontiac 2480 Harbor Blvd.
63 . Theodore Robins Ford/Isuzu 2060 Harbor Blvd.
64 . Toyota of Coata Mesa 1966 Harbor Blvd.
65. Volvo of Costa Mesa 1960 Harbor Blvd.
"""U' Uj
GARDEN GROVE = W
W 0 ORANGE "3 WALNUT AVE
x CHAPMAN AVE o CHAPMAN IL
SZ5
> p x p "
444 o Q F J Orange Crush Interrnange 3 p
Mairilnctron JP nl�x Wm W m Q LA VETA AVE = C h
junctin^ �+
GARDEN GROVE Ftir2a BLVD °
W
29 30 Ye1 y �� 3 ME YIN (,ry t
InkV,L N �� I O F us + �
TRASK ` Y�3] ?q 3 j 25 AVE Lg '^ En may;
z:RAVE STMINSR w[sTAUNSTE s? ?6 AW LL 17TH ~� ST
1kI VD
Oc > a ti
a c 0 3 z q.
" ��o W STMINSTER 3"`�"`'c► � _ As,
1 y 0 Q m
> �. i � g <TH m—?
BOLSA c' ' AVE 1ST,m ST
" 10WAY CITY SANTA A TUSTIN
;E I 3 CENTER o z o
Q MC FADDEN A h
I ,a„ EDINGER AVE m tiJ
J H �
J m u z u EDINGER " �o
r� NUNTIN6TON 0 _' FOUNTAIN AVE >
/ HARBOUR u 2' " W o U q4y
8 VALLEY 3 Z ��
WARNER 3 m AVE WARNER LLI-j AVE u �Oi'IpF �� '`9
4
3 DYER RD 1P
BOISA CHICA 1 :_A/jA 5 U z
[COLOGICAL � LL AC ARTHUR BLVD
,,, TALBERT 6 ST �+-
" T
V RESERVE e'ELLIS AVE �� o Q � Irvine
oc Wisnnon
LU
h� 9
" G.l.°;IELD AVE
3 INGTON Ro Ftir
�. H 1 I lk�T 50 52 49 want 4Q �RRgti F�
� Z '3EACH A 56 54 ZER �1°"i/ °KW
ADAMS '3 VE 15 55 PACIPC fin,WTHEOITRIE
58
y a co 59 W FAIR Joe( Q? � IRVINE DIE-Go
DR
z Y
0 $ 62 < y AVE ar ?S �r�.� `�q,.! DR
W
LL
� 63 ORIA T `� UPPER
m HAMILTON `�� 64 ?? NEWPORT BAY Q`�O
ST 19TH ST I65 '='p
ECOLOGICAL
I NO S V BER DESERVE j
COSTA MESA )992 �o
3
Q�ci"ic,
11
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AUTO MALL ANALYSIS- PHASE II
AUGUST 28, 1991
SCOPE OF WORK:
-Analyze potential sites of land within or near the
Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project
which might be a feasible auto mall location, taking
into consideration:
-Existing dealer circumstances.
-Access, visability, signs, etc.
-Ideal size and dealer mix for an auto mall.
-Evaluate current Beach Boulevard location of Auto
Dealers and opportunities for enhancement of this
district.
-Develop recommendations based upon the foregoing.
SITE LOCATION STUDY:
An analysis of potential site locations for an Auto Mall
was undertaken on a citywide basis. The following areas were
reviewed and considered:
1. McDonnell Douglas property at Bolsa & Springdale.
2 . Huntington Center property.
3 . Beach Boulevard north of Warner Avenue.
4 . South side of Edinger Blvd. west of Beach Blvd.
The McDonnell Douglas site was rejected because it did not
provide freeway exposure or access. The Huntington Center
property met most criteria for a viable location, however
the owners are not interested in redeveloping the property to
automotive use at this time. Most of the property on Beach
12
Boulevard is not located in a redevelopment area. Parcels
of a sufficient size and configuration for multiple auto
dealership development were not available on the open market.
A potential 9. 1 acre auto mall site was identified within the
Huntington Center Redevelopment Project on the south side of
Edinger Boulevard west of Beach Boulevard. It appears that
three high volume dealerships could be relocated to this site
and create a meaningful retail draw.
DEALER RELOCATION ANALYSIS:
An in-depth study of every Huntington Beach auto dealer
was completed to review their: lease term, renewal options,
monthly rental, fixed and/or Cost of Living Index rental
increases, land ownership and projected sales tax generation.
From this study a determination was made as to which
dealerships were at risk of losing their facilities and the
timing of required assistance.
Three dealers were determined to have the most immediate
need for consideration of relocation assistance based upon
lease expiration date and projected rental increases.
MEETINGS WITH DEALERS:
A meeting with the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers
Association was held on August 20, 1991 to discuss the Phase
II site determination findings. At that time the 9. 1 acre
site on Edinger Boulevard was identified as a potential site
for dealership relocation. The association members were asked
to define both individual and collective interest in the
location.
A subsequent meeting was held with four of the highest sales
volume dealers to determine their level of interest in
proceeding with an Auto Mall. Three of these dealers
indicated a desire to participate in the proposed project and
agreed to forward letters to the City outlining their intent.
Approval from their manufacturers to relocate the dealerships
13_
and financial feasibility are necessary conditions of dealer
participation.
BEACH BOULEVARD EVALUATION:
In addition to assisting with the relocation of dealers to an
auto mall site, the City should concurrently take steps to
assist the Huntington Beach dealers at their existing Beach
Boulevard locations. Real and perceived concerns about the
Beach Boulevard "Super Street" will become more pertinent as
the project moves closer to becoming a reality.
Enhancement of the existing dealership district properties
should include consideration of the following:
-Develop customer parking turnout bays at curb.
-Develop common architectural identity.
-Building facades.
-Color of buildings.
-Landscape palate.
-Sidewalk treatment.
-Develop offsite facilities for:
-Vehicle storage.
-Employee parking.
-Develop common marketing identity.
-Advertising and PR.
-Attention getting devices.
-Sign program.
14
CONCLUSIONS:
* Automobile dealerships sales make a significant
contribution to the city tax base. Accordingly
it is in the City's best interest to:
* Retain existing dealerships.
* Attract new dealerships.
* Promote City as auto trade area.
* Auto Mall of significant size not viable now.
* Suitable property not available.
* Economics prohibitive.
* Insufficient dealer committment now.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
* Evaluate and consider land purchase to implement
Auto Mall on south side of Edinger Boulevard west
of Beach Boulevard.
* Develop joint advertising program in conjunction
with the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Association.
* Reader board sign on I-405 Freeway.
* Create identity and promote city dealers.
* Provide assistance to selected auto dealers for:
* Relocation near I-405 and Beach Blvd.
* Expansion of existing facilities.
* Addition of new franchises.
APPENDIX
Site Diagram
Letter to Auto Dealers - August 1991
Letter from Auto Dealers - Auto Center, August 1991
Letter from Auto Dealers - Reader Board Sign, August 1991
9574r
;n �.
WFADOEN
Idl
r
■ease asite 4e
'c9
F
� � � 'Rt4da.v 800td
i NGl'A FAR:•
I •
:o I • m
UN
f ■ CENTER DRIVE -■■■-■a
ow
-
■ EDtMW EA ZMfNT
!6 nowt ---- -- ---- - -------- ----------- •♦•i
v�
I HUNTINGTON CENTER
Cr
d
■
FCo
D ■ J
r r Q
-- — -
Co
EDINGER AVE. ■• i
� ■
I
■
Scale 1 200 , - ; ■.......... ;
HUNTINGTON ENTER COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJIL -
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA AREA
PLANNING DIVISION ii•• AA L
CwTA, I � ce Aj44
•
City of Huntington Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Director 536-5582
Economic Development 536-5542
August 16, 1991
Rick Evans, President
Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Association, Inc.
Huntington Jeep Eagle
16751 Beach Boulevard
Huntington Beach, California 92647
Dear Mr. Evans:
Results of our Auto Mall Feasability Analysis identified a potential 9.1 acre auto center
site within the Huntington Center Redevelopment Project. Our consultant has indicated
that three high—volume dealers could be located on this site (site diagram attached). We
have started discussing a potential land purchase assisted by the Redevelopment Agency
with members of your association, subject to City Council review and approval'. We invite
all members of the Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Association that may be interested in
participating to make contact with Tom Andrusky at (714) 536-5224. All requests to
participate will be evaluated in terms of best meeting the needs of the Auto Dealers
Association and the City of Huntington Beach.
I
The timeframe for this land purchase opportunity is rather tight because of RTC
requirements, and the timetable of Terranomics to sell or lease to a major tenant.
Currently, our auto mall consultant is reviewing the economics of the proposed land
transaction which will be available in the next few weeks.
It is a pleasure working with the Huntington Beach Automobile Dealers Association. We
look forward to implementing this plan and other programs that will enhance the economic
base of the City of Huntington Beach.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Kaiser
Deputy City Administrator
BAK/TA:jar
•Rom _V . > R•
H - -A
HUNTINGTON BEACH
August 30, 1991
Mr. Tom Androsky, Project Manager
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648
Dear Mr. Androsky,
It was a pleasure meeting with you, Barbara Kaizer and the consultants
of the proposed auto mall in Huntington Beach. I am writing this letter in
behalf of Roger Miller Honda, Terry York Ford and DeLillo Chevrolet. We all
have a *great interest in relocating our facilities to the 9.1 acres indentified
in the anaylsis.
This proposal is timely for both the city and the dealers. The relocation
would provide permanent sites for the various dealerships. The dealers'
various existing leases are coming up for renewal and the rental rates will
be prohibitive.
The proposed relocation site with modern, efficient facilities adjacent
to the Huntington Beach mall will have increased sales and service immediately.
This location will benefit the customers by the proximity to the mall and the
freeway and be convenient for other people from neighboring area. The
specific areas that need to be addressed by the dealers and the city jointly
are as follows:
1. Secure Land. The dealers would have a problem in
securing and holding the land for the interim period
till facilities were completed. Estimated time from
start of drawings till completion would be 2 years.
2. Current leases need to be addressed depending on
timing of completed dealerships.
3. Factory approval. Once the dealers know the land
and agreement with city are in place the dealers can
then notify their respective manufacturers for their
approval and clearance of the marketplace.
4. Costs. The estimated cost of an efficient facility
for each dealership on 3 acres will be 3 million.
In order to make this economically feasible the land
cost for the dealership would need to be $8.00 per
square foot.
19232 Beach Boulevard • Huntington Beach , California 92648 • 714-963- 1959
- *LER
I� 'nAM
HUNTINGTON BEACH
August 30, 1991
Mr. Tom Androsky
Page 2
The individual dealer could arrange his own financing however, the use
of non-tax free bonds with the city putting up the Letter of Credit would
enable the dealers to accomplish this in a less costly manner and assure
the financial viability of the dealership.
By working together, the city and the dealers can make this a very
profitable long term joint effort.
Sincerel
ger Miller,
President
RM:so
19232 Beach Boulevard • Huntington Beach , California 92648 • 714-963- 1959
D HUNTINGTON BEACH
D AUTOMOBILE DEALERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
September 3, 1991
Mr. Tom Andrusky
Department of Economic Development
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Electronic Readerboard Sign
Dear Mr. Andrusky:
In review of the conclusions of the Auto Mall Feasibility Analysis,
the Huntington Beach Automobile Dealers Association (HBADA) would
like to immediately pursue the installation of an electronic reader-
board, message center sign at the 405 Freeway, identifying the new
car dealers of Huntington Beach as an Auto Center.
We respectfully request the participation of the City of Huntington
Beach and propose the following:
1 ) The City of Huntington Beach identify the site for the
proposed sign along the 405 Freeway (Should be within
the redevelopment district) .
2 ) The City leases the site to the Huntington Beach Automobile
Dealers Association for a term not less than 20 years
at $1 . 00 per year.
3 ) The HBADA will solicit and secure competitive bids for
the proposed sign.
4) The City of Huntington Beach purchases, leases or reimburses
the association for the cost of the sign and installation.
5) The HBADA will pay for the maintenance of the sign,
including, power, programing, light bulbs, insurance, etc.
P.O. Box 2700 9 Huntington Beach, California 92647
PAGE TWO
We believe the electronic sign is our #1 priority as an Association
of Auto Dealers and once installed will greatly enhance our ability
to compete with the Auto Malls in the surrounding cities.
We appreciate the support the city has shown the Auto Dealers in
recent years and we look forward to a greater volumn of sales and
increased sales tax revenues by working together on this project.
Sincerely,
HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION
Rick Evans
President