HomeMy WebLinkAboutDowntown Core Public Spaces Plan - Design Review Board REQUEST FG. REDEVELOPMENT ('"�.-IENCY ACTION
Np rb13o--b J1317 ,$� - RH 89-10
ti A C4003CA' January 30, 98 1 9
Qr5 Cp.v agms 4 t�.., Date
Honorable Chairmen and Agency MembT
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Paul E. Cook, Executive Director"L-
Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Developm
Prepared by: Ck
' kOVZDOWNTOWN CORE PUBLIC SPACES PLAN APPTga D ►�'• �
Subject: ._ 19"
Consistent with Council Policy? pQ Yes f l New Policy or Excepti r
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, ttac ments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
In the summer of 1988 the concept of a Downtown Public Spaces short term project was
formulated as a step in Implementing the Downtown Village Concept Plan approved by
the Agency in the Spring of,1988. The public spaces are those public spaces on Main
Street from Acacia to the seaward end of the Huntington Beach Pier. The project has
now been completed and staff Is requesting Agency approval of streetscape elements
and authorization to prepare concept and working drawings for Main Street from PCII
to-Acacia Including landscape projects at Branch Library/Cultural Center, U.S. Post
Office and the Pier Plaza Area/Beach access (at the Intersection of the pier, PIH, and
northside parking facility).
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve the selection of streetseape elements and map as approved by the Design
Review Board;and
2. Authorize staff to proceed with concept plans and construction drawings for Main
Street Public Spaces from PCH to Acacia Including landscape/hardscape for the
Branch Library/Cultural Center, U.S. Post Office and thg Pier Plaza/Beach Access
Way at the Intersection of the Pier, PCII and northside parking' facility; and
3. Authorize staff to prepare amendments to the Downtown Design Guidelines as
needed to implement the Downtown Public Spaces Plan for City Council
consideration; and
9. Authorize staff to continue to formulate financing options Including assessment
districts to constrict a"d maintain public spaces In the Main Pier Redevelopment
Project Area foE City Council consideration ,tA �A far c&�� hiers M
S. -rhwi- ►rv�++4►.Als ,:.� ►a,.�s�. h bs bwr Rt � GOuiva. P'y" , .
ANALYSIS: sd iov"S0.4 M444-►1►'�, -�pr Cuvwc:Ca� �ows:dM '0"+ �nclwJ ��-�vl�sL�r++�+'f7� P�u�'+•1
etV�•rw� a y
The Downtown Public Spaces pro;.ect j,cs to establish a set of streetscape/plaza design
standards. Tlie design standards would emphasize the relationship of the built
environment to the people and unique "village" ambiance. The design of the public
.cps,,es would tie together all projects along ,Main Street with a common urban design
theme.
`j
PIo/1/B5
rt'�':"iTt..v..t..►... .. '. wit. .. ..Rti..,iM1,vi'(ii L.;
Y '
.J
RH 89-10
January 30, 1989
Page 2
The consultants scope of services included the following Items:
* review of City's Downtown Design Guidelines
* review, and recommendations of City's current thinking regarding streetscape
elements
* review of existing plans
* proylde maps showing public space links between potential plaza area
* recommend funding sources for streetscape improvements
* listing of tasks for next step request for proposal
* provide a cost estimate of next step scope of services
prepare a written report to summarize conclusion and recommendations
The recommendations of the Downtown Core Public Spaces Plan were completed in the
fall of 1988 and were reviewed by staff and the Design Review Board. The ;Design
Review Board met in'October and December 1988 and made specific recommendations
on' the map, street lighting, street benches, bollards tree grates, trash receptacles,
paving color, and landscaping. The concept proposed for paving is to use precast
rectangular concrete pavers in the crosswalks. The sidewalk,would.be concrete (broom
finish with troweled border) and the street would be concrete after equipment and
utilities are installed. In the interim the street would be asphalt. Attached are minutes
of the Design Review Board of October 27, 1988, December 22, 1998, and
January 19, 1988 Minutes.
The current status of our Downtown Core Public Spaces Projects are as follows:
* Branch Library/Cultural Arts Center -- concepts for Iandscape/hardscape are being
prepared
* U.S. Post Office— concepts for landscape and hardscape are complete
" Demonstration Plaza —complete
* Pier Plaza/Beach Access Way—proposals have been received for design services
* Pi,r Replacement —currently under design
r
The estimated design and contract costs for the Downtown Core Public Spaces including,
street improvements is $1.2 million to $1.5 million with approximately 70% for
plaza/sidewalk areas and 30% for street improvements. After construction it will be
Important to ensure funding for a high level of maintenance for all public spaces in the
Main Pier Redevelopment Project Area. One option would be to consider the 1972
Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District Act and/or the 1913/194S assessment
District Act.
Approval of the recommendations as presented will assist in ensuring Implementation of
the Downtown Village Concept In a timely and cost effective manner.
^r+.Lr r.�.. t..:.t.�? • . .. ........ ., .. -. v.• ...+r ,.. .. ..• ..V. . .. ..'... •. ...0 •MH..-.M. ..1.Ar)�"A ti.�..aa^!i'Y.Ji'C3Yw
RH 80-10
January 30, 1989
Page 3 j
FUNDING SOURCE:
t
I
Main Pier Redevelopment tax increment and developer contribution appear to be the
main sources of funding as of this writing. Other sources may be available In the form { '.
of governmental grants and contributions from private Individuals and businesses which
will be pursued by staff.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
,t
Do not approve or modify recommendations as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
* DRB Minutes of October 27, 1988, December 22, 1988, and January 19, 1989. "?
* Downtown Core,Publlc Spaces Potential Plan - Map ;*
* Concept diagram of street light and pedestrian light
* Examples of coheret benches for high-use areas
* Example of metal/wood benches for intimate areas
* Concrete waste containers
* Tree grate diagram
PEC/DLB/TA/jar
4290r '
I
is '!
S 0:
t .
•I
.J
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
i
MINUTES
October 27, 1988
Members Present: Frank Higgins, Mike Adams, Daryl Smith, Doug
LaBelle
Staff Present: Tom Andrusky, Scott Hess Stephen Kohler, Jack
Miller, Mike Connor
Historic Hoard: Guy Guzzardo, Barbara Milkovich
1. DOj T. -CQRZ PUBLIC SPACES
The Design Review Board approved the following items:
i Map-Downtown Core Public Spaces
0 Color - Hunter Green
1
• Paving - Rectangular concrete paver in sunburst colors (red,
dark brown and charcoal)
TA:ss
1825d
DRB Minutes -1-
� .St;.i{�l:�T•�Y1n.n... ww wt'....t' .r+ _- .:"- .'J'.... .f.J Mt..... .. .a.. .V..t.. ...:.1.r.,.w...._....!-+�+.�a.*►wA�wrs.r�.HyMP1Y'T/MFJR�'4�"PMO'MRiL
by t
DESIGN REVIEW HOARD
MINUTES
:. December 22, 1988
i Members Present: Mayor Wes Bannister, John Erskine, Frank Higgins,
Mike Adams, Daryl Smith, Doug LaBelle, Marc Porter
Additional Present: Guy Guzzardo, Barbara Milkovich
i
Staff Present: Thomas Andrusky, Ric Catron
1. QQ NW TOWN PUQLIC �$PAPACES (Location: Downtown Main Street)
Request: Review conceptual plan
i
Tom Andrusky, from the City's Redevelopment Office, gave a
presentation on the downtown public spaces, based on the work
and :recommendations of the City Downtown Design Consultant
Urban Design Studio. Story boards showing various benches,
light fixtures, and other street furniture were displayed.
Today's subject was to vote on these recommended fixtures, so
that the City Council could make the final decisions.
Street Lights:
i
Daryl Smith made a motion to adopt a single aluminum light
standard light fixture which will set the pattern for all other
street furniture. The issue of cross bars for multiple lamp
fixtures was unresolved and will be brought back to the Design
Review Board for additional review and recommendation. The
design is similar to. existing street-lights within the Main
Street median and will be compatible with both the.
Mediterranean and historical elements of the various downtown
projects. The motion was seconded by Mayor Bannister, and
passed.
Street Benches:
The consultant recommended a metal, modern bench. It was felt
the light standards were not compatible with this bench
design. Daryl Smith made a motion to direct staff to come up
with alternative concrete benches for high-use areas ; and
replicate metal/wood benches for the more intimate areas. The
motion was seconded by Mayor Bannister, and passed. "
Bollards:
On the question of bollards, Mike Adams made a motion to go
with a clean, simple, and easy to maintain design that would be
more compatible with the concrete benches and trash
receptacles. Daryl Smith seconded the motion, and it was
passed.
i
Trep. Grates:
Barbara Milkovitch of the Historic Board was concerned with the
spacing on the tree grates. The slots need to be greater or
lesser than 1/2" so high heels can't get caught.. There was a
debate as to whether or not: the grates were even required.
Daryl Smith made a motion that if they were to be used, they'd
be aligned with the curb, and a square design for ease of
interfacing with the rectangular pavers. The motion was
seconded by Fr:%nk Higgins and passed.
Trash Recent.aclgs:
The last issue was trash receptacles. Daryl Smith was
concerned with the weight of the recommended receptacle .and
suggested heavy receptacles so that .they can not be overturned
` or,' have the lids removed. Mike Adams made a motion that the
receptacles be made of exposed concrete, accessible from the
top, and that they be locked and secured. Daryl Smith seconded
the motion, and it was passed.
L11n scapino.-
At a previous meeting, the Board recommended that the street
trees should be Majestic Beauty with Windmill Palma planted
where appropriate. Mexican Fan Palms and Queen Palms are also
to be planted where appropriate as plaza elements and in
significant open space areas. Mediterranean Fan Palms are to
be planted in planter containers at intersections. Street
j pavers with a herring bone pattern and a sunburst design (red,
1 dark brown, charcoal) was selected to be installed in
cross-walks, in public plazas or intersection landings, and
coordinated with on site pavers.
The Design Review Board stated that their recommendations as to
style along with product specification sheets be submitted to the
City Council for final action on the Downtown Public Spaces Design
Guidelines.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
RC:ss
1825d
DRB Minutes -2-
I DESIGN REVIEW HOARD
! MINUTES
January 19, 1989
Members Present: Frank Higgins, Mike Adams, Daryl Smith, Scott
Hess (substituting for Doug LaBelle)
Staff Present: Tom Andrusky, Laura Phillips, Jeff Abramowitz,
Herb Fauland, Tom Rogers, Ric Catron
J
1. DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE
An informal discussion of street furniture was further
discussed. A series of concrete benches; the ,Q-PS,jline from
the 01aui:ck Crete• catalog were selected. Board members felt
they could recommend any of the three in the pioduct .catalog.
These concrete benches would be. used in the ,high traffic; areas
of Msin Street. It aas discussed at the previous meetings that
a secondary bench of wood and metal should be used in the
courtyard areas. The City currently has a bench in the test
c plaza that is very similar to model #1088 .from-the D.M. Brown &
' Company. Daryl Smith made a recommendation that trash.
t receptacles should have the same treatment as our standard
benches; therefore, they too should be concrete. Frank Higgins
liked the types with reeessible tops. The merits of round vs.
square slopes. were discussed. Mixe Adams brought up the
i question of bollards. Are they to be used as street furniture,
or to. discourage off-sidewalk parking7 He felt their texture
should be consistent with that of the trash receptacles and
benches. Further clarification of the bollard design is
required. Mike requested a catalog of bollard design.
2. PIER COLONY
Applicant: Tim Smith
Location: Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street
Request: Mixed Use - 130 Condominiums Project
Laura Phillips spoke on final elevations for the residential
portion of the project. Preliminary designs had been approved
in June. Tim Smith gave the presentation. Some detailing has
changed, the most significant being the corner hip roofs
converted into open balconies. The landscape portion is
currently in plan check. Palms will be required between the
condominiums and the Entertainment Complex.% . Mike Adams made a
motion to recommend the submittal of changes Frank Higgins
seconded it and passed 4-0.
• . .. <.•.......f:Niisi..MIR?fl'ltL#'ab::Ly+.rji.:i:+.iSY.++
.!, DOWNTOWN CORE
PUBLIC SPACES
POTENTIAL PLAN
0 Al
. Y. %� ` •`�
CULTURAL COMPLEX
O%nw to dmwfosm eve
2ftv
go
'ELBOW LANDMARK" :.
r.
`f$ ��. 1 r,f ''►/CM1i3'. � / .crrolMhfwMf/ - ., _ c�.
( .t�"Ow{p�00p 6p MOt1'S Sr. },•r' +t`:
}} �t 1•Y:fI�.•�YL }}♦♦ � � 1VA�.4/r.aR� y�.y may.,. .. l
ftm
OPMEN
T N 90llAitE PHASE 1 :> tt tt < &AW t BEACHBLO.AAA
# >. '
:.r t
4,a. •PUBUGI PRNATE au►+c�tr. :�:. r
OPEN SPACE ! PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
41"•:: U.S.POSt OFFICE
LANDSCAPE PROUECt '.
OppiGRTUfYjly
,:',�, - :�vau*en; � =� ... �, .•j ,,i ��` � ` •rnaro►noa�rrfb,noa. •'
1 ;- .�1Mf+Ka+IMWNG-. ,. „f i l_i •` /� •nnu+oQ+�rrocehprov.r►iM+1r . i
"I two
..o PARKING STRUCTURE'
'�'`' .cry nr�+.o•crxuaaa+.a Boa • '
15 1 w13
i• aoa�fr+dy . r I
,REHAB BLOCK
i r SECONDAHYGATMAY
8 cyoaop sEAcH9LVD.Q WALA r ..
•j, � ��lf • .. 'i�i-ter'/
00,
;r . iVEW 17 L P TUNITY -- ,
MAIN AfEPh
PRAdARYQATEWAY L'� �•-� WATERFRONTPROQIECT:, ;: '
`11 t` r P•Gii i GOUMV WESTr"tm -FOVCLn !r Li E,)Ej 1A l.�f L::i-L.—.l f}•
..;,
Pq/MAAYQATEWAY `' :
r..�--~ P.C.H.A BEACH B WO. �1 w xt
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE GATEWAY MAJOR'ENTRY
PUBLI RIVATE OPEN SPACE PAC1RC COASTHIGHWAV&MAINSTREET
TOP OF PARKING STRUCTURE
•,c�ofv+wwr FIERSIOE VILLAGE •eron f►ta+u++wwiot, _• .C,Med bcw d bNach ro>mri w ab�+.+►orn tarn •�..,.
�. •o0nlhuatianatx/yrt�a .aswa+ana�rbnf+wrw+w+n _� y4v,"�'
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
.stfalif•.p - •
•Ovbv hfOnNfu ;r,
City Of Huntington Becc!)
LirVIA
i tM I1yAa�/�fa b .
NORTH �e St
um
• Wow SON
!!i
Yil�raiN+M .M.MW MM 11
' II+
1
1
t.S
i
t
1 .
� I
i
.• to J -'�
�• O r t �. p' .� i t �
/ararNlaa/1.14Yrt/WM/sGi�tMYAq•arYwaarl♦l w.awr...•aMr�it�/uia/arrwwt•.r►.ua� ! I
�� �/allrri lawlay/�IwMM�•Ia1 a.w••+N M w•r• 1 ,
yAy,r��f, aw.011 Ira w/Yt alrrl IwM►N�aawwr p•la►aY wlr �
_____ _ Mll. Mf1 Uii NIYY MIl►Y 1rrMwir Y►
_ M•1•rw taw/aY f,lararrt.••
44
—-.�,�..�. _. 1•M 1 K/M 41 0Y l am•.a•// some �•_,�r (� I�t a u.•.r.�. .
• tl•Maa•Y •call ►I,.It 1. wu 1� 1'.iL►.+.
i
C
BEST PHOTOGRAPHIC
REPRODUCTION
POSSIBLE, DUE TO
.AGE AND CONDITION
OP ORIGINAL
DOCUMENTS
�i':'�i.�f�!«}`r3C_o��1^�.w'r1:r:i.•:a'A+.�Wf:..:.+...+� �+.+...�.w...w.�.c;t+.'i3+.i:...�..•.•7:.�'^..�'i+�+i+47•T. _ �
•t
JI
Q , -U I C K C- R
E ..' T T.
CONCRETE SITE FURNISHINGS
27
•,. a4 I, -
490
.'• .ate , � ' ��
•'I},E� .� a 1"fir .
•4 �•• � I •'♦� ,:',.11 Air+"r�:y,[r. .,-Iir�l. 1.
4 �.. � I-N. ti5 �`i`�? ♦r �y r�'ry�'fa�lj�• s` f+r �Jy " }.��!.k,t -l'�tl�!�r•�erjT. �+ -
• -��� i.•~•: d u,�'1.�• �l�,`f'.L.>r r f M f (f I 1•�� y "'! _ - • � �` f".•F '.
• -rM• � r. +�y?' `- �•„� .•f,� J,-y�'�ir.1r.. 't-_•'.,{I/3` � �r
Concx�m l" w_ e
y� rib�'emg a x'
r.
r�4 .0 ;r„i. .• �; �r+'CoNcR1.}iG -BE S
.6-S M-RONFORCEQ * COLORS. AND T DaVRES • DEf iVERY WI ITi CRA%TRYCK
VARIET,;OF STYLES Cugom LOGOS , * & W CEM§lO sow-
77
�V-
(2-115-84 11;
-01V 71. 71. T-011'
Q:ro
6T 2,411%, 2'.0"1%' 61. 20"11'
"WOW
NNW
Q.RT.(,IICI. Q-RT CURV Q-RT6BSI.
• 61 1411' 41 1411' 61. \ 14"11'
OAM Q.QCVl'll7
.;1 71. 1511' T-61. x .10"%\'
"IN
Q-1 III NEW CLASSIC III:NCI I
1. F-111V ( ONCRUF OR, w000 st.,\'r ,)f:,NT 14"DIA. S-1001- 401'
17 th"I IT.
QUICK CRIAT 1'1\'ODUC71'r, CORPORATION
P.O. BOX
,41 W. PARKRIME AVE.
NORCO, CALIFORNIA 91760
-14 17.6240 EAX 714 7.17-71M
f
THE: CLASSIC COLLECTION
.yam, ti-; '�.• r•� t. t�j;.,.. ,i, �
"1; s•.• 1
lei
•8�.
•'�'�Y,.:;'r`•fit •�„�"'��r•1+_i,��. <.i..r �. ,
• rfv�(i/4t,
( '�. ��,1�,�•.�_. 1 ..... !.�..r., ,yam h t
122
✓ter ,-^•�_~ L
ti••
%41-t
0 7-ra,hm tn:rl, Victorixi and Mc,ltterrattl•an sty!t' henrhtw enhantr a r+•itle
rarirt�•t.t•.cttinl,�.
n a1•ailnt-ty in all•licart Califinnia redwood or extra tmigh Australian Jamb.
n l::ttit:►luminum frame;with lung life, rtnt•tler colt fmi%ho,available in o1•er
150litamtar.l colors.
I �Il D.M. BRAUN &. COMPANY -��
140"i.Mark uanit A%rnur,S-a-ta Fe Sprimm,CA Uh"h 7 0.113,921-7344 L-+
i
:i'+fty.� ,� I]:• w»1j' «:....5��..t�rc::,1.�,; ••l:4yr :••". 14ijG.�
. tF �„�.. •'..; :r,t�•..y.� .. '• i.lr'�, �;/rr •y•1.
ry
Fo 0,1..
.r1 •n.7�.i �� n„� � a1 '
ex
•1 � A _ I
MSAII
t(f +•iryit,>w It t►dr+
A
ZBiw`�'�ri: '4�/�'�t�tit�t'��h`'S�s'"2`•It r��'Y_' '� r� • l
•• 1[[•4 r �,,�/�MC :•�'.... yr{ 7�'1!�) 1x ,f R
, � �'rfr"?+�'�'`''{ '��5,;:•- "``••�si{'• ;:t(27'• ` fl,✓r•.,t��«,N�t��
•rli rl:r1'�C ��,.r� •1�_, ;:-.+r.y.,a,►C� , i1}'Y Tfi,?7;'1r• •'i:
r, .yirrras � .H'X •.... r.r.,: , 'j `' ,' �.,.J,,'1.,� ♦ ��f�'i,� l+,�•3�
f j ,'�}�������µ�•r �J•', •..r :•�.'1�: i•,"•iri G• tr � � ��iJ �'F.',�^a!f^t�. 1 '
.. ( N•2. j,ii�.�.. ��sir. .iC Y,% 1' 'J,�Yid r•',�^`,� �+� j_••'M r.,'s�}�• �\�[_"w'i�
�M l�'/ ,'�. •, ♦ r•'�� , :"i,r+i1 /.t+T•�•I' !•p•—wY^":J�'� • • :Gy"i?J
r.. _ '/•.• •♦ w•, •�'a 2 •,�+�4t/;�,,r! �• :� '� �Ntf ftJ� �;A��F���`,,t..` ��1RZI 5�����. .f' 7 II
.,•; ''. 'I •" ...1'•,• �'w i� ,•.'►.• '•N1�•+Y!f"J '4•"�'ll 'N:S Rritilei
,/r117'S
'v'"4 slvl �'�•7: '.' �l;a,.•'�f.t- ':�#�14�f ►.a � .G. , � .r ,,•I�i;,33
AA
w• '.. •1f .• •mot• �,: .•L`,
1 / y/ 1 � . r• r>r.
•F ��� f ut f • f
.,F r.4•a.t.4 •r • .. r 2• 1.• .• ���•r '-•lrri%�rf�..Z JtI� .r• r� • •.
w1-w r� t. R� ••I ! V w..r�1 t�:rl• •,r 4Y�....5 • • • •
Et ti w A—..
` t ''r'6,•'131 Y'Z•F•J.l+ .0 ' Nil. r1.M T•1aAll 111
•r �.. v !
f�/� ! '!l' t .�.'•�.1{ .5.•.Y... c� 1 \ 1 • �t�'•.1�!:F•�LC '{'.,J}'li
RY•'�• � �r�L�'�'j • .R�•,�.••,.^'�'�f��'7tY1"'�r��C�r� CI lk Qi •' a.lrt• :,,,,•��1.:� � 1 �� (�(
ti
QPS-WC 25".5Q. x 32"117. Q-S-CAL 25 25',VVIA. x 43111'. QS-19.%VS
QVS-SAU 16"SQ. a 24"1 IT. Q-S-C-Al, 1222-A 9"DIA. X 22"IfT. 191/j"SQ. x 42"1 IT.
4g of
,
9
QR.21%VC 21 t1i"DIA. x 34"111' Q.('Al..3.15.11'C 25"DIA, x 3311T. Ql1-21-%VC 11 VVDIA. x 34"1 Ri QR-261%'C 2MVVIA. x 3.1 IT. Q-CAL-225-AU 14"DIA. x 2211T QR-12-AU 121/4"DIA. x 25"&30"ln*.
*Q-1?11-IVC 21"DIA. x 34"UT.
*Q-Rll-AU 12"DIA. x .1011T.
'NO STEEL REINFORCING
fit.
CUSILIM 1A)COS WI CONIIIINAlION
INSIA IN ON I'NININAUCII 'It IVANO L 1 ON IAINI WASI I URN A1.110
111,0,VLAND ACRYI ICIN"11.11; I.0%V I AVAII-AllIT IN CONCRIII:
211'4"1IA 31111.
QUR I'l L'1%11:1 1: 111,401,Vl'l ()I%l ( )I";Nl ION
I'() HO\ 1,31)
7.11 MPKIZIMA
OUNIA 11171,11
VA\
TREE GRATES
Tree grates are useful in that their main function is to allow
watering(grats protects irrigation bib},easy tree replacement and to
provide root and trunk protection by creating an architectural
transition from paving to tree.The selected tree grate should
possess the folowing attributes:
1 'Break-out'centers to allow trunk growth;
2) Fasteners to allow grates to be bolted into a rigid unit that is
virtually unremovable t3y vandals;
3 Locations to attach'tree guards";
4 Size variations that can coordinate with common City saw cuts;
fi A high carbon cast iron which can oxidize to its own natural
patina,requiring no further maintenance.
B}A classic,simple design.
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO recommends a tree grate
manufactured by Urban Accessories, Inc.,Standard Flat,
Round Grate and Square Grate. -
II i
I j
{
_ F
!
} _,r �e�' t41 a •;.Eel S•1'c --ME I
� s
l
,
DOWNTOWN CORE
PUBLIC SPACES
POTENTIAL PLAN
1A.
r ( \
CULTURAL COMPLEXpkw
` . � •trsd ond,y to dornJuwn cart `
fc*#JV w+oydrfA71
/ •bn*=pe wdpMl
MICANR• ��,� /,� ELBOW LANDMARK
bohm �•eef�anr
W DEVELOPME i ��� L
"NE
TOWN SQUARE PHASE - ;-t SECONDARYQATEWAY
o'.O •iiaui end �-•� C 't i BEACH BLVD.A ATLANto
PUBUClPRIVATEOPEN SPACE
orr. G
a i; I.I`�' PUBLIC OPEN SPACE'
•,.,,s p . : `.. ' U.S POSTOFPCE .
LANDSCAPE PROJECT
'OPPORTuNlTY
�'•, __,r ,.� �+ � �7 tj� � .acme avo � •,:
•tuQµCrt RtIaI�A. ; ,... 1.l L \ newvpcpw roc*"Vyw# fy%w 4. }
PARKING STT?UCTURE'
' . ary. c +.e earoiaorwaa
Carmierob
REHAB BLOCK i b _ -� �►..� ~��,( —}
:rage,wasaarrn � � srZ...r )1 �'�. � ..l ~-_:•zi a �'r�:
.•r•'i�.J r'
Swam"vQATE:14'AY
• _U
cAJ
BACHBLVD.a wAV
RE
WAWA a.
00
NEW D _ � TUNITY `n
MAIN PIE _ ry RSIDECOL
L 1 WATERFRONT PROJEcT,
. PRpILWYQATtINAY �_~.. �mRpreser.o�+. �pg /��, ,
G:.7
P.CJL t QOLCEN KEST �g7i+wr L L ES /A Ll ::
��f•t'�' ra►cv�cctwr►nc+twAt t�;'.
PRAMI'GATEWAY i.
P.C.H.a BE ACHBLVD.
r, — C�AIE
• PUBUC OPEN SPACE -I WAYMAJORENTRY pUBLI RIVATE OPEN SPACE
TOP OF PARKINGSTRUCWRE PACIFIC COASTHIGHKAY&fMN.SMEET
.cam+oad.+ PIERSIDE VILLAGE -@o*vnvnL#r&rom,lan .
•►v�whoMe •vd*+arvw/d.«
•Iyr►Cwla► cul tchmvlowls wo/ptito -terri"pftmhbbVwbtAbVpHlDoalt
.m0krd bas ed bsod sftrdoms o/da.*rfo..n care
.ansso�xr•YSAw�ea�e/pAzu •cWhr.�ar+awnsva.w,r'v,
Aw doreb or no»nw.n a.c
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
.crowro+tmrr*xs to dow»ovm Me •'
vows
GOY Of HunHnghm Beach
A 1M *fo&w1 ef'cow
.
NORTH w
c+aoar Lou
KeyserMarsto &%2d=1nc.
Richard L.Butti 550South Hill Street,Suite 980
Calvin E.Hollis,11 Las Angeles.California90013
213/622-105
SAN DIEGO 619/911.0300
Heinz A.Schilling '
SAN FRANCISCO 413/391.3030
Timothy C.Kelly t t :•
A.Jerry Keyser 1 y
Kate Earle Funk
Bober Wetmore SAY 13
WOW Conlon >}[ >6 >K 0 R 11 N iQ tT iK
De• ' `F.Conley
AR1rMtNf
►UNlry ,/pp
TO: Mr. Douglas La Belle, Deputy City Administrator
City of Huntington Beach
FROM: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
SUBJECT: Residential Development Impact on Downtown Retailing
DATE: May 12, 1988
In accordance with your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
(KMA) determined, G.a a preliminary basis, the relationship between
residential development levels and the downtown Huntington Beach
retail development potential. By utilizing data sources such as
the -United States Census, the Census of Retail Trade, State Board
of Equalization Taxable Sales records, and City Planing Department
information, MR was able to project the sales potential generated
within the immediate downtown vicinity, under a variety of develop-
ment scenarios. However, it must be noted that this analysis
should not be construed as a market study. Rather, it should be
used to provide a perspective of the relative impacts associated
with varying the allowable residential development level in the
area.
METNoDOL00Y
The sales. potential exhibited within an area is based on the size
of the population, the income levels achieved by the residents, and
the percentage of income spent on the type of merchandise in ques-
tion. To determine the potential generated within the downtown
vicinity, KMA reviewed the following data for the redevelopment
project area, and radii ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 miles:
1. Population growth between 1970 and 1987.
2. Per capita income growth between 1970 and 1987, as ad-
justed to reflect inflationary changes occurring during
this period.
Rol l� lQp.�4lli tF,yly(ut►tion5
,
.TABLE • .,,.
POTENTIAL HOUSIKG PROJECTS
IOYHTOWM HUNTINGTON (EACH
RETAIL POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
MUNTINGTON $EACH, CALIFORNIA
PLANNED
NUMBER OF UNITS
low SOUAIE 89
IAYSHORE . 159
ACREAGE iETYEEM 7090 809ARE i IAYSHORE 110
AREA 1/1 31D i LAIE/ORANGE i MALNJT 180
PHASE I 130
(LOCI ADJACENT TO PHASE I 50
PHASE It 220
4 2 ILOCIS NORTH OF MSE II 150
YATERFIOMT 900
TOTAL UNITS logos
OR SAY
2,000
SOUICE: NMITIIN' TON (EACH CITY PLAlOIING IEPAWC-NT
1EYSER NAISTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
MAY, 19"
1 •
. i
Page 2
3. Historical taxable sales data for the State, Southern
California and Los Angeles/Orange Counties to determine
the percentage of per capita income spent on relevant
retail items.
4. Sales productivity levels for retail facilities located
throughout Southern California.
The preceding information was analyzed, and used as the basis for
projections of future conditions in each of the areas. Using these
projections, KMA evaluated the impacts associated with varying the
futuro residential development allowed in each of the areas
studied. The growth scenarios tested for this analysis can be
defined as follows:
1. No growth - No major residential projects are undertaken
in the area. New development consists largely of infill
construction. Donnelley Marketing Information Services
projections serve an the baeis of this scenario.
� I
2. Full growth - Assumes the development of 2,000 residen-
tial units in the redevelopment project area, based on
City Planning Department estimates, as shown in Table 1.
Additionally, the annual growth in the outlying areas was
based on the everage annual growth rate achieved in each
of these areas between 1970 and 1987.
3. 50% growth -- Assumes the development of 10000 residential
units in the redevelopment project area and areawide : I
growth equal to 1/2 the average annual growth rate ex-
perienced between 1970 and 1987.
i
The retail potential projections were based on the preceding growth
scenarios, using 1992 ae the stabilized year for analysis purposes.
However, all projections were adjusted to reflect current dollars.
It is our understanding that the existing downtown retail uses and
developments in the planning stages consist large'y of outlets
selling convenience and comparison goods, as well as gating and
drinking facilities. For the purposes of this analysis, these mer-
chandise categories can be defined as follows:
1. Convenience - Food, liquor and drugstores.
2. Comparison - Apparel, general merchandise, specialty
retail and home furnishings. This category inc'.udes
major department and discount stores.
TAIL 2
TOTAL'CONVENIENCE GOODS SALES POTENTIAL PR07ECTIONS
DEVELOPMENT AT VARYING INTENSITY LEVELS
RETAIL POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - 1992
HUNTINGTON (EACH, CALIFORNIA
1968 DOLLARS
REAEVELOPNENT PP.OJECT AREA
NO GROWTH 501 GROWTH FULL GROWTH
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS S00 1,500 20500
POPULATION 11000 21900 4,900
PER CAPITA INCONE 115,100 117,600 117,900 j
NET CONVENIENCE SALES POTENTIAL (1) 1527,000 11,783,000 151075,000
WARRANTED AREA (2) 21000 11000 12,000
1) 111'AGGREGATE INCOME WITH 251 CAPTURE RATE
2) SALES AT 12SO/SF
SOURCE: OOMLEY MARIETING INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
STATE HARD OF EQUALIZATION
[EYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
MAY, 1988
i
I
i
i
I
I
I
N
Page 3
Convenience Sales Potential
Table 2 presents a summary of the convenience goods sales potential
generated by redevelopment project area residents under each of the
growth scenarios analyzed. These projections are based on the fol-
lowing assumptions:
1. The per capita income was increased from $15,100 in the
no growth scenario, to $17, 600 in the 5011 growth
scenario, and $17,900 in the full growth scenario to
reflect the higher income levels expected to be exhibited
by the residents in the new residential projects, as com-
pared to the existing population base.
2. 14% of per capita income will be spent on convenience
type goods, based on historical taxable sales data, and
the Census of Retail Trade.
3. 25t of convenience sales will occur outside major neigh-
borhood and community retail centers.
4. Convenience retail facilities will achieve average sales
volumes of $250 per square foot.
As shown in Table 2, the total household population increases from
500 in the no growth scenario, to 21500 in the full growth
scenario, resulting in a total population of 1,000 and 4,900,
respectively. Assuming per capita convenience expenditures range
from approximately $2,100 to $2,500 (14% of income) annually, and
25% of ,these sales occur in facilities such as those that will be
found downtown, the net convenience sales potential varies from
$527#000 to $3.1 million. At a standard productivity level of $250
per square foot, the convenience retail area warrantod ranges from
21000 to 12,000 square feet depending on the residential growth
level allowed.
Comparison,Woo Potentia3.
Table 3 provides an illustration of the comparison goods sales
potential created by the redevelopment project area residents under
the various growth scenarios. These projections are based on the
following assumptions:
1. The estimated per capita income was $15,100 under the no
growth scenario, $17,600 under the 50% growth scenario,
and $17,900 under the full growth scenario.
2. 151 of per capita income will be spent on comparison type
merchandise, based on historical taxable sales data*
t�,S�rM� o 'axig PQ�`
i
TABLE 3
TOTAL COMPARISON1 GOODS SALES POTENTIAL PROJECTIONS
DEVELOPMENT AT VARYING INTENSITY LEVELS
RETAIL POTENTIAL ANALYSIS • 1992
HUNTINGTON !EACH, CALIFORNIA
li
1999 DOLLARS
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA,
NO GROWT111 Sol GROWTH FULL GROWTH
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 500 11500 21500
POPULATION 1,000 21900 41900
PER WITH INCOME $151100 117,600 1171900
MET COMPARISON SALES POTENTIAL (1) $794,000 12.680,000 $4,613,000
WARRANTED AREA (2) 4,000 12,000 21,000
,
1) 151 AISIEGATE INCOME WITH 351 CAPTURE RATE
1 2) SALES AT 8225/SF
,
SOURCE: DONNELLEY NARIETIML INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
STATE IOARD OF EOUALIIATION
GEYSER VAKSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
MAY, 1918
Page 4
3. 35% of comparison goods sales will occur outside regional
malls or large freestanding department/ discount stores.
4. Comparison goods outlets will achieve average sales
volumed of $225 per square foot.
As was the case in the analysis of convenience items sales poten-
tial, the redevelopment project area population increases from
1,000 under the no growth scenario, to 4,900 under the full growth
scenario. Assuming these residents spend 15% of their income on
comparison type merchandise, the average per capita expenditures
range from $2,270 to $2,690. Thus, the net comparison ,sales poten-
tial, in facilities that might be found in the downtown, is
$794,000 under the no growth scenario, and $4.6 million under the
full growth scenario. These sales levels would support 4r000 to
21,000 square feet ofOXcomparison rotail space at a standard produc-
tivity of $225 per square foot.
Eating and Drinking PacLJitieII. Sa,es Potential
Table 4 presents a summary of the potential sales in eating and
drinking facilities, generated by the redevelopment project area
population base. These projections were performed for each of the
alternative growth scenarios, based on the following assumptions:
1. The estimated per capita income was $15,100, $17,600 and
$17,900, respectively, for the three growth scenarios
analyzed.
2. 6% of per capita .income will be spent on eating and
drinking in restaurants or fast food outlets, based on
historical taxable Bales data.
3. Rating and drinking facilities will achieve average sales
volumes or $300 per square foot.
Under t4a no growth scenario, the estimated population is 1,000, �
increasing to 4,900 under the full growth scenario. Based on his-
torical taxable sales information, it was assumed that 6• of per
capita income would be spent in eating and drinking facilities,
which equates to $900 to $1,100 annually, This results in net 1
eating and drinking sales potential of $900t000 under the no growth
scenario, increasing to nearly $5.4 million under the full growth
scenario. Assuming restaurants and fast food outlets will achieve
average sales volumes of $300 per square foot, 30000 to 180,000
square feet of new space could be supported, depending on the level
Of growth allowed.
�f
f
- k pr1l�:��t4RA�lh4��th�
I
5
TARLE 4
TOTAL EATING•AND PRIMING SALES POTENTIAL PROJECTIONS
DEVELOPMENT AT VARYING INTENSITY LEVELS
RETAIL PO1F,iTIAL ANALYSIS • 1992
HUNTINGTON REACH, CALIFORNIA
1988 DOLLARS
REDEYELOPMElR PROJECT AREA'
NO GROYTH 501 61091H FULL 66OMTH
TOTAL'HOUSEHOLOS 30O 195M 2,500
POPULATION 11000 2,900 41900
PER CAPITA INCOME f15,i00 117,600 11119M
NET E&D SALES POTENTIAL (1) f900,000 $3,1901000 013901000
WARRANTED AREA (2) 31000 11,000 10,000
1) 141 AGGREGATE INCOME KITH 251 CAPTURE MATE '
2) SALES AT $2501SF
SOURCE; DONNELLEY HARMING INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. i
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
GEYSER` ISTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
MAY, 1908
TAKE 5
SUMhAIT- SUPPOITULE FAWT0W RETAIL piIRAM AREA
IE9ELOPMENT AT VAIYINC INTEilSITY Lon$
RETAIL POTENTIAL ANALYSIS— J"Z
r 1IIPTIN6TON IEACH, MUOINIA
19" 9b1IAIS
AGMIVE ESMIE---- -- CDKV.ATIYE ESTIMATE—
No CI9MTN 501610m FULL 9=1 NG 6IONTN SOI q"VTH F&L 6COVTH
IEOEYFLGMW PROJECT AREA 1,500 13,000 2515W 2,3m 7,600 12,800
I NI1E WIN 51,180 71140O 821300 2I,900 301600 35,300
1.5 IRE IARIUS 70,100 93,OA01061100 21,000 37,2W 43,200
2.0 MILE %,6" 127,m 15S,SO0 38,600 51JGO 6213"
2.5 HILE WRIS 1I7,9O0 10R,900 230,800 59,160 751500 92,300
S MlCE: MMNEtLEY NAKEM IWOWAI7ON SWItO, INE.
STATE IOW OF EOWIIATION
R'ETSEI WST0N A53ACIATES, PC.
MAY, 190
a '
i
Page 5
iyt WARY/CONCLUSIONS
As , stated previously, this analysis does not represent a market
study that can be used to predict the demand for new retail
.facilities in the area. It is merely meant to provide a parspec-
tive on the relative impacts associated with limiting residential
growth in this area. The preceding section provided an explanation
of the analytical framework used to arrive at the addjtional retail
areas supported by :increases in the population base. However, to
undarstand the general effect of residential development on
downtown retailing, KMA also examined the impacts associated with
varying allowable growth levels within the immediate surrounding
areas.
Table 5 presents a summary of the supportable downtown retail area
assuming both aggressive &nd conservative capture rates. . The ag-
gressive scenario assumes that the downtown retail uses capture 50%
of the demand generated by residents within the redevelopment
project area and within a 1 mile radius. This capture rate was
factored downward, as the distance to the downtown increasea, to
reflect the existence of alternative shopping opportunities for the
residents. The conservative capture rate analysla was based on a
25% capture rate within the redevelopment project area, factored
downward on a proportional basis to reflect the increasing distance
from the downtown.
The findings in Table 5 represent the total convenience and com-
parison goods potential, as well as eating and drinking facilities
potential generated by the residents within each of the areas, un-
der the various growth scenarios. The full analysis for each
scenario is presented in the appendices found at the conclusion of
this memorandum. As can be seen in Table 5, using the aggressive
papture rate, the total area supported by redevelopment project
area residents ranges from 4,500 squaro feet asouming no now major
growth, to 25,500 square feet under the full growth scenario. The
retail area supported increases as the area used for analysis pur-
poses is widened, reaching nearly 150,000 equare feet under the no
growth scenario and 230,000 square feet under the full growth
scenario for a 2.5 mile radius. Comparatively, using the conserva-
tive capture rate, redevelopment project area residents generate
support for 21300 to nearly 130000 square feet of retail space
depending on the level residential of growth that is allowed. This
increases to 60,000 to 90,000 square feet when a 2.5 mile radius is
used.
As can be seen in Table 51 irrespective of the capture rate used,
varying the level of future residential development creates a sig-
nificant impact on the Amount of retail area that con be supported
in the area. This is particularly pronounced within the redevelop-
ment project area, where the addition of the 2,400 residential
Page 6
units currently proposed creates support for 21,000 square feet of
additional retail development over that supported with no major
growth, a 450% increase. While an additional 21,000 square feet
does not represent a great amount of retail space, the addition of
any new retail uses is an important catalyst for other retail
development in the downtown. It is also important to recognize
that future residential growth in the surrounding areas also im-
pacts the downtown retail potential. Based on this preliminary
analysis, the supportable downtown retail area increases by ap-
proximately 50% under the full growth scenario versus the no growth
scenario, and increases by 30% for the 50% growth scenario veraua
the no growth scenario.
KHH:lp
i
I
88183.HTB
14066.0014
- �' , g••��rctnn��S1Ci�t S�nru
�1it�ati%iL.:.r.»t�:a3 ..;. .w..a. ......._.... . __......, ......... .. ..:� .. a ..... ....._._.. . ....._....+,-.+.+...........�...., _-
t
7
TAKE 1A
TOTAL CONYEHIEiIC: SODS SALES POTENTIAL PABJECTIONS
NO GRONTH SCENA910
RETAIL POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - 1992 I
MKINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA j
19M DOLLARS
PAOJECT
AREA I NILE 1.5 NILES 2.0 NILES 2.5 NILES
TOTAL lfOIISEHOI.DS S00 8,mo 13,500 18,300 25,600
AVERAGE H0USENOLD SIZE 1.95 1." 2.14 2.22 2.45 l
POPULATION 11000 16,500 28,900 40,600 62,700 1
PEA CAPITA INCONE $15,100 $151600 $11,000 116,500 $16,300
PER "APITA CNEMIENCE POTENTIAL (1) $2,110 12,180 $2,380 12,310 $2,290
TOTAL COWENIERCE POTENTIAL 12,110,000 $3519701000 $68,782,000 S93,786,000 1142,956,000
f
(LESS SALES IN WOE Ct"'li TEiq 3115831Om $25,978,000 531,587,000 170,340,000 1107,217,000
NET CONVENIENCE SALES POTENTIAL $527,000 $819921000 =17,195,000 123,446,M S35,739,=
0 tUTED AREA (2) 2,000 36,000 69,000 94,000 143,000
POTENTIAL DOUNTONN CAPTURE
HIGH ESTIMATE 11000 12,600 17,30D 23,500 35,800
LON ESTIMATE 500 5,403 61900 9,400 14,300
I) 14Z PER CAPITA IkM
2) SALES AT 12501SF
SOURCE: Dolma EY NMETINS Il8WMTION SERVICES, lit.
STATE SOARD OF EQUALIZATION
LEYS€A MAR,STOM ASSOCIATES, INC.
MAY, IFBB
s
TABLE 16 _
TOTAL W-L ^IDDS SALES POTENTIAL PROJECTIONS
50I &RONTH.scc-
!"A POTWIAL •:PSIS - I992
• MiTINGION iZiU, CALIFORKA
1988 DOLLARS
PROJECT
ARE! I MILE 1.5 RILES 2.0 RILES 2.5 MILES
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 11500 10,500 16,800 22,500 30,200
AVF_R!a 1fON15EHOLD SIIE 1.95 1." 2.14 2.22 2.45 1
POPULATION 2,900 201900 36,000 50,000 74,000 l
PER CAPITA IMCK 1171600 $17,200 $17,800 $17,600 $17,500
PER CAPIIA Ct1VENIENCE POTENTIAL (]) $2,460 :21410 12,490 $2,460 i2,450
16TAL CO1CItEMIENCE POTENTIAL 5111341000 150,369,000 189,640,000 11231000,000 118113001000
{LESS SAN.F.S IN MAJOR CENTERS 15,351,000 S37,777,900 U7,230,000 i92,250,000 1135,975,000
HET COWNIERM SALES POTENTIAL 11,783,000 112,S92,000 $22,410,000 i3017501000 145132514C9
VAIRMIED AREA (2) 71000 50,000 90,000 123,000 I81,000
POTENTIAL DOMTOW CAPTURE
HIGH ESTIMATE 3,500 1715W 22,500 30,000 45,300
LON ESTIMATE I'm 7,500 9,000 12,300 18,180
I i 141 PER CAPITA INNCO#1E
21 SALES AT $M/SF .
$MCEz DOM LLEY FARMING D OR1NATION SERVICEa, INC.
STATE ROAD OF EOUALIIATION
iEYSER MARSTM ASSOCIATES, INC.
MAY, 19M
t ,
TABLE IC
TOTAL COMMERCE MODS SALES POTENTIAL PROJECTIO
FULL GRONTH SCENARIO .
RETAM POTENTIAL ANALYSIS= 1"2
HUNIINLION BEACH, CALIFORNIA
IM DOLLA13
PROJECT
AREA I MILE 1.5 NILES 2.0 NILES 2.5 NILES
TOTAL HOt35ai0t.DS 21500 12,000 19,300 21,300 351800 �
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1.95 I." 2.14 2.22 2.45
I
POPULATION 419M 23,900 41,700 60,600 90,200
PER CAPITA INCOME $17,900 $17,300 $17,900 V 7,700 117,600
PER CAPITA COVENIENCE POTE1TIAL (1) $2,510 52,420 $2,510 $2,400 $2,460
TOTAL CONVENIENCE POTENTIAL S12,299,000 S5?,838,000 5104,E67,000 $150,208,000 $221,092,000
(LESS SALES IN MAJOR CENTERS $9,224,000 $43,379,000 S78,500,000 U12,71608 1I66,419,000
I
KET COMMI Ml SALES POTENTIAL $3,075,000 $14,459,000 S2611671000 $V,572,000 $55,473,000
fAtRRAM AREA (2) 12,000 50,000 105,000 I50,000 222,000
POTENTIAL DOWITOVN CAPTUME
HIGH ESTINATE 6,000 20,300 26,300 37,500 55,509
LOV ESTBIATE 3,000 8,700 10,5m 15,000 22,200
1) 141 PER CAPITA INCOME
2) SALES AT $250/SF
SOURCE: DOWELLEY NARIETING IWORNATION SERVICES, INC.
STATE HAND OF EOUALIZATIOH
REYSER HARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
- 1fAY, 1989
t
TAKE 2A
TOTAL CWARISON GM SALES POTENTIAL PROJECTIONS
NO 6RONNTH SCENNA118
RETAIL POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - 1"2
9XTIINGTOR 6EACH, CALIFOUTA
1998 MAW �
PROJECT
AREA I MILE 1.5 MILES 2.0 HILES 2.5 MILES j
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 5E10 8,300 1J,500 18,300 25,600
AVERAGE HNSEHOLA SIZE 1.95 1." 2.14 2.22 2.45
POPULATION 11000 16,590 29,900 40,600 62,706 i
PER CAPITA INCOME $15,100 S15,600 $17,000 116,500 116,300
PER CAPITA CONPARISONN POTENTIAL (1) $2,270 12,340 12,550 $2,400 $2,450
TOTAL CONFAR1SOH POTENTIAL $2,270,000 S30,6101000 173,695,000 11001689,000 1153,615,000
(LESS) SALES _H REGIONAL WS OR
WOR FREESTANDING DISC/DEPT STORES (2) $1,476,00D S25,097M 147,902,000 165,447,000 199.850,004
HET C011PARISM VALES POTENTIAL 1794,000 113,513,000 525,79I= $35,241,000 553,7ES,OOo
1NARRANTED AREA (3) 41000 60,000 115,000 157,000 239,000
POTENTIAL CWTHE
HIP ESTIMATE 2,000 21,000 28,800 39,300 591800
LOit ESTINNATE 1,000 ?,fm 11,500 t5,700 23,900
1) 15t PEA CAPITA INCK
2) 6SI TOTAL COMPARISON POTMIAL
3) SALES AT I225/SF
SOL•RCE: OOHHELLEY MARIETIING INNFfi1UlATIOH SEVICES, INC.
STATE 10AU OF ECUALIIATION -
[ETSER NNARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
NlA7, 1988
TA1LE 2i l
TOTAL CWARISON GOODS SALES ftnWTIAL PROJECTIONS �II
50S G16919 SCEWRIO
SETAIL POTENTIAL AMALTSIS - 1992 II
I*XTIN6TON 1EAC11, CALIFORNIA
19M DOLLARS
PROJECT �
AREA 1 NILE 1.5 NILES 2.0 MILES 2.5 MILES 1
TOTAL HQUSIRDS 1,500 10,500 16,B00 22,500 30,200
AVERAGE HOUSUM SVE 1.95 1." 2.14 2.22 2.45
POPULATION 2,900 20,900 36,000 50,000 74,000
PER CAPITA INCOME 07,600 $17,200 $17,800 $17,600 $17,500
PER CAPITA COMPARISON POTENTIAL (I) $2,640 12,580 ;2,670 =2,640 12,630
TOTAL COMPARISON POTENTIAL 17,656,004 553,92 I= S9611201000 $132,000,000 1194,620,000
(LESS) SALES IN 1EGIMtAL MALLS 01
4
MAJOR FOEESTANIIIMG DISCIDEPT STORES (2) 34,976,000 S35,049,000 36214781000 l85,8O0,000 5126,503400
P NET COMPARISON SALES POTENTIAL S21680,000 118,073,000 S33,642,000 $46,200,000 $68,117,000
VARRANTED AREA (3) 12,000 84,000 150,000 205,000 303,000
J
POTENTIAL DW106W CAPTURE
HIGH ESTIMATE 6,000 27,400 3715" $1,300 75,806
LOV ESTIMATE 3,000 12,600 15,000 20,500 30,306
+ 1) 151 PF1 CAPITA INCOME
2) 651 TOTAL COMPARISON POTENTIAL.
3) SALES AT S225/SF
SOURCE: DOKLLET MARIETING INFOWATION SERVICES, INC.
STATE 10ARD OF EOUALIIAT:ON
CEYSEI MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
MAY,-Im
TABLE c%
TOTAL COMPARISON GODS SALES POTENTIAL PROJECTIONS
FULL GI NtTH SCENAR10
RETAIL POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - 1"2
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Im DOLLARS
PROTECT
AREA I !TILE 1.5 MILES 2.0 NILES 2.5 MILES
TOTAL HOUSEHOLOS 21500 12,000 !91500 27,300 36,000
AVERAGE MOUSEHOLO SIIE 1.95 1." 2.14 2.22 2.4S
POPULATION 4,900 23,900 411790 60,600 90,200 J
PER CAPITA INCOME $171900 $17,306 $17,900 S171700 SI10600
PER CAPITA COMPARISON POTENTIAL (1) $2,690 12,600 $2,690 $2,660 12,640
TOTAL CONPARIS(* POTENTIAL 1131131,000 162,1#0,000 t!12,173,000 $161,196,000 1239,129,000
ILESS) SALES IN REGIONAL NALLS OR
MAJOR FREESTANDING DISC/BEPT STORES (2) t8,560,000 t40,391,000 172,90,000 t1041r71,000 1154,783.000
NET COMPARISON SALES "OTENT[AL S4,6131m S2I,749,NO $39,261,000 V%419,000 $81,345,000
MARRANTED AREA (3) 21 AW 971000 174,MD 251,000 370,000
POTENTIAL 0OWTORN CAPTURE
HIGH ESTIMATE. 10,500 34,000 43,500 62,000 92,S00
LOU ESTIMATE 51300 14,600 17,400 25,100 VAN
1) 151 PER CAPITA INCOME
2) 651 TOTAL COMPARISON POTENTIAL
' 3) SALES AT 122SISF
t - -
SOURCE:'DOmLEY.MARKETING INFORMATIOR SERVICES, INC.
STATE ROARS OF EWALIIATION
tEYSER M.ARSTON AZOCIATES, INC..
s -WAY, 1980 '
I TAKE 3A
f TOTAL EATING AMP 9RINZING SALES POTENTIAL PIOJFCTIONS ..
f No 6ROYTK SC mlo
RETAIL POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - 1"2
WTIATON (EACH, CALIFOUTA
3986 DOLLARS
PIOJECT '
AREA I FILE 1.5 MILES 2.0111LES 2.5 MILES
TOTAL RROUSmos 500 8,300 1315M 10,300 25,600
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1.95 1." 2.14 2.22 2.45
PCPULATIOH I'm 16,500 28,90C 40,100 62,700•
PER CAPITA INCOME $15,100 $15,600 $17,01 $16,500 U61300
PER CAPITA fib POTENTIAL (1) i900 $990 $IIn f1,WO lI,00E1
TOTAL fib POTENTIAL t900,000 $14,050,000 xe8,900,90►1 $40,60,000 t62,700,000
MARRAIRTED ARE4 (2) 3,000 53,000 961000 135.000 209,ODO
FDJENTIAL W18l ow CAME
HIGH ESTJXATE 11500 17,500 24,000 33,800 521300
LOW ESTIMATE 800 7,500 5,600 13,500 2019M
o a PER CAPITA imm
2) SALES AT M/SF
SOUM: DOT RLET NARIETING INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
STATE SOM OF EOMIZATIOA
1EYS£R KUSTON MOCIATES; M.
Rurr, I9� .
Tad as
TOTAL EATING AW DxINIIA SALTS 10TENTIAL PROJECTIONS .
50S MIN SCENARIO
RETAIL POTENTIAL ANALYSIS I992
XXIMION JEACH, CALIFORNIA
J929 DOLLARS
• PROJECT
AREA I BILE 1.5 NILES, 2.0 NILES 2.5 MILES
TOTAL lSOU5 aDS 11530 1015M 16,800 22,500 30,200
AVERAGE NOUSENOL3 SIZE 1.95 1.99 2.14 2.22 2.45
POPULATIO" 2,900- 20190D 361000 50,000 7400
PER CAPITA IMCOW 317,60c $17,200 S17,800 517,600 $17,500
iER CAPITA fiD POTENTIAL (I) t1,I00 SI,000 tI,lOC $1,100 t1,100
TOTAL E&O FOTENTIAL S3,190,000 $20,900,000 $39,600,000 SS5,00 I= 58114601000
VARRANTED AREA (2) 11,060 70,080 132,000 183,000 271,000
POTENTIAL DOWTOWN CAPTURE _. ... ,
NIGH ESTIMAIE 51500 24,500 33,000 45,800 67,000
LON ESTCNATE 2,800 10,500 13,200 18,300 27,100
I) 61 PER CAPITA INCK
2} SALES AT S7DOJSF
• �r
SWNKE: WoWELLEY NARtETING IWGIFATlu* SEMCB, 3,w,
STATE BOARD OF EWALIZATIOM
tEYSEA EWTON AMIA1ES, INC.
MAY, I
TABLE X .
TOTAL EATING AND DRINIM SALES POTENTIAL PROJECTIONS
FULL 6RUNIN SMAIO
RETAIL POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - 1992
MWINGTON HACH, CALIFORNIA
19E1t DOLLARS
PROJECT
AREA I MILE 1.5 MILES 2.0 MILES 2.5 MILES
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 2,500 12,000 19,500 27,300. 36,600
AVERAGE MW.-0LD SIZE 1.95 1." 2.14 2.22 2.45
POPULATION 41900 23,9v 41,7DO 60,600 90,200
PER CAPITA INCOME S17,900 817,300 S17,940 117,700 $17,400
PER CAPITA FIB POTEMITIAL (1) 11,100 $1,000 t1,1O0 St,100 t1,10O
i
TOTAL EID POTENTIAL :51390,000 S23,900,000 145,870,000 t66,660,000 199,220,000
VARRANTED AREA 1,2) t8,000 00,000 t531000 222,000 331,000
POTENTIAL DONNTOUN CAPTURE
NIGH ESTIMATE 9,000 28,L'DO 38,3DO 55,;00 82,000
LL'N ESTIMATE 4,500 121000 15,300 22,200 33,100
1) 62 PER CAPITA INCOME
2) SALES AT S30O/SF
r
SOi a: DOWELLEY MARIETING Iyr4RNATION SEWCES, INC.
STATE DDAAD OF EM ALTZATION
YETSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
MAY, I488